|
Ever since high school, something like 2000/2001, I've been an almost religious MP3 tagger.
Aside from where I got said MP3's (mostly torrents, back in the day), tagging MP3's can be a lot of work.
Especially when files.are.named.like.this.mp3, or_this.mp3, or worse, このような.mp3.
So back when I started programming, 10 years ago, I thought to myself I could make something to make it easier.
Something that would either read tags and rename the file, or read the file name and tag accordingly.
I wrote something half-assed back then, but never what I had in mind.
Then came Spotify and Bandcamp and I hardly ever needed MP3's anymore.
But last week I started ripping my considerable CD collection into 320kbps MP3's and this project popped into my head.
So after 10 years I finally did it! 
I can specify a file name template, like "C:\Music\{artist}\{album}\{disc}\{track} - {title}.mp3" and all MP3 files inside C:\Music get tagged with the appropriate tag (given the file name follows the template).
Likewise, I can add an output template and my MP3's will be renamed and/or moved to the new folder.
It can even fetch track titles from Discogs.
Ten years too late, and that was already ten years too late, but it gives me a satisfied feeling nonetheless
|
|
|
|
|
Will it work for my 8 track tape collection?
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't... thanks
and I would say it looks like a good candidate for Free Tools Discussion Boards[^]
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The batch renaming function really is great!
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
I hadn't, never bothered to Google it actually 
In any case, I wanted to roll out my own because that's what real programmers do  
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: In any case, I wanted to roll out my own because that's what real programmers do
To quote @CPallini...
Real Programmers are Klingon Programmers
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
modified 7-Dec-20 8:58am.
|
|
|
|
|
leSSov vIleghbogh suvwI' tIlegh.
I don't think it translates back to English
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I don't think it translates back to nice English
FTFY
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I wanted to roll out my own because that's what real programmers do
But real engineers survey the market, and then decide to "make or buy". Your time is valuable; don't waste it reinventing the wheel.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Your time is valuable; don't waste it reinventing the wheel.
All work and no pay makes Jack a dull boy!
|
|
|
|
|
MP3Tag is AWESOME!
I wish it could do a certain routine for all subfolders in a folder, like: grab tags from Discogs, rename files to a certain pattern, save the m3u playlist, and move on to the next subfolder. All things it does very well, but only manually.
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread 
|
|
|
|
|
I think filebot could have done it for you. free download. just sayin'
congratulations in any case.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
And miss out on this achievement? Nah
However, now I could take a look at filebot (I just needed to write it, not actually use it)
|
|
|
|
|
You have completed this journey. No more need be explained.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you might be the only one who got the essence of my message 
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: ripping my considerable CD collection into 320kbps MP3's
Aren't your CD's recorded at 44.1k? What will you achieve by upsampling?
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea what that means.
As far as I understood, 320kbps is near-lossless audio quality, as opposed to 192 or even 128.
Of course I could go FLAC, but that's way too much MBs per minute.
|
|
|
|
|
I ripped all mine to 128, I tried 320 but I couldn't tell the difference except for having way bigger files. I also temporarily put them on a USB stick to play in the car - usually at 64kbps because the sound quality is basically the same when you are driving around I can get hundreds of tracks on an 8GB stick.
PS. I use Mp3Tag for all the tagging and/or renaming. it works very well and saved me from writing my own.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I did the same, especially because I used to have a 500 GB HD back in the day, which was full (with games and music).
For my MP3 player it's nice to have everything in 128 kbps as well.
However, I can't quite pinpoint it, but I notice a difference when I listen to a high quality recording or my own 128 kbps, especially on my headphones.
So since storage is no longer an issue, I decided to make my own collection high quality as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: especially on my headphones
Ah! There's your problem right there! I never use headphones and play everything on my computer speakers (or the aforementioned car) so the quality difference really doesn't show up.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
The difference also depends on the kind of music you listen to.
Lo-fi basement black metal, not so much, but well recorded classical music, yes please!
|
|
|
|
|
I can definitely hear a difference between 128 and 192 kbps, 128 is much flatter.
224 I can also hear the difference to sometimes, depending on the music. But I cannot distinguish the difference to the next step 320.
So I record everything to 320 so that I'm sure I'm above the threshhold of my hearing.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Never stop dreaming - Freddie Kruger
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, right.
I used to give out a set of some thirty music samples of different musical categories, coded and decoded in 2-3 different formats, along with an ABX program. ABX is for double-blind-testing: Two presumably identical sound files, but encoded/decoded by different methods - such as different bitrate, or MP3 and AAC-LE - as "A" and "B". The ABX-program selects randomly one of them as "X", and the test person can switch among the three, to determine whether "X" is a copy of "A" or a copy of "B". When his guess is made, the program makes another random "X" selection for the test person to compare and make his guesses, typically 20-30 times. The program logs how many times the guess was correct. If the guess was correct 10 out of 20 times, we can conclude that the test person did not hear any difference between "A" and "B".
As all files were decoded back to "wav" format, the test person did not know which processing they had been through. Even if I were present at the listening, I couldn't tell which of the files were, say, original uncompressed, MP3@128 or MP3@192 - they were named e.g. Fanfare-0923.wav, Fanfare-7226.wav
and Fanfare-8234.wav. I would have to check my logs to see which is which, and made no attempt to memorize it.
I gave these samples away to a couple dozen of golden-ears guys, making statements very similar to yours, inviting them to do the listening on their very best equipment, under the most perfect listening conditions they could provide, and then come back with the ABX logs showing how well they managed to identify X correctly. The problem: Even after pushing the golden-ear guy several times, asking when he had completed the listening, not one of them dared to come back to me with the ABX logs. A few times, they might claim that "With some music samples it is easy to spot, but others are more difficult" - but unwilling to tell which are "easy", and unwilling to provide the ABX logs for those ...
I never got a single ABX log back, no matter how much I pushed.
But then: This was a true double-blind test. Most times when people claim to have made double-blind listening, a little questioning reveals that it certainly isn't. Maybe it isn't even guaranteed to be single-blind...
Usually, I challenged the test persons for a more difficult test: Play "X" only, without comparing it to "A" or "B", and tell me what kind of processing that sound file has been through. Does the "flatness" of the sound reveal that it has been MP3@128 compressed? This is a much harder test than telling that "X" is identical to "B". I never made a single person even try himself on that test.
I am happy that you believe that you can hear the difference between MP3@192 and MP3@224. At least when you know it. There is placebo so strong that it works, even if you don't believe in it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
