vrobin wrote: > MD5 checksums of mp3 audio data shouldn't be too difficult(1), and it's > already a part of flac format.
er, leave out the 'mp3' in your statement above, and I'm with you. and I'd use a SHA1 rather than an MD5. This is what I proposed on the dev list back in the 5.4 days. Ignore file name, path, etc. ignore all meta data (tags, images). generate a serious hash of the sound Use that has as the key to all knowledge. > with SC what looks > like very small changes can be a lot more complex that it seems at > first glance. This is not so much an SC issue as a software issue. It represents a different way of looking at catalog information. And its not just SC. Nearly all library management software assumes that tags are Truth, and the whole truth. As a library, you have the content, and then you want data about the content, with reviews, cover art, performers, performer's instruments, hall, audience size, etc all as information relevant to the music. > And as long as you respect those few constraints, XML data survive move > and rename actions. I believe, IMHO, YMMV, etc., that this assumption is too limiting. If we are going to do all the work to separate information about the music from the music bits, we should break all bindings to 'album' and 'folder' and focus on the music. The music should be able to be organized for play/information/comparison by album when applicable, but at other times you want all first movements of a given symphony, or all music that is X movement of Y piece played with Joshua Bell as the soloist. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list ripping@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
