Intelligent track match?

[tb0ne]

Is there a way to make the track match more intelligent?
I have a lot of duplicate tracks originating from different collection cds, when i play a certain track often multiple matches are the same track or slightly modified version of the same track.
Is it possible to not include tracks with the same name and artist in the track match list?

[RoJeC]

Some smarter would be appreciated. My thoughts are more to e.g. set a source to use. Like a smart- or playlist.

This also helps to e.g. not have Samples and Videos recommended when playing audio.

I've marked tracks you mention [duplicate]; as not always artist/title is the same written (or it actually is a different version) i found this more reliable than excluding (with an own vba program to maintain collection).

[tb0ne]

I understand, but in my situation it would make sense, if it could be a setting it would be good I guess.

[discopex]

Is there a way to make the track match more intelligent?
I have a lot of duplicate tracks originating from different collection cds, when i play a certain track often multiple matches are the same track or slightly modified version of the same track.
Is it possible to not include tracks with the same name and artist in the track match list?

Duplicate tracks will haunt you no matter what. I'd say get rid of them and fine tune your collection.
That said, I wish there would be more options for the match feature. Like more than 20 results, being able to fine tune the match feature by BPM etc. I guess this will be implemented in the forthcoming updates since the match feature is simple (to use) to begin with.

[DJ Vintage]

I have a (way too) large collection. I too have added tracks that were in my collection already because I added "best of" or compilation CDs.

And now, I too, have an awful lot of practically identical tracks in my collection.

As a mobile DJ I don't have the luxury of tossing everything. What I am currently doing is building a new core collection that consist of 1200-1500 tracks (this is my goal size).

The rest will end up on my external harddisk in folders per artist. I will run this through BeaTunes (probably) to weed out all doubles, low quality stuff and such, leaving me with a 192kbps minimum, no duplicate "request collection" that I can search from the files option in Cross.

My core collection will be fully tagged and updated, cues and loops, beatgridded, energy levels set, mini-playlists made, in short fully ready for work. I will use my core collection also to use on my iPad and other portable DJ options, keeping it's size down to fit on memory sticks, phones and 64GB iPads.

I have held on a long time to the belief that it is useful to have albums as complete even if tracks show up in several albums causing duplicates. One way to tackle that, if you don't want to go down the path I have chosen, is to create a playlist for a new album, search your existing collection to see what tracks on the tracklist are already in there, add those tracks to your playlist then add the tracks that are new to your collection and then to your playlist. That way you can have a comprehensive overview of what was on each album (I understand the "oh, that was on the Hitzone 44 album" way of thinking), without causing duplicates.

Another issue if you leave the duplicates, especially on a hectic night when you have changed your mind about what track to play next a lot of times (anybody recognize that?) and you are not sure what you actually played. If you have duplicates, you might thing you have NOT played a track, because it's not marked as played, but you are actually not seeing the duplicate that DOES have that mark.

All in all, I agree with previous posters that duplicates are bad news all around. Get rid of them :-)

[tb0ne]

I understand the arguments but on the other hand, we have computers now.
I have never bothered with really "maintaining" my collection.
Listenings to songs, buying them or ripping a cd is most of what I'll do with some beatgridding here and there.
I don't care if I have 5 copies of the same song scattered across compilations, it's a representation of the truth.
Cross handles a large collection really well and storage is relatively cheap so why should I bother with that?
Sometimes you will have like a cut-off version in a compilation, a maxi version, a remix and an intro version.
Technically different tracks but still you won't play one after the other so imho it is still a valid request.

That said, whatever collection organising method works for you is fine by me.

[DJ Vintage]

Being from an IT background, I understand your "we have computers now" sentiment.

As I explained I think you need to know your core collection inside out and back again. It's imho an absolute must if you want to be an effective DJ. This has not changed since the days of vinyl I think.

As for the other bulk of request tracks, I personally don't feel the need to have several copies (in whatever incarnation) of one track that I might play once a year or less. I don't bother with much with those tracks, no correcting beat grids (I'll beatmatch them manually if necessary), no cue points (we do still use headsets :-) ). I'll try to keep the tags up to date by checking those before adding stuff to the request collection.

I do sometimes have multiple copies of tracks in my CORE collection, like the original and the 90s remix of some Earth, Wind & Fire tracks. But I have them because I use both of them frequently and they are totally prepped as is everything in my core collection.

As you correctly stated, whatever works for you is what works for you and that is fine.

Personally I think the developers are better off coming up with solutions for broader " problems" that are experienced by the majority of users and with brand new innovative features. Again, just my two cents.

[RoJeC]

I think it even is less work to do this yourself. If at all a computer would find duplicates with the raw import data other requirement would be to always have the same track being listed.
Fix the right one in playlists etc...

I did try to program this for myself in the past. Same artist same track title duration difference less than 1 minute. Priority by quality... it helped but once using you find tracks that sound horrible. Tracks you now you've heard a different version of etc. All criteria really make the difference are not available for the computer.

But still the originating suggestion to have a more useful list for matching is a good idea.