Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:
Sum of two plus two?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Admin
« on: January 30, 2011, 11:14:55 »

We add some information from decoders in future.
Posted by: JMThomas
« on: January 29, 2011, 16:04:03 »

What ever gets done for CBR vs VBR should also include some indication that a file was encoded in a loss less manor.  Think about .wma files -- it's most difficult to tell what the encode was thinking when it did its job.
Posted by: hsei
« on: August 08, 2010, 10:23:13 »

I support getting as much information as feasible. In this case the duplicates differ mainly by size. It would be helpful to have at least an indication (e.g. background colour) of great deviations. Primary task of similarity is to identify almost identical files. Ranking duplicates with same content and different quality in a second step is a non-trivial task. Comparing bitrate, size etc. is not always reliable especially for reencoded material.
Posted by: Admin
« on: August 07, 2010, 18:24:25 »

Quote from: FtMgAl on August 06, 2010, 20:46:31
This is my biggest complaint at the moment (more will come later I'm sure   ;) )  I just did a comparison and found two duplicates that had the same duration and the same names and the same tags and the same bit rate and were 99.9% for content. The only difference was one file length was only 75% of the second one. Playing them the difference in quality was obvious. The short one was recorded with a variable bit rate and the long one was a constant bit rate. A column for this would have been helpful.
we think about this, but it not so simple some codecs don't give us such information.
Posted by: FtMgAl
« on: August 06, 2010, 20:46:31 »

This is my biggest complaint at the moment (more will come later I'm sure   ;) )  I just did a comparison and found two duplicates that had the same duration and the same names and the same tags and the same bit rate and were 99.9% for content. The only difference was one file length was only 75% of the second one. Playing them the difference in quality was obvious. The short one was recorded with a variable bit rate and the long one was a constant bit rate. A column for this would have been helpful.