Re: Best software to detect copied tracks

Liverpools Boy · Post by **Liverpools Boy** » Sat Feb 19, 2022 6:18 am

I know, I can listen one by one, but it's really hard when you have a lot of .zip files, large files product of a trade movements.

So, I need to know the best software to detect copied, duplicated, etc tracks -and if it's possible the best software to detect the original, best, etc source-. For me is the first best movement, before of nothing; to not get tracks that I already have but that are duplicates, alternative versions, etc from a track or have a different source simply.

Many thanks in advance for any information.

alphabeatles · Post by **alphabeatles** » Sat Feb 19, 2022 6:32 am

Congratulations, you are on one of the higher steps of the 12-step Beatles collector program – purging your collection!

Mac or PC? You can easily Google for software, but on Mac lately I have been having luck with Duplicate Music Cleaner.

Regardless of what software you use, you may still need some manual override with your ears to determine the best quality out of the dups, because bitrate or file size reports will not necessarily accurately tell you. But at least the software can quickly show you where to look.

Ironically, I am reading this as I am taking a break from purging my Beatles cover versions collection – many dups there! I have already run the app on my Beatles, various artists and blues collections, resulting in many gigs of hard drive space returned to me.

PS: Use discretion and restraint when downloading the various compilations offered here and elsewhere. Many are re-re-re-rehash and you will be doing this purging exercise over and over! Instead of hugging the porcelain bowl you will be hugging your headphones...

Liverpools Boy · Post by **Liverpools Boy** » Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:00 am

Thanks but, what are the other 11 steps?

I'm PC user -un-fortunately. I have some results but always is good to ask with people who known and from here. The people in forums are -by far- more honests with the others than critics, influencers, etc who have a pay for said "that's the best choice".

I knew that you would say that. I need to use my ears like never I have use something. Know what track I keep in my archive forever depends all on me, but I think the bitrate or file size reports might help me. or how is it possible that they do not reflect the reality of your file?

Good Luck when you comeback to purge your Beatleg collections.
Thanks for the fast reply and what you said me in the P.s.

alphabeatles · Post by **alphabeatles** » Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:29 am

The various steps a collector navigates through depend on how the person collects and what their level of anal-ity is. There are those who have got to have everything, there are those who can be more selective. Do you need audience tapes of concerts that sound like they were recorded from the parking lot, or can you restrict yourself to the best and representative soundboards only? Do you need every single show date from every city and country?

If you collect digital rips of Beatles vinyl, do you need every release from every year and from every country, or, if there are no sonic differences among those releases, can you just focus on the UK releases as the flagship of your collection and seek out only the handful of unique international mixes?

Of course it is fun to hunt down and collect things, but the trick is to keep it "fun", not debilitating. And don't even get me started on artwork, I actually don't care (I don't burn CDs and I only collect the informative [PDF only] booklets and books that come with the deluxe sets, along with text files describing what a fan has done with their own offerings).

The way bootlegs were released over the decades is a complete mess! Labels copied each other, mucked with the editing, spread session tracks over several releases, etc. etc. In my own collection, I am trying to retain only the single best version of each session take, etc. After all, how many "take 1's" of A Hard Day's Night were there? I think only one! So why do I have literally 12 copies of that take in my "Steaming Pile" folder to review (and another copy already filed)? It's a sickness

Try as I might, I fail to maintain my standard and keep collecting this stuff as each new re-mix, de-mix, mickey-mix comes along.

The good news is, downloading this stuff is free, at least most of us don't pay for CDs anymore...

As for bitrate/file size, sometimes a "higher quality" track will sound mushy compared to the "lower quality" one. It all depends on where you get the files from and how well the person ripped them (and any "treatment" they may have added to them). My comments were mainly for mp3 copies of the cover versions I was plowing through at the moment (gathered from all over the place), but the same applies to rips of boot CDs, etc. And yes, cover versions are OK as mp3s, they're cover versions! Of course I keep the good stuff in lossless.

Speaking of lossless, then we get into the Red Book CD vs. hi-res (and how HIGH of hi-res!). Is 16/44 OK with you, or do you think you need 24/192? Can you hear the alarm ringing on the Monkee's Daydream Believer with headphones? I couldn't until I isolated one channel and turned it up... If you can't, be realistic, you don't need hi-res and all the hard drive space it eats up. Do the toe-tap test: Play a song you like as an mp3 and as hi-res. Does your toe tap for both versions? There you go.

This also reminds me that one might assume a recent remaster might obviously sound better than the original old version, but the remaster might suffer from either brickwalling or excessive noise reduction (or both), and maybe bad mixing choices in the case of remixed versions. For example, the brickwalling and/or excessive noise reduction is true of some tracks on McCartney's Wild Life (2018 Special Edition) compared to the Unreleased DCC version. Newer is not always better, unless it's a girlfriend, ha! I also noticed this trend when collecting blues artists. You really need to gather every release you can find, old and new, before the obnoxious "improvements" stand out (fake stereo, added reverb, overuse of compression, etc. – those are usually the "remasters").

Unfortunately you still have to take a quick listen and toss the weaker versions. Think of it as a musical fight club or smackdown – put one track up as the contender, and the others either beat it or will be beaten by it. Keep going with the elimations until only one track remains standing, or you wake up and realize how silly this all is and go find something more productive to do, ha!

Using a PC to find the dups is no problem, a lot more software is available for every task, so you'll be fine. On the Mac I like being able to use columns and Quick Look to pop through and compare tracks quickly.

It's late and I am rambling. I have broken off filing cover versions for the night... They will be there tomorrow.

BDJ · Post by **BDJ** » Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:36 am

I use Duplicate Cleaner from Digital Volcano.

It can search on more than just the title of a track: it can compare the contents, file sizes, creation dates etc..to make sure that files are identical (or not).

beatlesondvd · Post by **beatlesondvd** » Sat Feb 19, 2022 1:08 pm

CCleaner also has a duplicate finder tool, by name, size, date, or file content.

thewarpedvinyljunkie · Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:46 pm

Seems like it's been much longer than 20 years that I've been using DoubleKiller (bigbangenterprises.de); it hasn't been updated since 2007, but that only means that it's been a stable version since then.

Liverpools Boy · Post by **Liverpools Boy** » Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:02 am

Thank you very much for your recommendations, I will take them into account.

alphabeatles · Post by **alphabeatles** » Thu Feb 24, 2022 2:51 am

Update: I'm having really good luck with Duplicate File Finder Pro (Mac, might be for Windows as well). Finds music and other file formats.

Gigs of stuff being heaved!

mojofilter · Post by **mojofilter** » Thu Feb 24, 2022 3:15 am

I use a freeware program called "Everything" to search for files. The first time it scans your drives to index the contents, it writes an index file that only changes when you add something or take something away from that drive. Otherwise, it searches in its internal index and displays the results instantaneously. If you type in I Want To Hold Your Hand, before you've got it all typed out, it's showing you all 487 iterations of that song on your drives, where they are, on which drive, in which folder. You can even play it from the search page. In comparison, Windows Search is a joke.