HI @support I have Beggars Banquest 50th edition as 192/24 Flac but Roon keeps misidentifying it as the regular release no matter what I try. My tags all appear to be fine but even if I choose Roons metadata its wrong. Any pointers to help me identify this?
What is it that you are looking for that you are not seeing? Release-specific identification is notoriously tricky and, for local content (i.e. not TIDAL or Qobuz, where we know with 100% confidence what the release is), some metadata is merged from different releases.
The most high profile example of this is that we choose to use a single — hopefully canonical and high quality — album art image for all releases rather than attempt an imprecise identification which could be wrong or which has a poor image. If it is the cover art which is the problem, you can always prefer your own in album settings.
If it’s something else, please get back to me and I’ll try and explain what is going on (or investigate behaviour on our part which looks wrong).
It just doesn’t identify the album correctly as the 50th Anniversary edition and I can’t manually match it either using the identify. It’s in Tidal and Qobuz though.( I actually bought it off Qobuz). After a lot of using a combo of the files metadata got it to work but had to use my own artwork.
Hi @CrystalGipsy. Yes, for local content (including downloads) we use a single title for all releases of the same album, so if you are expecting “50th Anniversary” in the title, I’m afraid that it won’t happen automatically.
We’ve had many discussions about whether or not we should attempt more release-specific identification, but there is so much bad file tag metadata in many album rips and downloads, it’s quite a risky thing to do.
That said, we do want to bring some of the new ideas we’ve implemented recently for album equivalence into identification, so it might be possible to implement some release-specific identification for local content where the evidence is convincing. I’m sorry that this doesn’t solve your problem now, but we do appreciate your bringing it to our attention. I’m going to create a ticket in our backlog to ensure that this issue is captured for consideration when we next schedule work on our identifier code.
Thanks for the insight Joel.