Care needed about "Duplicates" - they're not always correctly identified

I’m checking through the large number of albums of Murry Perahia’s Mozart Concertos, previously collated but now broken up, many of which Roon has dubbed to be “duplicates” but are turning not to be. I’m guessing that is because most headers were incorrect, something which Roon does regularly when a set is broken up. When the album header is corrected Roon miraculously realises what the album really is and generally (not always) correctly formats it and withdraws the duplicate labelling.

I’m posting this not as a complaint, but as a warning to not impulsively delete any album when Roon classes it as a duplicate. It might not be a duplication at all.

Roon has many clever features, but classical albums are as much a PIA for it as for other systems and databases.

I have learned to be careful about this, something posted about before but needs to be re-emphasised.

In the last day or two I’ve been sorting through the Harnoncourt Bach cantatas from the big 1000 Bach set. Many in the set were misidentified and Roon could not find them with 3 albums regarded as duplicates. They were not so I’m glad caution was observed about deleting them. And I did find duplications that Roon had not identified.

Again, please do not misinterpret this post. It is not done as a complaint as it is fully realised what a PIA classical albums are with multiple issues of the same performances often in different combinations. I fully expect to stick with Roon and hope these postings help developers to make continual improvements.

I can see how this happens. I just discovered a Sibelius album that Roon declared was a duplicate. And, if you believed the header it was, BUT the header was wrong. When corrected, the “Duplicate” notes vanished.

So to be fair to Roon, it appears it decides about duplication from the album header (and might also check the number of tracks) so it is important to check that the header is indeed correct before nuking the album.