Syncing media files (2025 Update)

Just download FreeFileSync. I've been using it for years, and it gets updated. Robocopy - or any DOS-like command - has to used with caution. I quit using command line tools years ago, and haven't suffered.

AFAIK, music files never change once they are put on a PC. I agree it's a valid point for files that are changed. But even then, if he selects to copy over files from PC A to PC B where those files already exist, it will not disturb the existing version on PC B. It will copy over the new one with the same name by adding a (1) on the end of the filename. As in if Jingle Bells.wav is already there and you use the Windows file manager to copy it over again, it will create Jingle Bells(1).wav

That's what the /L switch is for. Use that until you get it doing exactly what you want, then when sure it's right, remove the /L.

I think that started at W/7 with a copy command. I know my XP machines give me the "do you want to replace..." prompt. One reason why you might have different copies of a given song is bit rate. If you get it from You Tube it will usually be lower than when you rip them from a CD or download from a binary group. There may also be different versions of the same song by the same person.

Which came out how long ago and has been supreceded by 10?

I know my XP machines

If he's using an obsolete OS he should make it clear. Actually he should make it clear what OS he's using period.

All with the same file name? They can't have the same name, because they can't exist with the same name in the same directory on PC A to begin with, before he goes to copy them to PC B.

It's also unclear what the real objective here is. First it sounded like he just wanted the same music to play on 3 PCs. Later it started to sound like backup might be the real purpose. It it's backup, then backing up the whole PC is probably an easier and better strategy using software for that.

On 19 Jan 2019, trader_4 snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in alt.home.repair:

Mine do, often. I'm constantly grooming my digital music collection, adding or correcting information tags and artwork.

Some music players will alter metadata on their own, fetching information from the Internet or adding volume-leveling, and the user might not even be aware.

So? If it still works and your "job" didn't change, why change anything?

If you are only playing MP3s who cares what the OS is? It is a good use for an obsolete machine. My player will run on DOS. In fact that is what I ran in my cars, simply because a socket 7 machine set to fast boot in BIOS could go from "key on" to music faster than a commercial in dash player will now.

Exactly my point but if you have the "live" in machine A, the low res studio on machine B and the high res on machine C you have a decision to make if you are only keeping one.

The best backup in the world is multiple redundant copies on different machines being used regularly.

You don't even know what machine he has, he didn't say. You're just going back to interject XP, which is EOL, obsolete, because apparently the file manager is more primitive. And even then, as I pointed out, what I suggested still works! If he's putting music on PC A and wants to back it up, move it to PC B, he can still tell it to copy all the music files as long as he doesn't have a newer music file that's different that has exactly the same name. Did he say that was a problem?

You're right, the only person who would care would be the person asking the question, asking for a solution, unless you're trying to tell us that all software is the same on all PCs. Can I take a Mac app from

It is a good

On and on about obsolete machines when he didn't even say what machines he has.

Only if the files have the exact same name AND you're using obsolete XP or earlier. With Win 10, probably 7 too, if he chooses to copy files where the same name already exists, it will name the new file with (1) added. If that already exists, it will name it with (2) added. That's an example of the benefits of using systems that are not obsolete. Forgive me for offering a simple solution that just uses the regular file manager in Windows PCs that have been shipping for a decade.

That isn't true either, but it's a whole different discussion.

If you have a sound processing program you can do all sorts of things to music files. I like Sound Forge which is a virtual studio in a PC but Audacity (free) is pretty powerful.

You just want to fight F*ck off

I suggested one simple way he could do what he wants using just the file manager on Windows. You objected and started yapping about XP, an obsolete OS that's no longer supported, when he hadn't said what OS he was using. Then you added more nonsense about the solution not depending on which OS he was using. IDK what your problem is, maybe you're having a bad day.

I gave him a 15 dollar solution that crosses many platforms and you countered with a $500-1000 PC upgrade.

On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 12:08:45 AM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

You are so full of s*it. I told him he could use the file manager that's in Windows for free and that does indeed work. At that point, he had not told us what systems, what OS's he even has. Which is typical, people come in here asking questions without providing the relevant information. In this case, it doesn't matter. Are you denying that you can use the file manager in Windows to copy files over from one PC to another? That includes XP. I didn't say your approach or any of the other ideas here was wrong, wouldn't work, that he shouldn't consider it. You're the one that started shooting down my solution with pure BS. You claimed that there could be a file on the target PC with the same name, that could wind up overwritten. The goal seems to be to have the same audio files on all three pcs. So, how does a file with the same exact name, get created on PC A to begin with? Every software package I've seen that creates files, eg some audio program, gives you a choice of name for the new file and also warns that a file with the same name already exists. So, your scenario could only happen if he downloads music on more than one machine and happens to create two files with different content with the same name. And he said in his first post that he rips music onto ONE PC, so that can't happen. If he tries to make a new file with the name SpringsteinBorntoRun on that PC where it already exists, the software will ask him if he wants to replace the existing or let him make a new file name. So, how does he wind up with a new file on PC A, with the same name, that has different content? The only way would be for him to want to overwrite the previous one with the same name. He can use the file manager on Windows back to XP and evern earlier.

The file manager in Win 10 and I think 7 too, goes beyond that, so I pointed that out. If you try to copy a file with the same name as an existing one, it will create a new file with (1) added to the name. So, with a PC that you've bought or upgraded in the last decade, even if he rips music on all three PCs and names a new file with the same name as a file on one of the other PCs, the filemanager will not overwrite that file when copied, it's still there and so is the additional file. Somehow you managed to translate that into me telling him he has to do a $1000 PC upgrade? And he later told us what he has, he has one PC with 7 on it, if he uses that to do the copying, then it will do the addition of (1) to the file name if necessary and he does not have to buy or upgrade anything.

And part of the problem here is there is no acknowledgment back from the OP that he understands any of this.

On 21 Jan 2019, =?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?= snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote in alt.home.repair:

If you're dealing with mp3s it's best to not use an audio editor on them because it will force a degradation in sound quality. Similar in principle to making a Xerox of a Xerox.

Some media players can take advantage of ReplayGain, which is a volume- leveling system that writes an information tag into audio files that describes how much the volume can be turned up before distortion - this is just a number value, the actual audio isn't changed. A compatible player can then read that number value and adjust its output volume so that a group of files will be played back at approximately the same volume.

Apple has its own similar volume-leveling system, called Sound Check. As usual, it's not compatible with ReplayGain or any other common system.

I haven't really noticed Sound Forge doing anything to the quality as long as you go MP3 in to MP3 out only changing the volume. I understand if it has to uncompress and recompress the file, you will be losing stuff.

if you don't hear any issues then I would't worry about it....but there are programs that can change the level of an MP3 without uncompressing and recompressing.

MP3gain is one example.

I have standardized my mp3 at a level of 89. When I get an mp3 that is really loud, I run it through mp3gain set for a level of 89.

mark

Other must-haves are mp3tag (portable install option) to check/alter the filenames/tags:

Most Youtube downloads sound streams are a mere 96kbps. ~160kbps vbr is probably a minimum for "good" quality.

Check with Virustotal or Jotti before using. []'s

On 22 Jan 2019, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in alt.home.repair:

You may not have noticed it, but there has been some degradation. If the original source is good enough you may not have noticed any significant change, but if you save and reopen the mp3 with Sound Forge a few times you eventually will hear it.