Totaltracks in FLAC

[Dat Ei]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

I am a little bit concerned about this, but isn't it a relic from the DOS years? Is it really a concern these days?

Especially on embedded systems you'll never know what kind of OS and filesystem the manufactures use. FAT is still around.

What happens on your car hifi if you have the tags disknumber and totaldisknumber in the metadata and all files of the multidisc album in one folder? How des the car hifi system order the files? Will the car hifi play the files at all?

My car hifi system is four years old, but I never had any problems with the tags. The files are just displayed and played in alphabetical order.


Dat Ei

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

I hear your warnings! I may have to reconsider this... Future problems is what I wanted to avoid in the first place.

But I think what is "non-standard" for the tracknumber tag is debatable. Or have I missed a tagging guide somewhere that dissuades the use of non-numerical signs? On the contrary, I have seen the 1.01 method used enough times that it would seem to be "standard" - but of course that doesn't mean that it always works flawlessly.

As for further testing in the car, it will be another week before my boyfriend & the car are back from skiing vacation so it will have to wait. But I am quite convinced that the disknumber tags are the problem.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Spoon:

I've been listening to the Gurus here and they are quite convincing. I haven't decided yet which way to go. In the meantime, could you tell me what is possible within Asset? Will Asset accept "non-standard" values in the tracknumber tag to make tracknumbers like these examples:

A01
1/01
1.01
1-01
1_01
1;01


And - just as important - are the discnumber and totaldiscnumber tags desirable or even required for Asset to work properly?

[mville]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

But I think what is "non-standard" for the tracknumber tag is debatable. Or have I missed a tagging guide somewhere that dissuades the use of non-numerical signs? On the contrary, I have seen the 1.01 method used enough times that it would seem to be "standard" - but of course that doesn't mean that it always works flawlessly.

I really think you are confusing filenames, that may contain 1.01 OR 1-01 etc. with the disc and track tags that are being used in the Naming string to build the filename.

In my Naming string, I generally use [disc].[track] [artist] - [title] to create my filenames, where:
disc = 1
track = 01
artist = David Bowie
title = Wild Eyed Boy From Freecloud
which creates the filename of 1.01 David Bowie - Wild Eyed Boy From Freecloud

So, to confirm, the 1.01 is being built from the disc and track tags. I have never seen situations where track contains the values that you have stated in your previous post to Spoon.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

No, I am not confusing filenames with tags.

Spoon, could you please clarify what is possible within Asset like I asked in post *18?

[mville]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

No, I am not confusing filenames with tags.

OK, so that I can understand more, please can you explain your comment from your earlier post?:

On the contrary, I have seen the 1.01 method used enough times that it would seem to be "standard"

Where have you seen this method used?

[Spoon]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

If you change the track number to a non standard, then your tracks will be out of order in Asset.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Thank you for clarifying, Spoon. Knowing this, I will give up my idea.

Anyway, since you wanted me to explain, mville:

In the past I have downloaded a lot of mp3 and FLAC and a very rough estimate is that 15-30% of the multi-CD's were using the 1.01 method or similar in the tags. I don't have any of it still in my collection since I only rip my own CD's nowadays. But I have at least one friend that I am sure uses this method and it's working flawlessly, but he doesn't use Asset though.

I take back if it sounded like I think the 1.01 method is THE standard. I definitely don't think that, I only question what IS the standard. A problem with some FLAC metadata is lack of standard, even though time has made standardization better today. In the case of the track number tag, I must admit that "keeping it simple", eg. using 01, 02 etc is safer than 1.01, 1.02 etc but that doesn't mean there's a standard.

Just for fun, since it's Sunday tomorrow, I will take some time to laborate a bit with the track number tag. I don't expect any success after what Spoon stated, I'm just curious what happens. I'll be back with the results.

[mville]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

In the past I have downloaded a lot of mp3 and FLAC and a very rough estimate is that 15-30% of the multi-CD's were using the 1.01 method or similar in the tags. I don't have any of it still in my collection since I only rip my own CD's nowadays. But I have at least one friend that I am sure uses this method and it's working flawlessly, but he doesn't use Asset though.

Fair enough, but I can only say that in all the years I have been involved in digital audio, I have NEVER seen a file where the track tag contains a combination of disc and track info.

[garym]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Fair enough, but I can only say that in all the years I have been involved in digital audio, I have NEVER seen a file where the track tag contains a combination of disc and track info.

agree.. I don't recall ever seeing disk number and track number in the track tag (which makes sense because there are separate tags for disc number). But I've often seen the FILENAME using disk number.tracknumber (e.g., 1.01 - titleofsong.flac). I do understand that the OP notes that he is not talking about filenames.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Actually, I am a she... I must say that I find it amazing that all of you haven't seen this before. It's not common but it occurs. But it's been a couple of years since I touched anything but my own rips, so maybe it has decreased.

Working with Foobar today, I noticed that if there is a discnumber tag, Foobar adds it to the track number, so that the presentation of track 01 is 1.01 and if you have written 1.01 in the track number tag it will be presented as 1.1.01 in Foobar. This made me realise that my estimate in my previous post may not be accurate, because I suspect that memory doesn't discern how often I looked into the metadata vs the presentation. I was using other programs besides Foobar and I did (and do) frequently look into the metadata, but nevertheless my estimate was probably a bit too high. If it matters.

I did some testing today with Asset 4.3, Asset Control, Foobar 1.3.9 and a Cambridge Stream Magic (USB stick only). Foobar since my friend uses the 1.01 method with it. I was going to test with Asset 5 too, but I ran out of steam... I think results would be the same though.

I tested the following principles for the track number tag: 1.01 1-01 1_01 1;01 A01 101 1001

Foobar accepted whatever I wrote in the tag and just presented what was in it, always sorting the tracks in correct order. But when I added the discnumber tags they were added to the track number, so 1.01 -> 1.1.01 But still in correct order.

Asset and the Stream Magic did accept the 101 and 1001 methods and sorted those correctly. But, as expected, the rest of the methods didn't work out and Asset and Stream Magic behaved almost identical, reading only what was before the dot and thus presenting tracks with numbers 1 or 2 only (since I simulated a double-CD). After the primary sorting of tracks by numbers 1 and 2 only, a secondary sorting seemed to be alphabetical resulting in a wrong order.

In case of the A01 method, Asset Control didn't present any track number at all, disliking letters of course. Nevertheless, Asset must have read what was after the 'A' since the track order was correct and not alphabetical, which happened with the other (dot) methods.

To sum up, if you don't want discnumber tags, you could use the 101 or 1001 method with Asset. Logical, since it's all numbers. You could also tag sequentially of course (2x25 -> 1x50), but then you would lose the reference to the CD number. But as I said in my previous post, I will give up this idea of not using discnumber tags.

Well, for most of you this was all superfluous knowledge and would have been a waste of your time, but at least I had something to do while the bread was in the oven...

[garym]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Thanks for the followup and testing. I use foobar as well. I haven't changed my setup in years (other than updating to new versions), but I recall there was a way for me to tell foobar how to present/display things using tag data. I use the FACETS component in foobar as well.

edit: and to be clear, I've often seen display of tracks in some players (including foobar) with 1.01, 2.01, just not the TRACK metadata tag with 1.01, 2.01, etc.

[mville]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

As I say, I think you are getting confused between the display of tags, i.e. within filenames or the foobar2000 gui and what data is actually contained within the tags. I to use foobar2000, display my disc and track tags as 1.01, 2.01 etc. but this is NOT the same as populating the tags with 1.01, 2.01 etc.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

As I say, I think you are getting confused

That is the second time that you say this to me, and it's a bit insulting.

You seem to think "if I haven't seen this, it doesn't exist". But there are billions of music files out there, and I just happen to have had a few of the ones containing this metadata coming my way, and you haven't. Or maybe you didn't see because you didn't look for this metadata.

I don't say that I've seen many of these files. I don't say they fill their purpose well. In fact, I don't even say that they've been filled with this metadata intentionally to serve a purpose. I just say that I've seen a few of them.

Besides, Asset and Foobar are not the only programs I have used of course - I've been using metaflac.exe, tag.exe and others to read the tags without any GUI.

So, for the last time I will say this: I have seen the tracknumber tag occupied with the values 1.01, 2.01 etc in several FLAC albums that I have downloaded in the past. Those values have been present within the metadata itself - certainly not confused with a filename or a GUI presentation.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Since I've now decided to include the discnumber tags, it's important to spell them right. I've seen some variations in the past. Are these the current tags with correct spelling and the only two I should use:

Discnumber
Disctotal


Also, are those tags really needed on the single-CD's too?