Totaltracks in FLAC

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

for my FLAC files, "Discnumber" is correct.

I am probably wrong here, but I vaguely recall a thread (maybe it was a long time ago) where you said that you didn't use discnumber tags at all but for multi-cd's used the sequential track numbering method instead. Maybe it wasn't you or maybe you were just listing alternatives for someone else.

But if - against all odds - I recall this correctly, you seem to have you abandoned that method?

Even though my decision to use discnumber tags is 97% firm, it's interesting to hear what other people do and why.

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

I don't use Disctotal

That's interesting. I'm curious to know if there is a reason for this? Have you ever noticed any problems in software playing your multi-cd albums having Discnumber but not Disctotal?

[evasv]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

Thank you for still trying to help mville, in spite of our little "incident". Very much appreciated.

So, what is the file format and which software will you use to tag the files?

File format is FLAC. For tagging I use tag.exe at the moment, but this could change. But does it matter? Or do you mean the software I use to play the files?

To be clear, I want to know the actual text to be written into the metadata, not the visual presentation in the tagging software.

[garym]

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?

for my FLAC files, "Discnumber" is correct. I don't use Disctotal so not sure the tag spelling. And you have to be careful, in some cases, the mp3 ID3vX tag name may be different from FLAC. Best to use the tag and then test in your various players for correct display.

I don't use disc tags on single CDs.

[mville]

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

You are correct, the spelling is important. There are 2 variables to consider here, what file format you are tagging and which software you intend to use to tag the files, as the disc and track number tags varies in different softwares.

So, what is the file format and which software will you use to tag the files?

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

There is no definitive answer to this question, due to the plethora of server/player software available. As a result, I personally keep the data consistent across my audio library, so I tag all my files with disc and track number.

[mville]

Re: Totaltracks in FLAC

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.

No, insult intended. You may well have downloaded flac files with 1.01, 2.01 in the track number tag, but I am saying that this is non-standard and that the standard is to use the disc and track number tags to hold this information. You do not have to agree with me, but I am entitled to my opinion.

You can do what you like with your tags, but I was trying to help, to achieve the universal solution you mentioned earlier in the thread, without creating more problems for yourself in the future.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.