Better unique disc-ID tag than cddb_id?

[Porcus]

I tag my folders ending with cddb_id in order to avoid overwriting e.g. remastered releases and unknown artists -- until now I have (incorrectly, it seems) assumed that different presses will usually merey differ by offset, while if you fiddle around with the master tape, you would be pretty sure to alter track lengths etc.

Well, today I happened to rip two pressings of the same CD (Faith No More: King For A Day, Fool For A Lifetime), and I just noticed that dBpoweramp assigns different lengths to at least one of the tracks -- though only by one second. Nevertheless, they have the same cddb_id.

From the sketchy notes I found on cddb_id calculation, I assume that the track times used must be rounded-off to, say, integers. I guess that a re-mastring process could still keep all tracks within a second [insert any sarcastic comment re-releasing a CD with a faux "Re-master" sticker here too], hence my "clever trick" to ensure unique folder names wasn't that clever.

Solution anyone?

Except to ensure that the original and the remaster are in different batches, which rip to different folders, and then manually merge folders afterwards?

(And avoid batchripping obscure CD singles ...)

[Spoon]

Re: Better unique disc-ID tag than cddb_id?

You can add [unique] as part of the naming.

[EliC]

Re: Better unique disc-ID tag than cddb_id?

Porcus, it sounds like you would like 2 of my requests:

-skip discs already ripped based on CD TOC
-rip sessions