Multi Encoder handling track *blooper*'s differently

[rbsound]

I'm using the MultiEncoder to rip to FLAC and MP3. The track *blooper*'s in the metadata show up as "01", "02", etc for the FLAC files but appear as "01/09", "02/09", etc for the MP3 files. I see only one setting in the options that affect meta data including the track number format. How do I get a consistent approach here? Thanks.

BTW, any advantage of having the total tracks in the album a part of the metadata (ie why have 2/9 vs 2?).

[dbfan]

Re: Multi Encoder handling track *blooper*'s differently

Mp3 combines track count and track number into the same tag value, that is the standard

[rbsound]

Re: Multi Encoder handling track *blooper*'s differently

That may be the standard for mp3 but it can be edited to handle other formats just as FLAC can be edited to handle other formats. Interestingly, The Beatles USB collection that includes 320 bit mp3's (along with 24 bit FLAC) had the track numbers in the "01, 02, . . . " format.

So I guess the question is since either format can contain track number meta data in a variety of formats, what can't the preferences selected in dbpoweramp 14.1 affect both formats? If this is a bug or design limitation, perhaps this can be addressed in 14.2. Thanks.

Also, any advantage of having the total tracks in the album a part of the metadata (ie why have 2/9 vs 2?).

[Spoon]

Re: Multi Encoder handling track *blooper*'s differently

>Also, any advantage of having the total tracks in the album a part of the metadata (ie why have 2/9 vs 2?).

Yes, so a player can know the disc is part of a multi-set.

We will always adhere to standards and not try to introduce any other standards.

[rbsound]

Re: Multi Encoder handling track number's differently

I'm not clear what you mean by "Mp3 combines track count and track number into the same tag value, that is the standard". This field can be edited (like any other field) to be displayed in a way that does not include the track count, so the mp3 format can handle the track number without the track count, just as FLAC does.

Furthermore, when viewing the the original unedited mp3 files that came with The Beatles USB set, the track field (when viewed in the file's properties) shows the track number without the track count.

So, if a major record label publishes the mp3 track field without the track count and any files can be edited this way, this does not appear to be a "standard" or at least something that is "untouchable".

Spoon, ("Yes, so a player can know the disc is part of a multi-set."), my question was regarding the track count, not the disc count; any reason for the the track count?

Thanks, as always, for your prompt response.

[Spoon]

Re: Multi Encoder handling track number's differently

Take a look at:

http://id3.org/d3v2.3.0