Possible increment track number for sets?

[Mike48]

In ripping, I'd like to consolidate multi-disc sets: put a set's files all into one directory and increment track numbers accordingly. If there are 7 tracks on Disc 1 and 9 on Disc 2, track numbers would run from 1-16.

After all, the multi-disc structure is to fit on CDs, and has nothing to do with the music. It makes no sense to divide most sets by disc -- even less if they are, say, an opera.

Instead of having the same album show up N times when browsing, it would show up once.

It is easy to get all files into one directory, named appropriately, with something like

[album]\[IFMULTI][disc]-[][track] [title]

but this doesn't change the metadata TRACK numbers, which start again from 1 on each disc of the set. I'd like to be able to tell dBPA to add x to the track number in the metadata for the second disk, and add (x+y) for the third disk, and so on.

Possible? Impossible? Dumb?

[Spoon]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

Right click on track one >> Apply Track Offset >>

[Michael Sargent]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

I had tried rolling up all tracks from multiple CD's like you are suggesting, and decided it was a bad idea. I ended up undoing all that and going with [disk][track] for multidisc albums. I don't know if you'll hate it as much as I did, but I thought that I should warn you it's not always the best idea.

Mike

[garym]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

I had tried rolling up all tracks from multiple CD's like you are suggesting, and decided it was a bad idea. I ended up undoing all that and going with [disk][track] for multidisc albums. I don't know if you'll hate it as much as I did, but I thought that I should warn you it's not always the best idea.

Mike

+1, I like the disk number, tracknumber approach for multidisks. Squeezebox, foobar2000, and itunes (the players I use) all handle this perfectly.

[Mike48]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

Thanks to Spoon, Mike, garym.

Mike and Gary - Not sure if you are talking about file names or track numbers. For file names, I am using something like the [disc][track] you suggest. But for track numbers in the metadata, I'd like them to run continuously.

Is that what you found a bad idea? What went wrong?

(I have been doing this just long enough to find out there are a lot of consequences to every decision, and changing your mind is a lot of work. In fact, I'm ripping my music library over from square 1, this time at full resolution.)

[Mike48]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

Spoon, that's exactly what I was asking for -- thanks!

[garym]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

Thanks to Spoon, Mike, garym.

Mike and Gary - Not sure if you are talking about file names or track numbers. For file names, I am using something like the [disc][track] you suggest. But for track numbers in the metadata, I'd like them to run continuously.

Is that what you found a bad idea? What went wrong?
(I have been doing this just long enough to find out there are a lot of consequences to every decision, and changing your mind is a lot of work. In fact, I'm ripping my music library over from square 1, this time at full resolution.)

I'm talking about tags (not file names themselves). Nothing went wrong, but after I tried that approach just a bit, I realized that sometimes I really wanted to know what was on disc 1 vs disc 3, and then I'd get to multidisk collections where the disk * really meant something. So something like The Who's Quadrophenia was a 2 disk CD, and numbering it 1 to N was not an issue. But what about a 6 disk Buddy Holly collection or Jerry Garcia collection (where in some cases the disks had meaning -- outtakes, etc.). And I'm anal enough that I like to do everything consistently. Plus, all my players can load up all the disks of a multi disk set in the exact correct order using disk * and track *. So there was no downside to this.

and I hear you. I'm 1/2 way through reripping my 10,000 CDs to FLAC (after having ripped them all to mp3 years ago).

[garym]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

when you say you want your tracks to run continuously, what do you actually mean here. Playing order? Because with disk and track numbers, playing order should be perfect in almost any modern player.

[Mike48]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

when you say you want your tracks to run continuously, what do you actually mean here. Playing order? Because with disk and track numbers, playing order should be perfect in almost any modern player.

I want to avoid displaying a 4-disc opera, say, as 4 separate items in player software (I am using J.River). It seemed to me that the simplest way was to put all the files into one directory, with the same album name (not including "Disc x"), and number the tracks sequentially from 1 ... N.

[Mike48]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

I'm talking about tags (not file names themselves). Nothing went wrong, but after I tried that approach just a bit, I realized that sometimes I really wanted to know what was on disc 1 vs disc 3, and then I'd get to multidisk collections where the disk * really meant something. So something like The Who's Quadrophenia was a 2 disk CD, and numbering it 1 to N was not an issue. But what about a 6 disk Buddy Holly collection or Jerry Garcia collection (where in some cases the disks had meaning -- outtakes, etc.). And I'm anal enough that I like to do everything consistently. Plus, all my players can load up all the disks of a multi disk set in the exact correct order using disk * and track *. So there was no downside to this.

You raise some good points. I'm not sure I understand the way you handled it, though. Did you just number each disc's tracks 1...n, (like dBPA does automatically), or number disc 1 as 101 ... 100 + n1; disc 2 numbered 201 through 200 + n2, etc.?

and I hear you. I'm 1/2 way through reripping my 10,000 CDs to FLAC (after having ripped them all to mp3 years ago).

Ouch! I am not sure how I'm ever going to finish ripping 2,500 discs. I am impressed that you are tackling that sized library.

[garym]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

I want to avoid displaying a 4-disc opera, say, as 4 separate items in player software (I am using J.River). It seemed to me that the simplest way was to put all the files into one directory, with the same album name (not including "Disc x"), and number the tracks sequentially from 1 ... N.

For example, a 4 disk set displays as a single album for me in Logitech Media Server (because I've set the LMS options to group multidisk CDs under one name). This is also true in Foobar2000 (I only see the single album name when browsing albums, but if I open the album in an active playlist, I see all the tracks, ordered by disk 1, then disk 2, etc.). I'd be surprised if JRiver doesn't have such an option.

[garym]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

You raise some good points. I'm not sure I understand the way you handled it, though. Did you just number each disc's tracks 1...n, (like dBPA does automatically), or number disc 1 as 101 ... 100 + n1; disc 2 numbered 201 through 200 + n2, etc.?



Ouch! I am not sure how I'm ever going to finish ripping 2,500 discs. I am impressed that you are tackling that sized library.

I use dbpa default. Disk 1 is 01, 02, 03, ...N, then Disk 2 starts over with 01,02,03, 04. The only thing that may not be default is that in some setting I've told it to use two digit track numbers (but that may in fact be only for the file name rather than track tag....I'm away from my main computer at the moment).

[Mike48]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

Gary,

It seems I can get what I want by telling dbpa not to append "Disc n" to the album tag. All files get put in the same directory and display as one album. Yet disc numbers are preserved in the metadata, and the players I use sort by disc * first, then track *, which works great. The key is making sure the disc * is tagged properly.

Any reason you can see that this scheme will cause problems down the road?

[garym]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

Gary,

It seems I can get what I want by telling dbpa not to append "Disc n" to the album tag. All files get put in the same directory and display as one album. Yet disc numbers are preserved in the metadata, and the players I use sort by disc * first, then track *, which works great. The key is making sure the disc * is tagged properly.

Any reason you can see that this scheme will cause problems down the road?

no, perfect. exactly what I do. forgot to mention to turn off putting (disk no) in Album title, but that's exactly what you should do.

[Mike48]

Re: Possible increment track number for sets?

no, perfect. Exactly what i do. Forgot to mention to turn off putting (disk no) in album title, but that's exactly what you should do.

thanks!