Dynamic Naming script help

[Hppnstnce]

Hi everybody,

first time user of the forum here - thank you for considering my question.

I am stuck in trying to set up CD Ripper's Dynamic Naming in a way that emulates what my existing Apple Library looks like. (I am switching from using Apple Music to utilizing CD Ripper, and Plex to play my music library locally and over the network.)

Here's what I'm trying to achieve:

• For single-disc albums:
  • Album Artist/Album Title/01 Title
• For multi-disc albums:
  • Album Artist/Album Title/1-01 Title
  • And continuing in the same folder with 2-01 Title
• Same for Compilations, only substitute “Compilation” for “Album Artist”

Mostly where I’m stuck is that I only want a [Disc] to show up for multi-disc albums, but not for the single-disc albums.

Here’s as far as I got in modifying the default script:

[MAXLENGTH]80,[IFVALUE]album artist,[album artist],[IFCOMP]Various Artists[][IF!COMP][artist][][][]/[MAXLENGTH]80,[album][]/[MAXLENGTH]80,[disc]-[track] [title][]

But that now puts a [Disc] also for single disc albums, which I'd like to avoid.

Thank you in advance to anyone willing to point me the right way!

[garym]

I use essentially your desired organization and use the following naming string. Automatically handles single and multi disks and album artist vs artist and compilations. However note that the [disc] issue you mention is not because of naming string. It is because of a setting in dbpa. Under CD ripper options, metadata and ID Tag options, set the "Multi CD Add Disc to Album" to 'never'.

[MAXLENGTH]240,[IFCOMP]Compilations\[album][IFMULTI]\Disc [disc][]\[track] - [title] - [artist][][IF!COMP][IFVALUE]album artist,[album artist],[artist][]\[album][IFMULTI]\Disc [disc][]\[track] - [title][][]

[Hppnstnce]

Thank you, garym!

I checked the setting "Multi CD Add Disc to Album", and it was already set to 'never'.

Using the "never" setting and your script, I get the following:

For single disc:
Album Artist/Album Title/05 - Title (that works)

For compilations:
Compilations/Album Title/05 - Title - Artist (that works)

For multi-disc:
Album Artist/Album Title/Disc 2/05 - Title

That's where it's still not doing what I want it to do. I don't want an extra folder for every disc; I'd like the disc count to be part of the file name, such as:
Album Artist/Album Title/[DISC] 05 - Title

I realize I don't understand the scripting language well enough to tweak this script to achieve that.

For instance, I tried:
[MAXLENGTH]240,[IFCOMP]Compilations\[album][IFMULTI]\[]\[disc] [track] - [title] - [artist][][IF!COMP][IFVALUE]album artist,[album artist],[artist][]\[album][IFMULTI]\[]\[disc] - [track] - [title][][]

That does remove the extra folder; but then I do get an extra disc count even for single disc albums, such as:
Album Artist/Album Title/1 - 05 - Title

[garym]

try this. If you don't like the period after the disc number. Delete the period after [disc] in the two locations below and replace period with a space.

[MAXLENGTH]240,[IFCOMP]Compilations\[album]\[IFMULTI]\[disc].[][track] - [title] - [artist][][IF!COMP][IFVALUE]album artist,[album artist],[artist][]\[album]\[IFMULTI]\[disc].[][track] - [title][][]

[Hppnstnce]

That did it! Than you so much, Garym!

I did a little bit of minor tweaking myself to get it to where it would completely match what I have. Just resharing in case there are others in the future who are looking for an algorithm that reproduces what Apple Music does:

[MAXLENGTH]240,[IFCOMP]Compilations\[album]\[IFMULTI]\[disc].[][track] [title] - [artist][][IF!COMP][IFVALUE]album artist,[album artist],[artist][]\[album]\[IFMULTI]\[disc]-[][track] [title][][]

[garym]

looks good. Note that you have a period after disc (e.g., 2.09 song title.flac) for compilations but are using a dash after disc for non compilations (e.g., 2-09 song title.flac). Seems like you'd want those to be consistent.

[RandyWatson]

This was really helpful. Thank you. Quick question, though. I can't seem to find the "Multi CD Add Disc to Album" setting anywhere. Where is it located?

[garym]

[RandyWatson]

Got it. Thank you! I'm on a Mac so it's a different settings window, but managed to find it.

Unrelated, but are there any recommendations for a beginner in terms of the Lossless Level to choose for ripping? Is anything to be gained from going higher than the default level (5)?

[garym]

Got it. Thank you! I'm on a Mac so it's a different settings window, but managed to find it.

Unrelated, but are there any recommendations for a beginner in terms of the Lossless Level to choose for ripping? Is anything to be gained from going higher than the default level (5)?

all of these settings produce 100% lossless, so that is no different. Higher settings, say 8, simply make the file size a little smaller. So disk storage space is the only thing to be gained. In past times, there were some players/streamers on the market that couldn't handle decoding the higher settings. For example, I use a Squeezebox Transporter that would stumble with FLAC at '8'. But a firmware fix for the Transporter solved that problem over 10 years ago.

Also, the computer doing the encoding works a bit harder to encode at '8' as opposed to '1'. But with any modern computer this is trivial. And decoding a file is essentially the same 'work' regardless of how it was encoded ('8' vs '0').

This said, I started with '5' over 17 years ago because it was default. And I think it was default because it was a good compromise between file size and computer effort to encode. If i was doing it all over again, I'd likely use '8'.

[RandyWatson]

all of these settings produce 100% lossless, so that is no different. Higher settings, say 8, simply make the file size a little smaller. So disk storage space is the only thing to be gained. In past times, there were some players/streamers on the market that couldn't handle decoding the higher settings. For example, I use a Squeezebox Transporter that would stumble with FLAC at '8'. But a firmware fix for the Transporter solved that problem over 10 years ago.

Also, the computer doing the encoding works a bit harder to encode at '8' as opposed to '1'. But with any modern computer this is trivial. And decoding a file is essentially the same 'work' regardless of how it was encoded ('8' vs '0').

This said, I started with '5' over 17 years ago because it was default. And I think it was default because it was a good compromise between file size and computer effort to encode. If i was doing it all over again, I'd likely use '8'.

Thanks, this is very helpful. When you say the computer needs to work a little harder at 8, are you just suggesting it will take longer? Or are there other tangible impacts?

[garym]

yes, take a little longer. But with any computer made in the last 15 years, longer means maybe microseconds. Nothing you would notice. The encoding part of ripping is already a tiny, tiny part of the time it takes to read and rip a CD.

[RandyWatson]

Thanks