I've noodled around with mp3s but have stuck mostly to CD listening. I've now decided to get serious and rip my CD collection to flac for permanent backup, and then convert from flac to aac for use on a iPod. My goal is to never have to rip the same music again, & the aac files may eventually be blown off and flac can be re-converted to some future, better compression format.
So, I'd like to use the most practical and "as future-proof as possible" naming conventions now. For the few discs I've previously ripped, I've kept the naming flat; that is, one fully-named folder for each CD, and tracks named ## - Track. So for example, folder name "Beatles, The - White Album [CD 2] (1963)" with track naming "01 - Back In The USSR.flac".
Everyone has preferences based on the software players, DACs, etc that they are using, but are there standard conventions? Pros & cons? I like being able to glance inside a "music" folder and see each individual folder just as I would see it as a CD on a shelf. What are the cons, and why might I consider other approaches before I begin this large undertaking?
Thanks for any and all experiences and suggestions.
So, I'd like to use the most practical and "as future-proof as possible" naming conventions now. For the few discs I've previously ripped, I've kept the naming flat; that is, one fully-named folder for each CD, and tracks named ## - Track. So for example, folder name "Beatles, The - White Album [CD 2] (1963)" with track naming "01 - Back In The USSR.flac".
Everyone has preferences based on the software players, DACs, etc that they are using, but are there standard conventions? Pros & cons? I like being able to glance inside a "music" folder and see each individual folder just as I would see it as a CD on a shelf. What are the cons, and why might I consider other approaches before I begin this large undertaking?
Thanks for any and all experiences and suggestions.
Comment