ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

But I do use sort tags in special cases, e.g. to correct the listing of french/german/scandinavian letters ü, å, ä, æ, ö, ø, &*339;.

I don't think I've ever used those characters before.

[garym]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

And I use ALBUM SORT for a chronological listing of albums and their editions/remasters.

My music server can sort albums by the date tag field, so even without Album Sort tags (or date being included in Album field), I can see my albums sorted chronologically. A nice feature.

[GBrown]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

I like the simple approach too as it feels more natural. Even back in the LP days I sorted after first name. When I read "John Lennon" on the album cover it felt awkward to put it behind "L". Simple as that... And in the digital era the first name approach turned out to be beneficial.

But I do use sort tags in special cases, e.g. to correct the listing of french/german/scandinavian letters ü, å, ä, æ, ö, ø, &*339;.

And I use ALBUM SORT for a chronological listing of albums and their editions/remasters.

And that is why we have the luxury of using software like this to manage our own libraries, instead of using some online database that doesn't work for any of us!

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

And that is why we have the luxury of using software like this to manage our own libraries, instead of using some online database that doesn't work for any of us!

Exactly, GBrown. I would never trust such garbage!

[simbun]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

My music server can sort albums by the date tag field, so even without Album Sort tags (or date being included in Album field), I can see my albums sorted chronologically. A nice feature.

But we don't want to see compilations sorted by date do we, we want to see those in alphabetical order.

2005 - The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 1: 1959-1961
2005 - The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 2: 1962
2005 - The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 3: 1963
2006 - Now That's What I Call Music! 63
2006 - Now That's What I Call Music! 64
2006 - Now That's What I Call Music! 65
2006 - The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 4: 1964
2006 - The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 5: 1965
2006 - The Complete Motown Singles, Volume 6: 1966

It's just about possible with my music server without requiring any tag changes (with a little coding).

[GBrown]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

@Monsterjazzlick PM sent!

[vilsen]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

My music server can sort albums by the date tag field, so even without Album Sort tags (or date being included in Album field), I can see my albums sorted chronologically. A nice feature.

Asset R7 (which I use) can too, but when you go OCD you still need ALBUM SORT for full date sorting rather than just year (e.g. some Beatles & Rolling Stones albums were from the same year). And when you really go full OCD you want to add the remaster date as a suffix in ALBUM SORT, just for the sake of completeness... Did I say I have OCD? Nah, don't think so, was merely pointing out various possibilities haha...

[vilsen]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

But we don't want to see compilations sorted by date do we, we want to see those in alphabetical order.
/.../
It's just about possible with my music server without requiring any tag changes (with a little coding).

I use ALBUM SORT for that too. I sort compilations alphabetically and regular albums chronologically, but I almost never list them together so not a problem with the different sorting criteria.

[monsterjazzlick]

Re: ID TAG UPDATE missing in BATCH CONVERTER (Windows_10 Ver. 16.6)

@Monsterjazzlick PM sent!

Thanks GBrown! I'll respond later this evening . . .