Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

MikeL · 15-05-2016, 19:14

(15-05-2016 14:24)simoncn Wrote: I presume you have the physical box of CDs rather than a download. In this case, your ripping software should identify the album title for each CD as well as a DISCNUMBER tag within the album. What are you seeing as suggested DISCNUMBER tags when you rip CDs within this box set?

It is a very large physical box, and I am only about 1/4 the way through it!

Looks like there is something about the ripping process that I have not understood! I always thought that the info came from cddb and was arbitrary/user provided - is this wrong?

I use abcde and use the cddb fetch as a base to control all the tagging via my own scripts.

Do I assume from your question that there is some 'official' DISCNUMBER tag value on the CD?

simoncn · 15-05-2016, 22:22

Most ripping programs use online databases such as freedb or Gracenote to identify the album by its track lengths and provide default tag information such as the Album, Title, Discnumber and Tracknumber tag values. I presume CDDB holds this information as well. The tag information is not on the physical CD but in the online database.

MikeL · 15-05-2016, 22:57

(15-05-2016 22:22)simoncn Wrote: Most ripping programs use online databases such as freedb or Gracenote to identify the album by its track lengths and provide default tag information such as the Album, Title, Discnumber and Tracknumber tag values. I presume CDDB holds this information as well. The tag information is not on the physical CD but in the online database.

Actually I think I use freedb - sorry I'm a bit vague, but I set the system up ages ago and the details are a bit hazy. I don't capture the DISCNUMBER but make my own mind up. The track data is really quite inconsistent with naming conventions etc, so I've never seen it as especially reliable - it just save a hell of a lot of typing of track names. For Bach I don't even really use that: I index into a copy of the BWV catalogue in order to keep things as consistent as possible.

Servatius · 27-05-2016, 23:39

(12-05-2016 21:55)simoncn Wrote:
(08-05-2016 17:53)MikeL Wrote: However the Bach Edition by Brilliant classics that I am working through now has different cover art for each disc, and I find visually scanning the album covers very quick and easy. There are a lot to have at top level, though. Unless I am missing a trick, using DISCNUM & DISICSUBT would mean visually scanning a very long track list and reading the text of each DISCSUBTITLE to find what I want (or can each DISCSUBTITLE be collapsed under its own cover art?)

I have looked at this set on the Brilliant Classics website. There is not much information but I have the impression that it is a packaged bundle of other albums that are also available separately. It appears that some of these other albums are multidisc albums. This would mean that this box set is different from a multidisc album whose discs contain material that is unique to the album and cannot fit on a single physical CD.

If the above understanding is correct, this difference suggests to me that there would be some value in having MinimServer support the concept of "box set" or "album set" in a way that is different from a multidisc album. I will give this some further thought.

Except for the album art, a solution could be to improve how the DISCSUBTITLE and GROUP tags work together.

Currently, when DISCSUBTITLE is set to the same value for multiple discs of an album, each disc is shown separately under its own heading, and groups must not span multiple discs (which they can if disc information is not displayed).

Couldn't this be extended by combining multiple consecutive discs of an album with the same value in the DISCSUBTITLE tag under the same disc information heading? And by allowing a group to span multiple consecutive discs having the same DISCSUBTITLE value? Track renumbering could be done separately within each of those disc sets.

As an example, if the box set consists of two albums A (with disc 1 and 2) and B (with disc 3 and 4), the same ALBUM tag could be used for the complete box set, a value of DISCSUBTITLE=A could be used for album A and DISCSUBTITLE=B for album B, and the GROUP tag could be used for grouping works across discs but not across albums. For me this looks like a good combination of existing concepts (that cannot be used together with a satisfying result at the moment).

A second useful extension would be to allow for suppressing the tracks/groups beneath the >> disc subtitle headings, e.g. when the value in DISCSUBTITLE starts with ">>". So instead of scrolling through a long list only the headings for each album in the box set would be shown and could be selected.

simoncn · 28-05-2016, 16:17

(27-05-2016 23:39)Servatius Wrote: Except for the album art, a solution could be to improve how the DISCSUBTITLE and GROUP tags work together.

Currently, when DISCSUBTITLE is set to the same value for multiple discs of an album, each disc is shown separately under its own heading, and groups must not span multiple discs (which they can if disc information is not displayed).

Couldn't this be extended by combining multiple consecutive discs of an album with the same value in the DISCSUBTITLE tag under the same disc information heading? And by allowing a group to span multiple consecutive discs having the same DISCSUBTITLE value? Track renumbering could be done separately within each of those disc sets.

As an example, if the box set consists of two albums A (with disc 1 and 2) and B (with disc 3 and 4), the same ALBUM tag could be used for the complete box set, a value of DISCSUBTITLE=A could be used for album A and DISCSUBTITLE=B for album B, and the GROUP tag could be used for grouping works across discs but not across albums. For me this looks like a good combination of existing concepts (that cannot be used together with a satisfying result at the moment).

A second useful extension would be to allow for suppressing the tracks/groups beneath the >> disc subtitle headings, e.g. when the value in DISCSUBTITLE starts with ">>". So instead of scrolling through a long list only the headings for each album in the box set would be shown and could be selected.

Thanks foir these suggestions. These are interesting ideas and I will consider them. At present, I am more inclined to do something with "box set" or "album set" to handle the OP's situation.

DavidHB · 28-05-2016, 22:08

(28-05-2016 16:17)simoncn Wrote: At present, I am more inclined to do something with "box set" or "album set" to handle the OP's situation.

Firstly, apologies for not replying to your earlier response to me, which I somehow missed. The subsequent discussion on this thread has moved things forward, and I am happy to go with that.

How, logically, do you envisage the implementation of "album set" (I prefer this more generic name)? Would it be a container that could contain one or more album containers? If I understand things correctly, it could have its own art, distinct from the art of the individual albums.

Part of the implementation logic would, obviously be how the "album set" appears in the browse list. Would there be separate entries for albums and (where applicable) album sets, or would the album set container take the place of the individual album containers in the browse list? In the latter case, selecting the album set would presumably (if the selection includes more than one album at that point) include an album entry in the browse list that is then generated. This approach, though it does require more selection steps, does seem to be more in line with MinimServer's general way of doing things.

David

simoncn · 28-05-2016, 22:44

(28-05-2016 22:08)DavidHB Wrote: How, logically, do you envisage the implementation of "album set" (I prefer this more generic name)? Would it be a container that could contain one or more album containers? If I understand things correctly, it could have its own art, distinct from the art of the individual albums.

I am still working out the details. For example, I don't yet know how best to provide unique artwork for the album set as there is no standard UPnP way to do this. It would presumably need to be via a specially named artwork file somewhere in the library.

My current thoughts are along these lines: For browsing actions that display a list of albums, multiple albums that are part of the same album set would be replaced in the list by a single entry for the album set. This entry would be a container and opening it would show the matching albums (not all albums in the set).

DavidHB · 29-05-2016, 00:43

(28-05-2016 22:44)simoncn Wrote: I am still working out the details. For example, I don't yet know how best to provide unique artwork for the album set as there is no standard UPnP way to do this. It would presumably need to be via a specially named artwork file somewhere in the library.

I understand the problems. Presumably, every track contained within the album set would need (somewhat on the analogy of DiscSubtitle) an AlbumSet tag specifying the title of the set, and identifying the track as part of the set. If the album set art is saved as, say, "albumSet.jpg" in any folder used by the set, the first such file encountered by the scanning process would then be identified as the art for the set. Alternatively, it might be sensible to use the same name for the album set and its associated artwork file. Do these thoughts work at all?

(28-05-2016 22:44)simoncn Wrote: My current thoughts are along these lines: For browsing actions that display a list of albums, multiple albums that are part of the same album set would be replaced in the list by a single entry for the album set. This entry would be a container and opening it would show the matching albums (not all albums in the set).

This was what I had in mind as the second (and preferred) variant in my previous post, so it certainly makes sense to me.

David

MikeL · 30-05-2016, 11:00

(28-05-2016 22:44)simoncn Wrote: My current thoughts are along these lines: For browsing actions that display a list of albums, multiple albums that are part of the same album set would be replaced in the list by a single entry for the album set. This entry would be a container and opening it would show the matching albums (not all albums in the set).

Thanks for devoting some time to thinking about this: what you outline above is exactly what I had in mind.

Mike

simoncn · 30-05-2016, 21:13

(29-05-2016 00:43)DavidHB Wrote: If the album set art is saved as, say, "albumSet.jpg" in any folder used by the set, the first such file encountered by the scanning process would then be identified as the art for the set. Alternatively, it might be sensible to use the same name for the album set and its associated artwork file. Do these thoughts work at all?

I think the latter convention is better. This is already supported for album names and it allows multiple album sets to be in the same folder (unlikely but possible).