Been ripping my CD collection and am done with the easy stuff…

[llf]

i.e., All the single discs.  What I have left is multi disc sets, SACD, DVD-A, and unopened CDs.

I saw a discussion here on the importance of dbpoweramp naming as relates to accessing your collection from a music server.  I used the dbpoweramp default Naming "Album Artist\Album\TrackNum Artist - Title" for the original effort.  Should I stick with this for the multi disc sets?  I saw mention that this detail was important.  I couldn't find the original thread I read and thought the dbpoweramp default naming looked similar, if not the same, so I went ahead and used that.  Is this Naming something I should change for the multi disc sets or am I effectively locked into what I have used so far?

[One and a half]

I add disc number before the track number, this allows multiple discs for the same album. Otherwise there are several 01, 02 all mixed up in a mess from several discs.

 

Avoid multiple disc folders under the one album, some players only list the first disc, then stop when the end of the disc is reached. With the one folder, the whole sequence of the album can be played.

 

dbpoweramp has a reasonable guide on how to setup the structure, works very well.

 

SACD ripping is possible, the thread at CA here is a very good resource to learn how to convert to dsf using very inexpensive BD players.

[look&listen]

I rip each disc, then rename all tracks to same Album Name field (deleting disc number text). Also assign same album art & compilation flag values. When all 3 fields same value, iTunes (probably more s/w) treats all tracks as same album in interface & on disk storage. Never mind actual file name, not look but think iTunes adjusts it too.

So all tracks of 2, 3, &c. disc sets have same, simple album name. Disc number only relate to physical media & not make any sense in digital library. Ease of access to digital music is ruling factor. That how I see it, and practice it.

This easy to do in (older) iTunes, rips & metadata editing. Other tools work also, to varying degree.

[llf]

I am using the Track Number Offset feature and making sure the disc title is the same for all and 1/1 for all.  All looks fine in File Explorer.  I am waiting for my music server so I don't know yet from experience if it works well or not.  Groovemusic, my Windows default player, does not play from one track to the next.  I assume a setting somewhere would fix that.

[llf]

Seems to work.

[llf]

CD/DVD sets are a very real first world problem.  Don't know how I survive?

[rando]

Hmm, I do multiple child folders usually.  It is rare for discs to run over into another.  When they do it tends to result in a conscious decision to split the larger set into smaller parcels on the part of the label.  This is the only instance I would place multiple discs in a single folder.  Even in the above case it satisfies the inclusion of specific artwork and pdf's of liner notes etc irrelevant to the larger multiple disc release. 

 

It is increasingly rare for a player not to allow adding multiple albums and arranging them as desired.  Normally to the extent of clicking and dragging individual files at will.  Tags written to files are very powerful and should be considered as well.  Ultimately these are what the player reads no matter what the files themselves are named.

[DaQi]

I rename the multiple sets like the previous posters to have the same title, cover art, etc. but I use the disc number feature in JRiver and number them accordingly. DBPoweramp usually gets this right as well but I do check as it isn't always perfect. In JRiver it usually sorts them properly i.e. by disc then track. 

In the digital era disc separations make less and less sense for a multi-set as the splits between discs were usually because of capacity issues of the media. 

[llf]

I seem to be doing OK with all discs set to 1/1, disc title consistency, and Track Number Offset feature.  Are there any types of discs where this would not be a desirable plan of attack?

[look&listen]

7 minutes ago, llf said:

I seem to be doing OK with all discs set to 1/1, disc title consistency, and Track Number Offset feature.  Are there any types of discs where this would not be a desirable plan of attack?

Like @DaQi i keep Disc Number field original value (1, 2, 3, x), so can still sort by Disc if desired. Best of both worlds

Only edit Track Number field data (PITA) if all messed up by some conversion software or other disaster.

[Ralf11]

iTunes handles this fine (usually).  IIRC, they use a separate 3rd party database to handle this (and other) tasks.  If you can connect to that database, it will take care of multi-disc sets and everything else except very early CDs and those made by very small manfs. (e.g. an early Ivan Neville CD)

[llf]

Disc Number field can be left alone?  I thought I saw on the dBpoweramp forum to change it to 1/1?

[llf]

Here's the thread.  I have been changing Disc 1 to 1/1 as well.  That's uncalled for, I think.

 

https://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?17149-Ripping-Multiple-Cd-Sets&highlight=multiple+disc+sets

[look&listen]

1 hour ago, llf said:

Disc Number field can be left alone?  I thought I saw on the dBpoweramp forum to change it to 1/1?

Because you can do something, not mean is good thing to do. They do much work for what value?

 

54076-been-ripping-my-cd-collection-and-am-done-with-the-easy-stuff…

 

 

[llf]

Why do you think the dBpoweramp forum would suggest changing this field?  The poster even seems to be a company representative.