Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WolfWalker]

I was wondering how you all label your multi CDs. I use Cd-1; CD-2 and so on instead of Disk 1, Disc 1, (Disc 1) and so forth. How do you guys do it.

[roopertd]

I put (Disc 1), (Disc 2) and so on, in the album name. sometimes im too lazy to separate discs so i leave them in one folder and put (2 Discs) in the album name.
At least this way i can separate them some day when i am bored.

i don't like using the disc # field because it doesn't account for parts or volumes.

i have many singles of the same name but of different parts so i use (Part 1), (Part 2), etc instead of disc numbers

you can also add more info after the disc number like Vol 1, Vol 2, Remastered, Deluxe, Japan Edition, Amazon Exclusive, Collectors, HD, Expanded, Reissue, Promo, etc
You can shorten these up too. Rm, Dlx, Amazon Exc, Coll, etc.

An example:
The Downward Spiral
The Downward Spiral (Disc 1 Rm)
The Downward Spiral (Disc 2 Rm)

The first one is the original release the second and third are the remastered reissue.

[Vincent Kars]

In general I treat multi volume like this
-   Fill in Disc #
-   Apply Math([Track #]-[Disc #]*1000) to the Track #
-   Make the album titles equal

This gives me 1 entry in the album view
Sorts right on the portable
Preserves the original track number
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MC14/MC_Expression_multi.htm

[rick.ca]

For most of my music, there's absolutely no significance to disc numbers—once the tracks have been ripped to HDD. I normally tag them all with the album name, renumber the tracks and save them all in the same folder. If I had some reason to preserve the disc numbers, I'd use the [Disc #] field provided. I believe doing so keeps the entire album intact, with it's tracks sorted properly (i.e., [Disc #] is included in the default sort).

Where there is some significance to separate volumes (e.g., studio, live, remastered, etc.), I prefer to recognize that in the album name. Doing so, of course, means each volume is handled as a separate album.

[struct]

Only other thing to consider is how does your preferred meta-data source name its albums.  I am using Musicbrainz, thus it is preferable to use its style (which I think is (disc 1), (disc 2) etc) as I can then more easily get additional metadata from Last.fm, covers from amazon, etc.  If on the other hand I was using Gracenote/Itunes or WMP/AMG, I might do something different.

Craig

[roopertd]

i never really thought about why i keep my discs separate.  
But i suppose some of the reasons are:
-Freedb will recognize the individual ripped albums(with some software)
-Rip logs for each disc are kept separate
-Cue sheets for each disc are kept separate, though i don't use them.
  Actually I find them so pointless i may delete them all.
  I don't think i have burned a cd for 7 years
-Sometimes a don't want to listen to the first disc
-I listened to the 2 discs, in an actual cd player, of some albums for so many years it would be too strange to combine them
-i have single disc and double disc versions of the same album, this keeps them separated
-compatibility. some devices don't like disc number

[rick.ca]

Only other thing to consider is how does your preferred meta-data source name its albums...

Whatever changes I might make are done while I'm tagging, which is always immediately after importing and adding meta data. I can't think of any circumstances where I would go back to the same source, or have any difficulty using an auxiliary source because I've done away with the disc numbers. I don't disagree with the point, however—it is something to consider. Sites like AMG still list album tracks by disc, so if there were any reason to return to such a site for track information it would be a little easier it the original disc and track numbers are retained.

-I listened to the 2 discs, in an actual cd player, of some albums for so many years it would be too strange to combine them

This is a example of what I would consider a good reason to treat a disc as a separate album. All that matters is whether I consider it to be a separate "album" or not. If it is, then that's probably how I want it to appear in my library, how I'll listen to it, and might have a bearing on the meta data I record about it. If separate discs are nothing more than an arbitrary split of what is obviously a single album because it doesn't fit on one disc (e.g., a 50-track anthology), then I see no point in treating those discs as separate albums or even recording the disc numbers.

My suggestion would be—rather than using a purely systematic approach—use the flexibility the program offers to define the "album" in whatever way makes the most sense in the circumstances. Doing so will probably increase your enjoyment of your library and the music.

[tunetyme]

I found that including the disc number in the album name helps me keep things organized.  I create seperate folders for each disc when I rip them.

Tunetyme

[mark_h]

In general I treat multi volume like this
-   Fill in Disc #
-   Apply Math([Track #]-[Disc #]*1000) to the Track #
-   Make the album titles equal

This gives me 1 entry in the album view
Sorts right on the portable
Preserves the original track number
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Players/MC14/MC_Expression_multi.htm

+1

[csimon]

I would have used Disc # but it's only a numeric field, so I've created another field to hold my "volume" names and have included this field as an additional level in my views, after the album level but before the track listing.

This way, if it doesn't matter to me whether all tracks from multiple CDs appear as one album, I can just renumber the track numbers as appropriate and keep the volume name the same. But if I want to keep the discs within a set as separate, I can give them different volume names yet the set still appears as one album in the main album listing.

For example, a 10-CD boxed set of folk music with each CD themed to a particular country. I don't want 10 different albums appearing in my main album listing, nor do I want one album with 100+ tracks in it.  So in my main album listing I get it listed once, e.g.

....
Wonderful (Adam Ant)
World Folk Music (Various)
World Trombone Music (Various)
....

And then clicking on World Folk Music I get an additional level which lists all the countries.

The disadvantage to this approach is that for most albums (which only have one volume) I get an extraneous listing of just that one CD, sying "CD #1" or whatever. I have in the past put in a request to the development team to allow an attribute of each level to say whether it should be skipped if it only contains one item.  At the moment, this is up to the client to determine this and in fact WebRemote does handle this perfectly.

[Vincent Kars]

Maybe an expression like this in the view will do the job

If(IsEmpty([Disc #]),[Name],[Disc #])

If Disc (Volume in your case) is empty than display the tracks otherwise display the volumes

[csimon]

Thanks for the thought, but I think that will still create an extraneous level?  The level that should be the volume level will display a list of track names instead, as you say, but selecting one of them won't play the track but will just drill down to the final level which is the proper track listing, and will consist of just one track which is the track you've just selected.  Again, you'd want it to skip that level as it only contains one item and go directly to playing the item.