<track> = xx/yy vs <totaltracks>?, (Same for disc numbering) |
  |
<track> = xx/yy vs <totaltracks>?, (Same for disc numbering) |
 May 26 2012, 23:04
Post
#1
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 1471 Joined: 30-November 06 Member No.: 38207  |
My preferences lean towards track = xx and totaltracks = yy (both padded to two-figures), but I discovered that by a careless choice of options, I have quite a few with the track field being 01/12, 02/12 etc.
Before I start trying to convert: Is there any good argument for the latter? Maybe I should have asked about more general recommendations than Vorbis comments, but FLAC is my ripping format of choice, so ... to this forum it goes. -------------------- geocities.com/hydrogenaudio: http://goo.gl/tqYZj
|
 |
 
|
|
May 27 2012, 01:25
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 492 Joined: 5-January 06 From: Dublin Member No.: 26898 |
I now go with what you're leaning towards, i.e., separate fields for tracknumber and total tracks, mainly because I'm a foobar user and this is the way foobar writes them.
I used to have my rips tagged xx/yy (which was at the time - and perhaps still is - the default mp3tag convention for flacs). Unfortunately foo_verifier won't verify an album with AccurateRip unless the total tracks field is present. |
|
|
|
|
May 27 2012, 05:56
Post
#3
|
|
 Group: Super Moderator Posts: 3268 Joined: 26-July 02 From: princegeorge.ca Member No.: 2796 |
The number of tracks in an album is a separate datum and belongs in a unique field, IMO.
-------------------- (atrix|(fb2k->e-mu 0404 usb|audio 8 dj))->hd280|jvc ha-fx35-b
|
|
|
|
|
May 27 2012, 09:23
Post
#4
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 900 Joined: 9-February 02 From: Cheshire, UK Member No.: 1296 |
Quite inefficient to repeat a value. Put it in it's own field.
-------------------- daefeatures.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th May 2013 - 10:11 |
