Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?  (Read 7999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2008, 05:11:18 PM »
i make md5's for EVERY flac folder i ever burnt to disc/dvdr. I just started adding the song titles to the end of each track naming scheme. I like this method betterb than using a tagger.

heres an example and works great for listening from the PC:

aod2007-07-14.483.722_intro
aod2007-07-14.483.722_new_real_rhythm
aod2007-07-14.483.722_bootleggers_advice

it takes a bit longer but is worth the wait.

That's what I'd like to do.
Why not go with:  BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01_Song_Name
instead of:           BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01

This way you can select songs from a folder and know which is which.

thats exactly what I do except I include source info in the filename as well

banddate.sourceinfo_songname

works quite well for me :)

Bean...man YOU DON'T name your files like that because they won't sort properly the way you have them above.  Fortunately, I know that in your REAL uploads, you also insert the disc and track number AHEAD of the song name so that they will sort right.  I know you do this because I know how you name your tracks!!!

Obviously, without the disc and track number, your files woouldn't sort properly!
« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 05:13:56 PM by tonedeaf »

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2008, 05:12:50 PM »
i make md5's for EVERY flac folder i ever burnt to disc/dvdr. I just started adding the song titles to the end of each track naming scheme. I like this method betterb than using a tagger.

heres an example and works great for listening from the PC:

aod2007-07-14.483.722_intro
aod2007-07-14.483.722_new_real_rhythm
aod2007-07-14.483.722_bootleggers_advice

it takes a bit longer but is worth the wait.

That's what I'd like to do.
Why not go with:  BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01_Song_Name
instead of:           BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01

This way you can select songs from a folder and know which is which.

What's fairly funny about your suggestion is that you prove in this thread that you didn't even READ the etree naming conventions because if you had, you'd understand why all of your suggestions, including the suggestion above, are inappropriate. 

Now you're trying to recommend to an entire nation of people how better to do it, which is also rather funny because your above suggestion again was NOT thought through with any degree of diligence, or else you'd AGAIN understand why the above suggested convetion is not complete.  BTW, what you're TRYING to communicate indeed IS discussed in the etree naming conventions anyways.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2008, 05:24:34 PM by tonedeaf »

Offline 6079

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 277
Re: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2008, 09:15:41 PM »
Well, in my example the track name precedes the song name, therefore the files would sort properly, as in line up from 01 to 09, etc.
The fingerprint txt. file will be off center because of different names, but I'm unaware of what any negative effect of this would be, other than, modifying standard e-tree naming standards.  That's why I asked.
Free Screenings of "Bill Hicks: Revelations" in Portland and Seattle
May 27th & 28th.
info: http://www.BillHicks.org  RSVP: http://Facebook.com/BillHicksNW

Offline Sebastian

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Gender: Male
Re: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2008, 06:45:06 AM »
Well, in my example the track name precedes the song name, therefore the files would sort properly, as in line up from 01 to 09, etc.
The fingerprint txt. file will be off center because of different names, but I'm unaware of what any negative effect of this would be, other than, modifying standard e-tree naming standards.  That's why I asked.

It doesn't work for multi-disc schows. The sort order would be:

BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01_ASongOneOnDiscTwo.flac
BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01_SongOneOnDiscOne.flac
...

We live in a free world. You can name the files whatever you want. But keep in mind that there is a reason why most other tapers do it the standard way. Your naming scheme probably works well on your Windows PC, but there's still some folks with file names limited to a smaller amount of characters or even different character sets. The standard was designed for maximum compatibility.

stevetoney

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2008, 07:53:56 AM »
The standard was designed for maximum compatibility.

Exactly!  Not only that, but I'm sure that it was desiged with a significant amount of thought and input behind it before the final conventions were agreed to by many many people on etree.

6079, if you like the standard where you include the song title, go ahead and do that, but you really should consider staying consistent with already established standards. 

For those of us that don't use the song title in our naming conventions, we have the setlist in the text file (which is a required input anyway) to determine which song is which.

Offline moxie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Gender: Female
  • gopher?
    • The Boro Boogie Pickers
Re: The importance of checksum and fingerprints for .FLAC files?
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2008, 09:10:39 AM »
i make md5's for EVERY flac folder i ever burnt to disc/dvdr. I just started adding the song titles to the end of each track naming scheme. I like this method betterb than using a tagger.

heres an example and works great for listening from the PC:

aod2007-07-14.483.722_intro
aod2007-07-14.483.722_new_real_rhythm
aod2007-07-14.483.722_bootleggers_advice

it takes a bit longer but is worth the wait.

That's what I'd like to do.
Why not go with:  BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01_Song_Name
instead of:           BandName_YYYY-MM-DD_01

This way you can select songs from a folder and know which is which.

gd1973-02-09d1t01bertha.flac

This way is a possible option on etree.  Your files will stay in order and the title is there for you.

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.061 seconds with 31 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF