Topic: Be Kind Please Tag Your Files!

[edtyre]

Two years ago i never tagged anything, all my files were in folders that had the etree naming format
and so did my individual files. Like ny2008-12-06.mk4.edtyre.flac16

But since then, i use an iPhone, ipod touch and a computer server to play most of my files, all
that has changed. I TAG EVERYTHING. It's great when i'm riding in my car and can see all
the group names and the song titles. When i get home and play a file from my computer,
all the correct info and artwork is displayed. It's very nice.

I used to be the worst offender, now i'm pissed when
i get a file i want to keep and it's track01, track02 etc.

So why can't folks take an extra 5 minutes to tag? I'm on a mac and use Scott Brown's excellent
xACT program. It's a breeze. Start tagging today!

Thanks for listening. 

[flipp]

because it takes an extra 5 minutes and I'm NOT on a mac

why not ask everyone to make available everything in every format?

damn kids these days want everything handed to them; why, I remember when I was your age I had to (fill in the rest of the old fart's rant about whatever you're bitchin about) 

[vanark]

Takes about 2 minutes on a Windows machine using Foobar and Live Show Tagger.  The only time I don't do it is when I forget to do it. 

[runonce]

So why can't folks take an extra 5 minutes to tag? I'm on a mac and use Scott Brown's excellent
xACT program. It's a breeze. Start tagging today!

Thanks for listening. 

One reason why is - frequently we are taping bands we arent familiar with - and dont know the titles.

I try to make an effort - but it can turn into a bit of task...

[Marshall7]

I've started doing it in the last 6 months or so.  A bit of a pain in the ass, but I suppose now that I've started I'll keep doing it.  I've been using TagScanner 5.1, but really need to try Foobar, as it sounds quicker.

[danlynch]

I was in the Ed school for many years. 
But, with the gentle prodding of acidjack, and the not so gentle complaints of some nyctaper readers/downloaders, I now tag everything and can't imagine that I didn't always do it this way.
I use Foobar and the Live Show Tagger plugin, which is ridiculously easy to use.

[colinw]

Same story for me. I started tagging all flacs about a year ago and with foobar and live show tagger it takes about 15 seconds. I prefer having the tags available and since it is so easy, no reason not to do it.

[page]

One reason why is - frequently we are taping bands we arent familiar with - and dont know the titles.

I try to make an effort - but it can turn into a bit of task...

yeah, I don't even put a setlist in the info files I prep anymore for this simple reason; I'm not going through the time and energy to track down the titles. If I knew all of the songs, I'd probably do it (and thus would be easy to tag), but I'm not even arsed to learn the song titles of bands I follow.

[edtyre]

One reason why is - frequently we are taping bands we arent familiar with - and dont know the titles.

I try to make an effort - but it can turn into a bit of task...

Yes but you can still tag the band name, date and venue

[page]

One reason why is - frequently we are taping bands we arent familiar with - and dont know the titles.

I try to make an effort - but it can turn into a bit of task...

Yes but you can still tag the band name, date and venue

touche.

[deadheadcorey]

ill tag my files if i have a complete set list. if not not tagging...

[Sloan Simpson]

If I have an incomplete setlist, I just use a placeholder for those tracks, like "[Track 7]" or something.

[stevetoney]

Guilty.  I've never tagged any of my files, though I suppose I would be in the camp that I don't know alot of the setlists before I post them. 

Noob Tagging Question:  Do both the FLACs and the WAVs get tagged?  IOW do you only do it once or twice?

[danlynch]

Guilty.  I've never tagged any of my files, though I suppose I would be in the camp that I don't know alot of the setlists before I post them. 

Noob Tagging Question:  Do both the FLACs and the WAVs get tagged?  IOW do you only do it once or twice?

You can't tag wav files.  Tag after you flac and then do the md5 of the tagged files.

[Gil]

I'll start tagging when everyone manages to cut 16/44.1 shows on sector boundaries.

[stevetoney]

Guilty.  I've never tagged any of my files, though I suppose I would be in the camp that I don't know alot of the setlists before I post them. 

Noob Tagging Question:  Do both the FLACs and the WAVs get tagged?  IOW do you only do it once or twice?

You can't tag wav files.  Tag after you flac and then do the md5 of the tagged files.

Wait.  I'm lost then (forgive me, as I said, noob here).  So why tag if you can only tag the FLACs?  I still listen to WAVs...does everyone else listen to FLACs nowadays?  Or do the tags convey to MP3 and such when those derive from the FLACs?  (Sorry if I'm answering my own questions here...I guess I missed the 'tagging' boat when it was in harbor!!!)

[page]

You can't tag wav files.  Tag after you flac and then do the md5 of the tagged files.

Wait.  I'm lost then (forgive me, as I said, noob here).  So why tag if you can only tag the FLACs?  I still listen to WAVs...does everyone else listen to FLACs nowadays?  Or do the tags convey to MP3 and such when those derive from the FLACs?  (Sorry if I'm answering my own questions here...I guess I missed the 'tagging' boat when it was in harbor!!!)

Depends on how you convert them, using TLH or Xact, then yeah, when you do the transcode from flac to mp3 it will retain the tags. I have a unix script which will do the same as well and retain them.

If you do flac > wav > mp3, then you lose them.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

Just pointing out that if you make a change to any of the FLAC Tags, any accompanying MD5 will now be erroneous...  You should use FFP instead of MD5 since the FFP will still be OK after you edit Tags...

Terry

[stevetoney]

OK, now I'm getting it.  Do I remember reading the Broadcast Wave Files have tagged metadata conveyed with it.

[hi and lo]

Guilty.  I've never tagged any of my files, though I suppose I would be in the camp that I don't know alot of the setlists before I post them. 

Noob Tagging Question:  Do both the FLACs and the WAVs get tagged?  IOW do you only do it once or twice?

You can't tag wav files.  Tag after you flac and then do the md5 of the tagged files.

Sorry to derail, but I would also recommend making an ST5 checksum for only the PCM audio. It ignores any metadata associated with an audio file so that if some schmuck decides to edit your tags, the checksum will still pass so long as they don't alter the actual audio. At some point on this forum we had a debate about md5, st5s, and ffps (most surrounding redundancy), but I think that having all three can be useful. The advantages of all three (as i see it) are:

MD5s - Ensures a fileset is bit-for-bit accurate with the original, including the encoding/metadata/tags.
ST5s - Ensures the PCM audio is bit-for-bit accurate with the original, ignoring encoding/metadata/tags.
FFPs - Allows you to quickly verify that the files match the checksum without having to decode/test the actual files. This is because a copy of the fingerprint is stored int he file header. You can also decode/test the actual data file as you would with an MD5 or ST5. Like ST5s, FFPs also ignore encoding/metadata/tags.

I include all three in my file sets, but of course you don't have to. Personally, I don't like FFPs because most people don't know that they actually need to decode the file to verify that it is bit-for-bit accurate. By only comparing the checksum in the FFP vs. the checksum contained in the file header, there is a risk (albeit very small) that the actual data is not bit-for-bit accurate.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

Guilty.  I've never tagged any of my files, though I suppose I would be in the camp that I don't know alot of the setlists before I post them. 

Noob Tagging Question:  Do both the FLACs and the WAVs get tagged?  IOW do you only do it once or twice?

You can't tag wav files.  Tag after you flac and then do the md5 of the tagged files.

Sorry to derail, but I would also recommend making an ST5 checksum for only the PCM audio. It ignores any metadata associated with an audio file so that if some schmuck decides to edit your tags, the checksum will still pass so long as they don't alter the actual audio. At some point on this forum we had a debate about md5, st5s, and ffps (most surrounding redundancy), but I think that having all three can be useful. The advantages of all three (as i see it) are:

MD5s - Ensures a fileset is bit-for-bit accurate with the original, including the encoding/metadata/tags.
ST5s - Ensures the PCM audio is bit-for-bit accurate with the original, ignoring encoding/metadata/tags.
FFPs - Allows you to quickly verify that the files match the checksum without having to decode/test the actual files. This is because a copy of the fingerprint is stored int he file header. You can also decode/test the actual data file as you would with an MD5 or ST5. Like ST5s, FFPs also ignore encoding/metadata/tags.

I include all three in my file sets, but of course you don't have to. Personally, I don't like FFPs because most people don't know that they actually need to decode the file to verify that it is bit-for-bit accurate. By only comparing the checksum in the FFP vs. the checksum contained in the file header, there is a risk (albeit very small) that the actual data is not bit-for-bit accurate.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the FFP Verify tool included with TLH did actually verify the bit-perfectness of FLACs, i.e. that it actually did test the files rather than just comparing the FFP metadata...

And maybe I'm wrong again, but isn't the actual "hash" created with an ST5 the same as it is with the FFP???  Its been a long time since I messed with ST5.  I did use it a couple of times with my Seeds, but I was later convinced for some reason that it was unnecessary... 

I'm too lazy right now to use the Search function...   

Regardless, I create WAV MD5 for all my stuff for the same reason you use ST5s...  Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs...  Maybe I should revisit the ST5 thing... 

Terry

[stevetoney]

Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs... 

Is this true? 

I'm really surprised if the answer is yes, because to me that would mean almost everyone listens to their music from their computer, since players don't come supplied with FLAC decoding, do they?  Other than when mastering, I don't ever listen to music from my computer.  Close to 100% of my listening is through my ipod in the car (2 1/2 hours a day commuting), working in the yard, or during the 1/2 hour down time I force on myself before going to sleep every night.

[JasonSobel]

Terry, you are absolutely correct, on both counts.

the hash from an ST5 is identical to the hash from an FFP.  both make the same checksum from just the audio data, ignoring tags (and ignoring FLAC version and ignoring compression level.  i.e. you could take a FLAC v1.1.1 (level 5) and re-encode to FLAC v1.3.0 (Level and the FFP would not change, because the audio data hasn't changed).

and the FFP verify tool in TLH does indeed check that the PCM audio is bit-for-bit accurate with the original, ignoring encoding/metadata/tags.  that's why it doesn't happen instantaneously.  when you make an FFP in TLH (or any other program), it happens in a blink of an eye, because it's just grabbing the already calculated FFP that is stored in the file header.  but when you verify the FFP, it actually re-generates the FFP and compares it to the FFP that is stored in the file header.

because of all that, ST5's are generally redundant and not needed.  the only time I would recommend using an ST5 is when you are converting an old SHN file set to FLAC.  Run the ST5 on the original SHN files.  then create your FFP after you convert to FLAC.  you can now compare the SHN ST5 to the FLAC FFP and confirm that no audio data was changed.

[JasonSobel]

Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs... 

Is this true? 

I'm really surprised if the answer is yes, because to me that would mean almost everyone listens to their music from their computer, since players don't come supplied with FLAC decoding, do they?  Other than when mastering, I don't ever listen to music from my computer.  Close to 100% of my listening is through my ipod in the car (2 1/2 hours a day commuting), working in the yard, or during the 1/2 hour down time I force on myself before going to sleep every night.

yes, I think the vast majority never convert FLAC back to WAV.  I listen to FLAC files on my computer at work.  and at home, I have a living room PC hooked up to my TV, and all music (and TV/movies) already goes through the computer.  no need to convert to WAV.  and in terms of portable players, there are a ton android apps that support FLAC, and that's what I use for music on the go (I mean, I use my phone for music on the go.  due to space considerations on my phone without an external SD card, I use the OPUS format for portable playback).

[page]

In short, I'm with Jason; I don't have any need to go back to WAVs unless I'm burning promo discs for groups anymore.

[Chuck]

Same story as most of the people here. I came around very slowly to doing tagging. Now, I tag everything. As many have mentioned, it doesn't take long to do.

[dnsacks]

Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs... 

Is this true? 

I'm really surprised if the answer is yes, because to me that would mean almost everyone listens to their music from their computer, since players don't come supplied with FLAC decoding, do they?  Other than when mastering, I don't ever listen to music from my computer.  Close to 100% of my listening is through my ipod in the car (2 1/2 hours a day commuting), working in the yard, or during the 1/2 hour down time I force on myself before going to sleep every night.

yes, I think the vast majority never convert FLAC back to WAV.  I listen to FLAC files on my computer at work.  and at home, I have a living room PC hooked up to my TV, and all music (and TV/movies) already goes through the computer.  no need to convert to WAV.  and in terms of portable players, there are a ton android apps that support FLAC, and that's what I use for music on the go (I mean, I use my phone for music on the go.  due to space considerations on my phone without an external SD card, I use the OPUS format for portable playback).

Agreed -- Once I have tagged flacs (even if the tagging is limited to artist and "album" fields (I populate the album field with show date and venue info), I can convert to whatever format I want/need for playback (I use foobar2000 for this and have saved presets for my favorite conversion schemes, including resampling my 24/96 source material to 24/48 if needed for portable playback).  Important for ipod/etc. users to keep in mind that it's quick and easy to convert flac to apple lossless (or mp3) for portable playback.  A number of listening devices play flac files these days, including oppo sacd/blu-ray/dvd/cd players.  Most cd burning programs even burn audio cds directly from 16/44.1 flacs.

[Gordon]

Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs... 

Is this true? 

I'm really surprised if the answer is yes, because to me that would mean almost everyone listens to their music from their computer, since players don't come supplied with FLAC decoding, do they?  Other than when mastering, I don't ever listen to music from my computer.  Close to 100% of my listening is through my ipod in the car (2 1/2 hours a day commuting), working in the yard, or during the 1/2 hour down time I force on myself before going to sleep every night.

I got a couple 20gb iriver's in the yard sale.  they work great as a portable flac player

[stevetoney]

Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs... 

Is this true? 

I'm really surprised if the answer is yes, because to me that would mean almost everyone listens to their music from their computer, since players don't come supplied with FLAC decoding, do they?  Other than when mastering, I don't ever listen to music from my computer.  Close to 100% of my listening is through my ipod in the car (2 1/2 hours a day commuting), working in the yard, or during the 1/2 hour down time I force on myself before going to sleep every night.

I got a couple 20gb iriver's in the yard sale.  they work great as a portable flac player

I mean, it's great to have that capability, but having read some of the responses so far, I'm still preferring the awesomeness of the 24/7 accessibility I have to nearly my entire life's music library on a 160gb ipod classic.  But then again, I don't have thousands of dollars in playback gear either, so while I want to make high quality sound recordings, tip top playback fidelity isn't my top priority.     Judging from the responses so far, I guess I'm in a pretty significant minority on this point.

[Toke]

I tag my 24/48 flacs, and that is what I upload to archive.  If I'm posting on etree I do tagged 24/48 and non tagged 16/44 as I suppose those are just being burned to CD.  I use PowerAmp on my android phone and have an aux input on my Jeep stereo so I do a lot of listening there.  I really need to get a 64GB microSD for it.  My 32GB just isn't nearly big enough...   

[Gordon]

Though I suppose no one converts to WAV anymore and they just listen to the FLACs... 

Is this true? 

I'm really surprised if the answer is yes, because to me that would mean almost everyone listens to their music from their computer, since players don't come supplied with FLAC decoding, do they?  Other than when mastering, I don't ever listen to music from my computer.  Close to 100% of my listening is through my ipod in the car (2 1/2 hours a day commuting), working in the yard, or during the 1/2 hour down time I force on myself before going to sleep every night.

I got a couple 20gb iriver's in the yard sale.  they work great as a portable flac player

I mean, it's great to have that capability, but having read some of the responses so far, I'm still preferring the awesomeness of the 24/7 accessibility I have to nearly my entire life's music library on a 160gb ipod classic.  But then again, I don't have thousands of dollars in playback gear either, so while I want to make high quality sound recordings, tip top playback fidelity isn't my top priority.     Judging from the responses so far, I guess I'm in a pretty significant minority on this point.

you have all your music on a 160gb?  that enough for my mp3 album collection but hardly enough for live shows.  you're not saying you spent all that money on schoeps and listen as mp3 are you???

[Gordon]

non tagged 16/44 as I suppose those are just being burned to CD.

hardly anyone burns to disc anymore.  I'd say most folks convert our recordings to mp3 and some keep as flac.  I know there are some that still burn to cd but the number is shrinking rapidly.

[Toke]

non tagged 16/44 as I suppose those are just being burned to CD.

hardly anyone burns to disc anymore.  I'd say most folks convert our recordings to mp3 and some keep as flac.  I know there are some that still burn to cd but the number is shrinking rapidly.

True, but why would they choose 16/44 over 24/48 then?  I guess smaller files, but I always want the best quality available.  Maybe I should tag the 16/44 file sets too.  I try to give people what they like.

[vanark]

Yes, please tag the 16/44 files.  When given the choice, I generally download the 16/44 files because on my playback system, I cannot hear a difference.

[page]

When given the choice, I generally download the 16/44 files because on my playback system, I cannot hear a difference.

This. I use 24bit audio in mixing and mastering for noise floor benefits, but I don't need the dynamic range for playback. Second, I can't reliably hear above 15khz, so the difference between 44.1 and >48 is negligible to me. No reason for me to waste that space or download time.

[stevetoney]

you have all your music on a 160gb?  that enough for my mp3 album collection but hardly enough for live shows.  you're not saying you spent all that money on schoeps and listen as mp3 are you???

Sigh...here we go again...I've had to answer this same question a million times.

HQ recording equipment is not the same as audiophile playback gear, which I don't have.  If you want to discuss playback, then lets move the discussion to audiophile dot com...or whatever... 

With 2 1/2 to 3 hours daily commute to work, I spend 95% of my listening time in a car.  I use my ipod to carry my music with me wherever I go.  I can't listen to music on the computer at work because it's not compliant with my offices computer use standards...I will be fired if I put music on my computer or connect my own hard drive.  Scheops sounds fantastic, even on an HQ MP3. 

The end.

[Gil]

non tagged 16/44 as I suppose those are just being burned to CD.

hardly anyone burns to disc anymore.  I'd say most folks convert our recordings to mp3 and some keep as flac.  I know there are some that still burn to cd but the number is shrinking rapidly.

When did this myth start?