Topic: Need opinions PLZ! For etree.

[newplanet7]

Ok. I need your HELP on this.
I am on the Shack Project for MMW on etree. We are right now beginning a process of
tagging and flac-ing old file sets. So, basically doing
1) shn~> Flac and tagging
2) File sets already existing in flac, simply tagging.

Here's how I intend on doing it.
1) SHN~> FLAC with .ffp in Traders Little helper Throwing the .ffp in the etree database on the same page as the old shn entry so we don't have to create a new page.
2) For existing file sets, just tagging and seeding.
CORRECT? KEEP IT SIMPLE RIGHT?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what another member is doing and suggests that we do.
THIS IS ALL IN ONE FOLDER OF CLUTTER BTW!!   
1)SHN~>FLAC
-Put the old md5's in the folder with the new flac fileset, (Which fails without the OG FILE SET)
-A flac md5 of the new Tagged flac file set(Which fails if you decide you want the tags according TO YOUR PREFERENCES)
-A Flac .ffp (Exactly what is needed)
-A Flac ST5 (For what?)
-A New txt file stating this is a new Flac fileset of the old shn ID xxxxxx  (Great. This with the new .ffp is all you need IMO)
-A HTML File with all the tag names
2)For existing file sets, just tagging
-The original .ffp (great)
-A Flac md5 for the new tags (Once again will fail if a tag is changed)
-A Flac st5 which is the same as the original .ffp (Redundant YES)
-Another Flac md5 for what I have no clue

Take a look at the Num Of Files/File List
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=550679&filelist=1#filelist

[newplanet7]

So here's my point:
1) A lot of people have different ways of tagging, right?
2) A lot of peoples format for tagging is dependent to their playback format right?
3) So if someone changes your tagging scheme to fit what they use, the new md5 fails.

How do we fix this? My Take is the new md5's should be for personal use. For your personal tagging scheme, not to be circulated. Or just md5 the wavs.

[F.O.Bean]

MD5's for SHN and ffp for flac, nuf siad I used to make an md5 for all of my flac filesets as well, but figured WTF is the point, because FLAC Fron tend/TLH can scan the flacs for errors, so there you have it. I quit making md5's for my flac filesets and ponly include an md5 for my RAW/EDITED 24-Bit stuff, but thats just because theyre in WAV format Hope this helps anyone/someone, because now Im beginning to ramble on

[vanark]

I think what you propose is sufficient and appropriate, Todd.  The md5's are unnecessary, over the top, and as you say, aren't useful once the tags are changed.  The person that proposed that convoluted solution has too much time on his/her hands.  I would walk away from the project before I started doing stuff that had little value.

[newplanet7]

Anyone else???
Supposedly he's doing it like the person doing the Dead shows on etree. With the dead ones
they are even more fucked up because it just points to the old shn id in the database
and makes no mention of new tagged flacs and doesn't even have an .ffp in the database.
Here's an example of the Grateful Dead ones:
Torrent: http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=548823

db.etree entry: http://db.etree.org/shn/23064

WTF are these people doing. If someone can explain any of this to me  I would be ecstatic.

[Brian Skalinder]

I think your KISS (keep it simple, stupid) approach is spot on.  I don't see the value of the suggestions from the other guy.

[JasonSobel]

Todd - I agree with your approach.

However, I would also see value of an ST5 for the original SHN files, before conversion to FLAC.  If you do that, you'll create a checksum that looks at just the audio data of the SHN file.  and then after you convert to FLAC, you'll be able to visually compare the ST5 file from the SHN's to the FFP file for the FLAC's, and you'll be able to see that the audio data hasn't changed during the conversion.

That said, another suggestion would be to check for SBE's on the old SHN file sets.  I would suggest fixing any SBE's at some point during the SHN > FLAC conversion.  (of course, if you do that, the ST5 vs FFP comparison that I suggested above would fail, as the SBE fixes would slightly alter each file affected by the SBE).

[newplanet7]

Thanks Jason and all.
So when using an st5 for the old shns, each track ID will match the .ffp after flac conversion?

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

Thanks Jason and all.
So when using an st5 for the old shns, each track ID will match the .ffp after flac conversion?

Yes, unless (as Jason points out) the SHNs have SBEs and you have TLH set to fix SBEs on FLAC conversion... 

If SHN supported Tags, I could see uses for ST5 there...  But since it doesn't, I see no point to use anything beyond the MD5.  But Jason is correct, that ST5 is useful in verifying the SHN > FLAC conversion is perfect...

Terry

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

I am on the Shack Project for MMW on etree.

Here's how I intend on doing it.
1) SHN~> FLAC with .ffp in Traders Little helper Throwing the .ffp in the etree database on the same page as the old shn entry so we don't have to create a new page.

CORRECT? KEEP IT SIMPLE RIGHT?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I would make a WAV MD5 when doing SHN > FLAC conversion (if you are doing a WAV step)...

IMO...  As far as the "Clutter", its a bunch of MD5s...  They are very small and take minimal time to DL...  Delete the ones you don't need and move on...  This is a very minor issue in the whole grand scheme of things (ie updating the MMW Archive).  You should be most concerned that the SHN > FLAC is being done correctly, not what kind of checksum is being used...  YMMV...

Terry

[newplanet7]

I am on the Shack Project for MMW on etree.

Here's how I intend on doing it.
1) SHN~> FLAC with .ffp in Traders Little helper Throwing the .ffp in the etree database on the same page as the old shn entry so we don't have to create a new page.

CORRECT? KEEP IT SIMPLE RIGHT?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I would make a WAV MD5 when doing SHN > FLAC conversion (if you are doing a WAV step)...

IMO...  As far as the "Clutter", its a bunch of MD5s...  They are very small and take minimal time to DL...  Delete the ones you don't need and move on...  This is a very minor issue in the whole grand scheme of things (ie updating the MMW Archive).  You should be most concerned that the SHN > FLAC is being done correctly, not what kind of checksum is being used...  YMMV...

Terry

I know it's being done correctly because I'm doing it.. The only wav step I do is for sbe's. If none it's just a simple shn>flac.
Clutter sucks terry. So do unnecessary files which confuse people, when they go to verify and fail.
That is my point. Those files will fail and have zero to do with the integrity of the audio when flac'd. N00b   

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

I am on the Shack Project for MMW on etree.

Here's how I intend on doing it.
1) SHN~> FLAC with .ffp in Traders Little helper Throwing the .ffp in the etree database on the same page as the old shn entry so we don't have to create a new page.

CORRECT? KEEP IT SIMPLE RIGHT?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I would make a WAV MD5 when doing SHN > FLAC conversion (if you are doing a WAV step)...

IMO...  As far as the "Clutter", its a bunch of MD5s...  They are very small and take minimal time to DL...  Delete the ones you don't need and move on...  This is a very minor issue in the whole grand scheme of things (ie updating the MMW Archive).  You should be most concerned that the SHN > FLAC is being done correctly, not what kind of checksum is being used...  YMMV...

Terry

I know it's being done correctly because I'm doing it.. The only wav step I do is for sbe's. If none it's just a simple shn>flac.
Clutter sucks terry. So do unnecessary files which confuse people, when they go to verify and fail.
That is my point. Those files will fail and have zero to do with the integrity of the audio when flac'd. N00b   

Point taken...  I don't disagree with you at all but agree with you whole-heartedly...  But overall, if this is the worst problem you have, I think its a non-issue.  Anyone that knows, or cares will figure it out.  Everyone else will convert to MP3 and not know any better...  I do think all the redundancy is pointless, especially since failure is imminent...  For the purposes of DLing, only an FFP is needed; the other Checksums can be posted to DB.ETREE where people can DL as needed... 

Yeah, I know its annoying.  Personally, this is an example of a reason I tend to work by myself on these types of project, rather than working as part of a team (much to the chagrin of CrazyEd and his PhishVault Project)...

Terry

[newplanet7]

I hear ya T! At least I know I'm not losing it!