Philip Meyer;368374 Wrote: > >Wait...so you CAN fix the problem quickly, easily, AND in a matter > >that's compatible with your existing music management software, and > the > >root issue here is that "you just don't wanna"?!?!? > > > Funny, isn't it. Actually, as he has album artist tags for all albums, > he hasn't actually got any incorrectly listed compilation albums, but > perhaps some that should be.
i eventually will have TPE2 tags for all my albums... i pretty much do already, but i have some i haven't gotten to yet, (for 'various' reasons ;) i never paid much attention to TPE2 until SC. but now i see it as a way to get a reasonable exp out of SC and other apps. however, my interest here has never been in just myself, but rather other folks who are going to be in a similar boat to me when i found slim. unexpected (for new users) automatic VA detection based on an inherently flawed question that is NOT optional is just SILLY, there's no other word for it. to defeat it, i had to use TPE2, and treat it as album artist. (i am still deciphering the unintended consequences of doing that). and that has lead to me considering to add Comp=1 tags, but who knows what unintended consequences that may bring? Philip Meyer;368374 Wrote: > He's unwilling to add compilation tags for the small case of albums that > are not identified as compilations because he's got album artist tags, i don't recall EVER saying that i was unwilling to add comp tags. in fact, i think using TPE2 and a Comp=1 tag will be the way i have to go, altho i need to make sure that doing so doesn't segregate any Comp=1 albums out of the normal alphabetical lists entirely and into a "special" VA SC category only. what i MIGHT have said, is that i shouldn't have to add Comp=0 tags to undo what SC does, and i stand by that. Philip Meyer;368374 Wrote: > but would be willing to need to run a tool that would add a custom tag > to all files to attempt to uniquely identify all songs, for a > futuristic change to the scanner. sure, to enable persistent stats i would consider that. i don't see any contradictions in these positions. b4 you two go off again, consider this: a user has lots of albums of mp3s. when ripped or obtained, they had the CORRECT TPE1 info for all tracks. now, how many would SC call comps? answer: a lot. how many would be comps? answer: not all the ones it calls comps. keep in mind, both CDDB/Gacenote AND FreeDB assign CORRECT TPE1 info to TRACKS. the questions as i see it has always been: 1. whats the best METHOD for SC to identify comps? and 2. once identified, how should SC treat comps? the answers: 1. make the current VA logic optional, (and off by default for new users). use explicit comp tags; or if the user doesn't want to add comp tags, add a user defined "string recognition" system to the SC settings so a user can say to SC, "if you see this string, its a comp." folder location might also be a possibility. 2. this could be answered many, many ways... but i think it should be optional to segregate out comps or not, and if you want to restrain a comps track artists from the SC listings or not. i'm not sure what all other effects there are of identifying comps. -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3b - Win XP Pro SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=56078 _______________________________________________ ripping mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
