What tools does everyone use to organize and catalog their music collections, if at all? I continue to searching through google, but I'd like to hear some personal opinions. Is there a recommended way to organize them? Do you have any special tools for editing the tags? Is there any special method for store the files that you find to e more efficient?
Organizing MP3's (and any other music format)
- Thread starter Handruin
- Start date
time
Storage? I am Storage!
CDex does it all for us. Looks up CD-DB, names the tracks and fills in the tags automatically, then files them under album name - in turn filed under artist.
What more do you want?
What more do you want?
I'm glad to hear that's a preferred method. I do use CDex, and I let it encode my CD's with LAME. The MP3's are stored by Artist\Album\Track based on the CDDB information. Reason for this discussion is that I'm converting all my own CD's into mp3's to eventually use as a media server. Is there a preferred tool to help catalog the files for searching?
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Store in jukebox, as was intended. Use database to keep track of which disc is where.
Adcadet
Storage Freak
My wife and I store our MP3's in folders by artist. It kindof sucks.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
What do you want to do? Looking to actually change the the organization of the files, or just keep track of them in a database?
And please tell me that you're actually going to use vorbis, not MP3.
And please tell me that you're actually going to use vorbis, not MP3.
I'm trying to optimally organize the files and track in some type of search-able database so they can be found easily for playback and play-list creation. If it doesn't make sense to capture this information in some type iof database, then so be it, but I'm interested in learning what others do. The end result will be for these to be played throughout the house via streaming or play-lists. I'm still planning that system for playback. They will also be copied to a portable media player such as an iPod shuffle.
No, I'm not using vorbis, I don't see the reason why I should. The iPod shuffle doesn't play that format, and very few others do. Ogg is also a lossy compression, but understandably with no royalties for the compression. For my use, an mp3 encoded at 320kb sounds more than adequate, even at the expense of some drive space.
No, I'm not using vorbis, I don't see the reason why I should. The iPod shuffle doesn't play that format, and very few others do. Ogg is also a lossy compression, but understandably with no royalties for the compression. For my use, an mp3 encoded at 320kb sounds more than adequate, even at the expense of some drive space.
ddrueding
Fixture
I find that Winamp5's "media library" is more than adequate for searching by artist or song name, and allows you to sort quickly by any field. Dragging from this directly to the playlist is really easy. If you'd like some easier ways to create playlists, I can recommend Moodlogic. It's ability to create "feels like" playlists makes mixing really easy.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Handruin said:
How about it's better? Higher compression and better sound.
And so? Maybe they should. It's not as if it'll cost them money....
Ogg is a container; vorbis is the codec. If you don't want lossy compression, MP3 isn't for you either....
Why bother bother with the loss? Just use FLAC or some other lossless format.
From what I've read, vorbis had a better compression and sound at lower bit rates (64Kbps, maybe even 128Kbps). I don't plan to encode mine that low, so the benefit is lost when compared to the convenience of mp3's support.
I agree, the iPod should support vorbis, but I have no control over that. The only player I considered which supports vorbis is the iRiver ultra portable players. They are more expensive than I like, so I stopped considering them. If more players did support vorbis, I would have considered encoding all my files with their codec.
What other codec's use the ogg extension, I was only aware of vorbis. That was my mistake to assume an association between both. I don't mind the lossy compression since I'm encoding from my original cd media. If I need the best quality playback, I'll use the original. My digital library isn't a backup copy, but if it had been I would have gone with FLAC. My point with vorbis being a lossy codec was that I didn't see the benefit over mp3. The only benefit is arguably sound quality.
The reason I didn't use FLAC was for convenience. There aren't many (if any) portable music players that support the format, and as I explained above, I didn't need it for archival purposes. The only device that makes me think twice about using FLAC is the slim devices squeeze box. but I'm not certain I'll be buying one of those any time soon.
I'll try a listening comparison between both, but I don't suspect I'll be able to hear the difference.
I agree, the iPod should support vorbis, but I have no control over that. The only player I considered which supports vorbis is the iRiver ultra portable players. They are more expensive than I like, so I stopped considering them. If more players did support vorbis, I would have considered encoding all my files with their codec.
What other codec's use the ogg extension, I was only aware of vorbis. That was my mistake to assume an association between both. I don't mind the lossy compression since I'm encoding from my original cd media. If I need the best quality playback, I'll use the original. My digital library isn't a backup copy, but if it had been I would have gone with FLAC. My point with vorbis being a lossy codec was that I didn't see the benefit over mp3. The only benefit is arguably sound quality.
The reason I didn't use FLAC was for convenience. There aren't many (if any) portable music players that support the format, and as I explained above, I didn't need it for archival purposes. The only device that makes me think twice about using FLAC is the slim devices squeeze box. but I'm not certain I'll be buying one of those any time soon.
I'll try a listening comparison between both, but I don't suspect I'll be able to hear the difference.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
Vorbis, FLAC, Theora, and Speex all use the ogg container (although you're far more likely to use raw FLACs than ogg FLACs).
HydrogenAudio probably does a more pursuasive job of convincing use of superior codecs.
HydrogenAudio probably does a more pursuasive job of convincing use of superior codecs.
ddrueding
Fixture
IMHO, the convenince of using MP3s could only be outweighed by really significant benefits of anything else.
For me, they are:
1. Significant pre-existing collection (I don't feel like re-ripping all those CDs)
2. Player compatability (my new iPod mini handles MP3s perfectly)
3. Available tools (I use Moodlogic and Winamp primarily, not sure about the formers compatability with other formats)
For me, they are:
1. Significant pre-existing collection (I don't feel like re-ripping all those CDs)
2. Player compatability (my new iPod mini handles MP3s perfectly)
3. Available tools (I use Moodlogic and Winamp primarily, not sure about the formers compatability with other formats)
Thanks for the info sechs, hydrogenAudio looks like an interesting site. I'll spend some time reading through it. One piece of information I've already gather from their site is "Listening tests are the best way to compare codecs and settings".
My reasoning is much the same as ddrueding's. The convenience of using mp3 needs to be outweighed by some other significant benefit. I'm not at all saying mp3 is the superior format. For my application and audio components, it's seemingly the best choice. I don't have audio equipment capable of enjoying their benefits, and if I did, I suspect lossy compression wouldn't make sense to use.
My reasoning is much the same as ddrueding's. The convenience of using mp3 needs to be outweighed by some other significant benefit. I'm not at all saying mp3 is the superior format. For my application and audio components, it's seemingly the best choice. I don't have audio equipment capable of enjoying their benefits, and if I did, I suspect lossy compression wouldn't make sense to use.
sechs
Storage? I am Storage!
The lazy bum factor again!
This is why I haven't redone my entire collection in vorbis and FLAC yet....
This is why I haven't redone my entire collection in vorbis and FLAC yet....
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
I just use the media organizer within winamp.
Physically the music is stored as artist/album/track but I rarely see this.
500+ albums/ 400+ artists
Physically the music is stored as artist/album/track but I rarely see this.
500+ albums/ 400+ artists
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Handruin said:
Can you really tell the difference between 320kb and 128kb or are you just hedging?
sechs, I'm not being a lazy bum (in this situation). I just spent the past few days ripping 50+ cd's and I have plenty more to go. If vorbis becomes more popular some day, I may revisit my collection and update it with FLAC or vorbis.
Howell:
I'm not hedging. In many mp3's I can hear the difference, but not all. I'm not going to blow this one out of proportion, but I can tell. I figured that if I could hear the difference on a basic set of desktop speakers, that the difference would be appreciated more when using headphones. So I made the decision to go with 320kb, which is probably overkill.
However, I cannot hear the difference between 320kb and the actual CD. Some people may be able to, but I can't hear it on my equipment. I'd guess the same may be true even at 256kb.
Howell:
I'm not hedging. In many mp3's I can hear the difference, but not all. I'm not going to blow this one out of proportion, but I can tell. I figured that if I could hear the difference on a basic set of desktop speakers, that the difference would be appreciated more when using headphones. So I made the decision to go with 320kb, which is probably overkill.
However, I cannot hear the difference between 320kb and the actual CD. Some people may be able to, but I can't hear it on my equipment. I'd guess the same may be true even at 256kb.