PDA

View Full Version : How do you organize your music on your comp?


Reflection
2004-12-02, 12:19 AM
I'm just looking to get some feedback and ideas on how others organize their bootlegs and other tunes on their computer.

I had a pretty good system going, but now that I have started downloading a lot more bootlegs(resulting in multiple file formats: flac,shn,wma) and started playing around with foobar2000 I think I need to get a new system in place :).

Just looking for suggestions and ideas, particularly if you use foobar2000.

Thanks

spiritinaphoto
2004-12-02, 12:27 AM
I just leave them in the folder they were downloaded in if they're lossless shows (I put the folders directly under the My Music directory), and I put my lossy stuff in a folder called "Oggs" (another subdirectory of My Music) and have an individual folder for each lossy album as a subdirectory of the Ogg folder.

My lossless stuff doesn't stay on the hard drive too long though--I've got a mere 20 gigs of hard drive, so it's burn as soon as I get it, almost.

motionblur
2004-12-02, 12:51 AM
I do the same; I burn them almost immediately onto DVD-R once I have enough shows in a particular category. Those 4 categories are:

1. Led Zep
2. Van Halen
3. Guitar Based
4. Other

The Wicker Man
2004-12-02, 12:53 AM
Mine are:
1. Heroin Induced Englishmen
2. Herion induced Americans
3. Geddy Lee

dorrcoq
2004-12-02, 01:37 AM
hey Reflection - where in BC are you?

Greengoat
2004-12-02, 03:09 AM
hey Reflection - where in BC are you?

Looking for a hook-up on something tasty and green? ;)

Mine - In general I like to use this file and folder format for each artist - "artist name" -> sub folder for each date -> with subfolders for each disc

I use this folder for all incoming downloads
My Music (moved to seperate drive) -> Incoming (sub folder "complete")

Another drive, use this folder for a share folder
Archived Aces. shows that are worth sharing or good to have on hand for trades, but may not be something I listen to alot.


Another 2 drives are set up for incoming vines, both identical

"Archived" - I use this folder for the shows that have been archived but I haven't had a chance to burn an audio copy or listen to them.

"Not Burned" (should change it to Not Archived) then sub folders for each of the vine sites I get vines from; AVZ, Phorum, TDD, TVF, DLT(Dylan Tree) and another for incoming trades, labeled "trades". This helps keep me from seeding a show on a site that I got the show from.


Another drive I have set up as my jukebox.

One folder "JukeBox"


And finally another drive set up as a work table. This is where all the audio CD-R's are ripped to and stored. Also were I will paste a show from an archived disc when I have to burn a copy for a trade. Basically a rotating array of music.

It may seem a bit mangled but it works. So there. ;)

thisistoto
2004-12-02, 05:03 AM
I have a 200 gig hard drive that hold all my lossless before I burn it to DVD, it usually gets backed up to about 120 gigs before I end up actually burning it.


It also has a folder for my iPod music.

dacrawdaddy
2004-12-02, 09:26 AM
Here's a printup of my C:\MUSIC\Crosby, Stills, Nash + Young\ folder on my hard drive. (Look below.) (I used a free, small program called 'PrintFolders 1.5' to create a TXT document containing the folders' names & contents down to 3 levels.)

You can see that the folder names below can keep a lot of useful info handy, just by visiting each band's folder. Inside of the dated folders is where I download new shows. This is illustrated by the show's actual folder name at the end of each line below. On the dated folders, I use some extra labels, such as 'VID' or 'Interview' or 'Comp' to help me keep track of what's in those folders. And finally, when I burn a show to disc, I label the folder 'Archived'. Then I may convert the show from FLAC or SHN to MP3, WAV or APE or something for personal listening use ... and leave the smaller files on my hard drive.


C:\MUSIC\CROSBY, STILLS, NASH + YOUNG\
=================================

\[1969-08-18] (CSNY) {WOODSTOCK, BETHEL, NY} (VID)\csny1969-08-18.vcd.mpgf\
\[1969-08-26] (CSNY) {GREEK THEATER, LOS ANGELES, CA}\csny1969-08-26.flac16\
\[1969-09-13] (CSNY) {BIG SUR FOLK FEST, MONTEREY, CA}\csny1969-09-13.flac16\
\[1969-12-14] (CSNY) {MASONIC TEMPLE, DETROIT, MI} (COMP) (ARCHIVED)\csny1969-12-14.flac16\
\[1970-06-03] (CSNY) {LAKEHURST, NJ} (ARCHIVED)\csny1970-06-03.shnf\
\[1970-06-04] (CSNY) {FILLMORE EAST, NYC} (ARCHIVED)\csny1970-06-04.shnf\
\[1970-06-05] (CSNY) {FILLMORE EAST, NYC} (ARCHIVED)\csny1970-06-05.shnf\
\[1970-06-06] (CSNY) {FILLMORE EAST, NYC} (ARCHIVED)\csny1970-06-06.shnf\
\[1970-11-09] (CN) {BBC, UK ARENA} (VID)\crosbynash1970-11-09.mpgf\
\[1971-10-04] (CN + SY) {CARNEGIE HALL, NEW YORK, NY} (ARCHIVED)\Crosby+Nash_1971-10-04.flac16\
\[1973-07-10] (CSNY) {WINTERLAND ARENA, SAN FRANCISCO, CA} (ARCHIVED)\csny1973-07-10.shnf\
\[1976-07-07] (SY) {CIVIC CENTER, PROVIDENCE, RI} (ARCHIVED)\stills-ny1976-07-07.ape399f\
\[1982-11-28] (CSN) {UNIVERSAL AMPHITHEATER, LOS ANGELES, CA} (ARCHIVED)\csn1982-11-28.shnf\
\[2002-07-24] (N) {XM STUDIOS} (INTERVIEW)\grahamnashatxm2002.shnf\

It's a lot of archiving, but I want to keep track of what I have. For the basic info, it saves some time since I don't have to open the TXT files to look at each show.

Five
2004-12-02, 09:39 AM
I try to get the music off my drive as fast as possible, it's a battle! I'll rip a legit cd or two to listen to so I don't have to watch my cpu spike from the disc drive running. And I'll keep a couple ogg and mp3 files around, less than 25, mainly local music mailed to me or downloaded from band websites.

RainDawg
2004-12-02, 10:07 AM
I'm just looking to get some feedback and ideas on how others organize their bootlegs and other tunes on their computer.

I had a pretty good system going, but now that I have started downloading a lot more bootlegs(resulting in multiple file formats: flac,shn,wma) and started playing around with foobar2000 I think I need to get a new system in place :).

Just looking for suggestions and ideas, particularly if you use foobar2000.

First, once I am done seeding a show, I meta-tag the files with foobar2000 and put them into a "to listen" folder. This is a revolving collection of unchecked shows that range from 5GB to 40 or 50GB, depending on how much downloading I've done. Most of the times, the FLACs from here get put right onto my Rio Karma for listening in the car or at work.

Once it's listened to, if it's a really nice one that I'll want to listen to regularly, I use foobar2000 to compress it to OGG and keep it on a media only hard drive. I then backup the original files to DVD for trading and clear them from the hard drive.

Since the files have all been properly tagged, it doesn't even matter how they are arranged on the hard drive. I just use the foobar2000 (are you starting to see that I use this software a LOT ;)) album list to browse.

Now, for the fun part....every file gets an %artist% tag, which is the main artist for the album. But it also gets something I've called %albumartist% where I put in every artist I want the album to show up under in the Album List. So now, when I go to John Coltrane, I get both the albums released under his name, but also the ones where he's a backup man for Monk or Miles. Similarly, dual-artist albums (common in jazz) will show up under both.

I use a custom sorting script for the foobar2000 album list window that arranges things, primarily by albumartist. I also have a few other lists for organizing by genre, date, and a few other things. I also include a tag for designating "bootleg" or "official" so I can easily turn off viewing one or the other with different viewing scripts.

As long as your files are tagged nicely, you can write scripts for sorting anyway you want....and easily switch between one view and another. PM me if you want some help getting this setup...it's simply the best way to organize huge collections (I've got about 600-700 albums on my hard drive right now).

Reflection
2004-12-02, 01:04 PM
Thanks guys(and gals?), I think I've got some ideas now :)

Things should be easier once I pick up a new 200gig drive.

feralicious
2004-12-02, 01:23 PM
First, once I am done seeding a show, I meta-tag the files with foobar2000 and put them into a "to listen" folder.
Oh... wait... you listen to the shows? That's a step I need to make time for. :wtf:

Are the metadata scripts easy to set up? Mind posting a sample? I've not tried to do all that, and doubt that I will since I don't have the time to simply archive and listen to what I've already got, and it just keeps coming in...

Where do you find the time...???? :confused:

Can I hire you? ;)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflection:

I organize by making folders for each artist, then putting shows in those and renaming them so they are uniform and arranged by date. Like the etree naming method.

Then for archiving, for favorite artists I'll keep the DVD archives as a full DVD for each of them. For less favorites I'll mix it up but still keep the A's together, B's together etc... And when I archive I copy the txt files to the root of the DVD and add at the end of the names the format and size (pjharvey1998-06-02--flac--635mb.txt) so I have a list of the folders and txt files visible when I pop the DVD in. Then after I've burned, verified and deleted the mdeia, I copy that DVD folder (PJ Harvey-1) with just the txt files into the orignal artist folder and a folder I have on another drive called "Archived". That way when I add shows to my list I have the that info handy and if it's not listed yet and I want to BT/vine it I can see immediately the sizes without going to my list, which is never up to date anyway.

Oh and for video DVDs I now use RecordNow! to burn so that I can put the txt file and artwork outside the VIDEO_TS folder and have it handy. Heard about that trick here in the technobabble section from h_vargas. I also have a "Video" folder in my "Archives" folder and put the txt/artwork in there. Come to think of it I should go ahead and put it in the indiv. artists folders too.

feralicious
2004-12-02, 01:31 PM
Once it's listened to, if it's a really nice one that I'll want to listen to regularly, I use foobar2000 to compress it to OGG and keep it on a media only hard drive.
This confuses me... then what is the point of getting a high quality show in lossless if you are going to listen to it compressed? Why not listen to the lossless files?

tall_leaping
2004-12-02, 01:44 PM
200 GB HD
root>music
>boots (all lossless)
>artist
>MP3
>MP3 Boots
>Video
>Music Vid
>Concert Vid

i archive all lossless to dvd, rip my favorites to mp3, but here lately i have not been able to keep up...only about 10G left... :(
:thumbsup foobar2000

thisistoto
2004-12-02, 02:05 PM
I try to get the music off my drive as fast as possible, it's a battle!



It really is isn't it?

RainDawg
2004-12-02, 03:31 PM
This confuses me... then what is the point of getting a high quality show in lossless if you are going to listen to it compressed? Why not listen to the lossless files?
Well, I've done ABX tests from FLAC to OGG with a quality of 6, and I honestly can't tell the difference....in fact, there really isn't anyone who can. I never, ever pass those lossy files on, but for storing on my PC, I can fit about 5 times more with OGG-6 than I can with FLAC.

The point of getting the lossless file is that I have it in it's original quality. If I ever want to go to a different format, I can always go back to the original. Also, I can trade with people who can also compress to whatever format they like. As long as the original lossless file is passed on, anyone can do anything to it they want and it doesn't add quality loss each time....

RainDawg
2004-12-02, 03:37 PM
Are the metadata scripts easy to set up? Mind posting a sample? I've not tried to do all that, and doubt that I will since I don't have the time to simply archive and listen to what I've already got, and it just keeps coming in...
Yeah, I'll cook up a sample for how I do this tonight. It took me a few hours to get all the scripts written and the metadata templates saved, but it literally takes me about 15 seconds to completely tag a new set...I consider this a critical step as my Rio Karma will then browse through stuff by artist and then album. If I didn't tag the FLACs, it would be just a huge list of files..

Tagging is also necessary as, when I drop stuff onto my media drive, foobar2000 will browse through it by tags...if there's none on there, it's really ugly.

I don't if anyone else has ever had a folder on a Win-32 system with, say, 600 sub-folders in it....when I organized my files like that it would take 10 seconds or more just to load the folder in Explorer. With foobar2000, it browses all those files instantly :). And, like I said, I can put multiple tags onto a single file so that it shows up under different artists.

I'll post a few samples into a new thread tonight or tomorrow.....

greenheatherc
2004-12-02, 03:41 PM
I'm just looking to get some feedback and ideas on how others organize their bootlegs and other tunes on their computer.

I had a pretty good system going, but now that I have started downloading a lot more bootlegs(resulting in multiple file formats: flac,shn,wma) and started playing around with foobar2000 I think I need to get a new system in place :).

Just looking for suggestions and ideas, particularly if you use foobar2000.

Thanks

what's a bootleg? :hmm:

RainDawg
2004-12-02, 03:44 PM
Where do you find the time...???? :confused:
Efficiency....saving the scripts and writing batch files for everything saves an enormous amount of time. Lets see, the whole path a show takes for me is:


Find a show I like, queue it up in Azureus
Share as long as I can....;)
Check the md5s and/or ffps
Rename the files to etree format
Run shntool len check for sector boundaries errors, fix if necessary
Tag the files with foobar2000
Put the folder into "To Listen"
Listen to the music on my home PC or Rio Karma
When checked and verified clean/gapless/etc it gets put into my tradelist (again, a batch script to adds the metadata to a database)
Post the new show to my tradelist website
Compress to OGG-6 if it's a good one
Burn it to a DVD, delete it from the hard drive


I know...I'm a bit obsessive.....

RainDawg
2004-12-02, 05:08 PM
...bumping this over to Technobabble

Five
2004-12-02, 05:11 PM
nice trick with the "list"... haven't seen that before ;)

Here's how I do it:

Find a show I like, queue it up in TorrentStorm
Share as long as I can....;)
Check the md5s and/or ffps
Rename the files to etree format
Check a track to see if it's lossy-sourced and/or has SBE artifacts (small gaps & clicks) at the beginning or ends of the tracks using CEP
Convert to FLAC (if it isn't already)
Check for SBEs and/or correct them using FLAC frontend (gotta get my SHNtool running soon)
Tag the files with foobar2000
Listen to the music with WinAmp when I get the chance.
Burn to CDR, delete from HD. Good shows don't get burned right away.
Rave to local traders about my favorite shows and burn them a copy of the data if they want it. They do the same for me with their shows.

feralicious
2004-12-02, 05:20 PM
Dammit! You two (RainDawg and Five) are making me think about redoing all 80 of the DVDs of flac/shn I've already archived. :eek2: :grr:

RainDawg
2004-12-02, 06:26 PM
http://www.thetradersden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1140

dacrawdaddy
2004-12-02, 07:25 PM
This confuses me... then what is the point of getting a high quality show in lossless if you are going to listen to it compressed? Why not listen to the lossless files?
Supposedly, the audible frequencies of MP3, OGG, and other formats that are 'lossy' still fall well outside of the limitations of human ears. In other words, the lowest frequency ranges of these file formats are well below what we can hear, and the highs are well beyond what we can hear. So, technically, there's not going to be an audible difference between a (medium or high bitrate) MP3 and a SHN or FLAC file. So they are fine for personal use and for smaller storage size.

Problems pop up when these files are distributed, because during the conversion, they *have* experienced a significant drop in quality from the original SHN or FLAC files (whose frequency ranges are much greater than 'lossy' file types). The 'lossy' problem is exponentially multiplied when MP3-sourced CDs are EAC-ripped into "lossless" file types, converted to MP3 or other 'lossy' file types, then burned to CD again, and EAC-ripped again. ---Then there's an exponential loss of quality, than *does* make an audible difference. (Have you heard any of those terrible sounding MP3's that you used to be able to download from Napster or Kazaa? Probably came from MP3 sourced audio CD's ripped, burned and re-ripped again and again.)---

So the 'lossy' file types are OK for personal use ... and they usually only use about 10-40% of the hard drive space as 'lossless' files do. Anyway, I'm glad this community and others support technology and methods that educate about and support 'lossless' archival quality music.

Five
2004-12-02, 07:59 PM
Yeah, it's all about HD space when it comes to lossy. In a few years it'll be completely unnecessary that's why we've got to wage the war on mp3. FLAC-APE-SHN is archive quality and still will be in 20 years but mp3 will be total and complete garbage when people have discs that hold 100GB or something like that.

For the record, ogg is 100x better than mp3 IMO, but I only use something like this if I need to email a snippet to somebody.

wazoo2u
2004-12-02, 09:48 PM
Supposedly, the audible frequencies of MP3, OGG, and other formats that are 'lossy' still fall well outside of the limitations of human ears. In other words, the lowest frequency ranges of these file formats are well below what we can hear, and the highs are well beyond what we can hear. So, technically, there's not going to be an audible difference between a (medium or high bitrate) MP3 and a SHN or FLAC file. So they are fine for personal use and for smaller storage size.

....I'm glad this community and others support technology and methods that educate about and support 'lossless' archival quality music.First, glad your on the bandwagon and understand that lossless is far preferable to lossy.

OK... just a point of clarification. ALL lossy compression schemes use mathematical algorythims to "fool" the brain into thinking that it hears frequencies that aren't really there. It's inaccurate to focus on the "frequencies beyond human hearing" composition of lossy files, since the information that is missing is WELL WITHIN the range of human hearing. The codec is simply fooling your ear into thinking that you hear things that actually ARE NOT THERE. This is why lossy technology basically sucks, and the long term effects of listening to these "pseudo frequencies" has yet to be seen. There is some speculation in the scientific community that prolonged listening to lossy codecs can actually damage human hearing.

I'm told that OGG sounds better than 256 CBR MP3, but that doesn't mean it's not missing frequencies that would be present in a lossless file. While it might be difficult to hear much of a difference (and this depends on the sonic composition of the material) between a high bitrate encode and a lossless file on portable electronics, when you put these into a critical listening environment, there's no comparison to be made.

feralicious
2004-12-03, 12:33 PM
Yeah, I've heard both sides. Some swear they can hear the difference, some say it's not noticeable. I can see going lossy if you're putting it on a portable player, but it seems that if you go through all the quality control and then the copy you actually use for listening isn't the best one then it seems like a bit of mental masturbation. It's there on the shelf to look at but not to touch. Kind of like when I grab more shows than I can even listen to... :drool
But I know I can hear the difference between analog/vinyl and digital/cd and much prefer analog/vinyl but the world went digital and it certainly is easier to deal with and keep intact. My fear is that everyone is out buying mp3s for $0.99 a song, which I think is a crime punishable by... something, and which really isn't cheap considering it's lesser quality and distribution costs are mimimal, and that the world will continue to go that way. RainDawg, I know that's not what you're doing and not the issue that spawned my question, but my mind has wandered here now, and in general, I worry that the masses continue to settle for lesser quality in everything in life and it's really sad. And we're so out of control really, with what the new technology will be that dominates, or anything else for that matter. Okay, I'm depressed. I'm going back to bed. :help: ;)

RainDawg
2004-12-03, 12:42 PM
For the record, I think that $0.99 for a lousy mp3 is a crime. I would never, ever, pay money for that.

I wouldn't believe someone who says they can tell the difference unless they can pass a true ABX test (which you can do with foobar2000 btw ;)). Play the original lossless, play the high bitrate lossy, and see if you can....

Andy L
2004-12-03, 01:23 PM
For the record, I think that $0.99 for a lousy mp3 is a crime. I would never, ever, pay money for that.

Here in the UK, we have the privilege of paying 99p for lossy, DRM-infested MP3s which, at current rates, is almost double the price you guys in the US pay. iTunes songs cost 79p and are encoded in AAC format, but that's still more expensive and still has DRM. I would never pay money for that either, as I refuse to be told what I can and can't do with the music I've paid for.

The majority of people don't care about quality or DRM though, which is why these online stores are taking off (that, and their sheer convenience). Given a 5GB hard disc with a choice of 150 lossless songs or 1500 MP3s, most people would go for the 1500 MP3s every time. Hopefully, as bandwidth and hard disc space increases, more people will go for lossless, but I can't see it happening somehow.

RainDawg
2004-12-03, 01:29 PM
Well, Andy, there are two issues here. One is the lossy/lossless thing, the other is the DRM issue. The simple fact is that most of these things can be found as complete CDs for around $1 a song....

These online music services really aren't for collectors though, and I realize that. But I sure as hell won't be paying that much money for a stupid copy-protected lossy file. It's another example of coporations stealing from the ignorant.

Given a 5GB hard drive, I'd personally prefer an OGG-6 compressed from my own original CD...but that's just my choice. I always make them myself from the original source....

Andy L
2004-12-03, 02:06 PM
Well, Andy, there are two issues here. One is the lossy/lossless thing, the other is the DRM issue. The simple fact is that most of these things can be found as complete CDs for around $1 a song....

These online music services really aren't for collectors though, and I realize that. But I sure as hell won't be paying that much money for a stupid copy-protected lossy file. It's another example of coporations stealing from the ignorant.

Yep, couldn't agree more. I'd rather just buy the CD, as long as it's not copy-protected.

Given a 5GB hard drive, I'd personally prefer an OGG-6 compressed from my own original CD...but that's just my choice. I always make them myself from the original source....

Hmmm... I never play the original CDs, I just rip them once then store them away. I used to convert all my CDs to LAME alt-preset-standard MP3s, but when I discovered lossless, I re-ripped and re-encoded my favourite albums in APE format. I doubt very much I could tell the difference in an ABX test (I've never tried), but... I dunno, it just makes me feel better to know that I'm listening to an exact copy of the music on the original CD. That's just placebo though. It helps when you have 400GB of storage available, but even that's going to be limiting me soon! :(

wazoo2u
2004-12-03, 06:50 PM
It's there on the shelf to look at but not to touch. Kind of like when I grab more shows than I can even listen to... :drool
.... Okay, I'm depressed. I'm going back to bed. :help: ;)
Good to know it's a common obsession, right Nina ?.. ;)

feralicious
2004-12-03, 08:15 PM
Good to know it's a common obsession, right Nina ?.. ;)
:D :cheers: :cyclops:

Five
2004-12-03, 10:42 PM
Hmmm... I never play the original CDs, I just rip them once then store them away. I used to convert all my CDs to LAME alt-preset-standard MP3s, but when I discovered lossless, I re-ripped and re-encoded my favourite albums in APE format. I doubt very much I could tell the difference in an ABX test (I've never tried), but... I dunno, it just makes me feel better to know that I'm listening to an exact copy of the music on the original CD. That's just placebo though. It helps when you have 400GB of storage available, but even that's going to be limiting me soon! :(
:thumbsup :thumbsup
I rip a couple of my favorite commercial cds to APE and keep them on my drive. After a while I delete them and rip a couple different ones. The reason for this is because of the cpu drain my CD drive causes. I can tell the difference in an a/b test most times, especially with headphones. But mostly I just want to pleasure my ears as much as possible. I went to the coffee shop on my way home today and they were playing Rush YYZ thru their piece of shit donut shop speakers and I enjoyed it tremendously. But whenever I can, I'll take the high road (as in high sound quality).

niiru
2004-12-04, 08:26 AM
my system is rather easy.

lossless
|_Sharable (artists who concent to live audio sharing
|_Artist
|_19xx-xx-xx.FLAC
|_Not Sharable (John Lennon, Beatles, Leo Kotke, blahblahblah

I used to keep my shows in 19xx, xx-xx, venue, city, state named folders, but I got lazy. :(

I currently have something like 120 GB of live lossless shows spread across three hds on my other computer. At least, I hope they're still there. I just moved and have yet to boot up my other computer. :-o