Track Numbers for LPs

[dzangger67]

How do you all deal with LP track numbers like A1, A2, B1, B2, B3? If the LP has 10 tracks, do you just label them 1 to 10?

[Zeugma440]

That's a good one... Standard metadata systems don't have that kind of field afaik. Track and disc numbers are supposed to be numerical.

I suggest you create your own field, using Track.AdditionalFields.

e.g.

track.AdditionalFields["LP_TRACK"] = "A2";

If you have any other lead on that one, please let me know~

[Zeugma440]

Thanks for the files!

FLAC file

Diagnosis

The FLAC file uses the TRACKNUMBER field of VorbisTag. According to the specs, that field doesn't require any specific format.
=> The value "B6" is compliant with VorbisTag ✅

Potential solution

I'm kinda uneasy with the fact that ATL doesn't allow to write something that is spec-compliant. Using AdditionalFields["TRACKNUMBER"] = "B6" does allow to write a non-numerical value, but that value won't be read properly by Track.TrackNumber ("B6" will be read as the integer value 6).

I can think of two solutions right now :

• Create a new property on Track (e.g. Track.TrackNumberStr) to manipulate the track number as a string, as an alternate to Track.TrackNumber. Both properties will use the same technical field, just like Track.Date and Track.Year also use the same field.
• Same idea, but on disc number. Creating an alternate to Track.DiscNumber will allow keeping numerical values to tracks, and put "A" or "B" into the Disc field. Here again, the alternate property will use the same technical field as Track.DiscNumber.

Any opinion on those?

MP3 file

Diagnosis

The MP3 file uses the TRCK field from ID3v2.3. According to the specs, that field has to be a numeric string.
=> The value "B6" isn't compliant with ID3v2.3 ⚠️

Potential solution

The solutions described above for VorbisTag will work on ID3v2 but won't be spec-compliant. You'll be using them at your own risk.

[dzangger67]

It's a shame there are different specs for the same field. I do like your idea of a new str property for tracknumber. I think that gives the users the flexibility to use both formats since we know there are the two specs. If the track value is 01, would the str value return 01? If that's the case, I would use primarily the new property.

I didn't think about disc; treating it like a side of the record. I've been using the values that are found on Discogs for tracks. And they work well at keeping the tracks in order.

I like both solutions; they're both easy to maintain as the user. Here is what they might look like. Is there one you like more than the other? The first example is what DIscogs shows for the records. Second example is using disc for the side.

[kitsumed]

Personal opinion from an outsider here but option 2 seems like it's more intuitive and with less hassle if you want to process the files later. Separating both fields would mean you won't have to make additional code to handle separating, for example, A and 1-onward from A1. You would directly know the field Track is the file position, so a number, and Disc the group/album equivalent.

If you absolutely need compatibility with ID3v2.3, you could replace A with it's position in the alphabet, this way you would know that a Disc of 1 is actually A. There's probably other numeric only encoding that you could use, as the alphabet position probably isn't the fastest and does not allow use of lowercase and uppercase at the same time.

[Zeugma440]

If the track value is 01, would the str value return 01?

Absolutely 😄

Is there one you like more than the other?

Technically speaking, either is fine to me.

Semantically, using the "Disc" doesn't feel super right, especially knowing that there are multi-disc LP releases out there 😅

Another option would be using a 3rd field to store not the track number nor the disc number, but the side (as seen on that page). AFAIK, there's no standard field for that.

[dzangger67]

I think I'm leaning towards the TrackNumberStr property. I'll be able to use that regardless if it's A1 or 01. The track numbers will sort properly without the disc field. If I use the Disc field, then I have to sort on that field as well. Not a big deal, just something I have to consider.

I appreciate both of your opinions. Love the discussions!

[Zeugma440]

The new Track.TrackNumberStr field is available on today's v6.16. Enjoy~

[dzangger67]

Thank you very much. I look forward to implementing this change with my stuff. THANK YOU!

[dzangger67]

This works great. Time to go and relabel my LP tracks :(