Ripping observations and questions 2/3 through

[Aerocraft67]

As part of my conversion and upgrade of computer audio, I'm re-ripping my CD collection. I inherited a formidable classical collection, which definitely complicates the process. It's remarkable how inconsistent the metadata is, even within the same multi-disc sets. Unfortunately my methodology has evolved as I've ripped, as I've uncovered nuances of inconsistency, even after studying advice and case studies on CA, so I've already lost consistency in my process, but the main thing is to get the music "in there," then fine tune it later.

 

The wonderful thing is that all that classical music will now be accessible for playback and endless exploration, rather than stored dormant in a big box of CDs. That alone justifies at least half the work and expense here.

 

I use XLD in burst mode. I've tweaked the settings as best I could, but I still don't understand what most of them do or don't. If the burst rip detects an error in a file, I re-rip those files in secure mode, which more than half the time fixes the error (or maybe because I gave the CD a second wipe with an optical cloth). I've only found two or three disks out of a few hundred so far to be unrippable, and those only partially. Ripping in secure mode by default took excruciatingly too long, and XLD would often hang on problems, requiring a computer reboot, to a point where I nearly gave up and just used iTunes, but things have been going more smoothly more recently.

 

I'm currently storing all the music in manually constructed folders and subfolders, not nearly to the archival standard of the CA whitepaper, but with some discipline. Even then, I wonder, 2/3 of the way through, why I'm storing a redundant copy of my music, since I'm automatically importing these files into iTunes as I go along. It was only about 1/3 of the way through the collection that I edited metadata in XLD rather than after the fact in iTunes. This correlates to the simplicity of the rock/pop portion of the collection I started with; I wised up a little when tackling the classical.

 

I think the wisdom is that iTunes has an eccentric means of storing and organizing the original files, so it's best to have the second, independent, library. So I have that. But they're both in ALAC, so in hindsight, I might have been tempted to just run with the iTunes library version and suffer those consequences, especially now that my non-iTunes library of newly ripped files is not of pristine consistency. Again, the point is to get the files in and done, minimizing pain and maximizing enjoyment, so I think I've hit nearly the right balance.

 

So, one small regret is not forethinking things enough to wind up with either a quick-and-dirty iTunes library, or a more consistently organized manual library. Part of the problem is that classical recordings vary so much by labeling; you might have a star player performing a dozen composers on one disc, or a 10-disc set of symphony from one composer and one set of players, or a combo of star players playing a few composers, or a compilation of a couple of composers with different ensembles. Real tough to catalogue that consistently, manually, for the casual classical observer. The default metadata isn't acceptable for even the casual cataloger.

 

Another regret is not simply noting the catalog number of the CD. That would have been a quick and dirty way to ensure which label/recording it is, which would likely be lost were I to dispose of the hard copies of the CDs. I find that I need to reference the liner notes to nail down even the basic metadata; what's entered by default does not discretely identify the specific release, although Googling the combo of players and works is usually sufficient to identify it. Surely this will complicate matters as I go back and add cove art where it did not appear in the XLD database, which is most of the time. Probably what exacerbates this is that most of this collection is from early digital days, late 80s early 90s. Unfortunate from a CA enthusiast perspective, but a good problem to have for inheriting a treasure of classical music that would otherwise take a lifetime, literally, to amass.

 

Beyond the myriad mystical XLD settings that appear to have no documentation, one worthwhile mystery is the implication of there not being a version of the CD in the database. I checked the "test before copy/only when the track does not exist in AccurateRip DB" setting, but I'm not clear on the implication of a CD ripped this way. Will it be as free of error as possible in burst mode? It would be nice to screen a CD first to see if it was worth ripping in secure rather than burst mode; I do not have the patience to re-rip the whole thing after the fact, since a meaningful proportion of this collection is not in the database.

 

I was gratified to see the recent thread confirming a rather tenuous value of playing uncompressed vs. lossless/compressed tracks (AIFF vs. ALAC, for instance). So I guess I do have a redundant copy of my collection of questionable merit, beyond the storage and backup scheme I've set up for both (Synology 212j, two discs fully-reduntant [synology's proprietary version of RAID 1], plus USB drive backup, so three drives of both libraries in two enclosures). I'm not even close to filling the storage, even with the redundant RAID allocation.

 

Anyway. Just wanted to share, and welcome any observations and discussion at this rather advanced stage for me, but perhaps instructive for others. I can certainly see the merit in taking either a more or less involved approach to this. There's a small value in cataloging everything as I rip along to establish familiarity, not unlike rearranging the old record collection from time to time. In this particular case, there's an extra dimension of pondering the original owner of the discs. But it's mostly just tedious and slightly anxiety-inducing, that I'm leaving something undone that will compel me to do it all over again, or suffer some regret of something I didn't do that's nagging but not worth re-ripping.

[Cycleman]

I think the wisdom is that iTunes has an eccentric means of storing and organizing the original files, so it's best to have the second, independent, library.

 

Thanks for that great and detailed description. Those are questions I've gone through, too.

 

But on the note about the iTunes library, and its "eccentric means of storing and organizing the original files." I've heard that too, and I don't get it.

 

What's eccentric about storing files by album (by album name), and each album folder in a folder with the name of the artist?

 

Seems pretty logical to me. So, say, all the Neko Case albums are in one folder, and in that folder I have eight folders named by the album, with each of those eight containing the tracks of that CD.

 

I mean, that's how I often think of my music, by the artists and the albums each of them did.

 

Dave, who wonders if part of the iTunes diss comes from those who don't use Apple products and therefore need to adhere to different standards

[Aerocraft67]

Yeah Dave, I kind of had the same reaction when I actually looked at how iTunes was storing my source files, and that's what began to make me question why I was bothering to catalog them manually, redundantly, since I wasn't really interested in rigorous archiving, not that there's anything wrong with that. I should take another look to see if maybe the classical is more problematic, consistent with the metadata struggles I described. But what you described seems about as logical as I'm doing it manually.

[mwheelerk]

I have always been comfortable with iTunes organization and it has worked well for me. I think when I have read complaints about iTunes data management it seems to come from a few points. There are people who prefer to control their own destiny with library data management. With iTunes there may not be the flexibility that some like, want or need. I do hear complaints or concerns from some who have primarily a classical library and it also relates to the challenge of metadata management. Finally iTunes apparently may become unwieldy for those with very large libraries. Mine is just north of 18,000 songs but it seems those with 25,000, 50,000 or more feel it may be cumbersome in accessing files or other issues.

[boulderskies]

This is an interesting thread. I have a couple of observations:

 

* Why the arduous ripping workflow? Why not just rip and catalog your CDs using iTunes? As has been mentioned, it has a very logical folder/sub-folder hierarchy.

 

* Why have an "archival" copy? There are many reliable ways to back up your iTunes Library.

 

* Finally, once all of your CDs have been ripped and cataloged in iTunes, then you can go back and fine-tune, song by song or even album or mulitple albums at a time. You do this by selecting songs, albums, etc just as you would in Windows or Mac and then right-clicking and entering Get Information. It works great.

 

Just my two cents,

Scott

[Musicophile]

. I should take another look to see if maybe the classical is more problematic, consistent with the metadata struggles I described.

 

First of all, in a nutshell I'd just recommend to everybody to not worry about the filing structure iTunes uses. As long as your tracked are correctly tagged, why worry about what's going on "under the hood"? Users coming from a windows environment are used to building their own directory structures, but in the end Itunes is a database and should (and does) manage on its own.

 

That being said, classical music in Itunes (which constitutes about 60% of my library) has a number of limitations (Several of this are also relevant to a lesser extent for other types of music):

 

- No multiple artist tagging: I'd for example love to mention the soloist (e.g. Maurizio Pollini), the conductor (e.g. Claudio Abbado), and the orchestra (e.g. Berlin Philharmonic) in the "Artist" tag. I have them separated by a semicolon, but in iTunes Pop-oriented fashion, this just gives the Artist "MaurizioPolliniClaudioAbbadoBerlinPhilharmonic" (under which it also files the entire album). It would be much nicer to have multiple artists, and e.g. be able to select all the albums with Maurizio Pollini, whether solo or in concert. The workaround is just to use full text search which will find all Pollinis, whether alone or combined. I nevertheless recommend getting the tags right (i.e. artists properly separated), and hoping that a future Itunes (or JRiver, or whatever else) is able to recognize it.

 

- No multiple genres: same problem as with the artists: I like to tag my classical albums by type (e.g. chamber vs. solo vs. orchestra), by period, and sometimes even by solo instrument (e.g. violin concertos). Workaround: create combined genres (e.g. baroque chamber music). Rather annoyingly, I end up having >50 genres like this.

 

- Grouping tag not supported extensively. I use the grouping to group the several movements of a symphony. This works quite nicely in songs view with the column browser, to e.g. find all of my Beethoven 5th in one go. However, this is the only place where the grouping is supported. The Iphone and Ipad remote ignore it, same do Ipods and Iphones for playback. Workaround1: some break the original album structure, and have each oeuvre as a separate album. Works, but I still like the original album structure, so not applicable for me. Workaround2: Access Itunes via Splashtop/VNC and use the Song view with column browser. Works but clumsy

 

- Only one "year" tag. Ideally, for classical music I'd like 3 years: year when the composition was written (I use this in the year tag), year of recording (I have this in the comments field), and year of remaster if applicable. Sometimes I include the year of the recording in the album title, e.g. for my 3-4 Karajan Beethoven symphony cycles.

 

As a general workaround, I have my album title to cover all the relevant informations, so I can access them quickly in album view and am sure to find it with full text search both on Itunes and the Remote app. So my typical album title would be:

 

e.g. Beethoven: The Symphonies - Karajan - BPO (1960 cycle)

 

One final hint on classical tagging: I recommend using the "Sort by Composer field", so you can enter your composers as e.g. Johannes Brahms, but enter sort by "Brahms, Johannes" in the sorting field. Like this you get your composers properly sorted in the new Itunes 11.0.2. composer view.

[Aerocraft67]

The foremost reason I rip with XLD instead of iTunes is that XLD tells you when there's a problem with the rip, so you have a shot at re-ripping to solve the problem. iTunes just rips away and does the best it can without telling you whether there was a problem or not. As for boulderskies's other two questions, I'm more or less asking those myself.

 

Musicophile. Brilliant summary, thank you. Sadly, your otherwise sound methodology and commentary demonstrates that there's really no ideal solution for cataloguing classical music for computer audio, particularly with iTunes, at least not without a ton of work. Your approach certainly sounds optimal, and I'll integrate some of the tips over time, but won't likely achieve your standard any time soon. One nagging regret thus far is that it'll be hard to identify at a glance which recordings I like, particularly in audio quality, without clear labeling of the record label. That is, if I have two recordings of a work, one sucks, would be good to establish that and favor the other one in playlists, etc. And this isn't even limited to classical, I have a couple of different versions of rock/pop recordings that would be nice to have more easily, discretely, identified.

 

Still, it's just awesome to fire up a random playback and tweak it along with an iPhone remote, so I don't mind a few shortcomings working with iTunes.

[Musicophile]

Your approach certainly sounds optimal, and I'll integrate some of the tips over time, but won't likely achieve your standard any time soon.

Yep, takes ages, but rather do it well and most importantly CONSISTENT from the start, you'll regret it otherwise. Just count about the same time you need for ripping for tagging as well. I strongly recommend your develop your system before you start retagging, otherwise you may have to do it several times over.

 

One nagging regret thus far is that it'll be hard to identify at a glance which recordings I like, particularly in audio quality, without clear labeling of the record label. That is, if I have two recordings of a work, one sucks, would be good to establish that and favor the other one in playlists, etc. And this isn't even limited to classical, I have a couple of different versions of rock/pop recordings that would be nice to have more easily, discretely, identified.

 

For labels, I'd recommend putting it into the comment field, you can then build smart playlists easily. For identifying which ones sound better, you could either use the Itunes star rating system, or build manual playlists like "audiophile recording".

 

I have a couple of different versions of rock/pop recordings that would be nice to have more easily, discretely, identified.

 

I strongly recommend putting this into the album title, e.g.

 

Brothers in Arms [2003 MFSL gold remaster].

 

And one more, this is not yet relevant for your ripping, but when you start to buy hi-res, I have included the sample rate for all non-redbook recordings in the album title, e.g. for my latest purchase:

 

Bach: Mass in b-minor - Herreweghe - Collegium Vocale (2012 recording) [24/44]

[Aerocraft67]

And one more, this is not yet relevant for your ripping, but when you start to buy hi-res, I have included the sample rate for all non-redbook recordings in the album title, e.g. for my latest purchase:

 

Bach: Mass in b-minor - Herreweghe - Collegium Vocale (2012 recording) [24/44]

 

Nice catch. I have indeed already begun a high-rez collection. Thus far, I haven't bothered with any metadata management and rely on smart playlists to segregate the high rez stuff (and other bit rates, for that matter) from the rest of the collection.

 

I haven't bothered to see it through to a solution, but I am maintaining redundant bit rate versions of some of my music, most notably the last round of selective rips of my collection i did to 320 kbps, which remains handy as a select list for portable use (i.e., keeping resident on my iPhone). As the collection grows, it would be nice to maintain portable lossy copies for this purpose, more discretely segregated from the rest of the collection than by smart playlists. I think your suggestion here addresses that admirably.

[Musicophile]

I haven't bothered to see it through to a solution, but I am maintaining redundant bit rate versions of some of my music, most notably the last round of selective rips of my collection i did to 320 kbps, which remains handy as a select list for portable use (i.e., keeping resident on my iPhone). As the collection grows, it would be nice to maintain portable lossy copies for this purpose, more discretely segregated from the rest of the collection than by smart playlists. I think your suggestion here addresses that admirably.

Why bother? ITunes offers on the fly conversion to AAC256 when synchronizing to your iPhone.

[Aerocraft67]

Why bother? ITunes offers on the fly conversion to AAC256 when synchronizing to your iPhone.

 

Yeah, just noticed that the other day, and haven't tried it yet. I guess that's sufficient coverage to justify deleting the redundant lossy recordings from my library. Unless there's some non-iTunes-synching device that can make use of the files. And I would have to re-create the playlist, which is something if not terribly arduous.