Multiple discs shows up as duplicate albums

[erland]

I'm not sure which order the files are scanned, it might not be in track number order. Maybe they are scanned after modification time or something similar, in that case the last track may not be the one with the highest track number.

Is there any artist on the first cd in your case that also exists on the second cd ?
Maybe it's possible to turn on some debuging and see which order the tracks are really scanned.

I assume you have set DISC and DISCNUMBER and they aren't just empty as your sample shows ?

I'm 100% sure it acts as I describe in my library, so I definitely get different behavior if I ONLY change the ARTIST tags like described in my previous post and leave the rest of the tags the same in all test cases.

[erland]

I'm not sure which order the files are scanned, it might not be in track number order. Maybe they are scanned after modification time or something similar, in that case the last track may not be the one with the highest track number.

I think this is it.

I just tried to change the filename of the last track from "Song3.mp3" to "Song0.mp3" (without retagging) and then it's Song2.mp that is considered to be the last track on disk 1. So it seems like it scans the track in alphabetic order, at least on Linux. The default ordering might be defined by the operating system so it might be a different ordering on Windows.

[Philip Meyer]

>I was never able to have disc grouping working correctly when artwork
>for each disc differed.
>Could that be related to your problem?

A reference to the artwork is stored with each album record. So, I don't think it's possible to have different artwork for each disk on an album, unless disks are treated as different albums.

[Philip Meyer]

>Is there any artist on the first cd in your case that also exists on
>the second cd ?
>Maybe it's possible to turn on some debuging and see which order the
>tracks are really scanned.
>
>I assume you have set DISC and DISCNUMBER and they aren't just empty as
>your sample shows ?
>
Yes, DISC=1 or 2, DISCNUMBER=01/02 or 02/02.

>I'm 100% sure it acts as I describe in my library, so I definitely get
>different behavior if I ONLY change the ARTIST tags like described in
>my previous post and leave the rest of the tags the same in all test
>cases.
>
I'm not doubting what you see, just that I haven't seen that behaviour on my server.

[Philip Meyer]

>>Is there any artist on the first cd in your case that also exists on
>>the second cd ?
>>
Sorry, forgot to say that there are no artists on disk 1 that also appear on disk 2.

I just thought of something else - my track numbers also have total track counts, so the last track on discnumber 01/02 is track 09/09.

Phil

[erland]

I just thought of something else - my track numbers also have total track counts, so the last track on discnumber 01/02 is track 09/09.

As I said in my post an hour ago, on Linux it sorts alphabetically by filename, so the last track will be the filename in the directory which is last according to the alphabet.

So if you have filenames like:
01 sometrack.mp3 (with tracknum=1)
02 someothertrack.mp3 (with tracknum=2)

Then "02 someothertrack.mp3" is going to be the last.

If you instead have filenames like:
sometrack.mp3 (with tracknum=1)
someothertrack.mp3 (with tracknum=2)

Then "sometrack.mp3" is going to be the last even though it has the first track number.

So to sum it up, it's not strange that it is hard to reproduce because the actual filenames are also involved it's not just the tags. In my real setup yesterday I had filenames which started with tracknum with an extra 0 if tracknum<10, so in that setup the tracks was ordered according to track number.

[Philip Meyer]

>So to sum it up, it's not strange that it is hard to reproduce because
>the actual filenames are also involved it's not just the tags. In my
>real setup yesterday I had filenames which started with tracknum with
>an extra 0 if tracknum<10, so in that setup the tracks was ordered
>according to track number.
>
I always name album track files with leading 0's to get them ordered correctly in the OS. Normally, where I keep disk numbers on multi-disk rips and rip to the same folder, I name the files with "dd - tt - title" (dd = discnumber, tt=tracknumber). In the fews cases that are like yours (some of my older albums), I have ripped with disks in sub-folders, with "tt - title" naming convention within each disk folder.

None of the artists on disk 1 appear on disk 2, which I thought was what you were saying causes the issue. So no matter what order the files are scanned, you would expect it to fail for me?

Phil

[erland]

None of the artists on disk 1 appear on disk 2, which I thought was what you were saying causes the issue. So no matter what order the files are scanned, you would expect it to fail for me?

Yes you should get duplicate albums if my suspicion is correct.

If you don't, it seems like we have another factor involved somewhere.
I wonder if this could be a Windows vs Linux issue ?
I'm using Linux and I suppose you are using Windows ?

I suppose I could make a very simple test with minimal number of files and tags. It feels like its soon time to start digging in the code, I've tried to avoid it because I know how complex the scanning code is.

I wonder if it's worth digging deeper into this since the scanner probably are going to be changed for 8.0 anyway ?
It's really not a problem for me personally since I use FLAC in my living room setup, I just noticed this during development.

[Philip Meyer]

>Yes you should get duplicate albums if my suspicion is correct.
>
>If you don't, it seems like we have another factor involved somewhere.
>
I don't see any problems.

>I wonder if this could be a Windows vs Linux issue ?
>I'm using Linux and I suppose you are using Windows ?
>
Yes - using Windows XP Pro.

>I wonder if it's worth digging deeper into this since the scanner
>probably are going to be changed for 8.0 anyway ?
Probably will be changed, but if there is a strange bug in there, it's worth identifying so the logic is corrected and not duplicated in the new version.

Phil

[erland]

>I wonder if it's worth digging deeper into this since the scanner
>probably are going to be changed for 8.0 anyway ?
Probably will be changed, but if there is a strange bug in there, it's worth identifying so the logic is corrected and not duplicated in the new version.

Could you try the attached zip with mp3's in your library.
In my setup I get:
- 2 entries of "Multi Disc Album 1" with 2 tracks per album
- 1 entry of "Multi Disc Album 2" with 4 tracks in a single album

Does it behave this way in your setup or do you still see single album entries with these files ?