Show a single entry for compilation albums in App USB Media Library Album view

[pbutler68]

I have all my music on a USB stick connected to a Wiim Ultra. I want to browse the USB Media Library through the Album view. Where an album has a single artist for all tracks, it shows once in the album view, but when there are multiple artists on an album, there are multiple entries for the album, which means I can't play the whole album easily. Is there a way I can update the metadata or do something so I can see a single album entry? I don't want to overwrite the actual song artist, if possible, and I can't use the folder view as that is artist. Thanks, Paul

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Surprise: Tags will still be there, too. And might work even better.

Sorry, do you think my CD rips are all tagless?

 

[harkpabst]

Sorry, do you think my CD rips are all tagless?

I didn't say anything about what tags might be missing on your part. I've been responding to your enthusiastic statement that your folder structure will still be there if you switch to something else but WiiM.

So the advantage of folders is that they don't magically disappear. Just like tags.

 

[simbun]

You are aware that that's the easiest thing to do. And better! You just add a folder - I call it 'top of the player' (as in when you used to have a CD player, and any new CD would like in a small pile on top of it, until you filed it away).

I hold this date in a custom tag so that I'm able to go back in time to a particular month/year if I want, in addition to using my server's definition of recently added.

If I wanted to implement your 'top of the player' I'd just add them to a playlist and remove as necessary.

All without needing to duplicate tracks.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Apart from the obvious storage and maintenance overheads, if you do ever start using tag view you'll be polluting the search results with duplicates.

Okay, two fair points. Firstly, 'storage and maintenance overheads'. I'd say that's a theoretical issue rather than a real world issue, and here's why. My entire lossless collection is 400GB. If I were to guess, I'd say maybe 10% of that space is due to duplicates. Buy hey, if we're going to run with this, let's say duplicates literally doubled the size.

I've just gone to Amazon UK and searched "external drive 500gb", then looked at the price of that drive, then looked at the 1TB version. First one where both sizes are available is here:

https://amzn.eu/d/3JVvPH8

500GB £50. 1TB £79.

I will concede that, for a vanishingly small number of purchasers, that extra £29 may be a deal-breaker. But you'll have to concede that to most of us it's next to meaningless, on top of the price on an Ultra, amp, and speakers. It's a non-issue.

As for 'polluting search results with duplicates'. Well, as we all know, this is already an issue anyway. We all have duplicates of many tracks. I suspect I have at least twice as many duplicates of tracks jus from them appearing on multiple releases, than I do from the relatively small number I have duplicated in my structure. I mentioned Brown Eyed Girl previously. I've just looked and I have it 7 times. So yes, it duplicates add to this 'pollution', but only fairly negligibly. And because folder view is so easy, it's rare that I use search at all.

So yes they are legitimate issues - and I agree they are issues - but I find them both to be incredibly small, vs creating your own folder structure being hugely useful.

It's like refusing to wear shoes because you have to tie your laces. I'd offer that tying your laces is a tiny inconvenience, whilst wearing shoes is hugely more comfortable. A customised folder structure has minor, negligible drawbacks, but big advantages. For me, a least.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I hold this date in a custom tag so that I'm able to go back in time to a particular month/year if I want, in addition to using my server's definition of recently added.

If I wanted to implement your 'top of the player' I'd just add them to a playlist and remove as necessary.

All without needing to duplicate tracks.

Which is fine, but then you're having to swap between whatever your default viewing mode is and playlists. And as I say, duplicates isn't an issue for me. And I'm guessing from what you say that you have one very large playlist with hundreds of tracks for this? That's a real pain to manage, and to scroll to the right point, etc.

I've also mentioned previously what a huge pain playlists can be, when you have different types of playlist for different reasons.

Tell me, how do you create your own SDEs? That's albums with b-sides, etc., stuck on the end?

I think the one point I'd make here is that worrying about duplicates appears to be the main issue. But with storage now being as cheap as it is, and duplicates when searching not being as much of an issue as it can be painted to be, and as you're going to be only rarely using search, not an issue at all most of the time,...well stop worrying about duplicates and the only real concerns have vanished.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I mentioned The Alarm earlier. I've just conducted a search for their magnificent octopus 68 Guns (I had to do it twice, as it's sometimes styled 'Sixty Eight Guns'), as I suspect that'll be one of my most duplicated tracks.

I have it 13 times. It's only duplicated due to my folder structure twice. So I have it 11 times, + 2 duplicates.

Duplicates are not materially adding to the problem in any significant way when i search for tracks; that's really quite a myth that I think we can safely put to bed.

 

[slartibartfast]

I mentioned The Alarm earlier. I've just conducted a search for their magnificent octopus 68 Guns (I had to do it twice, as it's sometimes styled 'Sixty Eight Guns'), as I suspect that'll be one of my most duplicated tracks.

I have it 13 times. It's only duplicated due to my folder structure twice. So I have it 11 times, + 2 duplicates.

Duplicates are not materially adding to the problem in any significant way when i search for tracks; that's really quite a myth that I think we can safely put to bed.

Did you mean "octopus" or was autocorrect reponsible?

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Did you mean "octopus" or was autocorrect reponsible?

Yes I meant it, it’s an old Blackadder joke.

 

[simbun]

I will concede that, for a vanishingly small number of purchasers, that extra £29 may be a deal-breaker. But you'll have to concede that to most of us it's next to meaningless, on top of the price on an Ultra, amp, and speakers. It's a non-issue.

I wasn't thinking the cost would be prohibitive, but it's a non-zero cost for a zero gain.

As for 'polluting search results with duplicates'. Well, as we all know, this is already an issue anyway. We all have duplicates of many tracks. I suspect I have at least twice as many duplicates of tracks jus from them appearing on multiple releases, than I do from the relatively small number I have duplicated in my structure.

I don't regard remasters/reissues as duplicates (I have many of those), just bit for bit copies as in your recently added example.

And because folder view is so easy, it's rare that I use search at all.

Have you never searched for a song?

Which is fine, but then you're having to swap between whatever your default viewing mode is and playlists.

Assuming you mean that playlist view looks different to album view then yes it does, depending on your control point. BubbleUPnP can present the playback queue in album form (which would requre you to add the entire playlist to the queue to see it) or apps like Symfonium can present playlists directly in album form, both of which would be in recently added order, unlike your solution - unless you're going to prefix the album folder with the date that it was added.

And I'm guessing from what you say that you have one very large playlist with hundreds of tracks for this? That's a real pain to manage, and to scroll to the right point, etc.

I don't really use playlists, my example was just to replicate your scenario, but I agree that playlist management in general needs some love, even if it's just the ability to group them.

Tell me, how do you create your own SDEs? That's albums with b-sides, etc., stuck on the end?

To separate the album from the b-side you mean? If they were separate discs then I'd tag them with discsubtitle (more commonly supported) otherwise I'd use the group tag which works with MinimServer.
I have a few single discs that contain multiple albums which I treat as boxsets, and tag as separate albums so both appear in album view and are searchable.


I applaud the work you've put into your folder layout (I do appreciate it wasn't much and could have been automated if the tags were available), but the use of folder view should only be to produce a single browse view not available from your media server.
Folder view is also reliant on the user knowing exactly what they want to listen to; whilst you have release type in your folder structure, have you never wanted to view all Live albums or Soundtracks?

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I didn't say anything about what tags might be missing on your part. I've been responding to your enthusiastic statement that your folder structure will still be there if you switch to something else but WiiM.

So the advantage of folders is that they don't magically disappear. Just like tags.

For clarity, that's an advantage, not at all the advantage.

The advantage is that you're replicating a well tried and tested system of storing your music library (in my case, shelves in alphabetical order, by artists - though of course, if you want to store by genre, year, whatever, thar's entirely up to you). And you're adding to that the ability to take any release and put it in multiple places.

 

[slartibartfast]

Yes I meant it, it’s an old Blackadder joke.

I'd forgotten that

 

[slartibartfast]

For clarity, that's an advantage, not at all the advantage.

The advantage is that you're replicating a well tried and tested system of storing your music library (in my case, shelves in alphabetical order, by artists - though of course, if you want to store by genre, year, whatever, thar's entirely up to you). And you're adding to that the ability to take any release and put it in multiple places.

I have "Layla and other assorted love songs" under Eric Clapton and Derek & The Dominos without needing to duplicate the album.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I wasn't thinking the cost would be prohibitive, but it's a non-zero cost for a zero gain.


I don't regard remasters/reissues as duplicates (I have many of those), just bit for bit copies as in your recently added example.


Have you never searched for a song?


Assuming you mean that playlist view looks different to album view then yes it does, depending on your control point. BubbleUPnP can present the playback queue in album form (which would requre you to add the entire playlist to the queue to see it) or apps like Symfonium can present playlists directly in album form, both of which would be in recently added order, unlike your solution - unless you're going to prefix the album name with the date that it was added.


I don't really use playlists, my example was just to replicate your scenario, but I agree that playlist management in general needs some love, even if it's just the ability to group them.


To separate the album from the b-side you mean? If they were separate discs then I'd tag them with discsubtitle (more commonly supported) otherwise I'd use the group tag which works with MinimServer.
I have a few single discs that contain multiple albums which I treat as boxsets, and tag as separate albums so both appear in album view and are searchable.


I applaud the work you've put into your folder layout (I do appreciate it wasn't much and could have been automated if the tags were available), but the use of folder view should only be to produce a single browse view not available from your media server.
Folder view is also reliant on the user knowing exactly what they want to listen to; whilst you have release type in your folder structure, have you never wanted to view all Live albums or Soundtracks?

Okay...one at once.

I wasn't thinking the cost would be prohibitive, but it's a non-zero cost for a zero gain. It's not a zero gain. And it's a next-to zero cost, if that. In my case, with 400GB, I'd really not be futureproofing myself if I'd only bought a 500Gb drive (and a 500GB drive never holds 500GB). So it was always going to be a 1TB drive anyway. So it's zero cost.

I don't regard remasters/reissues as duplicates (I have many of those), just bit for bit copies as in your recently added example. So if you have a track 11 times, the extra 10 are not 'pollution' in your search results. But if you have 2 more bit-for-bit duplicates, searching suddenly becomes an intolerable torture due to having 13 to choose from rather than 11. I mean I believe you, obviously. But it's really no burden at all for me. And it's a very odd mind set where 11 search results is fine, but 13 has you reaching for the valium.

Have you never searched for a song? Given that in the previous sentence you'd posted about what I'd said about what happened when I searched for a song, I find that a very odd question.

Assuming you mean that playlist view looks different to album view then yes it does, depending on your control point. BubbleUPnP can present the playback queue in album form (which would requre you to add the entire playlist to the queue to see it) or apps like Symfonium can present playlists directly in album form, both of which would be in recently added order, unlike your solution - unless you're going to prefix the album name with the date that it was added. I'm not sure I understand much of that. Except to say, my 'top of the player' folder is generally fairly sparsely populated. And I have absolutely no need whatsoever to list them by the order I bought them. I might get fed up with listening to an album after a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. I don't listen to or delete anything from there by how old it is, just by whether I keep playing it.

I don't really use playlists, my example was just to replicate your scenario, but I agree that playlist management in general needs some love, even if it's just the ability to group them. 'Appen.

To separate the album from the b-side you mean? If they were separate discs then I'd tag them with discsubtitle (more commonly supported) otherwise I'd use the group tag which works with MinimServer. No, that's not it. An SDE would (usually) be a 2-disc version of an album, with the original album on CD1 and the b-sides and extra tracks on CD2 (or variations on that theme). I generally rip these, and keep it in a 2 CD structure, but with those 2 discs as sub-folders. So U2 -> War (SDE) -> War (SDE) Disc 1 and War (SDE) Disc 2. but what about the SDE of Hothouse Flowers People? Erm...there isn't one. So i created my own - it looks exactly the same as if it had really existed and I'd ripped it. The only way I can do this easily using a different structure is to create a playlist. But then that gets mixed up with completely different types of playlist. And for that, see your previous comment.

I have a few single discs that contain multiple albums which I treat as boxsets, and tag as separate albums so both appear in album view and are searchable. Yes, I have (as an example) The Zombies Odessey & Oracle (absolute classic). It's on one CD, with the stereo version tracks 1-12 then mono tracks 13-24, with 3 extra tracks 25-27. If you go in the Odessey and Oracle folder it has a sub-folder for that CD, then 2 further sub folders, one for stereo, one for mono. I could just delete the original CD, but as I say, space isn't an issue. I think in this instance, I get 2 folders, you get 2 albums on a search result, not really any difference.

I applaud the work you've put into your folder layout (I do appreciate it wasn't much and could have been automated if the tags were available), but the use of folder view should only be to produce a single browse view not available from your media server. 'Should'? Says who? Now I get your point, but it's the exact view I want. And that's the thing. They've been working on different layouts, tags, search results, etc., and they all tend to look a bit different. But mine looks 100% like I want it.

Folder view is also reliant on the user knowing exactly what they want to listen to; whilst you have release type in your folder structure, have you never wanted to view all Live albums or Soundtracks? Good question. I have occasionally wanted to just listen to a particular genre; let's say rock 'n' roll. Now the great thing is, I can still search by genre. If I wanted I could copy all my rock 'n' roll CD rips into a new 'Rock 'N' Roll' folder, and if listening that way were a regular thing for me, I quite possibly would. As soon as you free yourself from worrying about duplicates and storage, and as soon as you realise that setting up your folder structure exactly how you want it largely negates you searching tags, the shackles fall off. As for Soundtracks, do you think they don't already have their own folder? Of course they do! Live albums? I can't see why I'd want that. I mean I love Live at Leeds, Under a Blood Red Sky, Kick out the Jams, Live at Massey Hall and Monty Python Live at Drury Lane, but I can't see me having a themed evening where I play Rambling Rose, followed by Party Girl, followed by Magic Bus, followed by On the Way Home, followed by Bruce's Song. But if I did, on the WiiM i can search 'Live' then click on 'Albums', and they're all there.

Now here's the thing, and this is maybe a good example of what I'm trying to convey. If I was the sort of person who listened a lot to live albums, and liked to mix it up, I could create a 'Live' folder and put all my live LPs in there. And I can tell you that, once you live in Folder View for a while, you'll soon find that it's easier to go there, straight to the folder, than search live, then click on albums. Or if (as I noted previously) genres. If I really heavily listened by genre, I'd stick all my rock 'n' roll rips in a folder.

And this is it. I'm not looking by Artist, or album, then having to search by 'live', then filter by 'Album', then clicking on 'genre' and looking for 'Rock 'n' Roll'. It's just all there waiting for you.

The thing I want to keep stressing here. You have tags and folder view. I have tags and folder view. You rarely/never use folder view because that's just not how you store your music. I use folder view because it's exactly how I browse my music most of the time. But I can do absolutely everything you've suggested as well. You may have set up a more complex and extensive tagging system which enables you to access things in a way my tags work, but I have all of those in my folder structure anyway.

In short (at last) I'm not losing anything, only gaining.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I have "Layla and other assorted love songs" under Eric Clapton and Derek & The Dominos without needing to duplicate the album.

You know what, I used to have that, but don't. And it's not ripped, so it must have gone missing in my pre-ripping days.

Yes, I think you have it. If I still had that CD, I'd probably just put it in the Clapton folder, though I'd have the flexibility to create a Dominos folder and duplicate it there. I'd have the option.

So we'd both have pretty much the same in that respect, if we went looking for it.

Cons on my part. 1 - It takes more storage, but as we've seen, that's not an issue - I have storage to burn. 2 - Duplicates when searching - I've just searched for the title track, and it comes up 4 times. So if I had the CD it'd be 5 times. If I duplicated it (once in 'Clapton' and once in 'Dominos') it'd come up 6 times. I'd argue there's really not enough difference between 6 results and 7 to cause me a nanosecond's worry. So, no real cons.

Pros - I have it to browse in my folder structure, set out and customised to be exactly as I want it. And because of that, I rarely use any other view, which I find to be a big advantage.

Can you see now why, for me, the cons - every one you've raised - are minimal, bordering on zero, whilst the pro is huge.