XXHighEnd

Re: Number ordering

I have a similar problem with a hi-res (192/24) download of a recording from 2-L.
In addition to hi-res files, same files also downloaded in MP3 format; stored on external HD connected via EThernet (home network)
Each file name starts with a two digit number (01-30).
MP3 files comes up in the play list in the right order.
However, the hi rez files comes up in the playlist in a mixed order; 02 before 20, and 03 before30, 04-09 after 30.
Same problem occurs when playing either with my main computer (Vista 64, 6GB RAM) or on laptop (Vista 32, 2GB RAM).

Bjorn

Are you sure those files contain 2 digit track numbers ... I don't think so.
Don't look in XXHighEnd for that, but look via Explorer.

:)
Peter

Peter
I always re-name my downloads, inserting track number at start of file name (if necessary) to ensure files being played in right order.
Hi-res files in 2L download are FLAC (with need to convert to WAV), I am not sure if MP3 files also converted to WAV before played in XX.
In other words, is it possible that the sequencing in the FLAC converter gets mixed up with very large FLAC files?
 
Bjorn

Hi Bjorn,

Depending on the "structure" of the track number (but don't ask me at this moment How I exactly do it) I recognize it or not. For example, a <01> would be a not. In that case I'll look in the FLAC file, and if the track numbers are in there, I use those (regardless !). If they can not be found there (or if it's not a FLAC -> btw for MP3 it goes the same) I look whether a .cue ifle is there. If so, I get the track numbers from there;
I've never seen them wrong in the latter, but I guess they can.

But I'm sure you recognize that the files from 2L (or RR ... *if* they are not the same to begin with (!!)) are like 1, 2, 3, 4 and not like 01, 02, 03, 04 ... and this will create your exact problem (if not dealt with properly). For fun, try to rename an album to -01-, -02-, -03, -04- because I'm sure I at least accept that for track numbers (with or without a space behind them).

Let me know !
Peter


PS: And the nasty thing is that I format them as well. So, a recognized tracknumber 1 would be formatted to -01- or something like that, and thus in XXHighEnd you don't see it anymore. But they are *not* explicitly sorted !

Peter

Background:
My music collection is a mixture of different sources in FLAC (mostly, some MP3)
a. CD rips
b. HD tracks downloads (using HD Tracks download program)
c. 2L downnloads (using a download manager program)

After rip/ download I use MediaMonkey to adjust file information.
Track number info: 1, 2, 3 etc.
File name: 01 File name, 02 File name, etc

It is only with 2L downloads I seem to have the track sequence problem, when importing an entire record (subdirectory) into XX.
The initial 2L download I mentioned had the track sequence mixed up for the HD and CD files (of same recording), while the MP3 files appeared in correct order in XX.
However, for another 2L download it was the opposite - the HD files appeared in the right order in XX, but the MP3 files had a mixed up sequence in XX.
Thus, it does not seem to be a HD vs MP3 issue - I am not sure if the actual sequence of how the files are stored on my external HD plays a role (?).
It is not a big issue, as creating and saving a playlist with the tracks in the right sequence solves the problem.
 
Test of use of different number systems for the file name (using XX 09.z-2):
For the test, track numbers had identifiers as 1,2,3 etc.

a. Using system of "01 Filename", "02 File name", "03 File name", etc.
Shows correctly in XX as
01 File name
02 Filename
03 File name
--
09 File name
10 Filename
etc.

b. Using system of "1 Filename", "2 File name", "3 File name", etc.
Shows in XX as
01-1 File name
02-2 File name
03-3 File name
--
09-9 File name
10 Filename
11 Filename

However, for 2L files showing in the wrong sequence, using a. and b. does not have any impact; tracks show in the same wrong sequence, just with a different initial numeric identifier.

Best regards

Bjorn

Thank you for your extensive outlay Bjorn.

I have not much more to add than that the squence shown in XX should be the same as the one you see in Explorer (but see below), unless no track number is recognized, and something else overrules it for the worse.
Also be careful not to change "original data" while you keep on using Gallery data !! -> Anything changed from within Explorer will never work through to Gallery data, as will doing so from within the Embedded Explorer will not come through. The formal functions in XX should (but very often don't work (properly yet) -> 0.9z-3 has some improvements on that), but notice that this never will be about track data. So, whatever it is you change, do it before it goes into a Gallery.

The exception to sequences being different in XX compared to what you see in Explorer are very rare, but related to "UDF" formatted disks. So, seeing a wrong sequence already in Explorer is not rare at all (as long as you have an UDF formatted disk where the data is stored), but you *also* can have intermediate space which is UDF formatted, and then you won't understand a thing of it anymore.
An example of UDF formatted disks are the IOMega removeable disks. UDF is the same as a CDRom is formatted.
I only mention this because it exists, but the combination of things will be too rare to ever think about it again.
Notice that the squence on an UDF formatted disk will be the sequence of creation (date/time).
And oh, before Windows2000, all was "sorted" like that.

Peter

Peter, below are three photos showing the same problem with a 24/96 I downloaded from HD Traks. The first shows the tracks in the library window, the second shows the out of order traks in the playlist window after loading them, and the third shows the tracks as they appear in explorer. I did nothing to edit the track names when I downloaded them from HD Traks.

Aha ... Now I understand why you don't understand !
Or why I didn't ... :)

Somehow (and I never saw it) Explorer is able to come up with a list which is not in alphabetical sequence. I just tried to find out how it works, but so far I can't. It must be something like maintaining a numerical sequence as long as text starts with numerics.
Remember, this is text, and therefore it should sort by alphabetical order. It should ? well, I can't let make a computer program work otherwise when text is involved. So, after 1 comes 11, comes 12 ... 19, 2, 20, 21, ... 3, 30, 31. But not so in Explorer.

When you drag a folder (or the files therein) onto the XX Playlist Area, all goes right. This is because actually Explorer does that (provides the sequence). However, when you select an album in the Library Area and click Load, then it's "wrong" (but IMO technically correct). This is because there a normal command is used to come up with the files in the folder, and that normal command provides a normal alphabetical sequence. And I'm glad it does, or otherwise nothing in computing would work anymore. But :

Since I never saw this could "functionally" work in Explorer, I also had no reason to cover for it in XXHighEnd. I mean, it would be nice to have it right in XXHighEnd, but it would still be quite unworkable if it wasn't right in Explorer. And thus we all would rename them first ... I thought (and next in XX there wouldn't be a problem anymore).
But now I have seen the light, and *thus* must solve it within XX, which is not much of a problem I think.

All 'n all, thanks once again for being persistent, and in the end we can only say it is rather stupid I never saw it.
But let's be honest, it is since those hires downloads with the typical "liner notes" in track 0 it, ever emerged.

Peter


PS: Brian, I think we had a discussion about this off line maybe a year ago. So now you know I never understood it ... :)

Sometimes things just have to percolate for a while :). One thing though, I usually load album tracks by double clicking the folder in the library screen, which is like clicking the load button. I just tried dragging the folder from the library to the playlist area and got the same out of order result.

Hey, I also noticed in your screen shots a certain "0.9z-2b-07". Can I have one too?!

Hahaha. Better not yet. I'm still asking people to close their ears a couple of times per day, not knowing whether the windows may go out. :)

Ok, thanks, I didn't think about that one.

Ok, at least this one is solved in 0.9z-3.