Cocktail Audio™ UK Support Forum

I couldn't find a similar post and, prompted by another thread, thought this may be useful for anyone struggling to get imported WAV files to play in the correct sequence within the Music DB.

This is a suggested manual workaround for X10s that aren't connected to the web. Hopefully, it will also work with the X30.

If importing WAV files with basic file names, the running order will sometimes be wrong. For example, typical file name format will be:

"Pink Floyd - Speak To Me.wav"
"Pink Floyd - Breathe.wav"
"Pink Floyd - Time.wav"

In the above format, the X10 won't necessarily play the tracks in the correct order when imported via a USB stick into the Music DB. However, I have found a way to (usually!) make it work.

Before importing the WAV files into the Music DB, change the file name so that it starts with a number: -

"01 Pink Floyd - Speak To Me.wav"
"02 Pink Floyd - Breathe.wav"
"03 Pink Floyd - Time.wav"

Once the tracks have been imported into the MusicDB, use tag-edit to remove any numerical digits in front of the track title (if you want to - it's not critical). Tracks *should* hold in the alpha / numeric order of the originally imported file name, even though the track title has been changed within Music DB. The other fields for a track can then be edited as usual.

Hope this helps (er, and works.... ).

_________________
X10 user.

U have 2 use the sort & also with .wav the metadata is lost!
.wav hasn't a container within the encoding to hold the metadata.
You have to manually tag them either via another.

Read the notes on sorting: 3 modes - page 4
http://cocktailaudio.co.uk/firmware/R17 ... 760_UK.pdf

U can also use the web-gui to edit the "number stucture/order".
01,02,03,...11...12...

Hi Admin.

I'm not really sure of the purpose of your post and, if I have overlooked the context, I would be most interested to know how.

Just for clarity, my post was not referring to metadata; reference was clearly made to "file name", hence the track files being listed with the .wav extension.

Having read page 4 of the notes you linked to, I am struggling to see how the notes on general album / track A-B sorting have any relevance to the separate issue of tracks playing in sequence within a specified album title (aka folder).

The web GUI is fine but only IF a user is online. Not everyone is, or wants to be, online when using the X10 or X30 et al - I am one of those people. That is why my post clearly stated "This is a suggested manual workaround for X10s that aren't connected to the web".

I appreciate the above may come across as being a little sharper than is intended - the nature of the written word and webland . Hopefully, all of the exchanges of information can be used constructively.

_________________
X10 user.

Actually Admin's post is the main point.
The file name is affected by the metadata (once it is imported) not the text & the sorting options can be used to determine the order.
Even if you are not online, using the sorting option will enable you to gauge how the metadata or file name is being read on the X-device.
File name are totally useless when it comes to these media devices.
If you use the display options/'view' you will probably notice a lot of UNKNOWNS too (but the text/file name would still be visible).

Hi tech1a,

I wish we could just pop next door and have a chat (and hands-on demo of said issue); it could be we're not quite sure what the other means .

The file name cannot be affected by metadata that doesn't exist prior to being imported to the Music DB. However, the file name DOES matter in the context of the workaround I set out. The file names will (usually) import into the Music DB in alpha order as per the names of the tracks. E.g. The X10 will play WAV versions of Pink Floyd's "Breathe" before ""Speak To Me". But, making the wav file names "01 Pink Floyd - Speak To Me" and "02 Pink Floyd - Breathe" BEFORE importing will (usually!) mean they end up playing in the correct order.

Once imported, assuming acceptance of the default album title prior to sorting out all the onboard X10/30 metadata (using Tag Edit), just go to the latest album in the album list to find that album title. Sort will only be needed if the listing is already sorted A-Z or Z-A. Once inside the album title, selecting the info button for any selected track will reveal the fields that need updating via Tag Edit. Indeed, knowing already there will by "unknowns" in some of the data fields mean that you may as well just use Tag edit straight away to amend the data that must be done on a track by track basis. The album title, if sufficiently unique and easily identifiable, can be amended for all tracks under that title in one hit.

I have successfully used the method set out in my OP on numerous occasions. To date, only one fail - subsequently rectified - and I'm pretty sure that was because of a mistake on my part.

Just a thought tech1a; have you tried the method I've suggested? Try an A/B test: import wav files with just the normal "name - track title" and see what happens to the playing order; then pre-number the wav files before importing and note the difference in playing order. Doubtless Murphy's Law will suddenly loom large and make a mockery of it.... .

NB: Why WAV files? I normally use FLAC for my X10 but there are a few items in my collection that were/are MP3s and they won't play as gapless, even after being tweaked and stitched in a sound editor. So, I use the sound editor to stitch and recut the items in question and then save to what, on the surface, seem to be WAV files. Obviously, the true quality is still only MP3 standard but, as "fake" WAV, they will now play as gapless. Compressing to FLAC sometimes causes more problems that it solves with these particular files, so I just leave them as WAV.

_________________
X10 user.

If i may add...
We get the gist, but regardless of whether you have metadata or not the system will still read or try & read the metadata of any encoding.
Back to your matter i get that the files will be displayed in text to SORT but if you play them the metadata will be displayed (that is the trick - if any of course).
Having said that you could just use the device to edit the wav metadata via "tag edit" option offline.
Also note that you can have FLAC uncompressed - LEVEL "0" (which is like WAV with a metadata feature).

For instance:

01 track 1 (text), 01 real-name 1 (metadata displayed during play back - if you create it with a software or tag edit)

It is very easy to misinterpret FLAC level "0" as zero compression, but it is actually just the lowest compression setting (which will compress the files in the fastest time).
In dbpoweramp the uncompressed setting is listed as "lossless uncompressed". If there are any other programmes with an option for uncompressed FLAC, then I'm guessing it would be labelled in a similar way.

_________________
Oink Oink!...................................KEF LS50 Wireless/Partington Dreadnought Broadside.

Uncompressed FLAC or regular are the same lossless - much easier to decode.
Whether level X or 0...8, it makes no difference (asymmetric).

Exactly Admin, Non proprietary lib/sw are fine & better than other sw that try to create versions like uncompressed.
The lib are free (Flac), that is why i only use sw like EAC no tricks:
It is free (for non-commercial purposes) - http://www.exactaudiocopy.org/
Compression was created to messup the codec, ppl just wanted to stream high quality over networks....with a decent metadata.

Like many people I actually prefer the sound quality of WAV, but with the tagging issues and lack of compatibility for the format I have now stopped using it.
Uncompressed FLAC gives you a very clever alternative here as it combines the WAV file with a fully standardised tagging system under a FLAC header.
When ripping a CD, the conversion to uncompressed FLAC is also very quick as you are not waiting on the files being compressed.
Plus You can uncompress all of your existing FLAC files too.

As both WAV and FLAC are lossless the difference is in how the player handles them, as a WAV file will not have to be processed for decompression.
Where as a compressed FLAC file will, the theory being that this process upsets the timing of the music.
There will also be a lot more packets sent over the network (when streaming) than with a compressed FLAC file, which could affect the result as well.

If your priority is sound quality then it's easy enough to compare a track ripped in WAV against the same one ripped in FLAC to see which one you prefer.
Maybe you will hear no difference whatsoever, but to categorize lossless formats as being all the same is clearly only half of the picture.

_________________
Oink Oink!...................................KEF LS50 Wireless/Partington Dreadnought Broadside.