Better than nothing for sure, but many times the disc already has scratches on it upon arrival. Thanks for the tip though, I might invest in these.Originally Posted by spacefreak
Better than nothing for sure, but many times the disc already has scratches on it upon arrival. Thanks for the tip though, I might invest in these.
Please don't ask questions, just use google.
Never let good music get in the way of making a profit.
I'm only here to reglaze my bathtub.
Replaceable jewel case all the way vs the unrepairable digipak disater
actually, wouldn't that be the bottom spine, since it's the one rubbing on the shelf-floor surface?
yup...
BTW, those CD disc-sleeves can be bought
Well, I keep my Mini-Lp disc in a different shelf anyway (kind of sucks in mùy overall filing scheme, but oh well), so any other special format will join that storage
While I like them digibook concept, I've found the disc are rather difficultto fit on those big rubber prong.
As for those cardboards-only things, I find that if they're not 13x13 cm, the disc are difficult to extract without damaging the sleeve.
ok for the temporary repair, but it still sucks, because it's still the same old fragile prongs rosettes.
What I never understood is why those old trays with fragile prongs are still produced nowadays, when there are much stronger alternatives , where half the prongs are tied/welded together in a solid center (this is valid for transparent trays and black/coloured trays)... Cuneiform seems to have understood this a long time ago, when other labels (Soleil Zeuhl for ex) still use that crappy original system.
Could also use the DVD or Blue Ray disc-center idea
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
I find digipaks to be irritating, personally, and the cardboard sleeves (meant to emulate LP sleeves) even worse. Much prefer plastic cases.
Ian Beabout
Mixing and mastering engineer. See ya at ProgDay !
https://cuneiformrecords.bandcamp.co...m/bakers-dozen
https://cuneiformrecords.bandcamp.co...-and-holland-3
colouratura.bandcamp.com
Well, it looks that there are some non-prong alternatives too:
http://www.cd-spider.com/
the top one looks like a Digibook thing, with which I don't have much sympathy either (despite the colour variants), while I've never seen the second system (except maybe for DVD)... in either case, does the thickness of the digipak tray plus the thickness of a CD spider will not create another problem in terms of a bulge and damage to the front cardboard?
I tried replacing the whole digipak tray with a scalpel knife or Stanley-knife blades to dissociate the cardboard from the plastic, but finding spare trays has proved impossible (so far, back then) and I had to buy cheap crap used digipak CDs just to recuperate the tray and throw the rest away
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
I've used something similar. I got mine from a place called The Jazz Loft, which doesn't seem to exist any more, but the same sleeves look as though they are available from here: http://shop.spacesavingsleeves.com/
What I like about them is that you can keep all of the essential bits of packaging from a jewel case but the space needed is a fraction of the original case. The main downside is that the spine is hard to read. In practice I find that is not a problem as my collection is digitised to FLAC and that is my main means of playing it; the CDs are mainly the backup these days. Also, I have enough CDs scattered amongst the shelves that are in digipack format, boxes, etc., and which are readable, that it is pretty easy to find stuff, based on an alphabetical ordering. (Incidentally, storing my CDs - and my LPs before them - alphabetically has always been completely natural to me. How would I find them otherwise? But it doesn't seem to be the norm in the general population based on many conversations I have had which have left me feeling like some sort of anal retentive/OCD nerd.)
Well...
recently received a cd in cardboard foldover type sleeve and much to my dismay their is some sort of gunk on my cd. Upon further inspection it appears as if the case is starting to unglue itself and I can only conclude this gunk is glue (it is also quite a sticky bastard). Luckily, it's only on the outer edge and doesn't look like it will hinder performance, but goddamn does it annoy.
Please don't ask questions, just use google.
Never let good music get in the way of making a profit.
I'm only here to reglaze my bathtub.
People with a hundred or two items in their collection can afford to be a bit more flexible.
My dad has his CD's sorted on label.
I don't think it will work for me, considering lots of stuff I own is on different labels.
We MUST have digipaks! I read in Time magazine in the 70s that global cooling is going to destroy us all! I set off my car's airbag once a week to burn my face with chemicals for warmth. Thank GOD that we've brought malaria back by banning all effective pesticides - I need the fevers to keep me warm!
More cowbell.
Other than (maybe) by year, I can't think of any other way of arranging them. Average track length? Average BPM? Cover artist?
I started a whole thread about this some time ago. Deciding to arrange them alphabetically is only the start. Does the definite article get ignored, or do The Beatles get filed under 'T' instead of 'B'? Artist's surname, or complete artist name? If using surname, what about bands like Jethro Tull, which although derived from the name of an actual historical figure, is just a band name? What about soundtracks? Does the Blade Runner soundtrack go under 'B', or under 'V' for Vangelis? Classical works filed by composer, or performer? And so on. The more you look, the more complications you find.
Sort them by bar code, of course!
Archie Patterson (who some of you may know) sorted by the number of releases: bands with four albums, bands with five albums, bands with only a single release. Rob, the guy in the movie High Fidelity, filed by date of purchase.
Regarding what to file by, alphabetically, the key is to file by whatever you"ll remember. Therefore for me soundtracks go under the movie name (not the composer) while the Beatles Concerto goes under B, not Jeremy Rifkin.
[Edit - see, I got the composer wrong!]
Bands I put under band name, without the definite article. I think the only exception to this rule is 'Die Braut Haut Ins Auge', because the lexicon I have, put them there. Artists surname, but if a band is named after an historical figures or novel characters, I use the full name. So Jethro Tull under 'J' and Uriah Heep under 'U'. Composers mostly under the name of the composer, unless the performer is just as important, like Wendy Carlos, or the artist performs works of several composers. Soundtracks under the name of the composer. Tributes and things like that are under the name of the band tributed. And if an artist works with several bands, I tend to put everything under the main artist, which is only the case with Heinz Rudolf Kunze, which is all under 'K', even his latest album, credited to Räuberzivil. Artists who work solo and as part of a band, are seperated. So Todd Rundgren and Utopia, Bap and Wolfgang Niedecken, Roxy Music and Brian Ferry. Pierre Moerlen's Gong is under G, because the first album I own is still credited just as Gong.
Nah, it's easy.
The Beatles, of course, get filed under "B." Always use the artist's surname. Jethro Tull isn't the name of the individual artist, so they're filed under "J." Soundtracks get their own section (either under "S" or at the end of your A-Z discs) and are filed alphabetically, unless they're all an individual artist, in which case they're filed under that artist. File them as you would think to look for them later - do you want to listen to "The Chariots of Fire" soundtrack, or "that soundtrack that Vangelis did?"
Classical works present a problem. I don't have many, but I file them by composer, usually. The problem is that many classical discs contain more than one work, often not all by the same composer.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Depends on it. If it's a collection of composers I put them at the end with various artists. Otherwise I put them under the main composer. (The composer I bought them for.)
Exactly. There could be a dozen pieces on a classical album, but usually I bought it to get just that one piece by Honegger or Ives or Copland so that's where it files.
Unless I bought it for the performer, like Rubinstein or Susann McDonald or Rampal, in which case it's under the performer's name.
Unless it's a series that is more memorable under its series name ("Russian Overtures" or "Songs of Finland").
Do I lose classical albums I know I have? Yes I do. It helped having a database back when.
Not just classical either. The other week I could not find my copy of "Enneade." I eventually found it, filed under M -- which made sense after I found it.
Last edited by rcarlberg; 10-21-2015 at 01:41 PM.
Hard-drive ripping was a godsend to me for classical music organization. Do it right, and the actual album itself become meaningless - you can sort by composer, soloist, orchestra, year, conductor, etc.
Is there an actual ripping software that attaches this information?
Or does it all have to be hand entered into EVERY SINGLE TRACK ?
I use this
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
I don't know if there is software that does this. I do it manually track-by-track. It's drudgery, but I couldn't be happier with the results. For the first time ever, I could visualize my collection in a meaningful way. A variety of meaningful ways, in fact.
Yeah, I had that with my old PC-File database (DOS-based, to show you how old it was). I could run reports by the number of jazz albums, reports on albums recorded in France, albums released in Spain, albums over 60 minutes, albums featuring Jaco Pastorius, albums bought used, albums self-released by the artist. Charts of which months I bought the most albums, charts of what year the most albums were recorded, charts of which letters had the most artists.
It was loads of fun.
I continued to run it for years under a DOS command line window after moving to Windows.
Reluctantly I had to give it up when I finally gave up on Windows.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks