I appreciate the reply and the instructions. However as I want to load a pile of albums, it seems cumbersome to have to do extra steps to get the player to do what it should already do. I may try your suggestion if I cannot find another player at the store. I am somewhat bummed (can you tell?) that this flaw is so pervasive for this player which seems great otherwise.
Interesting situation if it plays in track number order and you load multiple albums in a single folder: Does that mean that it would play track 01 from each album, then all of the track 02’s, then the track 03’s? That doesn’t seem like much of an improvement over alphabetical order. It would have to play in natural unsorted order as when the files were copied onto the player, it would seem. Is that how previous Sansa players worked? I’m asking because I really don’t know, but it doesn’t seem like playing in track number order would be enough.
Finally, a company has the insight to recognize that PEOPLE WANT TO LISTEN TO THEIR MUSIC IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER! Oh, you just ripped the Beatles’ White album? here, I’ll put the tracks in alphabetical order for you… now you can listen to the album as it was meant to be heard … um, alphabetically. Hey you! Stop wasting your life alphabetizing all of your music files, just go buy a Clip Sport and it’ll do the work for you. Thanks, Sandisk, now I have more time to huff paint!
Is it silly yet? Realize that someone(s) actually designed and implemented ‘alphabetical order’ as the default album song ordering. Some engineer did this work in spite of the fact that most files have metadata track number tags. “Alphabetical ordering is the best choice, in my professional opinion, its what people want!” It follows that at least a few patently stupid people work for Sandisk.
This, along with the lack of a ‘lock’ mechanism (on a player marketed for use while exercising no less), are such incomprehensible lapses in design that my view of Sandisk is forever damaged. I will never buy/use another one of your products. Even if these issues are fixed in a firmware update today, the damage is done and my clip sport is in the trash where it belongs. I’m convinced you guys are idiots where it really matters, and you’ve lost my business forever.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to shop online for a toaster that will toast the slices in alphabetical order, because it’s just better that way.
I am not sorry for the ridicule, because this design is goddam ridiculous. shame on you.
Don’t mince words, jaken. Tell us what you really think. :smileyvery-happy:
I feel the same way. I just want to listen to my audiobooks with the chapters in the right order…you know-- 1, 2, 3 and so on…!!! Am I crazy for wanting to listen in sequential order!!! I’ve tried EVERYTHING to get this thing to work. NOTHING works. I am going to try pulvarizing this worthless thing with a hammer and then buying an ipod. That, I am convinced, will FINALLY work.
This, along with the lack of a ‘lock’ mechanism (on a player marketed for use while exercising no less), are such incomprehensible lapses in design that my view of Sandisk is forever damaged. (…) my clip sport is in the trash where it belongs.
Same here. For my own SanDik Clip Sport, it is not a big problem, as I can still use my Cowon. But I had the bad idea to buy a SanDisk Clip Sport as birthday present for my son (10 years), and it is a real disappointment. For both of us
I actually came and registered on the forums specially for this issue.
I bought this immediately prior to a 100 mile race based on the long battery life and my experience with the Clip player. Between the sorting by ‘title’ meta data rather than ‘track’ (or even ‘filename’) and lack of a lock button (what sport are the Sandisk folks engaging in that lack of a lock button works ok with?), I could not have regretted this purchase more.
And while the workarounds exist, I assume I am not alone in that I just transferred a 32gig card from a Clip (which sorted correctly) to the Sport. Edting 32 gigs of tags is not a workaround
Re the alpha issue:
If your file names include the track no. (e.g. 01-I Wanna Hold Your Hand), play via folder. Can easily add the track no. via Internet freeware MP3Tag, in batches.
If your file names include the track no.
I dislike this solution because the files are used by a plurality of players, and only the SanDisk is not able to use the tags. You should be obliged not include useless numbers in thousands of file numbers, and to create hundreds od folders simply because of an unexplainable design failure.
I visit this forum every at leasy two days to check if a firware update is available.
Agreed as to making changes for only 1 player.
But it’s fairly standard to have music _ file _ names (not tags) include the track no. (e.g. 01-I Wanna Hold Your Hand), so as to have ordered play when playing files via folder (not tag) navigation. And tag/file name editing software such as MP3Tag, in fact, has automated the process.
Otherwise, SanDisk is aware of the issue and working on it.
Thanks but I have already returned my Clip Sport and gotten a Sony.
So I have this problem too which is an absolute no-go for me (I am from the old generation that still listen to albums and not randomized playlists like young people tend to do these days).
And I am not going to edit thousands of tags so that titles will be improperly displayed with track numbers inside on all my devices either (and as I use FLAC, which takes space, I’m not going to duplicate everything).
I have legally (in France) three days left to return my player to the vendor. But if I could rest assured that this bug is actually going to be fixed in a firmware that I will be able to use (works for FLAC, update of the device can be done from a PC with Linux), I am willing to wait a little, the device being OK on other aspects.
Could a SanDisk official come here tell us if it is 100% sure that a fix is coming or if it is not yet so certain? Either way, it would be good to know.
Agreed as to making changes for only 1 player.
But it’s fairly standard to have music file names (not tags) include the track no. (e.g. 01-I Wanna Hold Your Hand), so as to have ordered play when playing files via folder (not tag) navigation.
It is definitely not standard for me as all my FLAC files are stored on a shared NAS in a single folder, and they are accessed by a dozen different players. Then it makes sense to build the file name with (in order) : artist name, disc name, track number, song name.
- Green Day - American Idiot - 01 - American Dev Idiot
- Green Day - American Idiot - 02 - Jesus of Suburbia
- Green Day - American Idiot - 03 - Holiday
- Green Day - American Idiot - 04 - Player of Broken Dreams
- et caetera …
Simple and efficient. By the way I encoded myself all the files from the CD I bought, and I do not intend to create hundred of useless folders, and to rename thousands of files … because of a flaw in the design of this player.
Thanks for the hint about playing by folder, it will be good enough for me until a fix is available.
Something I don’t understand is that you say that it is not standard for you to have track numbers in your file names whereas you show examples of file names that actually have track numbers. Even if there have artists and albums in front of the number, your files are still sorted by track number inside an album.
As for me, a typical file name in my music collection will be
artist--year-of-album--title-of-album--track-number--track-title.flac, so not too far in spirit from yours, and the folder view will do the trick (at least for some time).
It’s still a bit awkward to have to scroll done quite a bit in a long list of files, but once I have spotted the file of the first track of the album I want to listen to, the subsquent tracks will follow as intended and the behavior of the previous and next buttons are OK too.
Not ideal, but already usable for me.
Yes it’s because each time an example is given the file name does not merely include the track number: it actually begins with the track number, which is not very convenient. And why is that ? Because the player truncates the file names … apparently it considers only the 24 first letlers (Green Day - American Idi).
The track numbers is therefore not considered with our file names (yours and mine). And for a strange reason the first file appearing in Folder mode is the track number 07 then 08, 09, 10, 11, 12 and then 01 to 06. All appearing as Green Day - American Idi …
Further I understood that “folder play” implies creating a folder for each album, which is not very convenient either. If you put all the files in a single folder, yes it should work … if the track number is in the first 24 letters of the file name.
Anyway … let you see if your files are in the correct order and please give me your feedback (MP en français ce sera plus simple pour tout le monde).
In folder mode, even if only the first few charaters of the file names are displayed, they seem to still be sorted on the whole file names.
I have tested on a few albums I know well and the tracks are played in the proprer order, even if the part of the name that is displayed on the screen won’t be long enough to include the track number.
With my naming system, all the files corresponding to tracks of the same artist for albums published in the same decade are shown the same. Still, they played in the proper order.
I also put all the files in only one directory. So – even more with my naming system than yours – it’s a bit akward to have to scroll down such a big list to spot the beginning of an album. But at least the list is circular (starts over again when the end is reached).
So while I still insist that it is very far from ideal and am still waiting for a proper fix, it is somewhat usable for me in the meantime.
Any offical word on when this track order mess is going to fixed?
_ Un _official word, being worked on.