Skip to main content
Topic: [ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4? (Read 8475 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Currently I have this:

Quote
-S --noreplaygain -V 0 --vbr-new - %d --add-id3v2 --pad-id3v2 --ta "%album artist%" --tt "%title" --tl "%album%" --ty "%date%" --tn "%tracknumber%" --tg "%genre%"


How do I force it to write v2.3 and not v2.4? Not everything reads 2.4 yet, and I've experienced some issues. What do I need to add to that to do this?

I'm using LAME 3.97b2...

I hope it's okay to post this here; I'm using the same codec with EAC with no issues, it writes 2.3 tags there. Not sure why it behaves this way in fb2k.

Thanks in advance for any help!

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #1
foobar0.9 prefers v2.4 and afaik there's currently no way to write v2.3 tags with foobar.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #2
Not everything reads 2.4 yet

Since I delight in pointing out the obvious, I will remind you that ID3v2.4 is five years old. That's a hell of a long time for people to catch up.


[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #4
One has to wonder why people haven't caught up to writing ID3v2.4 tags.  Could it be the lack of backwards compatibility with v2.3?  Or maybe the newer standard wasn't enough of an improvement to warrant migrating?

If v2.4 was so great one would think we'd see more widespread support in devices and apps after 5 years.  Seeing that we haven't I have to question the devs reasons for using this failed version of the standard.

I'd like to see a way of defaulting to ID3v2.3 + ID3v1 in a future version.

 

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #5
Seeing that we haven't I have to question the devs reasons for using this failed version of the standard.
It's technically the best version of ID3v2. For one, foobar2000 needs to use less proprietary fields to store its metadata, so compatibility with other software is potentially larger.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #6
So is it official that there's no way to write ID3v2.3 tags? Is it because there is something built into foobar? EAC writes 2.3 with the same LAME arguments, so I suppose it is internal.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #7
To avoid that the converter automatically tags your file after the encoding, go to the settings of your encoding preset and change the extension to something different than mp3, for example mps.
Then you just need to rename the file afterwards and it has ID3v2.3 tags done by lame.exe and not foobar!

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #8
Seeing that we haven't I have to question the devs reasons for using this failed version of the standard.
It's technically the best version of ID3v2. For one, foobar2000 needs to use less proprietary fields to store its metadata, so compatibility with other software is potentially larger.

Can someone explain why there isn't a simple "Block tag operations" button that you can click on? this would solve alot of problems wouldn't it?

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #9
I definitely don't want to write ID3v2.4 tags either and I'm quite afraid to even play files with foobar 0.9. I have all my files set to read-only but I'm still not sure it will leave my tags alone...

A button for blocking tag updates would be great, but the ability to write ID3v2.3 tags would be even better...

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #10
A button for blocking tag updates would be great, but the ability to write ID3v2.3 tags would be even better...


Definitely. A "block tag updates" option would be great for 0.9.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #11
Yes, it would. Logic following, it would also block any metadata changes. So, it should also disable any actions which would change metadata. Perhaps disabling all "OK" buttons in the info dialog, and place a nice, obvious notice indicating that any changes will be lost because tagging is disabled. The same could go for untaggable formats.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #12
I definitely don't want to write ID3v2.4 tags either and I'm quite afraid to even play files with foobar 0.9. I have all my files set to read-only but I'm still not sure it will leave my tags alone...
I wouldn't know why you would be afraid of just playing files. 0.9 alters your files on playback as much as 0.8.3, that is not at all. You only get a "problem" when installing third-party components like foo_playcount (not the official one) that modify tags without confirmation from the user. But then, installing those is your choice.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #13
I wouldn't know why you would be afraid of just playing files. 0.9 alters your files on playback as much as 0.8.3, that is not at all. You only get a "problem" when installing third-party components like foo_playcount (not the official one) that modify tags without confirmation from the user. But then, installing those is your choice.

Well that doesn't explain why 0.9.x doesn't have a simple block tags check box like 0.8.3.

What if:
My original CD is broken, and those audio files are the only copies I have, and then what? Replaygain scanning does come with 0.9 if i remember corectly and that DOES mess with your tags.

Simply put I don't see any reason except personal that block tag updates is not in the 0.9.x series. At least with 0.8.3 I had the option to be safe...

edit - Okay just playing won't but other things will mess with your tags.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #14
Please stop derailing this thread. It is about the different versions of ID3v2, not about the possibility to write tags to some other storage instead of the audio files themselves. The reason why this isn't like in 0.8.3 where explained in great length during the beta cycle. I won't go through that discussion again, so please use the search function.

Replaygain scanning does come with 0.9 if i remember corectly and that DOES mess with your tags.

I wouldn't know why you would be afraid of just playing files. 0.9 alters your files on playback as much as 0.8.3, that is not at all. You only get a "problem" when installing third-party components like foo_playcount (not the official one) that modify tags without confirmation from the user. But then, installing those is your choice.
(Added emphasis.)

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #15
What if:
My original CD is broken, and those audio files are the only copies I have, and then what? Replaygain scanning does come with 0.9 if i remember corectly and that DOES mess with your tags.


I think you're confused about ID3v2.4.  Its a tagging standard, not a conspiracy to delete your MP3s.  Worst case, you might have to load up a different editor to convert back to ID3v2.3 in order to get whatever shitty hardware or software you have to work.

Or just update to something that supports a 5 year old standard.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #16



What if:
My original CD is broken, and those audio files are the only copies I have, and then what? Replaygain scanning does come with 0.9 if i remember corectly and that DOES mess with your tags.


I think you're confused about ID3v2.4.  Its a tagging standard, not a conspiracy to delete your MP3s.  Worst case, you might have to load up a different editor to convert back to ID3v2.3 in order to get whatever shitty hardware or software you have to work.

Or just update to something that supports a 5 year old standard.


I don't understand why the "5 year old standard" phrase keeps coming up.  How old the standard is is a non-issue.  The issue is that almost nobody supports the standard foobar supports, and almost nobody plans to start supporting it.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #17
I do have a program to convert ID3v2.4 -> ID3v2.3, but it becomes very tedious, as it doesn't have the ability to cover multiple folders, and I'm converting hundreds of files to MP3 in various different folders.


[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #19
Seeing that we haven't I have to question the devs reasons for using this failed version of the standard.
It's technically the best version of ID3v2. For one, foobar2000 needs to use less proprietary fields to store its metadata, so compatibility with other software is potentially larger.


No offense to anyone one the foobar team, but that's some pretty wrong-headed reasoning there.  The fact of the matter is that practically no other software or hardware supports 2.4, or plans to support 2.4.  So while in this theoretical land where everyone is using the latest standard all the time potential compatibility might be better, in the real world, actual compatibility with 2.4 is much, much worse than with 2.3.

It's gotten to the point where the 2.4 tags are more worthless to me than APEv2, which is what I've had to retag everything with along with ID3v1 for compatiblity, so things like Windows Media Connect (for streaming to my Xbox360) and iTunes (for loading my iPod) can still read the tags.  Which sucks, because then I lose the nice unicode tags that I have for a lot of my foreign MP3s.

Foobar straying far from the norms is fine, if it's the only player you use to play your MP3s, but I really don't think it's wise for the devs to consider this to be the case.

Mind you, this is just my opinion, but it's seriously reducing the utility of foobar for me (and, I imagine, many other users), and has me seriously looking at other music players.  None of which, of course, offer my precious replaygain or masstagger.  Maybe I'll just go back to 0.8.3...


[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #21
Quote
The fact of the matter is that practically no other software or hardware supports 2.4, or plans to support 2.4.

Fact is that someone needs to start supporting it then.
Alguém pare o mundo que eu quero descer!!

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #22
Meh. FB2K reads 2.4 tags, so I don't care whether it writes 2.3 or 2.4.

Do all you people that whinge and whine about lack of support actually use any programs that don't support it?
</signature>

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #23
Meh. FB2K reads 2.4 tags, so I don't care whether it writes 2.3 or 2.4.

Do all you people that whinge and whine about lack of support actually use any programs that don't support it?


I have 4 different hardware players and i dont want to test if 2.4 works on all of them, to make it short i use id3v2 mainly for compatibility purposes (all hardware players and future to have hardware players) if i'd use only foobar i would for sure use ape tags.

[ver 0.9] Converting to MP3: How to write ID3v2.3, not ID3v2.4?

Reply #24
Meh. FB2K reads 2.4 tags, so I don't care whether it writes 2.3 or 2.4.

Do all you people that whinge and whine about lack of support actually use any programs that don't support it?


Yes.  Not all of us only listen to our music on our computer, you know.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019