0.9_b14 - courting IDV2 as recommendation
Reply #9 – 2006-02-15 14:38:12
From a users point of view, there are no reasons not to use ID3v2. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364385"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Speed. I've just compared the operating time for creating then updating a set of 150 mp3 files on my notebook, according to the tag format. [..] It's only 150 fields. I let you imagine the requested time for someone adding a field to a complete library. Latest foobar2000 uses ID3v2 padding on rewrites, so rewrites of whole file are not necessary anymore if the new tag fits to the existing one and its padding. [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364499"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] Only if both conditions are followed. Removing ID3v2 on file is also slow. If someone don't want ID3v2 and encodes his library with foobar2000, he's going to loose hours just to convert tags to the desired format. I tried once with 2000 files, and not on a notebook: it's painfully slow. EDIT: Last and not least: I still don't understand why it tooks me 25 seconds to add a new small field on files that were already tagged by foobar2000 and should therefore be padded.Killing a working application might result in unpredicted behaviour. If you kill foobar2000 in the middle of an APEv2 tag update, you'll get a damaged APEv2 tag. As I said, I simulated a crash. It happens to me once, during the short period I used flac as lossless format. fb2k crashes during the process, and I spent two hours to check all files and discovering that one file was definitely corrupted. Corrupting an APE tag is much less an issue than corrupting a file. In my opinion at least