Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: irchs on 2003-08-27 16:46:12

Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: irchs on 2003-08-27 16:46:12
http://www.ntfs.org/index.php?action=news&...atid=1#news7533 (http://www.ntfs.org/index.php?action=news&catid=1#news7533)

Enjoy
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Mechrekt on 2003-08-27 16:50:27
Thank you, good news! 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: bubka on 2003-08-27 17:54:54
ogg & acc ripping support (not that i would use it but still)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: LordCorvin on 2003-08-27 18:09:15
Interesting, where did the AAC encoder came from? Because it's CBR only, it seems to me like some incarnation of FhG/Dolby? How possible that winamp is going to include AAC encoder at all? Is it going to cost money? (Not that this matters too much for me, the only file type that associated with winamp in my computer after foobar2000 was born is MIDI        )

EDIT: Typos...
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-27 18:12:02
Hrm... I can't tell really, but if you followed the news recently, you can guess where Nullsoft (actually AOL  ) licensed their encoder from.

If this encoder has the extensions I expect it has, it is a killer encoder only comparable to HE AAC.

And I don't think it'll cost money. Again, check out the recent news.


BTW: "Nullsoft knows what's good ™"
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: bubka on 2003-08-27 18:13:14
ahh, i still have to reshack the winamp3 icons into it... 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: bubka on 2003-08-27 18:28:54
well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Mac on 2003-08-27 18:35:39
Why has Winamp become an audio encoder?  I thought the idea was to not make the bloat related mistakes of Winamp 3?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-27 18:36:21
Quote
well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well

Gah. These $&%#! are already borking the format.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Ivan Dimkovic on 2003-08-27 18:42:31
Looks like improved Dolby Consumer encoder, very similar to QT6.1 (not 6.3)

And it says so in the DLL file

At 64 kbps it sounds exactly like QT6.1, so I would refrain from naming it "killer encoder", considering the HE-AAC, mp3Pro and Ogg at that bit rate.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-27 18:46:10
Quote
At 64 kbps it sounds exactly like QT6.1, so I would refrain from naming it "killer encoder"

Read my post again. >_<

"If this encoder has the extensions I expect it has, it is a killer encoder..."

Obviously, the extensions aren't present.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: bubka on 2003-08-27 18:47:57
its about a 2 kbps abr mode, i only get 157 to 159 (where it stays locked at) on the 160 settings

does not even go down during silence as both ogg and mpc do
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Mgz on 2003-08-27 18:53:23
This alpha version is pretty decent, they have Vorbis 1.35 and MPEG Audio Decoder 2.96+ACC that Winamp 2.95b have


I'm going to try MMD skin with this thing.



:edit


w00t, MMD3 on WInamp 2, but there are so much thing to do to reduce CPU useage (20-30%
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: sld on 2003-08-27 18:54:24
Quote
Why has Winamp become an audio encoder?  I thought the idea was to not make the bloat related mistakes of Winamp 3?

Well, don't install the encoder plugin(s) then.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: IrYoKu on 2003-08-27 18:55:24
And what happened to Winamp 4??? Why version 5?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-27 18:58:24
Quote
Why version 5?

Winamp 5 = Winamp 2 + Winamp 3
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Ivan Dimkovic on 2003-08-27 18:59:35
Quote
Quote
well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well

Gah. These $&%#! are already borking the format.

Too bad they decided to use AAC bitstream format instead of MP4.  MP4 is much more flexible and allows many advanced things like easy streaming, etc...

Also, putting ID3 tags is a very stupid thing  IMHO.  Now we could end up in dozens of quasi-standards attached to an AAC file, and a confusion what AAC actually is.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: LordCorvin on 2003-08-27 21:51:11
Yes, that's sad... I was very happy when id3v2 support was removed from faad... And now it seems to be something widely accepted, because "Nullsoft knows what's good  " mantra... Seriously, it'll be hard to explain to avg Joe why it's bad to tag his freshly made AACs in winamp... (If we assume that he'll rip to AAC at all, of course). May be it's still possible to try and convice Justin to change this - at least not to use id3v* tags? May be PP is the right person for this task, if they'll ever speak one with other once again 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: sublimelouie on 2003-08-27 22:34:48
hsds  we
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: lazyn00b on 2003-08-27 23:10:13
Quote
hsds  we

Huh? Maybe n68 could translate this for us
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: M on 2003-08-27 23:15:14
I just glanced at the Winamp forums (a place I seldom visit) and could not find any obvious thread about Winamp 5 development. Of course, since I seldom visit there I might just not have figured out where it would be... but has anyone knowledgeable bothered to send Justin & Co. a detailed explanation of the MP4 vs. AAC argument, why there is a need to standardize AAC/MP4 tagging, and the benefits of certain encoders over others?

    - M.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: danchr on 2003-08-27 23:16:27
Quote
Too bad they decided to use AAC bitstream format instead of MP4.  MP4 is much more flexible and allows many advanced things like easy streaming, etc...

Also, putting ID3 tags is a very stupid thing  IMHO.  Now we could end up in dozens of quasi-standards attached to an AAC file, and a confusion what AAC actually is.

Yeah, I find it quite amazing they would do such a thing. The entire idea with using standardised formats is interoperability, and the only thing they're gaining is 100% incompatibility with QuickTime/iTunes. Aren't there all sorts of seeking problems with raw AAC files anyway?

Just a wild guess, but aren't ID tags in an AAC bit stream in violation of the standard?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Daijoubu on 2003-08-27 23:19:40
It's me or the log shows 2.95 then 5?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-27 23:22:08
Quote
Yeah, I find it quite amazing they would do such a thing. The entire idea with using standardised formats is interoperability, and the only thing they're gaining is 100% incompatibility with QuickTime/iTunes. Aren't there all sorts of seeking problems with raw AAC files anyway?

Yes. They are using ADTS AAC, but still, the only way to reliably seek such files is reading the entire file first.

As I understand it, they don't use MP4 because it's a competitor to their own borky container format, NSV :B

Quote
Just a wild guess, but aren't ID tags in an AAC bit stream in violation of the standard?


Of course they are.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: LordCorvin on 2003-08-27 23:40:14
Quote
I just glanced at the Winamp forums (a place I seldom visit) and could not find any obvious thread about Winamp 5 development. Of course, since I seldom visit there I might just not have figured out where it would be... but has anyone knowledgeable bothered to send Justin & Co. a detailed explanation of the MP4 vs. AAC argument, why there is a need to standardize AAC/MP4 tagging, and the benefits of certain encoders over others?

    - M.

Yeah, you have a good point here, may be it's really worth to just try to talk with him, but I still think that it'll be better if the person who'll try to educate him about aac/mp4 will be someone known to Justin and someone whose knowledge he already trusts. Anyway, it seems to me that Roberto rights and the real reason is not a lack of knowledge, but ridiculus competition between mp4 and nsv...

BTW: You can use winamp3 skins with this release. Slow as hell, but still fun 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: JohnV on 2003-08-27 23:52:59
Quote
Quote
Quote
well tried out the acc encoding, its ABR, at least it seems, does not move much though, uses both idv1 and idv2 tags as well

Gah. These $&%#! are already borking the format.

Too bad they decided to use AAC bitstream format instead of MP4.  MP4 is much more flexible and allows many advanced things like easy streaming, etc...

Also, putting ID3 tags is a very stupid thing  IMHO.  Now we could end up in dozens of quasi-standards attached to an AAC file, and a confusion what AAC actually is.

Ivan, I hope you or Menno (I think you 2 are the only guys with enough authority that the nullsoft devs actually listen), go to winamp-forum, and raise this issue up, explain why they shouldn't use id3-tags etc..
I'm almost seeing Nullsoft messing up the MP4/AAC "scene" quite a lot with these stupid decisions.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: bubka on 2003-08-28 00:15:00
and if you are using LAME, at least add --aps to the options... -r3mix pfft
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: neoufo51 on 2003-08-28 02:52:59
Another mirror...

http://dorksnet.org/files/winamp50superpre..._full_noaod.exe (http://dorksnet.org/files/winamp50superprealphaleetness2_full_noaod.exe)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-08-28 03:11:34
YAAAY!  They fixed the only bug that really ever bothered me about W/A.

As menial as this may seem...  The inability (in W/A 2.9x) for the Media Library to properly display UTF-8/Unicode/UTF-Latin or whatever the format type is for special characters in Vorbis comments.  I just tried reloading a Björk album to the Library, and the artist name and track titles didn't come out all mangled as they always did before (along with every other special character).

Finally, my search for a player that meets all of my criteria is over (for now...)

Now, if they can just get MilkDrop smoothed out.  (Works, but a slight-bit blocky on all settings I've tried so far, and my PC has *plenty* of video processing power/resolution, so it shouldn't be a hardware/driver limitation.)  Not that I use visualizations often, but it would be nice to have something different than AVS to port to the plasma monitor when I plug into people's home theater systems when DJ'ing parties and what-not (though AVS is still cool...)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: danchr on 2003-08-28 06:42:59
Quote
Yes. They are using ADTS AAC, but still, the only way to reliably seek such files is reading the entire file first.

As I understand it, they don't use MP4 because it's a competitor to their own borky container format, NSV :B

Idiots. Seems like they don't know what's good anyway

Quote
Quote
Just a wild guess, but aren't ID tags in an AAC bit stream in violation of the standard?


Of course they are.

Which means that if they use the same MPEG-4 AAC license everyone else uses, they are breaking the license since it AFAIK only allows activities in accordance with the standard.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Gecko on 2003-08-28 10:10:12
Seems like they don't like this:
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?postid=1066551 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?postid=1066551)

I thought Justin was planning on leaving AOL in June?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: amano on 2003-08-28 10:53:45
hmm. as I understood, the inclusion of an aac encoder is not definitive. there has been this aac encoder in older internal betas as well, but was removed for the official release and replaced with the ogg encoder (a mp3 encoder was offered to download on winampheaven optionally). as these encoders jump in with the new ripping abilities of winamp, not many people will use them anyway. because the winamp ripper is very basic and not full-featured in any way.

the aac playback of the in_mp3.dll jumps in for streaming purposes only. if you install the faad in_mp4 there shouldn't be any problems with winamp and aac.

just relax, it isn't even official.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: DeXT on 2003-08-28 12:28:02
I found two interesting things about WA5's AAC decoding support, when compared to faad2 (in_mp4).

- It still does not support 56-bit MPEG-4 ADTS headers (it expects old 58-bit headers for MPEG-4 streams)
- It seems to support, or at least tolerate standalone HE AAC files (faad2 plays these at half the speed) -- probably not taking advantage of the SBR part
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: JEN on 2003-08-28 14:12:06
Foobar is better then winamp 

If you like winamp that much, why not get the winamp skin for foobar 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: amano on 2003-08-28 14:27:30
just one word for jen

USE LINUX!

and all together: Linux, Linux, foobar, Linux, foobar,...

I like these informative comments...
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: gonzotek on 2003-08-28 15:12:15
I'll point the beta list to the concerns about aac/mp4 expressed in this thread.  The forums aren't very useful for getting the devs' attention, most of them never look at the forums.  Since this build is an alpha and leaked, we're not offering any help to users who get it.  I'd say it's still too early to start discussing what's wrong with it anyway.  They're aware it still needs a lot of work in most new/updated areas.

-=Gonzotek=-
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: WEST on 2003-08-28 15:22:12
Quote
Foobar is better then winamp  

If you like winamp that much, why not get the winamp skin for foobar 

Where?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: DarkAngel on 2003-08-28 16:08:48
Why do we have this rather schizophrenic cut'n'shut Winamp 5? What was nullsoft's motivation? listening to your customers is one thing, but their time would have been better spent optimising Winamp3 to be faster, sleeker, better, and generally address peoples gripes, rather than strap it onto Winamp2's backend. God knows what this must be like internally.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: JEN on 2003-08-28 17:18:49
Quote
Quote
Foobar is better then winamp  

If you like winamp that much, why not get the winamp skin for foobar 

Where?


Download from Here (http://www.foobarlooks.tk)!

How to make it work help Here (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=12535&hl=skin) 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: JEN on 2003-08-28 17:20:38
Quote
just one word for jen

USE LINUX!

That looks like two works
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Linkin on 2003-08-28 17:21:34
do plugins from wa2 work with wa5 alpha?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: menno on 2003-08-28 17:21:56
Quote
Ivan, I hope you or Menno (I think you 2 are the only guys with enough authority that the nullsoft devs actually listen), go to winamp-forum, and raise this issue up, explain why they shouldn't use id3-tags etc..
I'm almost seeing Nullsoft messing up the MP4/AAC "scene" quite a lot with these stupid decisions.

Tried that... not much luck I guess.

Menno
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: papadoc on 2003-08-28 17:37:20
Sawg has addressed the issue of the leak here:

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=...threadid=147322 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147322)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-28 18:17:03
HAHA! It was taking too long for a foobar zealot to storm in.

I was starting to wonder, "where are they?"
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: mp3chan on 2003-08-28 18:31:03
Still buggy... When scrolling in the playlist (using wheel mouse) the volume also get scrolled... Do you experience this bug also?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: KAMiKAZOW on 2003-08-28 20:23:42
Quote
Still buggy... When scrolling in the playlist (using wheel mouse) the volume also get scrolled... Do you experience this bug also?

No.

On my PC Winamp 5 behaves almost like Winamp2. Just a few cosmetical glitches.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: amano on 2003-08-28 21:38:26
hmm. despite this aac "issue", I like what I see.
winamp3 skins do apply, some with glitches (wrong font sizes...), some next to perfection.
I like my WA2 (sorry 5) with the MMD3 skin.

some work still to do with Winamp3 skins:
- kbps and mono/stereo do not show up
- EQ doesn't work
- the color themes selection doesn't appear in the skin (but in the menues)

hmm. other observations:
- the WA2 base skin seems to have new bold fonts for displaying the song titles
- the preferences menues are tidied up
- milkdrop is included in addition to the usual AVS
- the minibrowser is integrated into the library, if you select a radio station for streaming, it optionally shows the radio station website ("Now Playing")
- even with winamp3 skins applied it is faster than version 3, and - as usual - stable as a rock
- no signs of any burning capabilities could be found
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: amano on 2003-08-28 21:47:11
Quote
Why do we have this rather schizophrenic cut'n'shut Winamp 5? What was nullsoft's motivation? listening to your customers is one thing, but their time would have been better spent optimising Winamp3 to be faster, sleeker, better, and generally address peoples gripes, rather than strap it onto Winamp2's backend. God knows what this must be like internally.

not a big deal. they used Winamp 2 and included a plugin for winamp 3 skins. the skins weren't written in wasabi (nullsofts own framework), but in MAKI (something xml-like, I think). so they took their Maki-interpreting code written in wasabi and ported it to a c++ plugin. so no mess happened.

and again: for a pre-alpha, which wasn't intended for public views, it's great. better than some final versions by others.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-08-28 21:57:19
Quote
- no signs of any burning capabilities could be found

I *believe* (didn't try this at home) that you need the Veritas Px engine installed to use the burning engine. At least, that's how it worked with that CD burning plugin once available for Winamp2.

http://www.prassieurope.com/ (http://www.prassieurope.com/)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: M on 2003-08-28 22:19:33
Quote
Quote
- no signs of any burning capabilities could be found

I *believe* (didn't try this at home) that you need the Veritas Px engine installed to use the burning engine. At least, that's how it worked with that CD burning plugin once available for Winamp2.

http://www.prassieurope.com/ (http://www.prassieurope.com/)

Yeah, but that particular burning plugin (seems to be no longer available at classic.winamp.com?) you were restricted to WAV or MP3 files, and the maximum burnable length was just under 74 minutes. I sincerely hope they go a different route - such as hacking a way to pipe any format through CDRDAO via a true CUE sheet - if Justin & Co. are adding burning support in Winamp 5.

    - M.

Edit: Clarification.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-08-28 23:01:33
Quote
Foobar is better then winamp  

If you like winamp that much, why not get the winamp skin for foobar 

Uh...You got ABX results to back up that statement?

(Just kidding!)   

Anyway, I'd agree that Foobar is much more configurable than Winamp, and seems to have better developer support as well, but I'm just not smart enough to figure out super-1337-string-programming yet to get the power flowing.   

Or would the Winamp skin do some of that for me?

------------------

As for my belief that the W/A Library Unicode issue had been fixed...it hasn't, I was wrong.  Read that it will take a major re-write of W/A to support Unicode and international character sets.  Never happen just to fix that, more than likely. Oh, well...maybe there aren't enough international users of W/A?  (Or enough users with music with Unicode in tag fields, anyway?)

And concerning Milkdrop 1.04, got my problem fixed.  It was just a config issue.  And let me say, Milkdrop is s*l*i*c*k!  I know it's been around, but this is my first time with it.  This is a feature only of interest to DJs with giant video panels behind them, I know, but it's an awesome step up from less-capable visualization formats, as long as you have enough PC/video-subsystem to make it run well, which I barely do.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: fireballuk2001 on 2003-08-28 23:45:31
I for one am getting tired of hearing people mention foobar at every possible oppertunity, especially in a winamp thread... mentioning foobar is totally offtopic and not very constructive   
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Peter on 2003-08-29 02:40:49
Quote
I for one am getting tired of hearing people mention foobar at every possible oppertunity, especially in a winamp thread... mentioning foobar is totally offtopic and not very constructive   

Mentioning foobar2000 *is* constructive, as I've been ranting at Winamp developers about eg. unicode support for long time, with no results worth mentioning; perhaps proper competition will force them to start learning. I don't think media library supports unicode, they most likely only fixed bug with converting UTF-8 (used internally by vorbis comments) to ANSI. Try reading Vorbis files with Russian or Chineese characters in tags.
As long as they use Winamp v2.x plugins, title display is limited to ANSI for sure, and so are file paths; though most of their input plugins probably carry hack to guess unicode file path from "crippled" ANSI path converted from unicode path containing characters that don't have ANSI counterparts (eg. "c:\directory\????? ?????.mp3"); however, if you have two files that give same string after converting their file path to ANSI, Winamp won't be able to recognize any difference between them and if you add both of them to playlist, it will look like it added first of them twice (problem unfixable within current input plugin spec; it doesn't look like they will ever do anything about it seeing that they dropped Winamp3 component architecture).
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-08-29 03:09:55
Quote
Mentioning foobar2000 *is* constructive, as I've been ranting at Winamp developers about eg. unicode support for long time, with no results worth mentioning; perhaps proper competition will force them to start learning. I don't think media library supports unicode, they most likely only fixed bug with converting UTF-8 (used internally by vorbis comments) to ANSI.

First of all, thank you Peter for your post here.  It reinforces what I just said about developer support...how often would the Winamp developer(s) try to help with (or even comment on) any Foobar2000 issues?  Not in this lifetime, I'll bet.  That's the kind of unheard-of attention that makes me really want to use fb2k.  I only use W/A because it's quick and easy (for an idiot like me), and only because I haven't had time recently to really learn fb2k configuration.  Oh well...I will soon, I hope.

Anyway...W/A 2.91, 2.95beta and this 5.0alpha seem to do fine for reading Unicode in the main title display and in the playlist window.  It's only the media library that has a problem with it.  I turn off the Use bitmap font for main title display to enable it to properly display international characters in the title and playlist displays.  I wonder why there can't be a similar function for the library?  And as for two files ending up with the same path/name after unicode>ANSI conversion, I don't think I'll have that specific problem with my music, as I haven't come across two files named closely enough even when unicode is involved.

[mild rant=on]
I'm no programmer (though I am a software config mgr), but I'm confused as to why the app would need an entire rewrite just to enable unicode support in the library?!?  I'm sure there's a valid reason, though.  Maybe because the library was designed and "born" as a seperate application with a separate source architecture?  It is a plug-in, after all.  So why can't they just re-write the plug-in?
[/mild rant]

That's OK...I estimate that in a few weeks I'll be a happy fb2k user anyways.  Then I can uninstall W/A altogether.  And screw the W/A skin.  As for interface eye-candy, less is more.  But if I need W/A just for visualization support (at parties, etc.) then I'll keep it around for that, I suppose.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Peter on 2003-08-29 03:19:52
Ability to display "international" characters from current ANSI codepage != unicode support.
Try Chineese or Russian.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Hyperion on 2003-08-29 04:23:14
Nothing(WAx.x) can beat 2.81 +Peter's plugins! 

AND WA5's plug-ins is STILL Peter's waveOut/DirectSound/vorbis.......... B)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Funkjoker on 2003-08-29 20:22:39
I hope Winamp5 became an alternative to the 2.xx versions......back to the muthaphukin roots!
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: vh1 on 2003-08-29 21:05:09
Winamp5 still screws up like 2.9x+ did for me
How lame
I thought they'd fix them

http://vh1.2y.net/wa2.9x+errors/ (http://vh1.2y.net/wa2.9x+errors/)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: LordCorvin on 2003-09-01 00:01:39
I confirm Peter's comment about unicode. My 2 main languages are Hebrew and Russian (I know that looks strange  ), so I use both of them while tagging... Winamp2 just doesn't have a clue about unicode at all... Neither while reading a file path, nor in tags. They don't want to support an international users, but they'll be forced to do so sooner or later, because of competition with other/better solutions. I realy hope that foobar will be the one who'll make such a difference in Nullsoft approach. I don't think I'll ever return back to winamp, but,  for others who use it, I'd want to see such a change. At least, there will be less screwed up tags out there. 

BTW: (Slightly off topic) On winamp's forum I saw a request of some member to include MPC plugin in winamp's distribution. One of the admins replied with an explaination about leagal problems and AOL, as usual. He was asked about vorbis official plugin and the answer was that it's included in a distribution because one of the former winamp plugins developers was a big vorbis fans. Interesting, who is he talking about?     
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: irchs on 2003-09-01 00:21:57
ooo, I hope AOL don't fork me for linking the stuff

Winamp5 is WA2 with a WA3 skin plugin.... basically speaking.

All WA2 plugins work with WA5.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: mp3chan on 2003-09-01 00:46:07
Quote
All WA2 plugins work with WA5.

With some cosmetic bugs, also with WA3 skin. Bug about scrolling that I wrote before also skin bug, MMD3.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Will Fisher on 2003-10-02 22:33:00
I'd like to explain to you guys why winamp is adding id3 tags to mpeg-2 aac files it rips.

Firstly, winamp has an mpeg-2 aac licence for encoding.  Not an mpeg-4 licence.

You can say "AOL should pay for the mpeg-4 licence" all you like, it isn't going to change the position on it.

If you see here: http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4...licenseFAQ.html (http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/licenseFAQ.html)
Quote
If I am an MPEG-2 AAC licensee, should I take an MPEG-4 AAC license?
If you only wish to build MPEG-2 AAC products (for example, ISDB broadcast receivers), then an MPEG-2 AAC license is sufficient. However, if you wish to incorporate additional MPEG-4 AAC tools to target products for wireless networking or low-bandwidth streaming, then an MPEG-4 AAC license is needed.


If winamp was to use (as is the suggested solution) the MP4 wrapper, that is part of the MPEG-4 AAC tools as mentioned above (as far as I know), and as such needs an MPEG-4 AAC licence. Which winamp doesn't have.

So, we can't use that method to tag.
And as I'm sure you are aware, there is no tagging standard for mpeg-2 AAC, so any tag that we add would break the standard.

Thus winamp (optionally) adds ID3 tags.  This works on a mulititude of different decoders, as it is the most widly used tagging format.

Any questions or suggestions? (apart from "use foobar or linux", cause that won't help anything)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: menno on 2003-10-02 22:51:08
The MP4 file format has nothing to do with AAC. It's just a container format in which you can mux AAC data. It's not an AAC tool.

Menno
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: danchr on 2003-10-02 22:57:45
Quote
Any questions or suggestions?

Is it guaranteed that no compliant decoder will attempt to decode the tag?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Will Fisher on 2003-10-02 23:02:44
Quote
Is it guaranteed that no compliant decoder will attempt to decode the tag?

All of the players we have tried have decoded correctly. (Including the goodmans and sony hardware decoders, or so i'm told)
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: danchr on 2003-10-02 23:08:52
Quote
All of the players we have tried have decoded correctly. (Including the goodmans and sony hardware decoders, or so i'm told)

How about if you take the AAC stream and put it into an MP4?

Anyway, according to this mail (http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/discuss/2003-July/000479.html) there may not be any patents on the base MP4 file format, as long you don't use hinting.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: spoon on 2003-10-03 09:22:32
Quote
why winamp is adding id3 tags to mpeg-2 aac files it rips.


I wished we had seen the end of that tag, and here it is again, resurrected. Why not use the APE2 tag?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: johnsonlam on 2003-10-03 11:10:41
Talk a bit more about Unicode ...

Foobar 7 Unicode support is nearly perfect, now I'm changing all my collections with the Foobar metatag + MP3gain (replaygain tag still not widely supported).

All I can tell is Japanese and Chinese support is working great! And I see someone using Russian and Hebrew also no problem, anyone can try Thai or Korean?

Surely Foobar is better than Winamp ... now.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Peter on 2003-10-03 12:06:28
Quote
Quote
Is it guaranteed that no compliant decoder will attempt to decode the tag?

All of the players we have tried have decoded correctly. (Including the goodmans and sony hardware decoders, or so i'm told)

"It violates the standard but everyone seems to tolerate it so let's use it."
How typical for Winamp people.

Regarding unicode - I don't think it's even worth the trouble to argue with them, like I said above, they can't have proper unicode support without killing some "critical" features like compatibility with old plugins; apparently trying to discuss the problem on their irc channel only gets you nazi-flamed by regulars (*cough* THEMike). Nullsoft has made so many bad design decisions that it isn't even funny anymore, now that Winamp3 development is suspended, I doubt if you will see working unicode support anytime soon.
Their developers not quite understanding how unicode works is another story.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: RIV@NVX on 2003-10-03 20:10:25
Winamp is/was blocking Ogg Vorbis files with ID3v2 applied and nobody was saying: "Well, EAC writes it, so we should use it too" because developers recommended using Vorbis comments.

Now, we have situation that Easy CD Creator writes ID3 tags at AAC files (as I heard), so Winamp has decided to go for that "standard", instead of using what developers (Ivan, menno and others) recommend.

Perhaps I am missing some obvious logic?
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-10-03 20:15:56
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=...threadid=151019 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151019)

These guys are just brilliant...
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-10-03 21:19:04
Quote
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=...threadid=151019 (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=151019)

These guys are just brilliant...

Quote
Given that winamp doesn't yet have ripping, except in a leaked alpha build, people who use other players for quality/internationalisation/other anal reason* must already have a ripping solution that suits them, QED.


So, the official line from Nullsoft is that a desire for quality is an anal reason to use an audio player?!?!?

LOL!   

That's it!  I'm switching to foobar2000 this weekend!  And I mean it this time!


...Also, Winamp uses ID3 blocking on Vorbis files?  That explains why Tag&Rename with "Ogg" selected gave me trouble with files whose (Vorbis) tags I modified (in the interest of speed/ease) with Winamp.  Ugh!


Edit:  OMG!!! ...

Quote
As for characters, you shouldn't need more than lower ascii. Upper ascii is for dodgy foreign types. If you get into needing unicode to represent your language, I suggest f*cking off, and learning English.

OK, I think I've been fooled again...This guy cannot possibly be a moderator of that forum.  You cannot possibly have any level of authority in the enforcement of civil relations if you also have that kind of flagrantly prejudiced attitude.  Is this attitude shared by Winamp developers (not former developers like Peter, who has obviously moved on to better things)?  That would certainly explain why Winamp has these problems with international character sets.

[rant]
"Dodgy foreign types"?  Foreign to...what?  US?  Poland?  Brazil?  China?  Everybody's a foreigner to someplace in the world.

And how does "learning English" solve the international-character-display issue?  I'm American, English is my only language, and yet I have a need for proper display of song titles like Jóga, Ænima, Dôme and Café Europa.

Hmmm...Does that make me anal?  Here's what it will make me...a foobar2000 convert.
[/rant]
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: goweropolis on 2003-10-03 21:26:56
Quote
That's it!  I'm switching to foobar2000 this weekend!  And I mean it this time!

Believe me, you'll never look back 
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-10-03 21:33:46
Quote
So, the official line from Nullsoft is that a desire for quality is an anal reason to use an audio player?!?!?

Keep in mind that THEMike is not a Nullsoft spokesman, he's just a moronic moderator.

So, don't confuse what he says and Nullsoft's official line.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Lyx on 2003-10-03 21:50:28
hey, its been a while since i have been with winamp. I did suppose that they may be a bit arrogant. But........ i didn't know they became that power-mad.

Thank you, winamp-crew - now the only thing i have to do is to point everyone of my friends who use winamp to exactly this thread in the winamp forums... it has never been that easy for me to explain to winamp-users, why they should stop using that player.

- Lyx
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: ScorLibran on 2003-10-03 21:54:47
Quote
Quote
So, the official line from Nullsoft is that a desire for quality is an anal reason to use an audio player?!?!?

Keep in mind that THEMike is not a Nullsoft spokesman, he's just a moronic moderator.

So, don't confuse what he says and Nullsoft's official line.

OK, well that would make more sense.  But not only does it say [Moderator] as his member type,  but his registered "from" field is #nullsoft.  That's what made me think he was "official" (even though #nullsoft just represents an IRC channel..."real" Nullsoft folks would belong to that channel as well).

Anyway, a moderator represents a forum in some capacity, even if unofficially, in the sense of people "looking up" to them for guidance and often for what they think is "official" information (even if they're wrong to think this).  It's a matter of perception, I guess.


Edit:  I apologize for drifting the topic with part of my previous post.  But I become perturbed by people who are prejudiced.  It's one of my biggest peeves...
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Peter on 2003-10-03 22:04:34
Last time I had an opportunity to communicate with them, most of their devs had similar attitude about unicode.
Other than that, arguing on their irc channel is often the only way to get things done (and I probably know that better than anyone else), and from what I've heard, certain known person got recently kickbanned from there (by THEMike) for trying to discuss unicode. Yay.


[edit]
More BS coming from a Winamp Forums moderator (Will):
Quote
mp4 inplies mpeg-4 which AOL isn't paying for (as i, again, said before
Gee, does MP3 imply MPEG-3 and MP2 imply MPEG-2 then ? How can people get that ignorant and argue about things they REALLY have no clue about ?

.. and now they accused Roberto of foobar2000 zealotry. That's something new.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Ivan Dimkovic on 2003-10-03 22:16:39
Remarkable level of igonrance

Somebody should tell them that MPEG-4 file format (MP4) has no fees imposed, and they can put their MPEG-2 AAC stream inside that without violating any license... 

And as long they use MPEG-4 AAC LC without PNS (and the encoder they have certainly does not support PNS)  the license is exactly the same as MPEG-2  AAC LC because the stream is the same - i.e. same patents, same algorithm.. same everything

Or they should call Via Licensing to check some things before posting BS and make another surrogate debiliated half-standard like ADTS AAC + ID3v2 ... omg.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: rjamorim on 2003-10-03 22:31:56
Quote
.. and now they accused Roberto of foobar2000 zealotry. That's something new.

Indeed.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Peter on 2003-10-04 02:41:33
Quote
Or they should call Via Licensing to check some things before posting BS and make another surrogate debiliated half-standard like ADTS AAC + ID3v2 ... omg.

Actually this is even worse.
They don't properly support id3v2 standard either.
They shove data in current ANSI codepage into id3v2 fields and mark them as ISO-8859-1, then read ISO-8859-1 and UTF-8 fields as current ANSI codepage.
Thanks to Nullsoft and their efforts, most of id3v2-tagged files out there have fields in someone's local codepage marked as ISO-8859-1, and all other software has to properly read that, so the situation is really similar to Microsoft and IE bastardizing HTML standards - standard says to do X, but everyone does Y because most developers of most popular software decided to do Y instead of X.
They also blatantly ignore any requests to correct that (read up on unicode support issues). Last time I checked, their developers didn't really have a clue what UTF-8 or ISO-8859-1 are, so the situation is similar as with MP4 container.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Sawg on 2003-10-04 02:59:58
You are wasting your time posting about it on the Winamp Forums.  After reading the thread it is clear that the Winamp Zealotry make it clear nothing will come of that thread.  The developers rarely ever visit the forums at all anyways and probably haven't even seen the thread.  But thread and information has been posted on the Winamp Beta List, but so far there seems to be no real response from any of the developers so far.  Your best bet is to try and contact Nullsoft directly:

Justin Frankel    justin@Winamp.com
Christophe Thibault  christophe@winamp.com
Francis Gastellu  francis@winamp.com
Steve Gedikian  steve@nullsoft.com

To my knowledge those are the forum members actually working on Winamp5.  That's probably the best way to get them to listen to reasoning.  If they will listen is a whole another matter all together.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: ger@co on 2003-10-04 03:20:00
Quote
I'm just not smart enough to figure out super-1337-string-programming yet to get the power flowing....I only use W/A because it's quick and easy (for an idiot like me), and only because I haven't had time recently to really learn fb2k configuration.


ScorLibran, you are a man after my own heart.  If I can't simply select the options I want with a few simple clicks of the mouse, then, forget it.  In the drop-down playlist of foobar2000, the artist's names and titles of the songs do not display completely like they do in Winamp.  On many, if not all, of my albums, the artist's names (if they have featured guests), song titles and album titles are all truncated. I know there is a way to remedy that, but, because I do not know the code, I can't fix it. 

Now, before any one flames me, I would like to add that I am in no way knocking foobar; I am simply stating why it is not for me.  I tried it, and I did like it except for the feature I mentioned.

Later.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: /\/ephaestous on 2003-10-04 04:23:07
Quote
Quote
I'm just not smart enough to figure out super-1337-string-programming yet to get the power flowing....I only use W/A because it's quick and easy (for an idiot like me), and only because I haven't had time recently to really learn fb2k configuration.


ScorLibran, you are a man after my own heart.  If I can't simply select the options I want with a few simple clicks of the mouse, then, forget it.  In the drop-down playlist of foobar2000, the artist's names and titles of the songs do not display completely like they do in Winamp.  On many, if not all, of my albums, the artist's names (if they have featured guests), song titles and album titles are all truncated. I know there is a way to remedy that, but, because I do not know the code, I can't fix it. 

Now, before any one flames me, I would like to add that I am in no way knocking foobar; I am simply stating why it is not for me.  I tried it, and I did like it except for the feature I mentioned.

Later.

Download the ID3v2 plugin??
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: Peter on 2003-10-04 04:46:36
Sounds more like he needs old column-less playlist format string.
Title: Winamp 5 Alpha 1! :o
Post by: xbenchman on 2003-10-04 05:16:03
column-less formatting coming up

Playlist

0$num(%_playlist_number%,$len(%_playlist_total%))$if(%_isplaying%,'|>','. ')[%artist% - ]$if(%title%,['[ #[%disc%/]$num(%tracknumber%,2)] ']%title%,%_filename_ext%)[   %_length%]

Bob Seger - Turn The Page  5:03

I am not into anything fancy (yet).  I usually stick with keeping it simple.

copy and past this into the display -> title formatting -> playlist
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019