Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Create a new Tagging Standard? (Read 16292 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

I was looking around how different formats handle multiple genres and preference storage in the ID tag, from what I can see there is no standard (ID3v2 had pretty much all fields defined). So I am thinking of the need to create a standard that is crossformat compatible (if using freename tags - ogg tags + anything using ape2 tags, rules out id3v1).

So I am thinking:

Genre          - main genre
Genre1        - sub genre
Genre2        - sub genre
etc...

Preference  - string number 1 to 10

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #1 –
I couldn’t agree morethread

I think that all tag methods have problems, we need a new standard/format that will make everybody happy, regardless of the container format.
Dimitris

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #2 –
Enlightening discussion, now before ZzZ appears and calls me something

APE2 is the current popular, item although it has 0 hardware support (I was talking to a DNNA developer about getting Preference ratings on Rio Karma, there are no standards).

So, what I will do - create a APE2 open source reference library (UTF-8) (hopefully that hardware people can take), and define constant field names (don't like the idea of integer codes, id3v2 was a disaster).

The field tags will be split in to a main group (pretty much standard, although there are differences in implementation) - all string:

ARTIST      - ie Madonna
TITLE        - ie Nothing Really Matters
ALBUM      - ie Ray of Light
YEAR        - ie 1992
TRACK      - ie 5
GENRE      - ie Pop
COMMENT  - anyold waffle

as well as others such as:

GENRE1    - ie Dance
PREFERENCE - ie 7


keep them coming - not sure about graphic data - perhaps a specification for PNG encoded as COVERART...

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #3 –
Quote
So, what I will do - create a APE2 open source reference library (UTF-8) (hopefully that hardware people can take), and define constant field names (don't like the idea of integer codes, id3v2 was a disaster).

You might also want to have a look at the APEv2 specification. There's already a list of specified field names.

edit: regarding cover-data, please don't forget:
Quote
Size should be normally in the range of 1 KByte, NEVER more than 8 KByte. Larger external data should be stored externally using link entries

~ Florian

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #4 –
Quote
I couldn’t agree morethread

I think that all tag methods have problems, we need a new standard/format that will make everybody happy, regardless of the container format.

Ah yes, let's break every container format there is. Instead of using tag formats specifically designed for each container (so that they can be read on every possible parser that supports that container).

Menno

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #5 –
Quote
from what I can see there is no standard


Nail on the head
I could probably write quite a bit on the frustration I've had on tagging material. Just some of the stuff I've downloaded you can tell instantly someone with no clue about audio quality rips a CD, then labels them 'song - artist' with no tags whatsoever, and a lot of time the labels are incorrect or misspelled, add to the fact that usually you can get several versions of the same song and that information is lost in the label. Some people do put a little more effort and download the basic information from CDDB or FreeDB, however they don't bother verifiying the spelling (personally I think FreeDB should standardize their naming/capitalization scheme to eliminate so many of the duplicate entries) and lack of certain information like year or track #, which for people like me who like to label things with track #s & years, means that I have to go back and do the same work to find this information.
Because there is no standard most people will save the information in default program settings so a lot of tags get saved in ID3v1, which was great at the time, but obviously now there are far better alternatives.
I think creating some sort of standard would do a lot to bring some sort of order to choas.
I should really think what is needed but I was thinking on a basic level a database which would have maybe track databases which would the basic information about the track that could be saved seperatly & within the track and that could be written to any other tag format?

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #6 –
From what I can tell that standard is not being followed (it says Track for tracknumber, but it says store using an INT rather than string).

Plus multiple genres are stored within a list ( ? \r seperating), good pointer though - plenty of names there.

what about the storage of something relating to the CD it came from? freedb, Audio CD TOC, cue sheet (if only for one track, so it can be identified online without sound finger printing)?

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #7 –
Quote
Ah yes, let's break every container format there is. Instead of using tag formats specifically designed for each container (so that they can be read on every possible parser that supports that container).

Not suggesting breaking anything out there, if mp4 has a built in container format that is fine, I wouldn't dream of appending APE2 to the back of mp4. This is a standard for the tagging formats that can have any field values - Mp3 (with ape2), Ogg, FLAC, Wavepack, MPC    they need a direction and reference code.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #8 –
There is a reference, which was posted earlier. Other fields can be created as needed and might also become widely used (e.g. ALBUM ARTIST). I don't see the need for any more standardization.

dev0
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #9 –
I followed APEv2 tag specs to the letter in my supporting all proposed fields soft but I think they a hugely incomplete, and about binary data it is just a suggestion of the guy who wrote the specs if a user wants to store a 10 k image it is his choice.
I think that ID3v2 fixed codes is not a real disaster because they force developers to use the same field name for the same purpose but anything is fine with me descriptive fields or short coded fieldnames. I also like the ID3v2 extended fields they are quite useful for especially for the IPLS and APIC frames.
I think fields like tempo, quality, rating, situation, mood are a must if you have a huge collection. I also like lyrics for some of my songs

I really like the idea to extend APEv2 tags thus redefining the standard, APEv2 is fast, smart and easy to implement by software developers, it could use a bit of small corrections ( especially the usage of flags is not very nice too many bits for every field that just have no meaning , if they are reserved for something I do not know what )
Dimitris

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote
Ah yes, let's break every container format there is. Instead of using tag formats specifically designed for each container (so that they can be read on every possible parser that supports that container).

Not suggesting breaking anything out there, if mp4 has a built in container format that is fine, I wouldn't dream of appending APE2 to the back of mp4. This is a standard for the tagging formats that can have any field values - Mp3 (with ape2), Ogg, FLAC, Wavepack, MPC    they need a direction and reference code.

Ogg Vorbis and FLAC have their own tagging format - Vorbis Comments. You'll break these files too.

~ Florian

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #11 –
If you feel like adding empo, quality, rating, situation or mood to your collection, please do so. No need to create some kind of pseudo standard before. If it's useful people will implement it.
"To understand me, you'll have to swallow a world." Or maybe your words.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #12 –
I really think it is time to throw away that Artist - Title
There are constant problems of Various Artists - Track title, which will have no identification of performer.
Even in ID3v2 I don't think they have a performer as a standard listing, they have 'Original artist', 'Composer' both of which could be different.
Maybe you should propose a standard and ask people to comment and give suggestions on what should be added.
For me this 'Artist' field works when you talk one person, for ex I was tagging a live-aid track a little while ago, which included people like bruce springsteen, peter gabrial, tracy chapman, et al. Now I guess that should have been the imfamous 'Various Artists' but the only place to put those performers would be in the comment line so that you could see it in the ID3v1 tags, which of course by the time you hit 30characters you've lost half the performers!
Things to consider - you only get one chance to design the standard so try to design it so that it satisfies as many needs as possible 

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #13 –
Quote
There is a reference, which was posted earlier. Other fields can be created as needed and might also become widely used (e.g. ALBUM ARTIST). I don't see the need for any more standardization.

dev0

There might be a reference, but my original post was to extend the reference (Preferrence, CD Ident etc). Lets talk about a standard for album covers, Cue sheet implementation.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #14 –
Quote
There might be a reference, but my original post was to extend the reference (Preference, CD Indent etc). Lets talk about a standard for album covers, Cue sheet implementation.

I do understand and hoping I am not the only one lets try to lay out some fields.

About CD reference I want to inform you that Media player 9 stores that info along with all music ID's inside ID3v2 PRIV frames thus making impossible for other software to follow that and that pisses me of  so hell yeah lets create a standardized array of fields and their usage.
Dimitris

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #15 –
Quote
Ogg Vorbis and FLAC have their own tagging format - Vorbis Comments. You'll break these files too.

Not talking about the format (atleast in the sense of Ogg and Flac), just naming conventions.

Ogg is a perfect exampple where Description was used instead of a standard 'Comment' and off the top of my head 'Tracknumber' instead of track.

You know my goal is I have Preference set on Monkey Files and when I trasfer them to a Rio Karma (in FLAC) the preference goes over - because there is a standard. The only way Apple walk away with the iPod is because they do all this on their own.

Now for people who don't use iTunes, iPod and M4a - lets get some standards so the rest (as in Monkeys, Ogg, FLAC, Mpc, etc) can enjoy those same things.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #16 –
I would really LOVE a "Rating 1-5" field in tags. If this was implemented, all players could be made to read them. This is especially good for Music Library applications (iTunes, WMP, Media Monkey, Winamp Media Library, MusicMatch and a alot of others). So you could transfer the songs between those apps and still keep the rating that you have given each track.

That would seriously make my day!
myspace.com/borgei - last.fm/user/borgei

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #17 –
Ogg and FLAC, as mentioned, has their own tagging system. Appending any other type of garbage will be violating the specs.


AFAIK ape2 tags is in the specs of MPC though I could be wrong.

WavPack and MP3 does AFAIK not have a tagging system defined though you can wrap MP3 in MP4 to get a standard file.

So which files do you want to append these new tags to? Or is this just an attempt to tell people which keys (tag items in lack of a better word) that they should use for which info? In which case I would like to know how you dream of making people follow your directions...

I really fail to understand what you want to accomplish; what the real problem is.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #18 –
Quote
Or is this just an attempt to tell people which keys (tag items in lack of a better word) that they should use for which info?

That is the one, a set of standard keys (for new items) ** for adding new advanced items to tags. An example of bumbling into something was when Ogg hit the scene and had incompatibilites (thinking more than single format), with a little thought future occurances of this can be avoided.

People will follow it if there is an advantage, if it is future proof, if it works with most players.


** Not suggesting that Tracknumber, description be changed in ogg, it is that, it will remain to be that.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #19 –
Quote
I really lack to understand what you want to accomplish; what the real problem is.


Simple example I use a program to tag ogg/flac files and I use the comment field and then I use winamp to play the files the description field is used thus making a user confused.
Dimitris

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #20 –
Spoon - sorry to post this, it is actually a text file I usually include with my rips - it is a work-in-progress so by no means should be considered as complete but thought it might give you some ideas

Quote
Album    :
Artist(s)  :
Principal Artist(s)  :
Instrument(s) and/or Vocals  :
Supporting Artist(s)  :
Instrument(s) and/or Vocals  :

Note: The Album name as well as the artist(s) name should be considered more accurate than those used in the actual encoded files, log files or in the cue sheet. The reason is the same as explained for the track titles below.

Genre    :
Subgenre/Styles  :
Source Format    : CD
CD Process type (AAD/ADD/DDD)   :
Type of Recording  :
Date of Recording  :
Place of Recording  :
Recording by  :
Commentary by  :
Place of Editing and/or
Mastering  :
Date of Initial Release  :
Date of Version Release  :
Language(s)  :
Executive Producer(s)  :
Producer(s)  :
Co-Producer(s)  :
Associate Producer(s)  :
Arranger(s)  : 
Publisher  :
Parent Company of Publisher   :
Catalogue Number  :
Manufacturer  :
Distributor  :
Copyright Holder(s)  :
Country of CD Pressing or
Purchase  :
UPC    :
URL(s) of Publishers,
Distributers or similar  :
URL(s) of artist or related   :

Ripper    : Siq
Tagger    : Siq
Supplier  :

Grabber    : Exact Audio Copy v0.95 pb3
Output Format  : CD Image and Cue Sheet (.ape, .cue)
Encoder Format (Lossless/Lossy)   : Lossless
Encoder    : Monkey's Audio v3.98 a1
Encoder Command Line Options   : -c3000
Bitrate   (vbr/abr)  : N/A
Sample Rate (Hz)  : 44,100
Reader    : Plextor UltraPlex Wide (PX-40TSUW)
Mode    :
Normalization  : No
Size    :  MB
Date of Encoding  : June 17, 2003

Encoding Notes
Use of wapet (http://www.ca5e.tk/) in order to apply apev2 tags to CD Image
Wapet is passed the following command line;
%d -t "Artist=%a" -t "Title=%g" -t "Album=%g" -t "Year=%y" -t "Genre=%m" -t "Comment=EAC v0.95 pb3 - Monkey's Audio v3.98 a1" mac.exe %s %d -c3000


Transcoding  : Not done

Cover(s) Included  : Yes (CD)
Cover(s) source  : Scanned from CD case
Tags    : APE v2.0
Tagger    : Wapet
Lyrics (Partial/Complete)   : No
Lyrics Source  :
m3u    : No
Additional Information Sources   :

Post-processing

MP3Gain processing  : No

Note: These track titles should be considered more accurate than those used in the actual encoded files, log files or in the cue sheet. For certain operating systems and online databases some characters which may occur in the real track title may not be permissable as part of a file name in the operating system or online database. For this reason the track titles are copied as accurately as possible from the original with the exception of capitalization of words.

Note: Sometimes the album name, artist, or track title may be entered as an alternative in a different language - In these instances the alternative name will generally be separated by /. The preference of order is; 1 - The most commonly used album name, artist name, or track title. 2 - The English album name, artist name, or track title. This information will only be presented in this file to provide as much detail about the album as possible, This information is not displayed in the file names.      

Note: As a general policy the following character transformations are done since they are illegal characters in the Windows operating system;

/ -> ,
: -> ;

As stated you may check the actual album name, artist, or track title in this document.


Number of Tracks  :



Total Playtime   (h:m:s.m)      [0:33:41.46]

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #21 –
Funny, just gave me an idea - how about a Source tag?

ie Rip a file (to FLAC) Source = 'CD'
Convert from FLAC to Mp3  Source = 'FLAC'

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #22 –
Source is great but (the much hated) ID3v2 already has this as Media type.
I strongly beleive that for standard fields ID3v2 must be examined first and those fields be used and after that we could extend it with more fields, like the one's I proposed that make library usage much better.
Dimitris

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #23 –
Hi,

needless to say we would be VERY interested in this. Our current tagging system seems to have some very nice features and is well defined and standardized, but all devs complain its pretty complicated to support in real code  .....

As nobody is really using it AFAIK, now is the right time to adapt a new, open standard IMHO.

Create a new Tagging Standard?

Reply #24 –
Quote
I would really LOVE a "Rating 1-5" field in tags. If this was implemented, all players could be made to read them.

I'd rather prefer to be able to tell programs which tags I want to be used for such special purposes instead of being forced to use pre-defined identifiers. Your way leads to a wrong direction, why should users be forced to use field names they dislike just because of limited tag processing abilities in most current audio players? These programs would have to be altered anyway if you introduce fields like "rating", wouldn't it be a better idea to improve their tagging support?