Firstly, godhenry, you still aren't really giving me all the details.  Where are the files your adding tags to stored, on the iPod? On a sepearte hard disk?

Is the foobar database limited to a directory, or does it include all files?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306458"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If your updating tags for files on your iPod, the tags will change in the files, but not in the iPod database until you select 'Rebuild iPod Database' (and not 'Update iPod Database').
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306458"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

hey guys, Newbie here. Warning I have esp. low IQ. the following statement will prove it.

1. how does one load foobar on an ipod. can one do this?
2. i got .wv file (from wavpack) that i would like to put on my ipod this object being is to compare the .wv file with an mp3 file on the ipod and to see if there is any audible difference.

if thes can be done please make instructions as SIMPLE as possible.

Thanks.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306704"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well from what your telling me your doing everything correctly.  Unless there's something your not telling me, I'm out of ideas.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306558"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm really dying for 0.9 to be officially released so we can have foo_pod for foobar 0.9, so I can convert my FLACs to ALAC and be able to play them in foobar and send them to the pod w/out the need to transcode.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is their any chance of adding meta_data support for the year tag, since for some reason when I use Musicmatch to tag my MP3s it puts the year in a "DATE" tag.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307064"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9.

Quote

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9.

This decision is weighty. So I will not install foobar 0.9... 
In face of the numbers of posts in this thread, I will be not the only one...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307082"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote

Is their any chance of adding meta_data support for the year tag, since for some reason when I use Musicmatch to tag my MP3s it puts the year in a "DATE" tag.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307064"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I can add that.  So the tag name is DATE and the value is just a 4 digit year value (e.g. 1969 or 2005)?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307071"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

...Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307070"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think your last sentence could be slightly reworked:
"Its not going to be released until the beta is over in order to discourage developers from writing 3rd party plugins."
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK.  I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19156&view=findpost&p=302691]this post[/url].
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307070"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also have to agree with you that getting banned for a few days for voicing your concerns over the SDK is kind of bullshit, since you have helped along foobar2000 in many ways, especially with this plugin.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307132"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're really screwing us over here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307183"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote

I think your last sentence could be slightly reworked:
"Its not going to be released until the beta is over in order to discourage developers from writing 3rd party plugins."
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not at all. The idea behind delaying the release of the SDK until the final version is that third party component developers can code against a stable API (as in "not changing") for a stable product (as in "little number of bugs, stable and complete set of features"). It is also easier to distinguish bug reports for foobar2000 itself and third components, which is a real aid when it comes to fixing bugs. Even if that is different from the policy used during releases of previous versions of foobar2000, we still think it is a good idea.

In light of this:

Quote

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK.  I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is [a href="http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=19156&view=findpost&p=302691]this post[/url].
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307070"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, your posting ability was not temporarily suspended because you were questioning the availability of the SDK. You received a warning and a temporary suspension of your posting ability because you were questioning the motives (even alleging that there are dishonest motives) for not releasing the SDK in a rather inflammatory way, aka trolling - even though the motivation for not making the SDK available to the general public right away were clearly stated in the 0.9 beta thread when the first beta was released.

The suspension was intended to last for only three days, however due to a bug the forum software failed to remove the suspension automatically - we apologize for that.

Quote

I also have to agree with you that getting banned for a few days for voicing your concerns over the SDK is kind of bullshit, since you have helped along foobar2000 in many ways, especially with this plugin.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307132"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Voicing concerns is ok, trolling is not. For details see above.

Quote

You're really screwing us over here.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307183"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, that was totally totally out of the line. It's not like Aero is getting paid for what he's doing. He does not owe you new versions, and simply assuming that he does and flaming him for his announcement is not exactly going to make a 0.9 port of foo_pod more likely.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307313"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, here's what happened: Fresh mp3s with their own tags. Dragged them into database enabled foobar. Replaygained them and added other tags. if i don't "Update iPod Database," all the new tags including replaygain tags stay. if i did the update or "Rebuild iPod Database" all the tags i added since i first grabbed the mp3s into were gone. All the replaygain info was gone except the value of replay album again now became replay track gain (i check replaygain soundcheck conversion using album gain).

If I did not have foobar DB enabled, the same thing would still happen.

If I did not have foobar DB enabled but then enabled it after all the tagging and then Update iPod DB, the same thing still happened. So I disabled foobar DB. Reboot the computer. All those new tags (including playcount, filedate, etc.) showed up again as I played those mp3s after I enabled foobar DB. If i didn't have foobar DB enabled after reboot, the tags stayed gone.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=306360"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307326"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote

I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307326"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Saying that delaying the release of the public SDK discourages third party developers and suggesting that this discouraging is the purpose of the delay are two entirely different things. Perhaps you should reread what Aero wrote.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307340"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Suspending Aero’s posting ability might have been an unfortunate choice, but I’m afraid it has been done and obviously it cannot be undone retroactively. We apologize, should this really have happened because of merely misunderstanding of what Aero meant to say.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307370"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I will say this, this place is "Ban" happy. I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete. I think a written clarification by you or one of the other moderators would have been in the best interest of the forum, and not a banning. As for kl33per's comments, I agree with you that his comments are way out of line. Aero, thank you for a great plugin, and I hope that you will reconsider your decision once the SDK is released and this "Ban" stuff blows over.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=307326"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The remark was actually made by someone else, with Aero changing one word. I still do not see anything there that warrants a ban. Maybe a correction, but not a ban. Plus, it seems that a couple people did get the SDK ahead of time. I think mixed signals can be taken when that happens. Banning should come from direct attacks and from posts that can hurt the majority posting in the forum, not from a subjective comment that can be taken as good or bad. Banning should only apply when it is the last possible alternative.

Suspending Aero’s posting ability might have been an unfortunate choice, but I’m afraid it has been done and obviously it cannot be undone retroactively. We apologize, should this really have happened because of merely misunderstanding of what Aero meant to say.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK. I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is this post. Anyway, that combined with other factors pretty much killed any desire to upgrade to Foobar 0.9. Note that I am not planning on stopping foo_pod development, but it likely won't be focused on the changes necessary to make it run on Foobar 0.9.