Skip to main content
Topic: v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art? (Read 4597 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

I just used foobar2000 v0.9 RC (2006-02-24) to tag my MP3s with replaygain information.

Most of my MP3s also have tags for album bitmaps (mostly cover).

After applying the replaygain tags I noticed, that my cover bitmap tags are gone 

Am I doing something wrong or is this a bug  ?

Here's what I did:
  added my MP3s to the playlist. Selected all the files of one album and then executed "Scan selection as single album" from the context menu.

Edit: when I play such a tagged file inside winamp (with plugin "Cover & TAG" to display the cover inside the video windows) the plugin complains:
Code: [Select]
Not a JPEG file: starts with 0xd8 0xff

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #1
Another bug in Winamp.

Seems that it doesn't support the "data length indicator" ID3v2.4 flag.

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #2
Maybe it's a bug in Winamp or the plugin.
But none of my programs to display ID tag information is able to display the cover after the replaygain operation.

Even mp3tag v2.35    is not able to view it...

So I assume it's a bug in foobar, too!

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #3
Quote
Even mp3tag v2.35    is not able to view it...

You should get the current Development Build

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #4
Quote
Quote
Even mp3tag v2.35    is not able to view it...

You should get the current Development Build
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right, the latest developer build of mp3tag does show the cover again.

So you're saying _all_ (or at least most) of the tagging tools around have this bug and needs to be updated? 

I don't think that is a practicle way - I suggest to change foobar's behaviour instead to be compatible to them again!

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #5
So you say that since everyone says that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, web developers should continue to create non-standard-compliant sites to make them work with IE? 
Just to mix up 2 more or less good examples why you're idea is very bad...
Life is Real...
(But not in audio :) )

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #6
To answer to your example with the web developers:
  Yes and no - I'm glad that most of the developers now create more standard compliant pages.
  But they still continue to add compatibility support for IE,
  i.e. make some hacks to the CSS so that IEs are able to display it (nearly) correct.

So I don't say keep a bug
I just say: make the fix compatible to the majority of tagging tools.
In my eyes it's absolute nonsense to "fix" a tag in a way that most other tagging tools are unable to read it! 

I only wanted foobar to add the replaygain tag, not to change or fix existing tags 
(BTW, as far as I know, the replaygain tags are also not standard compliant)

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #7
Two wrongs won't make it right again...
Agreed, there could be a "compatibility" checkbox, but still, I'd hate to code in a bad way just to satisfy the needs of other badly coded programs. The final word is Ganymed's or Peter's, though, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.
Life is Real...
(But not in audio :) )

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #8
In principle I agree with you - but that's not real life programming!
In real life, you always have to do workarounds to satisfy ill behaving programs or to code around bugs in libraries!
You cannot sit there, tell your library creator to fix the bug and wait until it is fixed.
You have to write a workaround and remove it later when a bug has been fixed.

BTW, do you know why the majority of tagging programs have that bug?
Don't they correctly support ID tag v2.4?
Or what is the reason for that behaviour?

Quote
The final word is Ganymed's or Peter's, though, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368281"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
O.K.
And I hope they will add compatibility to "ill behaving programs" for that case...

If not, I'm sure that in practice one will use foobar to add replaygain tags and then readd the bitmaps with another tagging program so that all programs are satisfied. 
(my 2 cents)

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #9
Quote
BTW, do you know why the majority of tagging programs have that bug?
Don't they correctly support ID tag v2.4?

Yes, exactly. They don't support the "data length indicator" ID3v2.4 frame flag.

Quote
Quote
The final word is Ganymed's or Peter's, though, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents.
O.K.
And I hope they will add compatibility to "ill behaving programs" for that case...

As Peter already stated several times, there won't be any MP3 tagging options in foobar2000 0.9 (as well as no "please make this work with broken app X" option).

Mp3tag has three different ID3v2 options (ID3v2.4 with UFT-8, ID3v2.3 with UTF-16 LE and ID3v2.3 with ISO-8859-1) so you can try to re-save the tags with the second option enabled till the developers of app X or plugin Y decided to support that part of the ID3v2.4 standard.

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #10
Quote
As Peter already stated several times, there won't be any MP3 tagging options in foobar2000 0.9 (as well as no "please make this work with broken app X" option).[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368289"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also no option to save it in ID3v2.3 instead of v2.4?
Or to save it (if possible) in that ID3v2 version it already has?

Quote
Mp3tag has three different ID3v2 options (ID3v2.4 with UFT-8, ID3v2.3 with UTF-16 LE and ID3v2.3 with ISO-8859-1) so you can try to re-save the tags with the second option enabled till the developers of app X or plugin Y decided to support that part of the ID3v2.4 standard.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368289"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, resaving it with mp3tag development build as "ID3v2.3 UTF-16 LE" solves that problem.

Although I'm still thinking that it would be good to support saving other ID3v2 versions in foobar2000 v0.9!

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #11
ID3v2.4 specifications have been available since late 2000, and 2.3 should have been dropped from regular use long ago as new revision resolves multiple design issues (even that it contributes further to character encoding hell). The fact that it's STILL not properly supported is only yet another proof that many commercial apps are made by idiots who reverseengineer formats from existing files they can find rather than read specifications. The sooner this problem is resolved by other apps, the better for everyone (it is actually easier to parse ID3v2.4 tags we write than e.g. 2.3, since unsynchronization is never used for text frames).
This will not be changed on our side, since we are not to blame for the problem; writing workarounds would only keep real offenders from fixing their apps.

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #12
I'm not happy with your statement and I'm quite sure other users share my oppinion
But it's your decision!

For me it means that I'll have to do it the way I described above:
  first add replaygain tags with foobar and then either reassign the bitmaps or resave the tags in another format (e.g. with mp3tag) 

Your argumentation is totally correct when you only consider technical terms
but it's IMHO absolutely user unfriendly.
Only a small percentage of users care about the used ID tag version and that it's the fault of (most) other programs and not foobars that things don't work as expected.

But as said, it's your decision...

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #13
well you don't have to use foobar... in reality very few people do... I'm glad there is this alternative that writes tags they way they should be written....

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #14
Quote
ID3v2.4 specifications have been available since late 2000, and 2.3 should have been dropped from regular use long ago as new revision resolves multiple design issues (even that it contributes further to character encoding hell). The fact that it's STILL not properly supported is only yet another proof that many commercial apps are made by idiots who reverseengineer formats from existing files they can find rather than read specifications. The sooner this problem is resolved by other apps, the better for everyone (it is actually easier to parse ID3v2.4 tags we write than e.g. 2.3, since unsynchronization is never used for text frames).
This will not be changed on our side, since we are not to blame for the problem; writing workarounds would only keep real offenders from fixing their apps.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368312"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


First of all, I completely agree with you on this matter and I'm glad to see you made the decision of supporting the official specs.

If got one (or actually 3 small) in between question though, I hope you don't mind me intruding here. Eventhough 0.9 isn't final yet, is it safe to say we can start using ID3v2.4 tagging on a larger scale now? Is ID3v2.4 tag writing in foobar stable (enough)? Or are there still some pending changes?

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #15
Only way to find whether it is stable or not is to actually use it. There are no known ID3v2 related bugs in current code. There will be no further changes unless bugs are found or software compatibility can be somehow improved without breaking standard compliance.

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #16
Quote
well you don't have to use foobar... in reality very few people do... I'm glad there is this alternative that writes tags they way they should be written....
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=368358"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In principle you're right, I don't have to use foobar2000 .
But I really love the flexible replaygain features - this is an absolute gorgeous feature
I don't knew any other program which is able to do it

And I still use a lot of other programs which either don't support ID3v2.4 at all or where the support for v2.4 is buggy 

So my current strategy is to let foobar replaygain the files and then convert the ID3v2.4 tags to ID3v2.3.
I do this either with MP3tag-Development or with ID3-TagIT.
The latter one is really good for ID editing.

But I noticed something else which I'm not sure, if it's a bug in Foobar2000 or in both other tools.
After the replaygain tagging both tools (mp3tag and ID3-TagIT) don't see my comments.
I first thought they are gone, but in ID3-TagIT I can see them as "user defined information" with descriptor "comment"
I also see the encodedby tag and of course the replaygain tags 

So is this another bug in the handling of ID3v2.4 tags of mp3tag and ID3-TagIT or is it a bug in foobar?

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #17
Comment field problem is resolved in current development version, according to Ganymed's recommendation; it will be fixed in next release.

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #18
And where can I download the development versions?

v0.9 RC: Applying ReplayGain removes Album Art?

Reply #19
Quote
And where can I download the development versions?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=374669"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are no public development versions available at the moment.
The problem is already fixed in foobar2000 0.9 final.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019