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: id3v2.3 writing needed (Read 14655 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

id3v2.3 writing needed

It'd be nice to support the formats people actually use, not just the ones you want to push.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #1
Supporting multiple ID3v2 revisions means:
- Issues with migrating unsupported fields when downgrading from newer to older ID3v2 revision since each new one supports a superset of fields supported by past revisions.
- Lots of duplicated code, and lots of time spent on writing it (instead of doing something more users would benefit from).
- Perfect software compatibility won't happen anyway because "mainstream" apps such as iTunes massively violate both ID3v2.4 and 2.3 specifications and won't handle compliant tags that properly apply unsynchronization.

While I'm considering adding ID3v2.3 writing support in the future, it will mean less of my time spent on improving other features and ID3v2.3 writing will be probably limited in some way (such as no support for retaining unsupported fields when rewriting tags).

PS. It would be nice if you checked forum descriptions / sticky topics before posting (moved from development forum).
Microsoft Windows: We can't script here, this is bat country.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #2
Sad to see you are not seeing things clearly: Practically nobody supports id3v2.4, and practically nobody uses it. Use 2.3 instead of 2.4 (instead of alongside it) if that will make it any easier.

I don't care that other apps violate v2.4 and/or v2.3 specs and think very few other people do, either. They aren't formal standards anyway.

What matters is that the app does what people want/need it to do. And id3v2.3 is one of those things.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #3
My only (computer) player is foobar so i wouldn't care even if it wrote footag or whatever as long as it reads other fromats correctly. But before i burn my music to cds for portable use i always convert the tags back to ID3v2.3, just to be on the safe side. In mp3tag it takes one click to convert your entire library.
Of course it would be better if i could do it in foobar, but as Peter explained, nice new features instead have higher priority

edit: Don't call the foobar devs (and any other developer here) assholes. They don't deserve it. If you don't like they work use something else.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #4
Practically nobody supports id3v2.4, and practically nobody uses it. Use 2.3 instead of 2.4 (instead of alongside it) if that will make it any easier.

Instead of bugging foobar devs for downgrading it would be more constructive to ask those "nobodies" to upgrade their software/hardware. As many have said before: ID3v2.4 is a 5 years old standard and has its goodies.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #5
I don't want to downgrade
hi

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #6
While it would be nice to see ID3v2.3 support to maximize compatibility with other programs, I view such functionality as a very low priority and I would hate to see other features suffer to have it implemented.

I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread and hope Peter realizes this does not reflect the attitude of the majority of the foobar community.  Peter keep up the good work, ID3v2.4 is definitely the way to go and I'd rather see you spend your time continuing the development of more useful aspect of foobar instead of wasting your valuable time implementing hacks to be backward compatible with other programs whose development lacks your dedication.

If anyone really insists on ancient 2.3, it's very easy to convert 2.4->APE->2.3. While this may be slightly inconvenient it is a valid workaround and if you continue to devote yourself to outdated formats you should expect more and more workarounds as programs slowly migrate to (again) a 5 year old industry standard.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #7

Practically nobody supports id3v2.4, and practically nobody uses it. Use 2.3 instead of 2.4 (instead of alongside it) if that will make it any easier.

Instead of bugging foobar devs for downgrading it would be more constructive to ask those "nobodies" to upgrade their software/hardware. As many have said before: ID3v2.4 is a 5 years old standard and has its goodies.
And v2.3 is the current adopted standard.

I don't want to downgrade
I want tags that can ACTUALLY BE READ. And I don't want to have to suddenly start using another app to get them. Is that really too much to ask?!

I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread
Off-topic, and a personal attack. You are wrong and you know it and you are resorting to personal attacks because you have nothing else.

and hope Peter realizes this does not reflect the attitude of the majority of the foobar community.  Peter keep up the good work, ID3v2.4 is definitely the way to go and I'd rather see you spend your time continuing the development of more useful aspect of foobar instead of wasting your valuable time implementing hacks to be backward compatible with other programs whose development lacks your dedication.
Pathetic. Appeal to emotion, appeal to authority.

If anyone really insists on ancient 2.3, it's very easy to convert 2.4->APE->2.3.
No. As I just established very well, FOOBAR DOES NOT WRITE ID3V2.3.

While this may be slightly inconvenient it is a valid workaround and if you continue to devote yourself to outdated formats you should expect more and more workarounds as programs slowly migrate to (again) a 5 year old industry standard.
Wrong. The only reason to even use MP3 today is because of its compatibility. You force the use of new, unadopted tagging formats and you're just breaking that compatibility.

I know it would be nice to get manufacturers and devs to support Ogg Vorbis, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I know it would be nice to get manufacturers and devs to support slightly better tagging formats, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #8
don't know if many people had read, but there is a nice alternative for id3 v2.3, when using an external masstagger (e.g. mp3bookhelper) and a run service (foo_run). I can live with that

Quote
Here a little workaround for people who want to tag mp3 files with ID3 v2.3:
You can use a runservice for an external Masstagger:
MP3BookHelper
also great to generate automatically m3u-playlists, sfv-files, nfo-files, move/nename files,............. 

open selected file
Code: [Select]
C:\Programme\MP3BookHelper\MP3BookHelper.exe "%path%"


open all files from folder
Code: [Select]
C:\Programme\MP3BookHelper\MP3BookHelper.exe "$substr(%_path%,0,$strrchr(%_path%,'\'))"

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #9
While it would be nice to see ID3v2.3 support to maximize compatibility with other programs, I view such functionality as a very low priority and I would hate to see other features suffer to have it implemented.

I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread and hope Peter realizes this does not reflect the attitude of the majority of the foobar community.  Peter keep up the good work, ID3v2.4 is definitely the way to go and I'd rather see you spend your time continuing the development of more useful aspect of foobar instead of wasting your valuable time implementing hacks to be backward compatible with other programs whose development lacks your dedication.

If anyone really insists on ancient 2.3, it's very easy to convert 2.4->APE->2.3. While this may be slightly inconvenient it is a valid workaround and if you continue to devote yourself to outdated formats you should expect more and more workarounds as programs slowly migrate to (again) a 5 year old industry standard.


@Yotsuya totally on your side
@NeoRenegade you are way too rude

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #10
Off-topic, and a personal attack. You are wrong and you know it and you are resorting to personal attacks because you have nothing else.


Pretty lofty words for someone who called the foobar devs "assholes" a few hours ago.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #11
If you take a look at the history of our civilization you'll notice that the biggest advancements were made by people who were brave enough to look beyond "widely adopted standards". Sometimes further development requires dropping "good" old technology. Someone needs to go first then. It is not easy to be a pioneer - people will laugh at you or maybe even insult you. But without the brave pioneers, we'd be "tagging" our "music" by painting titles on the walls of our caves.

Peter, thanks for helping the world to move forward!
Maciek

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #12

While it would be nice to see ID3v2.3 support to maximize compatibility with other programs, I view such functionality as a very low priority and I would hate to see other features suffer to have it implemented.

I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread and hope Peter realizes this does not reflect the attitude of the majority of the foobar community.  Peter keep up the good work, ID3v2.4 is definitely the way to go and I'd rather see you spend your time continuing the development of more useful aspect of foobar instead of wasting your valuable time implementing hacks to be backward compatible with other programs whose development lacks your dedication.

If anyone really insists on ancient 2.3, it's very easy to convert 2.4->APE->2.3. While this may be slightly inconvenient it is a valid workaround and if you continue to devote yourself to outdated formats you should expect more and more workarounds as programs slowly migrate to (again) a 5 year old industry standard.


@Yotsuya totally on your side
@NeoRenegade you are way too rude
Says nothing, again. And again, a personal attack.


Off-topic, and a personal attack. You are wrong and you know it and you are resorting to personal attacks because you have nothing else.


Pretty lofty words for someone who called the foobar devs "assholes" a few hours ago.
And I presented a valid argument. Which any of you have yet to do for your side. "I'm lazy" and "I'm anal" aren't even good enough excuses.

If you take a look at the history of our civilization you'll notice that the biggest advancements were made by people who were brave enough to look beyond "widely adopted standards". Sometimes further development requires dropping "good" old technology. Someone needs to go first then. It is not easy to be a pioneer - people will laugh at you or maybe even insult you. But without the brave pioneers, we'd be "tagging" our "music" by painting titles on the walls of our caves.

Peter, thanks for helping the world to move forward!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id3#ID3v2.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id3#ID3v2.4

2.4 is not worth frustrating users over. It only does what everybody was already doing with ID3v2.3, but can not be read by players that use ID3v2.3.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #13
NeoRenegade, I don't know you and you may possibly be raising a valid point here, but the fact is that you don't come across to be very likeable at all.

There are ways of discussing issues which you believe need to be addressed, as well as listening to the replies you receive from the other board members. But the way that you are going about this is not really acceptable.

I would recommend that you say nothing more as you appear to be winding just about everyone up - and looking at your previous posts regarding this issue you will find yourself getting banned if you are not careful. I'm not sure how old you are but if you still live at home then perhaps you should listen when your mother tells you off. You don't always have to have the final say.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #14
I hope Peter doesn't waste his time with ID3v2.3 compatibility... both my computer and my Dap have no issues with it and the time could be much better spent in say either the ripping utility or maybe a builtin burning component using cdrdao...

if you can't live without it then you might as well use one of the apps the rest or the world uses... you came to foobar from some other app... is there a reason that it might not be a better alternative then foobar for you?

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #15
I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread
Off-topic, and a personal attack. You are wrong and you know it and you are resorting to personal attacks because you have nothing else.
I don't see this as a personal attack. Yotsuya merely stated his opinion about your behaviour in a factual way, your aggressive response to his post was not necessary. You seem to have a strong opinion about this topic, but bashing people will not bring them on your side.

This is not the first thread about ID3v2 since the release of the first 0.9 beta version, but sadly it seems to be the most emotional and least useful one.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #16
Quote
I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread
Off-topic, and a personal attack. You are wrong and you know it and you are resorting to personal attacks because you have nothing else.


Not to call into question your amazing posts, but thats clearly not a personal attack.

A personal attack attacks a person.  Saying that the original post is rude is an attack on a post, not a person, since people are not posts.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #17
This is going way off topic.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #18
I would recommend that you say nothing more as you appear to be winding just about everyone up - and looking at your previous posts regarding this issue you will find yourself getting banned if you are not careful. I'm not sure how old you are but if you still live at home then perhaps you should listen when your mother tells you off. You don't always have to have the final say.
More diversion. Banning me because I'm right? That's happened before. I expect a little more from this community. You guys are supposed to be more reasonable than that.

I hope Peter doesn't waste his time with ID3v2.3 compatibility... both my computer and my Dap have no issues with it and the time could be much better spent in say either the ripping utility or maybe a builtin burning component using cdrdao...

if you can't live without it then you might as well use one of the apps the rest or the world uses... you came to foobar from some other app... is there a reason that it might not be a better alternative then foobar for you?
I dropped Winamp in favour of foobar 0.8.x special package, because I liked its better DSPs, its better Disk Writer, and (with foo_id3v2) its better tagging abilities.

Now in 0.9.x I find that the DSP's have been gimped (which is fine - what I want is still there), the disk writer has been gimped (which is kind of a shame, but I'm not really heartbroken), and I can't write ID3v2.3 (damn. just damn.).

I am rather surprised at the rudeness/arrogance displayed by the OP in this thread
Off-topic, and a personal attack. You are wrong and you know it and you are resorting to personal attacks because you have nothing else.
I don't see this as a personal attack. Yotsuya merely stated his opinion about your behaviour in a factual way
About as factual as "Xing sucks".

This is not the first thread about ID3v2 since the release of the first 0.9 beta version, but sadly it seems to be the most emotional and least useful one.
Yes, funny, isn't it? You'd think they'd have gotten the message by now.

At this point, just admit your mistake (forcing ID3v2.4 over 2.3), maybe put in a few warnings somewhere that foobar's tags may cause problems, and let's all move on.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #19
To give credit where it's due, thank you molnart for recommending MP3Tag. It's a very good substitute for foo_id3v2.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #20
[deleted]

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #21
I haven't had any problems so far with id3v2.4 + id3v1.1 for mp3s.

What problems would I expect to see? (in other words, what situations would I prefer using v2.3?)

PS: if your post was more than one paragraph i didn't bother reading beyond the 1st and last sentence.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #22
Firstly, your demanding, "I know better than you" tone is disrespectful to the developers of an excellent program you pay absolutely nothing to use.

Secondly, you're beating the dead birthday pony here.  I just joined these forums last night and I somehow managed to find various threads about this.  The search box is right up there; it's not even remotely difficult to find or use.

The reasons for using either version of the standard as well as the reasons implementing both isn't feasible have been discussed in great detail on these forums.  Personally, I put my faith in the developers of Foobar2000 because they understand the underpinnings of tagging formats much better than I do or care to.

Please, let the pony rest in peace.

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #23
While this may be slightly inconvenient it is a valid workaround and if you continue to devote yourself to outdated formats you should expect more and more workarounds as programs slowly migrate to (again) a 5 year old industry standard.
Wrong. The only reason to even use MP3 today is because of its compatibility. You force the use of new, unadopted tagging formats and you're just breaking that compatibility.

I find this is a very strong argument for optional ID3v2.3 write support.

On the other hand, given the philosophy of fb2k (which I respect and to which I subscribe almost completely), and given the technical issues that Peter and TrNSZ explain in their posts, I understand this is a difficult decision to make. For me it is enough that Peter takes this seriously and that, as he stated above, he considers adding write support for ID3v2.3.

Also, I'm not sure I would revert to 2.3 even if I could, despite the many steps I have to take now to insure maximum compatibility when burning/sending/sharing mp3 files (at least I only have to do this once in a while):
  • Copy dirs to a temporary location
  • Load in Mp3tag
  • Open Mp3tag options, change to 2.3
  • Save tags as 2.3
  • Reopen Mp3tag options, change back to 2.4 (I normally use 2.4 in Mp3tag, for maximum compatibility with fb2k and also because, as far as I can see, it is a better standard)
  • Burn/move/copy/send the files
  • Clear the temporary location

id3v2.3 writing needed

Reply #24
NeoRenegade, just about everything you are constantly complaining about has already been answered before, many times over and in many different threads, not to mention the fact that the disk writer and DSP interfaces have been massively improved in every foobar2000 release.  While I guess everyone is entitled to whine, please stop with the false information and the FUD.

You also massively misunderstand the definition of a specification and a standard, and it's readily apparant that you have not read the relevant specifications and do not even understand the technical issues at hand, such as the differences between ID3 v2.3 and v2.4 and the various and differing ways that the tags can be written within each specification by itself.  I won't go into all the details because if you bothered to search the extensive threads made in the months past, you'd already have educated yourself, but proper ID3v2.3 and ID3v2.4 interoptability is completely impossible due differences in the relevant specifications. 

As it's obvious that you have little knowledge of standards relevant to your little crusade, I'll leave you with this tidbit - A "full" ID3 implementation would have to implement a minimum of 90 subparsers on top of a "base" ID3v2 parser to properly support all known frame types between ID3v2.3 and ID3v2.4 and maintain a whole slew of conversion functionality and character set conversion as well, including heuristic character set detection.  The ID3 implementation in foobar2000 is technically not strictly compliant nor complete by ANY means.  The amount of frames in ID3 and the various ways data may be stored in these frames is utterly ridiculous. 

The advantages of ID3v2.4 that foobar2000 makes use of would be lost, and functionality and usability would be sacrificed to support the "lowest common denominator" that you seek.  And these streams would have to be written without proper unsynchronizaiton, which means sacrificing compatibility with compliant hardware decoders not supporting ID3.  Even if foobar2000 would write proper ID3v2.3 tags, there would still be compatability problems with other software, on top of a loss of functionality.  You simpyl can't win with ID3v2.  Anyway, this is all ancient, old, and uninteresting by now. 

Why not just use ID3v1 tags or use another tagging program such as MP3Tag that can convert tag types (very well, but not completely losslessly)?  Why keep complaining and bothering people who a) already answered you, and b) don't care?  Do you think asking again and again will get you a different answer?

I've avoided responding to your posts until this point, but right now you are just embarassing yourself greatly, and in reality you are doing nothing more than acheiving the total opposite of what you want due to your behavior here.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I think most people here are really tired of you.  If you really want to step back half a decade, I'd find different software to use and a different community to bother.  You aren't going to get anywhere here. 

PS - This is not a democracy.  You've probably broken TOS #2, #5, #6, and #7 so far, and you still give attitude when people warn that you might be banned?  Have a little more respect for our community.

At this point, just admit your mistake (forcing ID3v2.4 over 2.3), maybe put in a few warnings somewhere that foobar's tags may cause problems, and let's all move on.
Talk about disrespect, FUD, and misinformation.  Why not force the rest of the broken software out there to put a few warnings somewhere that reading properly written and compliant tags will cause problems and let's all move on?  Our mistake?

This is yet another example of your completely inappropriate behavior.
The FUD is all coming from your camp.

I'll leave you with this:

I'm as happy sticking with an inefficient, 10 year old tagging format as I am sticking with an inefficient, 15 year old compression format: Very. I have never had any trouble with ID3v2.3.

Thanks for trying to force ID3v2.4 on me. Why don't you try to force Vorbis while you're at it? You'd have a much better case for that.

You see? All your logic just becomes silly when you pay attention to reality.