"tech supports greatest" misses

[MrSinatra]

while there is a lot of good, useful info there, a lot of the articles at the very least need refreshed, such as this one:

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=64962

i'd be willing to post a draft, IF egg or DrO or someone was willing to seriously consider it.

[Rocker]

go for it,

it needs lots of work...

perhaps needs to be started from scratch.

[MrSinatra]

ID3 Tags

everything you never wanted to know, and were afraid to ask
Many people use id3 tags, and don't know, or want/need to know, what they are. basically, mp3s, and many other formats, use id3 tags to attach "metadata" or info about a data file, within the file itself. that way the info travels with the data. text strings are the most common id3 info, things like song title, artist name, or album title for example. but other things can go in there as well, like artwork.

you can read about the id3 standard here: www.id3.org

id3v1

the original, and now obsolete standard was id3v1 and id3v1.1 ...while you can still use these, and some very old devices / software will only work with them, best practices is to not use them and strip them, unless you need them for some specific reason. they are limited in what info they can contain, and how many characters you can put into them. so a song title for example, can only be 30 characters and there is no "frame" or field of entry at all for "Album Artist."

it is best to strip v1.x tags, because otherwise the data in them may become divergent with hopefully present id3v2.x tags, (and ergo confuse some software or devices, or even users!

id3v1.x tags are stored at the end of a file.

http://www.id3.org/ID3v1

id3v2

id3v2.x tags are now the de facto standard for mp3 and many other lossy file types. id3v2.3 is probably the best supported, but 2.2 and 2.4 are also out there. 2.4 has some advantages in abilities, but is not widely popular nor nearly as well supported as 2.3

these tags support many more "frames" or fields of info, and without the character limitations.

id3v2.x tags are stored at the beginning of a file.

winamp recommends only using id3v2.3 unless you have a special, specific need to use something else. you can configure winamp to not create id3v1.x tags by going to options > prefs > plugins > input > in_mp3.dll > configure > id3 tags tab.

http://www.id3.org/id3v2.3.0

id3 file types include:

mp3, MP3Pro (dead format), MPC (MusePack), AAC

Winamp and id3

in most cases, winamp will handle your tags for you. it has "autotag" features, and will simultaneously update both v1 and v2 tags, or add them. you can also use the powerful ML to do edits or mass edits manually. be sure to investigate the prefs controlling metadata, especially on the "Watch folders" prefs dialog. power users will want to turn off all "metadata guessing" winamp does, which you do in two places in watch folders, and they will also want to turn off "use artist as album artist." doing these things are important to be able to see the reality of the data in the tags.

however, there are times a powerful tag editor is needed. the best tag editor out there, is mp3tag, which thankfully is also free but does solicit donations. www.mp3tag.de/en

mp3tag can scan for and repair "bad" malformed tags in files, as well as mass strip other tag types out of files. it can also, via a cut and paste operation, turn all tags, like id3v1, into proper id3v2.3 tags, (and remove the other tags).

when winamp won't do the trick, mp3tag almost always does. and like winamp, it works with nearly all file and tag types.

other tags

there are other tag types, such as APEv1 and APEv2, Lyrics3, and Vorbis. but since this forum title is "id3 tagging info" we will not address them here. winamp recommends best practices is to remove these types of tags from mp3s anyway, unless you have a specific need or desire for them to be present.

other info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3

http://www.id3.org/Developer_Information

http://www.id3.org/Implementations

[MrSinatra]

pretty rough, i know. and i think we should split things up, between id3 and everything else, meaning the other tag types. i think its confused to put non id3 tags under a forum thread for id3 info.

however, i think its important to streamline things, give some hints about how winamp things work, and point people to the best apps, as opposed to an overwhelming list of them. mp3tag can do everything, do we really need a list of apps just for id3v1? the current post is too unfocused.

[Aminifu]

however, i think its important to streamline things, give some hints about how winamp things work, and point people to the best apps, as opposed to an overwhelming list of them. mp3tag can do everything, do we really need a list of apps just for id3v1? the current post is too unfocused.

It's important not to streamline too much. It's a dis-service to push a narrow, biased set of 'best' practices. There are usually more than one way to do most things and the PC has always been about choice. It is helpful to point out where work-a-rounds, for WA issues, exist.

What's overwhelming about a four or five item list? Obsolete and unsupported links to outdated info and unsupported apps do need to be updated or removed. Some link to a history of progression should be maintained for those interested in how things got to be how they are. This helps keep 'old' bad ideas from reemerging as 'new' bad ideas.

MP3tag may do everything that practically needs doing, but it is not the best at doing them all. One example, the way it handles editing of the ID3 'TBPM' tag is overly complicated.

[MrSinatra]

i disagree, but more importantly, i actually posted a full bodied suggestion, not just a critique.

what i am suggesting, is that it does in fact make sense for winamp to "push" best practices, instead of trying to maintain old and obsolete practices. although, the way i would put it is: there's nothing wrong with an app saying 'this [whatever "this" happens to be] works best with [the app].' the current thread is overwhelming and unfocused, and doesn't help winamp serve its users or reduce support load. worst of all, it is uninformative as to qualitative judgments, and thats what a thread like that needs imo, is expert guidence to the uninformed.

having said that, the current thread would not be deleted, it just wouldn't be a sticky anymore, and i would suggest that the "new" sticky thread be left open, so people could add to it, but that the first post in it be kept succinct and concise.

as far as BPM goes, such minutia is not the point of such a thread. at the most, it should be covered in a followup post.

[Aminifu]

i disagree, but more importantly, i actually posted a full bodied suggestion, not just a critique.

You did say it is "pretty rough" and I suggest you change the subtitle of your full bodied suggestion to "everything you need to know". Honest and to the point, since you don't intend to discuss "everything you never(sic) wanted to know". Assuming 'never' was meant to be 'ever'. It's always easier to be a critic.

what i am suggesting, is that it does in fact make sense for winamp to "push" best practices, instead of trying to maintain old and obsolete practices. although, the way i would put it is: there's nothing wrong with an app saying 'this [whatever "this" happens to be] works best with [the app].' the current thread is overwhelming and unfocused, and doesn't help winamp serve its users or reduce support load. worst of all, it is uninformative as to qualitative judgments, and thats what a thread like that needs imo, is expert guidence to the uninformed.

WA being open to a 'these work well' approach rather than a 'this works best' approach has allowed it to last so long, imo. This does increase the support work load, but forums like this lets devs and experienced users help less experienced users and spreads the load around.

The only thing wrong with the current thread considering it's content, is it's title. It's age accounts for the broken links and some outdated examples. Qualitative judgments can also be viewed as subjective opinions. I find it refreshing that the author tries to just present a few facts and leaves judgments (and further reading/research) up to the reader. I don't understand what is overwhelming about that thread. It discussed more than one tagging format, but I'm sure you can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'.

Who associated with WA is recommending these best practices you've stated; management, devs, users? Where are these 'best practices' officially listed?

I guess it's just a coincidence that this expert guidance you speak of just happens to match your point of view. By the way, nice use of "we" (in your draft) to imply some sort of collaboration. There's nothing wrong with pushing your point of view, but there's no need to try giving it more weight than it already has.

having said that, the current thread would not be deleted, it just wouldn't be a sticky anymore, and i would suggest that the "new" sticky thread be left open, so people could add to it, but that the first post in it be kept succinct and concise.

The thread you linked to is not a sticky now and it is not locked. It would be nice to get some objective, quantitative, facts on how well WA currently supports the tag formats it officially supports. So far my forum searches have not yielded very much.

as far as BPM goes, such minutia is not the point of such a thread. at the most, it should be covered in a followup post.

I guess it is a point of such a thread to push mp3tag as the only 3rd party tagger worth using.

[MrSinatra]

i found this whole post almost entirely petulent and childish. raise your standards.

also, reread what Rocker, a moderator, in this thread wrote.

You did say it is "pretty rough" and I suggest you change the subtitle of your full bodied suggestion to "everything you need to know". Honest and to the point, since you don't intend to discuss "everything you never(sic) wanted to know". Assuming 'never' was meant to be 'ever'. It's always easier to be a critic.

indeed, and so far all you've done is critiicze. kudos.

and it says EXACTLY what i intended it to say. a hallmark of winamp writing is humor, thats what that is. if you didn't get it, thats too bad.

WA being open to a 'these work well' approach rather than a 'this works best' approach has allowed it to last so long, imo. This does increase the support work load, but forums like this lets devs and experienced users help less experienced users and spreads the load around.

no one, including me, is suggesting that any ABILITIES be removed or depricated. thats not what i am pushing. rather, i am pushing that it would be wise for winamp to mainstream some practices as the best ones, if only to lessen their support load. feel free to disagree, or to even suggest your OWN copy for others to ridicule, (imagine that!), but my POV is completely valid regardless of how you feel about it.

The only thing wrong with the current thread considering it's content, is it's title. It's age accounts for the broken links and some outdated examples.

again, i disagree. i find it unhelpful and unfocused, and all over the place. the point of such a FAQ thread is to get a beginner informed. to me, whats there now is more like an index to big book, and lacking on truly informing the ignorant. it, imo, only confuses or scares them off. it doesn't teach them anything, or give any real guidence.

Qualitative judgments can also be viewed as subjective opinions. I find it refreshing that the author tries to just present a few facts and leaves judgments (and further reading/research) up to the reader. I don't understand what is overwhelming about that thread. It discussed more than one tagging format, but I'm sure you can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'.

if you didn't know anything, that thread would not help. thats my opinion. again, feel free to suggest your own copy in your own thread.

and of course qualitative judgments are subjective opinons, thats what i was going for! the whole point is to show the way to best practices, which in turn educates the reader, and lightens the support load.

Who associated with WA is recommending these best practices you've stated; management, devs, users? Where are these 'best practices' officially listed?

this is where you get snarky and rude. THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD IS SUGGESTED COPY TO REPLACE WHATS THERE, TO THEN BECOME THAT REFERENCE YOU SEEK. what i posted in my suggested copy, is based on YEARS of reading these forums and using these apps. i don't EVER see Egg or DrO or anyone else "official" recommending "The Godfather" to handle tricky tagging issues or even to diagnose them. i do see them suggest mp3tag almost every single time.

maybe thats because mp3tag IS the de facto standard for tagging. just a guess.

I guess it's just a coincidence that this expert guidance you speak of just happens to match your point of view.

and i guess its just a coincidence you are writing so snidely b/c it doesn't match yours?

again, my POV is based on my exp, and my years of use. it is my SUGGESTION, and they can adopt it, or not.

By the way, nice use of "we" (in your draft) to imply some sort of collaboration. There's nothing wrong with pushing your point of view, but there's no need to try giving it more weight than it already has.

i really love how you cast aspirsions all over my motives to improve this stupid FAQ article. thats really nice of you.

first of all, IF THEY CHOOSE TO ADOPT IT, then obviously IT BECOMES A COLLABORATION! DUH! is that not obvious to you?

if they choose to adopt it, then the article is representing a "we" as in the we of winamp devs. again, too far a bridge for you to cross mentally, or what?

you are pretty close minded for a hippie.

The thread you linked to is not a sticky now and it is not locked.

really? its not locked? care to wager on that?

and its listed under the FIRST FORUM LISTED, so its basically like a sticky, not that that has anything to do with anything.

It would be nice to get some objective, quantitative, facts on how well WA currently supports the tag formats it officially supports. So far my forum searches have not yielded very much.

indeed. why don't you suggest something, and i'll crap all over it?

I guess it is a point of such a thread to push mp3tag as the only 3rd party tagger worth using.

total dickhead comment. (and also not what i said)

[Aminifu]

Boy, I really got your heart pumping! First I suggest you calm down.

Your POV and Rocker's are just that and equally valid for that reason alone. My POV is valid for the same reason. I have not spent years on this forum. I have spent several days using it's search feature and reading posts. I have spent several years using WA.

I do not see a lock icon on that thread and falsely assumed it wasn't locked. After trying to post there, I see it is restricted. Still learning my way around this forum. Being new here should not make my attempts to contribute any less worthy.

I know you understand the concept of constructive criticism, but it is oblivious you do not see my comments as such. You say most of my comments (in post #7) are petulant and childish. Some snarky and rude. Some of your comments here and elsewhere can be viewed the same way. Maybe you sometimes don't 'get' my dry wit, as I sometimes misunderstand your sense of humor.

If the WA 'powers that be' accept your post or anyone else's as a sticky or FAQ post, without contributing to it, it is not a collaboration. It is simply yours or that person's contribution and no less valid than if someone officially connected with WA actually contributed to it, not just authorized it.

I think I've always tried to understand your POV, even more so when I've disagreed with it. Must have been doing a poor job showing that. Going forward, I hope we can agree to disagree in a better way.

I have started a thread that I hope can be edited into a sticky or FAQ post. It's on a different topic, but feel free to 'crap' all over it. I see nothing wrong with presenting different viewpoints, critical or supportive. I think it's the best way to arrive at something that helps the most people. I'm a firm believer that there is always more than one way to do anything, if you look for it. If that's being unfocused, then so be it. As long as I can remember, I've always asked why and why not. I understand the need for rules, but I don't work well with arbitrary or unexplained restrictions.

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?t=345216

Oh fyi, I'm not now nor ever was a hippie. Have no problem with those that are or were. Peace and love is cool and all, but I believe violence has it's place also. Sometimes it comes down to kill or be killed, best to try to avoid those situations, but never run from them.

[Batter Pudding]

Small bit of feedback from a part time technical proof reader. (Oh - and sorry - I have skipped the banter between you and Aminifu as it was tl;dr and seemed to just get personal.)

I hope you are going to clean up the punctuation. It looks awful without proper capitalisation. Like some illiterate kid wrote it. And I know you ain't that. Lack of capitals means it is hard to spot the difference between commas and full stops. This makes it look like you are writing one long sentence without taking a breath. It is hard to read. And when you are writing a technical subject like this, you need to help the reader keep his concentration level up.

I'd also tone down some of the "best practices" comments as it comes over a little preachy. This will put a lot of people off of reading it. This is how you do your tags and I think it would be better written in a more personal tone. "Here is the way I do it" or "One option is to..." or "The method I prefer gives me clear results because...". It makes it clear that there are other ways while also sounding friendlier and less like Teacher. Winamp is so flexible it allows us all to use our own methods. (For example - I hate embedded artwork and ratings. But that is just my personal choice. Make personal choice clear)

I think you should throw this document at a mate of yours to read. Ideally one who doesn't know much about Winamp. You'll get more feedback then. Currently this seems to be missing a lot of details whilst also staying technical. It is clear it is being written by someone who knows his subject, but has also forgotten what is important to put over to the dumb idiots who are likely to be reading this. There needs to be a little more simplification of the language. When talking a technical subject like ID Tags you need to try and get away using technical descriptions and jargon to the extent you are.

Remember that the average user of MP3 players doesn't really care. So you need to hook that person in as to why they should care. Make it sound more interesting.


Writing a manual is always a nightmare - who do you pitch it at? Do you write for the technical person who wants to know all the details? Or do you write for the idiot who owns an iPod and hasn't got a clue what an MP3 actually is? Or somewhere in the middle? It's a tricky art.

[MrSinatra]

I hope you are going to clean up the punctuation. It looks awful without proper capitalisation. Like some illiterate kid wrote it. And I know you ain't that. Lack of capitals means it is hard to spot the difference between commas and full stops. This makes it look like you are writing one long sentence without taking a breath. It is hard to read. And when you are writing a technical subject like this, you need to help the reader keep his concentration level up.

thats for winamp to decide. i'm not the editor, just providing a draft. i expect them to either ignore it completely, or change it to their liking if they use it. i'm not against those changes, but personally, i don't think it matters that much. joyce wrote that way as well, and he, like winamp, is somewhat subversive and so fits more of a hackers approach than a mainstream one. but whatever suits winamp authorities suits me. i wasn't looking to be published in JAMA.

I'd also tone down some of the "best practices" comments as it comes over a little preachy. This will put a lot of people off of reading it.

that depends. i think the audience the thread is trying to reach would appreciate it. again, i know how I would do it, and by 'it' i mean write the article. if i were an official winamp authority, the above is how i would do it. why? b/c the article would be written for noobs and it would also be written to save winamp as much support issues/queries as possible.

you guys can disagree all day long, i have no beef with that. but this is MY suggestion, this is MY approach. you guys are free to craft and posit your own.

This is how you do your tags and I think it would be better written in a more personal tone. "Here is the way I do it" or "One option is to..." or "The method I prefer gives me clear results because...". It makes it clear that there are other ways while also sounding friendlier and less like Teacher. Winamp is so flexible it allows us all to use our own methods. (For example - I hate embedded artwork and ratings. But that is just my personal choice. Make personal choice clear)

if i was a winamp authority, i would try to funnel as many people as possible into whatever way i thought was best for winamp. ergo, i wrote it that way. again, i appreciate that you would not write things the way i would, but then i would not write things the way you would, so why is anyone surprised?

and i tried to avoid niche issues like tag implementations, such as ratings or art. what i am trying to cover here is tag standards, and focus on that alone.

I think you should throw this document at a mate of yours to read. Ideally one who doesn't know much about Winamp. You'll get more feedback then. Currently this seems to be missing a lot of details whilst also staying technical. It is clear it is being written by someone who knows his subject, but has also forgotten what is important to put over to the dumb idiots who are likely to be reading this. There needs to be a little more simplification of the language. When talking a technical subject like ID Tags you need to try and get away using technical descriptions and jargon to the extent you are.

well i totally disagree. i think i do a good job of introducing the subject to a noob. i think the point is to employ that technical jargon in context so they will understand it. if you want to suggest your own version, please feel free to do so in another thread. if you want to specify something errant, thats ok too, but the above is just general complaint.

Remember that the average user of MP3 players doesn't really care. So you need to hook that person in as to why they should care. Make it sound more interesting.

sorry to have failed. i didn't realize there was a more interesting way to talk about id3.

Writing a manual is always a nightmare - who do you pitch it at? Do you write for the technical person who wants to know all the details? Or do you write for the idiot who owns an iPod and hasn't got a clue what an MP3 actually is? Or somewhere in the middle? It's a tricky art.

i believe i wrote an article for noobs who use winamp, with the idea that pitching best practices serves winamps interests.

again, i'm not saying it can't be improved, but i'm happy with the general thrust and philosophical choices i made in doing so. if you guys don't like it, suggest your own.

[MrSinatra]

Your POV and Rocker's are just that and equally valid for that reason alone.

i would suggest that since Rocker is a mod, and can make any of these changes, or not, his POV isn't just valid, but represents the authority of winamp forums, as all mods do. in other words, all mods, like Rocker, are more than just people with valid POV, they decide what is and isn't fit to be published.

the mods here may very well agree with you two and not me, but that doesn't mean i need to change what i would do. it just means they wouldn't do what i would do. and so they can do their own thing or do nothing. but imo, my proposal is head and shoulders better than what they have there currently, and Rocker, a mod and authority, would at least seem to agree that whats there sucks.

My POV is valid for the same reason. I have not spent years on this forum. I have spent several days using it's search feature and reading posts. I have spent several years using WA.

i am not questioning your POV's validity, although how credible it is, is surely connected to knowledge and experience. but regardless of that, my beef has nothing to do with your POV. you can think and believe whatever you want, i don't care. my problem isn't what you believe, but how you are choosing to attack me here. its not what you think, but how you are saying it to me that is pissing me off. i took an old article that no one cared about and suggested it might be time to update it, and then when a mod and authority said "go for it" meaning it would at least be reviewed (one would hope) i spent some time doing so thinking it would be a help to others and to winamp, and so far all you have done is crap on it and me, and low and behold, i don't appreciate it. shocker.

I do not see a lock icon on that thread and falsely assumed it wasn't locked. After trying to post there, I see it is restricted. Still learning my way around this forum. Being new here should not make my attempts to contribute any less worthy.

YOU were the one who ATTACKED ME over YOUR false assumption. talk about orwellian strawmen! i don't care if you are new and i certainly don't attack ANYONE for being new! i simply pointed out that your "correction" of ME was ERRONEOUS, and it was, as you now know. don't turn that around into me attacking you for being new! i was defending myself from your attack, nothing more.

I know you understand the concept of constructive criticism, but it is oblivious you do not see my comments as such. You say most of my comments (in post #7) are petulant and childish. Some snarky and rude. Some of your comments here and elsewhere can be viewed the same way. Maybe you sometimes don't 'get' my dry wit, as I sometimes misunderstand your sense of humor.

oblivious?

what BP did was constructive criticism. what you did was not. nor was it humor. it was pure crapping on what you didn't like.

and sure, i have been rude on here many times, but never, NEVER towards someone who was suggesting something for the betterment of the community. it doesn't mean i had to agree with them, but i don't crap on them either.

If the WA 'powers that be' accept your post or anyone else's as a sticky or FAQ post, without contributing to it, it is not a collaboration. It is simply yours or that person's contribution and no less valid than if someone officially connected with WA actually contributed to it, not just authorized it.

well, first of all if they use it i expect them to edit it. but even if they didn't, i disagree with what you are saying. if they put it in their "reference" forum then they are saying its their position, not just mine. that, imo, makes it a collaboration.

of course, arguing over this point has nothing to do with anything re: id3, but you seem intent on arguing over such things. like if a thread is locked or not.

I think I've always tried to understand your POV, even more so when I've disagreed with it. Must have been doing a poor job showing that. Going forward, I hope we can agree to disagree in a better way.

just don't crap on my efforts. i surely now have little to no motivation to redo any other articles, since i now know this is what to expect.

I have started a thread that I hope can be edited into a sticky or FAQ post. It's on a different topic, but feel free to 'crap' all over it.

not my style. thats all you.

I see nothing wrong with presenting different viewpoints, critical or supportive.

neither do i. that is, when you do so in a way that isn't snarky, smarmy, or rude.

I think it's the best way to arrive at something that helps the most people. I'm a firm believer that there is always more than one way to do anything, if you look for it. If that's being unfocused, then so be it.

of course, but you can't teach someone to spell until you've taught them the alphabet. the article is for noobs. u show them the mainstream way first, and then they can branch out from there. at no point did i say "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY." you guys should reread what i actually said.

As long as I can remember, I've always asked why and why not. I understand the need for rules, but I don't work well with arbitrary or unexplained restrictions.

and that has nothing to do with anything.

[Batter Pudding]

Sorry. I thought you asked for opinions on what you wrote. I was trying to give you feedback as I often have to write technical guides. There was no need for such an angry response.

/unsubscribed.

[MrSinatra]

Sorry. I thought you asked for opinions on what you wrote. I was trying to give you feedback as I often have to write technical guides. There was no need for such an angry response.

/unsubscribed.

my response to you was not angry. annoyed? again, with you, only slightly, but def not "angry." which part exactly qualified as angry?

however, i think its fair for me to be annoyed. you guys are criticizing me/what i wrote, as if it deserves to be picked apart and autopsied and is totally crap to your impeccable standards. frankly, i don't appreciate that approach. and at no point did i ask for opinions on what i wrote, but it goes without saying anyone is free to offer them on a forum. my problem isn't criticism, but the way its delivered, and for the most part, that problem wasn't with you; although frankly i do think its rude to say things like "try to be more interesting" which is like telling a comedian "try to be more funny," but it didn't really bother me. in fact, maybe i should meet someone and say "try to be better looking." thats a joke. if you didn't like it, tell me to try to be more funny.

anyway, like i said, i can't help it if you see my response as "angry" but i can say i wasn't when responding to you.

[Rocker]

MrSinatra I like what you've done, however maybe a tread with information about file info, rather than just id3 tagging is more appropriate?

ID3 is so outdated, and I don't really think its particularly relevant anymore... whats your thoughts?

I really only use the mp3 format these days in my archives or transcode my files onto my ipod seldomly(since I can send flac to my phone recently). when storage is this cheap and internet is this fast whats really the purpose of the mp3 file format aside from compatibility?

perhaps a new thread detailing recommended file formats and tagging information would be more relevent as a long standing solution? highlighting the benefits of free and lossless formats for a long term solution. the more people who want to use flac or vorbis the more devices there will be that will support it(over paid for solutions which are no better in the end).

discuss

I have attached what I believe to be sawgs original post, I think however we'll make a totally new thread out of this.(I don't think he'll mind heh)