Just loaded WinAmp and downloaded EJukebox as well. Like it, BUT.... and its a big but. Why cannot Ejukebox pick up Album Information from WMA's? I have a great many WMA's and have used TAG&Rename to ensure all Album and track data is with every song before I add it to my collection. EJukebox does not pick this information up and tells me it has to go and find the album information. Sometimes it gets the wrong ones as well. It only shows as having 24 albums in the database when I know all of my songs have album info. I can see it in both Tag and rename and Windows explorer, so why cant EJukebox?

From my point of view I still would be happy if full support for wma was added but:

I was really eager about this support a few months ago.. but in the meanwhile I realized what a terrible and lossy format it is. Why should ej reinforce people to use it? Why not make full support (read and write) for quality formats as mpc and ogg instead? Also bear in mind that wma probably is a "closed" format. Even the nullsoft plugin seems unfinished (no configurations etc) I guess that it is because programmers have to "guess" how the format really works...

From another point of view it would be a good thing for ej to support this format as it grows more and more popular due to people ignoring better formats and takes what is served to them on a plate.

Don't take this the wrong way but I think the mainstream are using wma because it's easily available and built into windows mediaplayer and it's not a very good sollution because it's one of the more lossy formats. Despite what Microsoft says... If ejukebox consistenly followed this path I think it would look grey, unskinnable and boring. And maybe it would support wma... It's of good fortune that this is not the reality.

A sollution for you could be to convert those Wma files to 320 kb/s mp3's (you won't hear that much difference) and compress your music in Vbr mp3's from now on instead. Thereafter forget that there was something named WMA in the first place . This logic will cost some more space on your harddrive, but will give you a better listening experience in the long run........

If I was ghetto, this is where I would say "Word".

I'd have to add reripping your CD's instead of transcoding. The only reason I personally convert format to format is from files I don't have on CD that are rare.

I have considered converting from WMA back to MP3, but the biggest thing against this is all the time I have spent updaing Tags on my WMA files. If I can find a converter that will take the existing WMA tags across, then I am sold. Any suggestions?

Asd a follow on to this, I agree with you point about the quality of the music, but you have also hit the nail on the head when you talk about people taking what is given to them. Therefore to ignore this option in my opinion would be eventual commervial suicide for this product. Add to this fact the ease of adding Tag information directly from within Windows Explorer (when using Windows XP) and more and more people are going to be doing this. I feel it would be foolish not to support this feature

This is very true and a reason for adding support for wma tags. Not sure if this is more difficult than just reading this from winamp? Winamp supports wma tags properly..

Winamp does support reading tags from WMA files, yes.

Frankly, these days, I'd rather have full .OGG support than .WMA

But really this is about supporting a mainstream format, wether you like it or not. You can stand here shouting "I love Betamax" until you go out of business, or support the mainstream formats (first) of course then extra formats such as .ogg can then be considered. But you got to look after your clientbase first or there is no future to develop support for anything.

Well, if everyone took your advice, no company would support .ogg format because their all working on WMA.

Besides, the mainstream people wouldn't even know about this product, I don't exactly consider the mainstream people computer-savvy enough to even find this product, especially if they love WMA so much.

Thats not what I said, I said its about priorities.

With regard to finding it, it was almost at the top of the list when i went to the Winamp plugin site, so I didnt go looking for this specifically. It was already there. Its just that if it wants to carry on being succesful (especially comercially), my point still stands. At the moment I am wavering about buying it because of the lack of WMA support and I know how to convert back, but there will be a huge amount of people out there who would be turned off by the lack of WMA support. Lets face it a lot of computer users stick with what they are given. New PC's primarily come with Windows XP, which incorporates Windows Media player. Windows Media Player rips to WMA. Its really that simple.

I am not talking about quality of audio, I accept all the other arguments about better quality formats (and it would be nice if ALL formats are supported), I am talking about mass support.

That would most definately be the ideal. At least it would be great with true 'read' support for wma and ogg. Write support could come along after a while..