edwar368
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-20-2004
Member Is Offline
|
 posted on 6-20-2004 at 12:45 AM
|
|
|
Track and Album detail for WMA's
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?
|
|
|
Fishy
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Registered: 10-19-2003
Location: Norway, Trondheim
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 01:56 AM
|
|
|
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........
-----------
Fishy
|
|
|
DJInsomniac
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 02:12 AM
|
|
|
|
If I was ghetto, this is where I would say "Word".
|
|
|
Spazz
Junior Member
Posts: 84
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: North Dakota, The Frozen USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 09:45 AM
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
edwar368
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-20-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 12:36 PM
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
edwar368
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-20-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 12:44 PM
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Fishy
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Registered: 10-19-2003
Location: Norway, Trondheim
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 03:08 PM
|
|
|
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..
-----------
Fishy
|
|
|
DJInsomniac
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 03:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Winamp does support reading tags from WMA files, yes.
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 04:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Frankly, these days, I'd rather have full .OGG support than .WMA
|
|
|
edwar368
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-20-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 10:53 PM
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
DJInsomniac
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-20-2004 at 11:10 PM
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
edwar368
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Registered: 6-20-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-21-2004 at 07:07 AM
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Fishy
Senior Member
Posts: 960
Registered: 10-19-2003
Location: Norway, Trondheim
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-21-2004 at 12:17 PM
|
|
|
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..
-----------
Fishy
|
|
|
jhlurie
Member
Posts: 212
Registered: 3-11-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 6-21-2004 at 08:34 PM
|
|
|
| Quote: |
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. |
Yes, and I think .OGG is starting to edge out .WMA for the #2 spot in terms of popularity (although .m4a may eventually wipe them all out).
|
|
|
