foo_pod - Foobar2000 meets the iPod, iPod -> Foobar2000 0.8 Options

[godhenry]

Firstly, godhenry, you still aren't really giving me all the details.  Where are the files your adding tags to stored, on the iPod? On a sepearte hard disk?

Is the foobar database limited to a directory, or does it include all files?

I was trying to add tags on the files that are on iPod, not on a hard disk or other drives..

If your updating tags for files on your iPod, the tags will change in the files, but not in the iPod database until you select 'Rebuild iPod Database' (and not 'Update iPod Database').

This is exactly what i have been doing. update tags and then run rebuild ipod db. but for some reason, it either crashed or lost all my tags... so i guess i was just not doing it right in terms of how to update the files. so how should i actually update the tags on the files in iPod? Thanks!

This post has been edited by godhenry: Jun 16 2005, 14:02

[kl33per]

Well from what your telling me your doing everything correctly. Unless there's something your not telling me, I'm out of ideas.

[navin]

hey guys, Newbie here. Warning I have esp. low IQ. the following statement will prove it.

1. how does one load foobar on an ipod. can one do this?
2. i got .wv file (from wavpack) that i would like to put on my ipod this object being is to compare the .wv file with an mp3 file on the ipod and to see if there is any audible difference.

if thes can be done please make instructions as SIMPLE as possible.

Thanks.

[kl33per]

1. Yep, just copy your foobar2000 directory to the iPod using Windows Explorer.

[jido]

hey guys, Newbie here. Warning I have esp. low IQ. the following statement will prove it.

1. how does one load foobar on an ipod. can one do this?
2. i got .wv file (from wavpack) that i would like to put on my ipod this object being is to compare the .wv file with an mp3 file on the ipod and to see if there is any audible difference.

if thes can be done please make instructions as SIMPLE as possible.

Thanks.

1. You can save foobar on the iPod and run it from there I suppose.
2. Convert the .wv file to .wav using foobar (there will be no loss) and copy the Wav file to your iPod.

[aniMe]

In these days I did enjoyed including all the cd cover art into the mp3, just hope next version of foobar2000 will not remove the id3 cover arts which inside the media.

Of couse, if this "add id3 cover art" function would be added for mp3 included on 0.9 version, it would be more wonderful and useful for all peoples.

I guess at this moment the big problem was "After converted or edited by foobar, the id3 cover art which included in mp3 must be removed".

I think at this status, some people after converted the mp3 by foobar, you still need some tagger tools to import your art to the mp3.

Because iTunes, WMP, and some MP3 Players was supported for this functions already, so I think this function should be added in these days.

[KyPeN]

I'm really dying for 0.9 to be officially released so we can have foo_pod for foobar 0.9, so I can convert my FLACs to ALAC and be able to play them in foobar and send them to the pod w/out the need to transcode.

[godhenry]

Well from what your telling me your doing everything correctly.  Unless there's something your not telling me, I'm out of ideas.

well possible thing that i'm not telling you, and it would be because i wouldn't know, is that i might update the files on iPod incorrectly. So let say you have to replaygain a few tracks that live on your ipod. After Replaygain finishes its job, do the files on iPod get automatically updated/written with their tags? or something with quick tag. do the tags just get written without further users intervention? i udpate my ipod mp3s by right-click to get the Properties box up and hit "update files" with all those new tags. but as soon as i run rebuild, they;re all gone..

one more thing... sometimes when i do rebuild ipod database, i even get an error. i can email you the log file if you want.

This post has been edited by godhenry: Jun 18 2005, 06:58

[Skates]

Is their any chance of adding meta_data support for the year tag, since for some reason when I use Musicmatch to tag my MP3s it puts the year in a "DATE" tag.

[Aero]

I'm really dying for 0.9 to be officially released so we can have foo_pod for foobar 0.9, so I can convert my FLACs to ALAC and be able to play them in foobar and send them to the pod w/out the need to transcode.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9. And as far as I know, Foobar 0.9 will incompatible with earlier components, so you will have to have Foobar 0.8.x in order to use foo_pod.

Fortunately, Foobar 0.8 already has an ALAC decoder and I believe you could use Otto's iTunesEncoder script to losslessly transcode from FLAC -> ALAC, so there is no reason to wait for Foobar 0.9 to do what you are looking to do.


BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK. I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is this post. Anyway, that combined with other factors pretty much killed any desire to upgrade to Foobar 0.9. Note that I am not planning on stopping foo_pod development, but it likely won't be focused on the changes necessary to make it run on Foobar 0.9.

[Aero]

Is their any chance of adding meta_data support for the year tag, since for some reason when I use Musicmatch to tag my MP3s it puts the year in a "DATE" tag.

Yeah, I can add that. So the tag name is DATE and the value is just a 4 digit year value (e.g. 1969 or 2005)?

[rossthiof]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9.

This decision is weighty. So I will not install foobar 0.9...
In face of the numbers of posts in this thread, I will be not the only one...

[Aero]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9.

This decision is weighty. So I will not install foobar 0.9...
In face of the numbers of posts in this thread, I will be not the only one...

Thanks for the support, but it necessarily an either-or situation.

Unless something drastic changes in Foobar 0.9, you should be able to run Foobar 0.8 and 0.9 side by side. In fact, I still run Foobar 0.6 on one of my computers, because it has a certain component that was never upgraded to work with 0.7/0.8.

So if there is something in 0.9 that seems worthwhile, feel free to upgrade. Installing Foobar 0.8 + foo_pod on your iPod might be a good way to deal with running both versions .

[Skates]

Is their any chance of adding meta_data support for the year tag, since for some reason when I use Musicmatch to tag my MP3s it puts the year in a "DATE" tag.

Yeah, I can add that. So the tag name is DATE and the value is just a 4 digit year value (e.g. 1969 or 2005)?

Correct. Thanks bud...

I also have to agree with you that getting banned for a few days for voicing your concerns over the SDK is kind of bullshit, since you have helped along foobar2000 in many ways, especially with this plugin.

This post has been edited by Skates: Jun 19 2005, 02:32

[kl33per]

...Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no plans to update foo_pod to Foobar 0.9....

I do not understand this. How can you make such outlandish statements when you have not seen the 0.9 SDK. Whilst I can only speculate on the changes to the SDK that have been made, it's not like Peter has rewritten the plugin architecture from the ground up, as other popular (and significantly complex - eg. Columns UI) plugins have made the transition quite easily. I would bet money the changes you will have to make to support 0.9 will be minimal.

I'm sure as hell not going to continue using 0.83 once 0.9 is final, there are just to many useful new features. If you do not update foo_pod to work with 0.9, I along with most, if not all of foo_pod users are going to be sorely disappointed. You're really screwing us over here.

This post has been edited by kl33per: Jun 19 2005, 06:23

[ssamadhi97]

I think your last sentence could be slightly reworked:
"Its not going to be released until the beta is over in order to discourage developers from writing 3rd party plugins."

Not at all. The idea behind delaying the release of the SDK until the final version is that third party component developers can code against a stable API (as in "not changing") for a stable product (as in "little number of bugs, stable and complete set of features"). It is also easier to distinguish bug reports for foobar2000 itself and third components, which is a real aid when it comes to fixing bugs. Even if that is different from the policy used during releases of previous versions of foobar2000, we still think it is a good idea.

In light of this:

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK.  I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is this post.

No, your posting ability was not temporarily suspended because you were questioning the availability of the SDK. You received a warning and a temporary suspension of your posting ability because you were questioning the motives (even alleging that there are dishonest motives) for not releasing the SDK in a rather inflammatory way, aka trolling - even though the motivation for not making the SDK available to the general public right away were clearly stated in the 0.9 beta thread when the first beta was released.

The suspension was intended to last for only three days, however due to a bug the forum software failed to remove the suspension automatically - we apologize for that.

I also have to agree with you that getting banned for a few days for voicing your concerns over the SDK is kind of bullshit, since you have helped along foobar2000 in many ways, especially with this plugin.

Voicing concerns is ok, trolling is not. For details see above.

You're really screwing us over here.

Well, that was totally totally out of the line. It's not like Aero is getting paid for what he's doing. He does not owe you new versions, and simply assuming that he does and flaming him for his announcement is not exactly going to make a 0.9 port of foo_pod more likely.

[drbeachboy]

I think your last sentence could be slightly reworked:
"Its not going to be released until the beta is over in order to discourage developers from writing 3rd party plugins."

Not at all. The idea behind delaying the release of the SDK until the final version is that third party component developers can code against a stable API (as in "not changing") for a stable product (as in "little number of bugs, stable and complete set of features"). It is also easier to distinguish bug reports for foobar2000 itself and third components, which is a real aid when it comes to fixing bugs. Even if that is different from the policy used during releases of previous versions of foobar2000, we still think it is a good idea.

In light of this:

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK.  I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is this post.

No, your posting ability was not temporarily suspended because you were questioning the availability of the SDK. You received a warning and a temporary suspension of your posting ability because you were questioning the motives (even alleging that there are dishonest motives) for not releasing the SDK in a rather inflammatory way, aka trolling - even though the motivation for not making the SDK available to the general public right away were clearly stated in the 0.9 beta thread when the first beta was released.

The suspension was intended to last for only three days, however due to a bug the forum software failed to remove the suspension automatically - we apologize for that.

I also have to agree with you that getting banned for a few days for voicing your concerns over the SDK is kind of bullshit, since you have helped along foobar2000 in many ways, especially with this plugin.

Voicing concerns is ok, trolling is not. For details see above.

You're really screwing us over here.

Well, that was totally totally out of the line. It's not like Aero is getting paid for what he's doing. He does not owe you new versions, and simply assuming that he does and flaming him for his announcement is not exactly going to make a 0.9 port of foo_pod more likely.

I will say this, this place is "Ban" happy. I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete. I think a written clarification by you or one of the other moderators would have been in the best interest of the forum, and not a banning. As for kl33per's comments, I agree with you that his comments are way out of line. Aero, thank you for a great plugin, and I hope that you will reconsider your decision once the SDK is released and this "Ban" stuff blows over.

[FreydNot]

OK, here's what happened: Fresh mp3s with their own tags. Dragged them into database enabled foobar. Replaygained them and added other tags. if i don't "Update iPod Database," all the new tags including replaygain tags stay. if i did the update or "Rebuild iPod Database" all the tags i added since i first grabbed the mp3s into were gone. All the replaygain info was gone except the value of replay album again now became replay track gain (i check replaygain soundcheck conversion using album gain).

If I did not have foobar DB enabled, the same thing would still happen.

If I did not have foobar DB enabled but then enabled it after all the tagging and then Update iPod DB, the same thing still happened. So I disabled foobar DB. Reboot the computer. All those new tags (including playcount, filedate, etc.) showed up again as I played those mp3s after I enabled foobar DB. If i didn't have foobar DB enabled after reboot, the tags stayed gone.

I may not be 100% correct on this one. I'm sure someone will correct any facts I've got wrong...

My understanding is "Rebuild iPod Database" is a pretty drastic function that essentially throws away the database file on the iPod and then recreates it using the data it has availabe. I'm not sure how "Update iPod database" differs, but I seem to recall it was a similarly drastic function.

When Foo_pod does a "normal" copy or sync operation it uses data that Foo_bar provides it to create the database file on the iPod. In turn Foo_bar gets its data from a combination of its internal database and the tags in the music files. I do not believe RG data is stored in the tags at all - only in the database.

I believe the problem you are having is this. When foo_pod trys to rebuild that database, it only knows about the songs that are on your iPod's hard drive. It can not associate those back to the PC hard drive origionals. This is because you have asked foo_pod to delete the datbase file and then recreate it from scratch.

The replay gain data is in the foo_bar database and it is associated with the PC hard drive location which you did the RG from (although I understand that you have RG's the files directly on the iPod HD - not sure what is going on there). Since the file paths have changed, foo_pod no longer has RG data availabe for the files and then can't include it in the new database.

As for last played dates and time (and ratings, etc.), on the iPod that data only exists in the iPod database file on the iPod HD. I believe it gets lost in the rebuild process.

I could be completely wrong though.

Can I ask why you don't use the more traditional "copy to iPod" or "sync to iPod" methods? I believe you will have much better results if you can stay away from "rebuild iPod database".

[foosion]

I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete.

Saying that delaying the release of the public SDK discourages third party developers and suggesting that this discouraging is the purpose of the delay are two entirely different things. Perhaps you should reread what Aero wrote.

[KyPeN]

Wow. I just revisited this thread after a brief absence to see it in mayhem in disagreement about HA policy and people accusing Aero of "screwing us over." Grow up people. While I am disappointed in Aero's decision, he has his own motivations and, since we aren't paying for foo_pod, we can't make accusations.

While I do implore Aero to wait to see the changes in the SDK before making a decision, it is his to make. If you do decide the not continue development of foo_pod into 0.9 and stick with 0.8.3, is it possible for you to release your source files so someone else may pick up the project if someone is so willing. I can't really speak much on this because my programming knowledge extends to the breaking point in HTML.

Anyway, I do hope we can get back into discussion on the plug-in itself. It's good to have Aero back.

This post has been edited by KyPeN: Jun 19 2005, 20:10

[drbeachboy]

I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete.

Saying that delaying the release of the public SDK discourages third party developers and suggesting that this discouraging is the purpose of the delay are two entirely different things. Perhaps you should reread what Aero wrote.

I did just re-read it, and I re-read it before I posted my remarks. The remark was actually made by someone else, with Aero changing one word. I still do not see anything there that warrants a ban. Maybe a correction, but not a ban. Plus, it seems that a couple people did get the SDK ahead of time. I think mixed signals can be taken when that happens. Banning should come from direct attacks and from posts that can hurt the majority posting in the forum, not from a subjective comment that can be taken as good or bad. Banning should only apply when it is the last possible alternative.

[ssamadhi97]

Suspending Aero’s posting ability might have been an unfortunate choice, but I’m afraid it has been done and obviously it cannot be undone retroactively. We apologize, should this really have happened because of merely misunderstanding of what Aero meant to say.

[drbeachboy]

Suspending Aero’s posting ability might have been an unfortunate choice, but I’m afraid it has been done and obviously it cannot be undone retroactively. We apologize, should this really have happened because of merely misunderstanding of what Aero meant to say.

Thank you very much for your reply. :-)

[mobyduck]

I will say this, this place is "Ban" happy. I think you mis-read what Aero said and that mis-understanding got him temporarily banned. Is not the SDK being held back until beta testing is over? If so, then the 3rd party plug-in developers are being discouraged, at least until the beta testing is complete. I think a written clarification by you or one of the other moderators would have been in the best interest of the forum, and not a banning. As for kl33per's comments, I agree with you that his comments are way out of line. Aero, thank you for a great plugin, and I hope that you will reconsider your decision once the SDK is released and this "Ban" stuff blows over.

I fully second that...

The remark was actually made by someone else, with Aero changing one word. I still do not see anything there that warrants a ban. Maybe a correction, but not a ban. Plus, it seems that a couple people did get the SDK ahead of time. I think mixed signals can be taken when that happens. Banning should come from direct attacks and from posts that can hurt the majority posting in the forum, not from a subjective comment that can be taken as good or bad. Banning should only apply when it is the last possible alternative.

... and that.

Suspending Aero’s posting ability might have been an unfortunate choice, but I’m afraid it has been done and obviously it cannot be undone retroactively. We apologize, should this really have happened because of merely misunderstanding of what Aero meant to say.

Thanks for that.

Alessandro

[kl33per]

Well seeing as people are pretty angry with what I said, let me clarify. Firstly, I respect Aero greatly, as he has done a lot for the community. His plugin is fantastic, and is one of the many reasons use foobar2000. I am not angry that foo_pod (seemingly) is not going to be ported to 0.9, but with the reasons for Aero's decision not to.

It seems to me that Aero is unhappy with the way things were handled with his temporary banning and as such has decided that as a form of punishment (re, "you're really screwing us over"), foo_pod will not be ported to 0.9. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but I'm only going by what you said:

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I was temporarily banned from posting on the Hydrogen Audio forums apparently because of my questioning of the availability of the 0.9 SDK. I say apparently, because no one ever contacted me about the suspension, and the only thing I can find that could possibly be the cause is this post. Anyway, that combined with other factors pretty much killed any desire to upgrade to Foobar 0.9. Note that I am not planning on stopping foo_pod development, but it likely won't be focused on the changes necessary to make it run on Foobar 0.9.

Fair enough that you have other reasons for not porting foo_pod to 0.9, but if the deciding factor was this ban (which I agree was handled poorly, and I would find extremely discouraging as a third-party developer), then I'm sorely disappointed as a user of both foobar2000 and foo_pod.