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

[Mike Giacomelli]

Rockbox has now created firmware for the iPod that allows for gapless playback and other useful features. This is good news for audiophiles like us, but will we be able to use foo_pod to transfer songs to an iPod with Rockbox firmware? Will the ReplayGain levels translate to SoundCheck?

Rockbox doesn't read the iTunes database, so using foo_pod will work, but then, anything will work. It also uses replaygain, not Soundcheck.

If you want to add files to Rockbox, I suggest using the "file copy" tool already in foobar, or just dragging them there in Explorer.

[ReD-BaRoN]

Rockbox has now created firmware for the iPod that allows for gapless playback and other useful features. This is good news for audiophiles like us, but will we be able to use foo_pod to transfer songs to an iPod with Rockbox firmware? Will the ReplayGain levels translate to SoundCheck?

Rockbox doesn't read the iTunes database, so using foo_pod will work, but then, anything will work. It also uses replaygain, not Soundcheck.

If you want to add files to Rockbox, I suggest using the "file copy" tool already in foobar, or just dragging them there in Explorer.

What about on the fly transcoding. That's the most important feature I use.

[My name is Mud]

What about on the fly transcoding. That's the most important feature I use.

I was going to ask the exact same question...

[falconfox]

sounds like foo_pod will not be ported

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.

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.

The ban has very little with my decision not to port foo_pod to Foobar 0.9. I believe I alluded to the possibility of not porting foo_pod to 0.9 even before the ban.

Anyway, in order of priority, the reasons include:

1. Not having much time to work on foo_pod, in general.
2. No good reason (for me) to upgrade to Foobar 0.9.
3. The lack of a publically available SDK for 0.9.
4. Forum difficulties (i.e. the ban).


When Foobar 0.9 and SDK are released, if I find a good reason to upgrade and the 0.8->0.9 SDK changes are minimial, I might do the porting. But like I said, I really don't see any good reason to upgrade to Foobar 0.9 at this point, and several good reasons not to.

[delll]

When does foo_pod supported the new version (0.9) of foobar2000 ?

[My name is Mud]

I'm sorry, but you did read the post above yours, didn't you?

Anyway, that pretty much solves it for me...I stay with v0.8.3. I need this plug-in to survive in a cold hard universe...

This post has been edited by My name is Mud: May 9 2006, 08:21

[AtaqueEG]

The solution I came up with to enjoy both versions of foobar2000 (0.9 has some improvements I really like and better support for the Nero AAC encoder) is installing 0.8.3 on my USB flash drive and running it from there.

0.9 is installed on my computer's hard drive.

I still hope Aero reconsiders (or releases the source )

[My name is Mud]

Are you saying that you've got v0.8.3 on a thumb-drive?

[delll]

Sorry, but when I'm posting the previous post was not to see (it was post at the same time).

All my settings in foobar2000 are in verion 0.9. So I wan't be happy when foo_pod supported version 0.9.

I'm hope and waiting for this good news ;-)


------------------------------------------------------
Don't be angry about my bad english,
I'm only a german ;-)

[richard123]

I hope Aero decides to port foo_pod to 0.9. It would be much appreciated by many.

I have both 0.9 and 0.83 installed on my harddrive. 0.83 is only for foo_pod

[ReD-BaRoN]

The solution I came up with to enjoy both versions of foobar2000 (0.9 has some improvements I really like and better support for the Nero AAC encoder) is installing 0.8.3 on my USB flash drive and running it from there.

0.9 is installed on my computer's hard drive.

I still hope Aero reconsiders (or releases the source )

I've asked many many times to release the source. Up till now it's been no. I would like to see him change his position on that......

[AtaqueEG]

Are you saying that you've got v0.8.3 on a thumb-drive?

Yep.

It is absolutely possible.

You just have to forget about saving playlists (because of the paths).

But everything works perfectly.

BTW, I have a bunch of things installed on a thumb drive. A "toolset" if you may. You wouldn't believe what you can run from one of those things.

[My name is Mud]

Sorry, but when I'm posting the previous post was not to see (it was post at the same time).

Ah - that explains it...sorry...

It is absolutely possible.

It is absolutely brilliant! I never would have thought to even try this...

[falconfox]

Looks like Aero hasn't even been logged into the forums since 22nd March 2006 - 11:16

Aero's Profile

if this is true, he probably wouldn't care if he released the source. The only person i know who might have a chance of contacting him is Otto.

@ Otto : lcan you look into contacting Aero

[robby says]

Looks like Aero hasn't even been logged into the forums since 22nd March 2006 - 11:16

Aero's Profile

if this is true, he probably wouldn't care if he released the source. The only person i know who might have a chance of contacting him is Otto.

@ Otto : lcan you look into contacting Aero

time to get an open source version in the books.

i'll be happy to help with the porting if the code is released

--robby.

[Mike Giacomelli]

Rockbox has now created firmware for the iPod that allows for gapless playback and other useful features. This is good news for audiophiles like us, but will we be able to use foo_pod to transfer songs to an iPod with Rockbox firmware? Will the ReplayGain levels translate to SoundCheck?

Rockbox doesn't read the iTunes database, so using foo_pod will work, but then, anything will work. It also uses replaygain, not Soundcheck.

If you want to add files to Rockbox, I suggest using the "file copy" tool already in foobar, or just dragging them there in Explorer.

What about on the fly transcoding. That's the most important feature I use.

Sure it'll work, but I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Rockbox just need the files copied to the Ipod. Anything that can copy files to the ipod will work. So while you could use foo_pod to copy the files, you could also use the file writer (if you want to transcode) or file renamer (if you just want to copy) in foobar too.

[clunesy]

Looks like Aero hasn't even been logged into the forums since 22nd March 2006 - 11:16

Aero's Profile

if this is true, he probably wouldn't care if he released the source. The only person i know who might have a chance of contacting him is Otto.

@ Otto : lcan you look into contacting Aero

Right guys, its time I stepped in. There are 'gracious' people here who appreciate that foo_pod is a labour of love, and is maintained on a purely altruistic basis. It seems however that there aren't that many 'grateful' people. Aero told me (in confidence I suppose - sorry Aero), when I sent him a donation by Paypal that it was the second one he had ever received. That stinks people. I think Aero gets plenty of kudos and appreciates that we dig what he does for us, but I think its time to adopt a 'money talks' attitude. Nothing better than a bit of bribery to perhaps lean him towards the open source or v 0.9 thing. Everyone, as soon as you've seen this, donate $10 to him on paypal. Just do it - right now, come on. It's a small piece of change for his effort. Hell you'd pay 3 times that for anapod or Xplay, both of which are a pale imitation, as you know. He lost an ipod and expensive pair of cans on a plane (ok sounds like it was his fault), but with 2 paypal donations, he's still way down on the deal. Paypal details are in the foo_pod read me - get your wallets open !!

all the best

faithful, gracious, and grateful foo_pod lover.

Niels

This post has been edited by clunesy: May 11 2006, 23:13

[delll]

Right guys, its time I stepped in. There are 'gracious' people here who appreciate that foo_pod is a labour of love, and is maintained on a purely altruistic basis. It seems however that there aren't that many 'grateful' people. Aero told me (in confidence I suppose - sorry Aero), when I sent him a donation by Paypal that it was the second one he had ever received. That stinks people. I think Aero gets plenty of kudos and appreciates that we dig what he does for us, but I think its time to adopt a 'money talks' attitude. Nothing better than a bit of bribery to perhaps lean him towards the open source or v 0.9 thing. Everyone, as soon as you've seen this, donate $10 to him on paypal. Just do it - right now, come on. It's a small piece of change for his effort. Hell you'd pay 3 times that for anapod or Xplay, both of which are a pale imitation, as you know. He lost an ipod and expensive pair of cans on a plane (ok sounds like it was his fault), but with 2 paypal donations, he's still way down on the deal. Paypal details are in the foo_pod read me - get your wallets open !! ...

That's a good argument.

In this minute I've made a little donation, although I don't use foo_pod !!!

So I hope it's motivated too support foobar2000 v0.9 soon .

delll

------------------
Germany
------------------

[drbeachboy]

To clunesy:

I am the first in line to praise & defend Aero in this forum, but I don't use foo_pod very much anymore, because it has limitations. If Aero expected monetary renumeration for his plug-in, he should have just came right out and said as much. If he wanted a donation, that's fine and good, but a donation cannot always be expected, and should not be expected. It is, what it is. I donate to a lot of organizations, but not all, and no one would expect me to, either. Considering that Peter does not charge for foobar2000, and none, save one plug-in developer charges for any of their plug-ins, then do you, or should you, really expect the majority of users to pay for a plug-in? Hopefully, Aero understood this when he took the project on, and if he expected to be paid, then he should have charged for it from the beginning. I believe that everyone should donate if they can, but the one asking for the donation should never "expect" anything. You can hope, but should never expect. Also, if Aero spoke to you about this in confidence, then it would surely be the last thing that you'd ever be told in confidence.


To Aero (if you are still around the forum):

Good luck with all of your future endeavours! I hope that you will continue with foo_pod, but I will not hold out any expectations of you doing so, any longer. Thank you very much for giving us foo_pod. Take care, and all the best.

This post has been edited by drbeachboy: May 12 2006, 15:59

[schroeder]

[...]but I don't use foo_pod very much anymore, because it has limitations. [...]

I am just looking for a good alternative to iTunes. foo_pod seemed to be nice since it integrates with my primary music player. Just out of curiosity, what do you use instead?

Chris

[drbeachboy]

[...]but I don't use foo_pod very much anymore, because it has limitations. [...]

I am just looking for a good alternative to iTunes. foo_pod seemed to be nice since it integrates with my primary music player. Just out of curiosity, what do you use instead?

Chris

If I am already in foobar2000v0.8.3 (which is becoming more rare by the day), I will use foo_pod, but lately I generally just use iTunes. Other than Anapod, there aren't many alternatives.

[ReD-BaRoN]

[...]but I don't use foo_pod very much anymore, because it has limitations. [...]

I am just looking for a good alternative to iTunes. foo_pod seemed to be nice since it integrates with my primary music player. Just out of curiosity, what do you use instead?

Chris

If I am already in foobar2000v0.8.3 (which is becoming more rare by the day), I will use foo_pod, but lately I generally just use iTunes. Other than Anapod, there aren't many alternatives.

If only someone could convice Apple to add on the fly transcoding into iTunes, we'd be all set!

[drbeachboy]

[...]but I don't use foo_pod very much anymore, because it has limitations. [...]

I am just looking for a good alternative to iTunes. foo_pod seemed to be nice since it integrates with my primary music player. Just out of curiosity, what do you use instead?

Chris

If I am already in foobar2000v0.8.3 (which is becoming more rare by the day), I will use foo_pod, but lately I generally just use iTunes. Other than Anapod, there aren't many alternatives.

If only someone could convice Apple to add on the fly transcoding into iTunes, we'd be all set!

I use FLAC images with embedded cuesheets, so neither iTunes nor foo_pod can transcode the FLAC image. I use "Convert" in Foobar2000v0.9.2beta2 to encode to m4a then use either foo_pod in version 0.8.3 or iTunes to update my iPod.

[schroeder]

So, I was wondering...

Can you have the iPod sort the music according to the DISCNUMBER tag? My albums are called "albumname" and I distingush between different discs by using the discnumber tag. Apart from the fact that in 0.8.3 the tag is called PARTINSET, my 5G ipod does not recognize the DISCNUMBER tag. It places all the files under the album name and alternates the files of the discs according to tracknumber.

One solution that I found: I use the Alternate Metadata Settings like this:

ALBUM: $if(%partinset%,[%album% '(Disc' %partinset%')'],%album%)

-> If the DISCNUMBER (PARTINSET) is present foo_pod adds "albumname (disc xx)" to the album name and saves it to the iPod DB. Now my iPod distinguishes between the different discs (according to the ALBUM tag!).

One problem with this: using the metadata tag the original file tag is not changed (which is great). BUT when I load the songs from my ipod in foobars playlist it displays the METADATA tags, i.e. for album: "albumname (disc xx)". Doubleclick on the file (or explicit reload of the tag info from the file) corrects the display to the original tag stored in the file, i.e. "albumname". Is there any way to have foobar change to the original tag data while reading out the ipod contents to a playlist?

And...is there any easier way to have the ipod recognize the DISCNUMBER tag and sort correctly?

Thanks,
Chris

[My name is Mud]

I've put the dll in my components folder, but when I start foobar I get a message: " Failed to load DLL: foo_pod.dll, reason: Unable to load DLL.". Any idea why?

My computer crashed last weekend, and I had to rebuild my copy of v0.8.3 from scratch - I'm getting the same error message (along with similar messages about the transcoder .dll's). I rebuilt my fb2k using the exact same installers used for the now-dead version (which worked perfectly), including the foo_pod installer. I've also tried foo_pod 9.9k and -9.9m, and all three produce the same errors.
- edit - I've also gone thru Tinkafoo's page, and no luck there...

Help!!!

This post has been edited by My name is Mud: May 15 2006, 19:32