Nice. BTW, Matroska will add much better tagging possibilities, as well as editing capabilities, chaptering, etc. So maybe that could be a good solution for you (even though it's always better not to change something that works). Storing and archiving is definitely a goal of us. That why the tag system has to be powerful enough.

How offtopic do you guys need to go to pimp matroska?

Yeah, I thought I was the only one feeling a bit aprehensive about the any-excuse-to-mention-Matroska. It's not to say I don't appreciate Matroska - I just think sometimes it feels like product placement in a movie...

As for Wavpack... I love it!

Ruairi

I have to agree on this one. Personally I have nothing against matroska as a format in itself.

I however do sometimes find the amount at wich it's developers try to promote it, with every single occasion that seems to present them, slightly discomforting.

Is there any reason so mention Matroska more often than Wavpack in this thread?
It was called "Wavpack - a thank you note" if I remember right.
Thank you Bryant, you're great.

I take it as a joke. Because the topic was : how Wavpack allows me to store specific meta-data that I can't do otherwise (losslessly). This is precisely the kind of thing we are currently adding to Matroska (and not just for one codec). And I'd be interresting to know more about it in this purpose... But maybe a webforum is not the correct place to discuss technical things.

I really don't think this was intended as a joke. And most certainly this is not only directed at this specific thread, but about the general frequency at wich you guys try to force this format into any possible thread that you can.

Now the first time you mentioned Matroska in this thread can definitely be seen as curiousity from your side and makes perfect sense. IMHO you could have just let it it at that. Since the second time you mention it it turns into blatant advertising again. You could have just accepted the answer you got and I really don't see why you yet again had to advertize the "advantages" of matroska so blatantly. Did the topic poster ask for a better sollution to store his .wv files in? Not as far as I can see.

So leaving this thread as it was intended, namely "a thank you to WavPack", would have been just fine. What you are doing here is almost slagging of WavPack in my opinion. Since you say yet again that matroska is so called better at a certain thing then WavPack on itself.

To get back to your "superiour" tagging system. I don't see anything that would make Matroska tagging more powerfull then native ape tagging in the case of audio only files. I really sometimes wonder where you guys get these dillusions from. Matroska might be on damn nice container format, it is however not the sulution to all the worlds problems, as you guys might sometimes think it is.

I apologize to the Topic starter and Bryant for this offopic post, but I really felt this had to be said at some point.

To Bryant I can only say as usual. Great work on WavPack.

If you don't see why it may be because you didn't look at all.

I did look. Thank you for insulting my intelligence.

Now since apperently you couldn't resist again to spam this. I still don't see why. And the same happens to go for many other people that happen to be involved in anything that is remotely related to the tagging of audio files.

Apperently there is some hidden aspect to things related to the tagging of audio files that only Matroska developers are able to understand The rest of us just seem to be mere mortals that apperently don't know what we are talking about according to you guys.

I search the web and found nothing on how to tag multiple tracks in the same file using ID3, APE or any other tagging-only containers. Only CUE files allow this for now and are not even in the file. But if you have more info on this (since apparently you know there are such systems) please tell me where I could get info on this.

edit: you can also tell me how I can put the track titles of that movie soundtrack in different languages (each track name corresponding to the name of the scene) with APE or your other beloved tagging systems.

"uninteresting"

But you're free to use embedded .cue files, if you absolutely positively have to.


Starts with an "unin", ends with a "teresting". Guess what I mean?

But you're free to use title_english, title_russian etcetera for custom field names if you absolutely positively have to.

The whole point is, if you haven't understood it already, that the advantages matroska tagging offers are very minor for the majority of the users, and given the current level of support for the format... it's not the best choice, really.

"It can't be better because I don't need this feature"

custom tags

You're right, it's not worth developing something new because it's not supported yet.

Apperently you completely fail to see the hint that people are trying to give you here. This is not at all about the fact that it is not interesting to develop something new. It certainly is and should be encouraged.

However the agressiveness at wich matroska developers try to convince people about the so called advantages of their format, when sometimes they simply aren't needed, might strike some people as odd. Not every kind of data nor every kind of user needs many of the features that matroska could provide, but can easily be achieved by simpler means.

Now I certainly believe myself that matroska presents a container format with quite some interesting potential. Both in regards with audio and video in one container and sometimes even with audio data alone.

However I do not believe that this justifies trying to mention the advantages of Matroska at every oppotunity possible and it does not mean that Matroska is the only solution to every problem and that all others seem to be only some kind of joke.

Nothing here was mentioned as criticism agains matroska as a format in itself. If you would have read the thread more carefully you certainly would have noticed this. The only thing some people said was that in many situations other solutions are simply sufficient. Yet somehow matroska developers seem to iterpret this kind of notion as critisizm towards matroska straight away.

It was only meant as a critisism towards matroska developers themselves and the frequency at wich they spam their beloved product. So instead of straight away jumping back at people to defend Matroska at all costs maybe you could have just sat back a minute and thought about what people are actually really trying to tell you here.

Really I don't see why you generalize that to all matroska developpers.
And looking at robux4 last posts, not looking to this thread, I don't see pimping.
I think there should be a bit more tolerance here, especially from moderators, you can't blame people to be to passionate, after all it's a free and open project. And it's because people are passionate that they come here.
Even if sometimes it's needed to calme those people, IMO there is no need to be so negative you will just get the contrary of what you want. But well I feel that some people here only see the bad side of things.

What a load of fucking bullshit. You arguing guys are so DESPERATE to argue, and there isnt anything here to argue about.

Whenever C2 errors are mentioned, Pio jumps in - its his(her?) business, he knows about it, blah blah blah

Whenever Replaygain / Digital Radio / whatever is mentioned, 2bdecided jumps in, he knows the score, and is interested in furthering the conversation.

The Matroska interference began with a genuine question, something that I would have asked had I been on the team and seen this thread.

I have no clue why you guys are so bloody negative. We all think Wavpack rocks, and we all think Matroska rocks. I have no clue why you guys are so bloody negative.

I gave 2 examples of cases where it is superior, as I originally stated (in less obvious words). And then you come back calling me a liar and that you have read the specs. So I think I'm allow to react as agressively as I want.

I put a lot of my time trying to create something as good as possible without just copying what existed before (about all current tags systems are the same). And I'm not the only one to spend that precious time. I try to get as much input as possible from everywhere. And since we are actively finishing the tag specs, I'd like more than before (which has been close to 0). What we only get (here and there) is 'don't talk about Matroska even if it is somehow related to a topic' or 'don't try to get the attention of people who know what they are talking about' (ie noone in this topic). So yeah, we'll continue to work without being able to request help. And we'll get even more proud of what our small team is able to do with such a blatant vapourware project !

Agreed. Wavpack is nice, so is Matroska. If the latter can add something to the party, then i'm fine with them telling us about it.

I know they've certainly been guilty of pimping it too much in the past - but they have a rich toolset now and some undeniably nice features. Yes, this is a 'thank you' thread for Wavpack, but tbh that thing should be kept to PMs.

If you don't like what and how they do their thing then where and when exactly are they 'allowed' to 'pimp' their product? I'd be interested in Dibroms view on this far more than Rjamorim, who seems to enjoy these flame wars.

btw Lev - it seems you're not too far from me in the world...

Wonderful, some common sense at last!

The problem's not in Matroska itself. The problem seems to lie in the people who will aggressively seek any opportunity to expound on the superiority of their product. We've had previous examples of people like this: spoon, Kyle Katarn, and so on.

Here's the fact of the matter: Matroska's claiming that their tagging system is the best way to tag audio. However, it's not. APEv2 does everything that we need to do that Matroska can do.

Few people really bother with multiple-tracks-in-one-file. It's a royal pain-in-the-ass to manage because every single currently existing player uses the file-as-track paradigm, and changing it to file-as-album is unintuitive and awkward. If they really wanted to use the file-as-album paradigm, there are better, simpler solutions than Matroska (take your files, .ZIP them). The ZIP method has the added bonus of being utterly codec agnostic (so MPC would work, MOD would work, and any other format would also work).

One other "feature" of Matroska's tagging that they use to claim superiority over APEv2 is their XML-style tag cascading, which again is something only useful when you're doing something other than the file-as-track paradigm.

The final "feature" of Matroska's tagging system, AFAIK, is that their tags have both a designation and a meaning, their vaunted "semantic" system, which isn't necessarily better than APEv2's "tag name describes tag contents" system. We've seen other examples of semantic systems like ID3v2, which were total kludges and way more heavyweight than they had to be.

So, to make Matroska tagging useful we need a player that will implement the file-as-album paradigm succinctly. The problem with Matroska is that there seem to be (or were, perhaps, I haven't followed that development for a while) some issues with respect to sample-accurate playback. This might have been fixed by now.

However, this doesn't change the fact that if someone came up with a foobar2000 plugin that would allow writing tags to ZIP files it would be as useful to fb2k users as Matroska-contained audio anyhow.

Like I said earlier: for Matroska audio to be really useful, we need proper support for file-as-album audio playing, which offers few benefits over the status quo and can be done easily using much less convoluted procedures than placing in a Matroska container.

Edit: I don't mean to demean the hard work the Matroska devs are putting in, they're making a great a/v container, but my point is that because they're adding video, it's far from the optimal audio-only container.

Not really. Creating a zip file has issues with seeking inside a compressed file and isn't really the optimal way of doing it. I like the Matroska idea, even though I don't use it yet (i'm going to look at the latest release soon) but i'll really only start using it in anger when it supports mpc, which is largely out of their hands. In the meantime, as a replacement for single file audio as well as video files, matroska is the best we have. Granted, I don't want to hear about it in every thread, but I think they've been a lot more aware of this recently.

sorry guys ... but i agree ... maybe we could be aguing if matroska was something to pay for ... but i do understand the pationate part ... i also understand that is sometimes dificult to moderate so many threads ... so ... thnks to the moderators also for their hard work

PS: i don't understand, either use matroska, why can't we just update ogg container?

So does APEv2 support it or not ?



Someone should be looking at the audio example before talking.
Anyway the superiority is not (only) because of the XML like system, but because of the Chaptering used for tags. That allows (example #3) a DJ mix to tag overlapping tracks (or samples put over the playing track). Which obviously noone (but me) needs...



Funny the same Frank Klemm who wrote that was the driving force to have no size limit in Matroska (which was MCF at the time).

OK, I see the Matroska guys managed to successfully switch the subject from "how people hate the aggressive pimping tactics of the Matroska devs/admin" to "issues with different tagging systems". Let's try to bring this thread back to it's roots.

What I see as a problem here is that being passionate about your container isn't excuse to annoy people and hijack every possible thread with "Matroska can do that in a much better fashion" - specially if noone in that thread asked for a better solution!

There are other wildly passionate groups here. Foobar2000 users are the first one to come to mind (and they used to be much worse than the Matroska devs). Musepack and Vorbis users used to be annoying too. But these groups later managed to find some equilibrium. They still pimp what they love, but not in such a stubborn and irritating way as the Matroska devs.

Besides, I, and probably several other people, have a tendency to trust pimping more if it's done by independent users, and not devs or anyone directly related to the format. If you guys are really doing a good work on Matroska, you should leave the pimping job to the format fans, and focus on developing it. I'm sure it would be much better for Matroska's image - it would no longer be "the format made by those irritating salesmen".

The argument that "it's an open project and is done for free" doesn't cut it either. Foobar2000 is also mostly open, and is free, and you don't see Peter forcing it down other people's throats. His fans do that. That same applies to Musepack, Vorbis, etc.

OK, enough wasting my time. This post will be ignored by it's target audience anyway.

Regards;

Roberto.

Edit: Please don't misinterpret this post as a criticism against the format. It's against your behaviour. You are annoying, not the format. Don't come calling me a Matroska hater.

This is stupid.



This is why it's stupid.

Anyway, I apologise. The 2 lines I wrote that said Matroska can do other things better for audio-only files than basic WavPack. I will create another HA account for me to be able to post my comments on why codec+basic containers are missing many features. Devs have no right to speak, especially about technical things.

Peter, Klemm and Monty never had to get into technical detail to convince users their solutions are superior.

And you are forcing the thread out of subject again. Devs talking about technical things = good. People hijacking every thread to pimp their weapon of choice = bad. These things are unrelated.

I can't help but comment on how HA seems to be slowly devolving (degenerating) into partisan bashing, elite ideological warfare, or whatever you want to call it.

A few friends of mine have joined over the past few months, including a few colleagues here at work. We just spent our last coffee break discussing this site's current "demeanor". Suffice it to say that none of us are impressed with all of this negativism floating around.

We finished up by asking ourselves: "Are the moderators here part of the solution or part of the problem?"

What a great way to turn people off. Perhaps it's time to find a new stomping ground...

Does Hydrogen Audio have an "ignore this user" feature? I'm that tired of hearing about Ma&^0s%@. No more robUx4, and no more ChristianHJW... and probably no more of whatever new account robUx4 starts.

- M.

Edit: Found it. It's in "My Controls" > "Options" > "Manage Ignored Users."

Yes, this site has an "ignore this user" and I use it already

So if I posted a 2 page long article of why I think codec-files should not be used, it would have been on topic and good ? I just used the easy/fast solution. If anyone was interrested I could have said (much) more. But apparently people are interrested in more fun...

This thread never had a subject. It only shows how more "important" members of this board can get away with trolling.

This is certainly one of the most useless threads I've ever read.