6th December 2005 at 6:31 pm #148
I’ve just started using mt-daapd recently and I’m very pleased.
My question, and/or request is, when will mt-daapd support support version 2.4 ID3 tags. My music all has v2.4 tags because I use ‘Quicksilver’ for track-playing notification and it was failing to show album art for tags lower than 2.4. I found when I moved my music to mt-daapd it was unable to read these tags so I had to change them to 2.2 (I read elsewhere that 2.3 should also work).
Perhaps this is an issue with libid3tag?
Thanks.7th December 2005 at 12:06 pm #3880
Yup, the tag reading is done all through libid3tag. If your libid3tag support 2.4, so should mt-daapd.
In fact, I thought libid3tag was one of the *few* tag readers that supported 2.4, so I’m kind of curious about what that’s about.
If you could make an example available somewhere, and email me at ron at pedde.com, I’d be willing to take a look at it.
— Ron18th July 2006 at 11:12 pm #3881
I had that same problem, songs with id3 v2.4 tags did not show up with all the information they had. I changed all my songs to id3 v2.3 with iTunes and now all is fine.
Denis19th July 2006 at 1:03 am #3882
ID3v2.3 is the “de facto” tagging standard for MP3, like it or not.
ID3v2.4 is a still-born informal standard, IMHO. It never caught on and didn’t even make it to the original “id3lib”. (foobar2000 being the most popular application to force it’s usage on MP3 content — it will read older, but will only write to 2.4.)
I’d recommend to use ID3v2.3 exclusively for interoperability, unless you have a unique need or are addicted to foobar2000’s tagging interface.
NOTE: In my experience, you will experience duplicate and bad tags in your MP3 files if you start editing/writing the same MP3 files with 2.3 and 2.4 centric applications… many tend not to behave very nicely.
But as I said before, both “standards” suck… 8)
But as Ron said… Firefly’s libid3tag should work with many ID3v2.4 tagged files, though.
The forum ‘Feature Requests’ is closed to new topics and replies.