Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Wmp11 Metadata Info


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 electricsaffron

electricsaffron

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Monterey
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 28 December 2007 - 02:54 AM

Problems with making album info stick to file when ripping a new CD.
Can right click blank CD icon, click Find Album Info and album art and tracks, artist all show up (along with alternate choices), but when I click on Finish it doesn't download the metadata.

All was fine until happyhands :flowers: set out to "make things better".

Mucho thanks :thumbsup:

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,881 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 28 December 2007 - 08:13 AM

I've never burned with WMP...have you tried a different program for burning?

And...doesn't WMP produce only .wma files?

Louis

#3 electricsaffron

electricsaffron
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Monterey
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 28 December 2007 - 09:41 AM

Louis~

WMP does rip/burn mp3 files, too. I have also wanted to know what "best" music program out there (iTunes, WMP, etc). Any suggestions in this dept? I like the album cover concept in the music library and I'm still using XP.

KW

Edited by electricsaffron, 28 December 2007 - 09:41 AM.


#4 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,881 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:17 AM

I don't think there is a best program...just what any given user likes.

I use Nero (since it first appeared) and I find it easy, if not confusing users with the volume of programs presented in some versions.

Many new burners provide/recommend Nero as the burn program of choice.

But there are any number of other burn programs out there...others will have to suggest on those.

Louis

#5 electricsaffron

electricsaffron
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Monterey
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 28 December 2007 - 11:59 AM

Thanks Louis -

"best" is one of those terms........

I have had Nero, but never used it. "Unfortunately", I've developed a large library of music on WMP11 and am not sure about conversion. Most of it is 192kbps+, .wma and .wma pro. I'm under the impression that mp3 is THE way to go - is this really so?
I have just noticed that another user on the computer has the ability to get (and maintain) track/album info, so I'm currently using that user and I've gone through it's settings to compare.

kw

#6 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,881 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:03:58 PM

Posted 28 December 2007 - 01:03 PM

Just a guess :flowers:, but I think that .mp3 is the file format of choice by the vast majority of persons who indulge.

Even though the .wma format has claimed to produce smaller (no consideration, IMO) and better-sounding music files, I just find that .mp3 files provide fidelity which my ears find pleasing (and I don't really care about having smaller music files, now that larger hard drives are ubiquitous).

http://wmaconversion.com/wma-vs-mp3.htm Not an endoresement of any sort for the promoted product, just a concise summary of issue perceived by some.

More at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=.wma+versus+.mp3

Something to consider: How many requests/advertisements do you see/hear about for .wma players :thumbsup:?

And...FWIW, these allusions to 64-bit .mp3 files compared to 64-bit .wma files...are unrealistic. Nobody records .mp3 files at that rate today. When I first started, even then it was considered that 128-bit was as low as one would go, with 192-bit being CD-quality in the minds of many.

http://www.mp3-converter.com/bitrates.htm

Louis




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users