-Brading Software Message Board
+--Forum: Mp3/Tag Studio Suggestions
+---Topic: Mass repair VBR headers started by Lester Jacobs
Posted by: Lester Jacobs on Oct. 11 2002,21:52
Hi Magnus,
I came across your program more than a year ago and thought it was excellent then. It's even better now with the extra features you've added. Sadly though, the one feature which I desperately need and which I mentioned to you around the time I discovered your program is still missing. I have over 5000 VBR mp3s across over 400 directories (I store my mp3s by album). All or most of these need their VBR headers repaired. Your VBR repair tool works great but only on one directory at a time. I really do not have the time to sit at my computer and do a VBR repair 400 times.
Therefore as I said then and I will say now, I will rush out and register your program as soon as you add this feature. In the meanwhile I am not using your program since this is the only feature I need.
Thank you
Lester Jacobs
Posted by: Magnus Brading on Oct. 12 2002,02:26
As I probably mentioned to you then, the reason for not having multi-directory-processing on the repair function is that there will always be some less gifted people who will run all the repair functions on all the files in their entire mp3 collection, in spite of all the warnings about running some of the repair functions on non-damaged files. Then they will send me very angry mails and blame me for corrupting their mp3 collection.
But since the VBR-header-repair process is practically not even potentially dangerous to even "non-damaged" files, I might enable it for this particular repair process in a future update then.
Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by: Lester Jacobs on Oct. 12 2002,06:01
Hi Magnus,
Thank you for your reply. I do understand your dilemma. However I really hope you can find some way to include this feature in a future release.
Thanks
Lester
Posted by: Elbow on Oct. 18 2002,10:44
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As I probably mentioned to you then, the reason for not having multi-directory-processing on the repair function is that there will always be some less gifted people who will run all the repair functions on all the files in their entire mp3 collection, in spite of all the warnings about running some of the repair functions on non-damaged files. Then they will send me very angry mails and blame me for corrupting their mp3 collection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I must say Magnus that if people do that then its only their own fault.
You shouldn't think about not implementing a certain function because some people might make mistakes and send you mails.
There is plenty of things in windows itself that can mess up stuff.
As long as its clear to people then it shouldnt be a problem having this feature.
How about a warning box before you commit to doing that particular function.
ex 'Are you sure you want to continue with this function' type warning.
You cant hinder funtions because people may use your programme wrongly.
Maybe these functions could be implemented in a setting for advanced users and a setting for normal use.
Advanced settings would enable you to do anything at your own risk and the normal function would be a safe setting.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Magnus Brading on Oct. 18 2002,15:50
Of course I should not have to reason like this, but when people screw up and get angry they often threaten to do things like "I'm gonna post in every newsgroup that your program is worthless, and that it destroyed my entire mp3 collection", and that can of course have a negative effect for me even if the one who did it is a moron. Just like with Adware. A bunch of ignorant morons have succeeded in persuading a large part of the internet population that everything with a banner in it will spy on everything you do, and send away the content of your computer on the internet. Because of this, I will soon be forced to remove the banner and find a more restrictive trial scheme. So, even if it's not right at all, morons can damage you a lot if you're not careful and don't adapt to protect yourself from them.
Posted by: Elbow on Oct. 19 2002,07:40
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course I should not have to reason like this, but when people screw up and get angry they often threaten to do things like "I'm gonna post in every newsgroup that your program is worthless, and that it destroyed my entire mp3 collection",
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So basically what your saying is that you wont put certain functions in your programme because its too dangerous?
Sorry but thats not progress thats going backwards.
If there is sufficient warning about certain functions (warning boxes) then I cant see your dilemma.
All the people who use your programme have been posting in various forums newsgroups saying how great it is. I know I do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just like with Adware. A bunch of ignorant morons have succeeded in persuading a large part of the internet population that everything with a banner in it will spy on everything you do, and send away the content of your computer on the internet. Because of this, I will soon be forced to remove the banner.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Banners and Adware is a different matter altogether.
People have a good reason to worry about that because its big news. If you go into detail about why the banner is on your software then that will clear it up.
If you want people to not worry about the banner in your software then you should explain in more detail about what exactly that gif is. All you have is a message saying read the FAQ. A lot of people will just not bother and go and find something else (Tag and Rename). This banner information should be on the same page as the link to download. IN THEIR FACE BIG AND BOLD. Explaining its an image that is supposed to just get in the way like a nag screen does.
Why dont you just change the gif to something non-advert like. A picture of your pants or something. That would get them to register pretty quick.
Anyway if someone wipes out there drive because they didnt use their software right or read the manual. Thats their hard luck. Its not your fault.
RTFM!
PS I f#ct a lot of my mp3s using your programme back in the early days but it was because I didnt check it out before I dived in.
Im still using it and I didnt post to any news groups (YET)
Im just waitin gor that suitcase of money you promised me if I didnt say anything.
Progress, lets see some progress.
Moron free zone this place should be.
RANT OVER
Posted by: Magnus Brading on Oct. 19 2002,14:34
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So basically what your saying is that you wont put certain functions in your programme because its too dangerous?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Functions that make it too easy/probable for lesser gifted people to do too much damage in too small a period of time, yes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry but thats not progress thats going backwards.
If there is sufficient warning about certain functions (warning boxes) then I cant see your dilemma.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's the exact same thing as the situation where companies in the US refrain from many both sensible and usable things, due to the risk of being sued by some moron (in spite of ridiculously detailed warnings and instructions).
Facts are facts, and there's nothing you or I can do about it, no matter how sensible our reasoning might be. I always try to walk the line as good as possible anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
People have a good reason to worry about that because its big news. If you go into detail about why the banner is on your software then that will clear it up.
If you want people to not worry about the banner in your software then you should explain in more detail about what exactly that gif is. All you have is a message saying read the FAQ. A lot of people will just not bother and go and find something else (Tag and Rename). This banner information should be on the same page as the link to download.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
First of all, I DO have info about it on the download page. And second of all, no information in the world would suffice to counter the massive indoctrination claiming that banners are equal to pure evil, no matter the format or shape they come in (including one with my pants on
). Believe me.Because of this, the banners in Mp3/TS will soon be history, period.
Posted by: Elbow on Oct. 21 2002,02:06
Ok I can see where your coming from.
Something with your pants off would be the best nag screen.
Posted by: Lee Hasiuk on Oct. 23 2002,15:05
I came here with the intention of posting a request for this feature, and sure enough, someone has already requested it. What you might find interesting is what led me to your software in the first place...
I recently purchased a 20GB iPod (Windows version). It comes with MusicMatch. I settled on 75% VBR as the "sweet spot"; to me it sounded almost as good as the original CD. I digitized more than 300 CDs, and downloaded them to my iPod. Much to my amazement, many of the longer songs were cut off, stopping well before the end of the song. After a series of back and forth emails with Music Match tech support, they referred me to your program and asked me to give it a try. Sure enough, using MP3 / TS to repair the VBR headers solved the problem. Though it's hard to believe that something so basic as writing out a correct MP3 file is not one of MusicMatch version 7.1's capabilities, that is truly the case.
The problem is that I don't know which of the more than 3000 songs in my library are going to have the problem until I listen to them, and running MP3 / TS on every directory, one at a time, would be painful. One possibility is to put all the files into one directory, fix them all, then put them back where they belong. It would sure be nice, though, to have the feature in your wonderful product. I'll even volunteer to be a beta tester.
Since, as you admit, this feature is safe to run on files that don't actually need repair, it seems to me that you could make this feature "recursive enabled" without enabling the other, more dangerous, features.
Posted by: Magnus Brading on Oct. 23 2002,20:31
Yes, many people have suggested this now, so I will most likely include it in a future update.
And thanks for the story, it was quite interesting to hear that, cool.
Posted by: Any update? on May 01 2003,20:01
Hi Magnus,
Any idea which version this might be implemented in? Just checking in to see whether this feature has made it to a release or not.
Thanks
Lester
Posted by: Magnus Brading on May 01 2003,20:25
I never promise any exact version numbers or time frames, since it might be hard to keep sometimes, due to unforeseen time related issues. Sorry about that, it's still on the list though.
Posted by: Doug Burnside (aka: tanstaafl.) on Nov. 28 2003,00:10
Would the risk of causing damage to non-VBR and other files be reduced to an acceptable level if checking the (currently non-existant) "Include Subdirectories" box also forced checking of the "Only process real VBR files" box?
I would really like to have the "Include Subdirectories" option in my "VBR header repair/add" routine, but since I only have about 3500 files in about 700 folders, I can probably do them one directory at a time in less time than it would take to argue with you a about it!
Thanks for the great program -- it has been well worth your modest registration fee.
Doug Burnside
aka: tanstaafl.
ps: Magnus -- it has been a LONG time since we have heard from you on the "Unofficial Empeg Bulletin Board". Don't be such a stranger.
Posted by: Magnus Brading on Nov. 28 2003,00:33
I guess that would reduce the risk for the VBR repair feature, but that one is the repair type with the least risk of damaging any files anyway, the others can be much worse if you apply them to the wrong files.
One trick that should work for you is to move all your files into the same directory with the direct rename tool in absolute path mode (or the auto rename tool will work too, with a template like e.g. "c:\mp3temp<\><OldFileName>"), perform the VBR-repair on all of them and then press the undo-button in the tool you used to move them. I would backup the files first before trying such a thing just to be sure though, even though I see no real reason why it wouldn't work.
And the reason for not hanging around the empeg forum much is the same one as for not pumping out new versions of Mp3/Tag Studio every day, namely, extreme lack of time...
Give my best to all the guys over there anyway.
Posted by: tanstaafl. on Dec. 29 2003,22:48
Magnus --
Your suggestion to use the "Direct Rename Files" feature to prepend a faux directory path to all the files (I used "C:\_Work\") worked perfectly. I mass-renamed all 9,109 files spread across 1,444 directories, ran the VBR Header Fix routine on the files now located in the C:\_Work directory, then did the "Undo" in Direct Rename Files to put them back where they belonged. Entire operation took about 40 minutes (35 of which was the VBR Fix going through all the files).
I *did* make a backup of the entire music system to a separate hard drive before doing this. My nightmare was that the program would lock up during the VBR fix, giving me no way to undo the name changes. I had already spent more than 200 hours on my re-rip/re-encode/re-tag project, and the thought of having to manually move 9,109 files back into their proper directories (assuming I could even figure out which one of the 1,444 directories a file was supposed to be in) makes me shudder!
Thanks for the advice.
Doug Burnside
aka: tanstaafl.
Posted by: milsam milk on Aug. 29 2005,01:30
hmm, some years have elapsed since this suggestion was first postet. I'm one of those who apply "repair VBR headers" on huge amounts of files in many sub-dirs. A function to include sub-dirs would be greatly appreciated. Or even make this function macro recordable...
Keep up the good work. I hope banners will remain.
end