getmusicbee.com

General => MusicBee Wishlist => Topic started by: lnminente on March 29, 2012, 01:41:49 PM

Title: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: lnminente on March 29, 2012, 01:41:49 PM
Instead of using "207k VBR" we could use "~207k" as  ~ means aprox. and is a term known for being used in some players.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: Analien on March 29, 2012, 02:05:47 PM
+1.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: greenday1987 on March 29, 2012, 02:08:40 PM
Better still detect lame presets such as V0, V2 which looks neater and is more accurate
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: usuallee on March 29, 2012, 03:37:32 PM
I think it's fine the way it is. If anything just remove the "VBR" from "207k VBR". For a bitrate like 207 it's self-evident it's VBR anyway. I don't think the ~ for approximate would be strictly accurate. 207 is not the "approximate" bitrate for that hypothetical track - it IS the bitrate (okay, average bitrate) for that track.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: nycebo on March 30, 2012, 02:03:40 PM
Good idea.  I also like the idea of ~207k for VBR but 207k would be fine also. 
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: HHM on March 30, 2012, 03:44:43 PM
+1
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: greenday1987 on March 30, 2012, 07:40:13 PM
If preset detection is possible I'd be a very happy bunny
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: stollentroll on March 30, 2012, 08:40:36 PM
-1  ::)
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: Steven on March 30, 2012, 08:57:26 PM
Quote from: stollentroll on March 30, 2012, 08:40:36 PM
-1  ::)
which suggestion are you refering to and can you provide a reason for the -1?
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: stollentroll on March 30, 2012, 09:43:30 PM
sorry, didnt realize there are several options being discussed.

so, i do not think changing any of them is needed. it's fine with me just the way it is.
(just my 2cents).

best regards!  martin
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: ma_t14 on May 05, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
+1
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: Zak on May 06, 2012, 08:19:54 AM
I think it works fine the way it is, so it's -1 from me too.

Reason I like the status quo:


Reasons I don't like the other proposals:



A solution that might make everyone happy is to provide some way of constructing a virtual tag that people can customise how they want.
eg

<If(<bitrateType>="VBR",~<bitrate>k, <bitrate>k)>
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: vinki on May 06, 2012, 09:40:00 AM
-1.
This notation is industry's standard. Also "variable" =! "approximate", these two words have different meanings.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: kairos on May 06, 2012, 11:35:08 AM
I think it's fine the way it is. Although I would be okay with changing it to display "VBR V0" or "VBR V2" or whatever as well.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: Carbon6 on May 06, 2012, 02:28:39 PM
Displaying V0 or V2 or whatever would be much better imho.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: greenday1987 on May 06, 2012, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: Carbon6 on May 06, 2012, 02:28:39 PM
Displaying V0 or V2 or whatever would be much better imho.
This
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: lnminente on August 13, 2012, 06:35:57 PM
Now we have the $Right function, we can see 128~ instead of 128 VBR and still will be sortable using the following algorithm:
$Left(<Bitrate>,3)$If($Right(<Bitrate>,3)="VBR",~,)
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: EnduringGuerila on September 22, 2012, 02:13:46 AM
+1 for displaying v0, v2, etc.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: Thorbjorn on September 24, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
+1 for displaying v0, v2 etc. if possible. I'm tagging it manually now, so would love it to be automatic. I don't think it's straight forward to show that though?
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: greenday1987 on September 25, 2012, 09:04:37 AM
I doubt it's that difficult although I'm not a coder so I could easily be wrong :/
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field
Post by: HHM on September 25, 2012, 11:57:44 AM
I'm -1 as for V0, V1... option, here's why:
I think only more advanced users will understand it. people who know this terminology will know that 207k means V1 (dunno if it's correct - just gave an example), but most casual users don't what what V1 stands for.

+ (i'm not fully sure about it) isn't it 100% accurate only with these files you've decoded yourself?
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Thorbjorn on September 25, 2012, 05:35:14 PM
If they don't know what v0 is they probably don't know what VBR is either. Having it as a separate field or option would be good enough for me.
But yes accuracy is what I thought could be a problem too. I just remember using this program long ago that could detect the encoding parameters, but it was never completely accurate and would only work for mp3's encoded with LAME.
Anyway I just did a quick search and I see foobar can display this, so it's possible at least.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: greenday1987 on September 25, 2012, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: Thorbjorn on September 25, 2012, 05:35:14 PM
If they don't know what v0 is they probably don't know what VBR is either. Having it as a separate field or option would be good enough for me.
But yes accuracy is what I thought could be a problem too. I just remember using this program long ago that could detect the encoding parameters, but it was never completely accurate and would only work for mp3's encoded with LAME.
Anyway I just did a quick search and I see foobar can display this, so it's possible at least.
This is because they are Lame presets
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Thorbjorn on September 25, 2012, 08:16:36 PM
Quote from: greenday1987 on September 25, 2012, 08:08:41 PM

This is because they are Lame presets

Obviously, I'm just saying it couldn't read any other encoders.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Steven on November 05, 2012, 07:43:09 PM
i'm replying to this topic now as its not easy to find. I have mostly done an implementation that reads the encoding quality from lame encoded files.
The field will be available as a separate "encoding quality" field (that field might already be in the version you are using but doesnt currently display anything).
Additionally via preference setting you can display it in place of bitrate where a value is available.
It will require you to rescan your files though, but i will make that automated when the preference setting is first ticked
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: greenday1987 on November 05, 2012, 08:35:11 PM
Wow, that sounds epic Steven
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Steven on November 05, 2012, 10:11:54 PM
this has the change:
http://musicbee.niblseed.com/V2_1/MusicBee_Exe_Patched.zip

- Encoding Quality field
- setting in Preferences/ Layout/ Fields/ tick "replace Bitrate with Encoding Quality" if you would rather see encoding quality (when available) instead of the bitrate
- encoding quality displays in the Now Playing panel properties line and in the tag editor Properties page

However for MB to get the data you will need to rescan your library files (quickest way is File/ Advanced/ Rescan All Files)
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: beeing good on November 05, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
Steven, does this change/write to the tags at all or it is just reading the data already in the tags?
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Steven on November 06, 2012, 07:04:45 AM
it only reads
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: beeing good on November 06, 2012, 02:26:08 PM
Ok, thanks. This is wonderful, no more sending to foobar to check the preset for me!
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: greenday1987 on November 06, 2012, 08:37:44 PM
Definitely gonna check this out on my V2 instillation
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Zak on November 07, 2012, 02:17:45 PM
I'm genuinely curious why this is so important to people...

If I look at the bitrate value of a given song and it says 128k, I know it isn't going to sound great. If it says ~256k I know it's going to sound pretty good.

What is gained by replacing the actual or average bitrate with an arbitrary number that represents a preset that might be used when encoding with one specific encoder implementation? Is it just an aesthetic preference, or am I missing some obvious benefit or additional information that it provides?


Also noticed that without Show Encoding Quality checked, the Editor properties tab shows:
Bitrate: 213k VBR (V2)
With the same option checked, the Editor properties tab shows:
Bitrate: V2
The space is there regardless, so there's no real reason not to always show both values in the Editor. I'm also inclined to make the same argument for the details in the Track Info panel, because even at its widest all of the details still fit into the narrowest allowed panel width.
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: Steven on November 07, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
@Zak, I personally agree with you about that setting but the setting has not been located in a promenant place and i expect only people who care about it will find it and set it.
MB will only show the value if for lame encoded files if the quality parameter was used when encoding
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: paq on November 07, 2012, 09:34:18 PM
Quote from: Zak on November 07, 2012, 02:17:45 PM
What is gained by replacing the actual or average bitrate with an arbitrary number that represents a preset that might be used when encoding with one specific encoder implementation? Is it just an aesthetic preference, or am I missing some obvious benefit or additional information that it provides?

One reason could be consistency. Say you have an album which was encoded using a variable preset, and you want to make sure all tracks used the same setting, V1 or V2 and so on... Then you wouldn't be able to tell by only looking at the bitrate. And as I understand Stevens comment, it's not the preset that might have been used, it's either the preset used or no information about the preset at all. Am I correct?

And to some visually, it might be less abstract than "~241k". I say as long as it doesn't replace anything and is something optional - why not?
Title: Re: Tip for less width in the bitrate field (Also V0 V2 talk)
Post by: greenday1987 on November 08, 2012, 07:51:04 AM
It's far more aesthetically pleasing and nicer for the OCD in me to be able to see the preset value