Author Topic: folder.jpg vs. cover.jpg - What is the difference?  (Read 13016 times)

Moshi_

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • http://www.last.fm/user/Moshi_

electro

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
There's no other difference, except a different name. I prefer cover.jpg (it's more descriptive than folder.jpg).

Steven

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34312
folder.jpg can serve as a picture for the folder in windows explorer.
However if you ever use Windows Media Player then dont use folder.jpg as WMP will overwrite the files with low quality pictures all by itself

Moshi_

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • http://www.last.fm/user/Moshi_
folder.jpg can serve as a picture for the folder in windows explorer.
However if you ever use Windows Media Player then dont use folder.jpg as WMP will overwrite the files with low quality pictures all by itself

Thanks, but I already disabled WMPs downgrading of album art. http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/WMP12/AlbumArt.htm

So I guess I'll stick with folder.jpg.

udubber83

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41

Moshi_

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • http://www.last.fm/user/Moshi_
why not just embed the art in the music file?

Well I do that too. But I just wanted to know what is the difference between folder.jpg and cover.jpg, since it offers you these options when you try to embed a picture in the file through MusicBee.

a2a

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
why not just embed the art in the music file?

Many years ago when storage was expensive I did everything but this as it increased the size of your file - and could even add a fair few meg to an entire album  ::)