Corrupt cover art jpeg

[McLion]

Hi
I am using 15.2.
It seems that this version sometimes is generating corrupt jpeg for the cover art.
My Player software can not show it and AudioShell Tag Editor returns an JPEG Error *68 when opening the MP3.
Sample file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0-...ew?usp=sharing
Is this a known bug?

Thanks
McL

[garym]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

Hi
I am using 15.2.
It seems that this version sometimes is generating corrupt jpeg for the cover art.
My Player software can not show it and AudioShell Tag Editor returns an JPEG Error *68 when opening the MP3.
Sample file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0-...ew?usp=sharing
Is this a known bug?

Thanks
McL

I downloaded your sample file. It plays fine and the artwork displays perfectly. No errors. I am using foobar2000 windows player. But mp3tag also shows the file as being OK and displays the artwork properly. So there's nothing wrong with the file or the artwork.

[McLion]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

This is very strange because Raumfeld (the Multiroom player I use) did download the file using the same link and confirmed that the cover does not show correctly.
As mentioned before, AudioShell Tag Editor shows a warning and shows the same corrupt image as the Raumfeld player.

[Spoon]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

Perhaps it is the jpeg image its self which is being said as corrupted? did dBpoweramp change the jpg or just embed it?

[garym]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

never heard of audioshell, but mp3tag is a standard state-of-the -art tag editor, and foobar2000 is a player used by hundreds of thousands of users. And it works fine in both places, including showing artwork. It also shows just fine in dbpa ID TAG EDITOR. But when I open the file in iTunes, the file will play but the artwork doesn't display (no error, just a blank/black square for artwork, as if it is missing). So there is something odd about that artwork, but it works most mainstream programs I've tried. So not sure what it could be. It's not size or type, as I can open other mp3tags in itunes that contain jpg files that are much larger.

[Dat Ei]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

Windows Explorer shows the album art, but Windows Media Player does not.


Dat Ei

[McLion]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

Windows Explorer shows the album art, but Windows Media Player does not.
Dat Ei

I don't see any cover art in Explorer and WMP anyway never shows embedded cover art in mp3.

[McLion]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

Perhaps it is the jpeg image its self which is being said as corrupted? did dBpoweramp change the jpg or just embed it?

I already answered to this ... the post somehow went to nirvana

Ripped with dbP and selected from the covers found by dbP having dbP downscale it to 500x500. No external operation.

btw: I have more than one album showing the same. However, as I just checked, one of the other that shows the same is created with 14.4beta

[garym]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

I don't see any cover art in Explorer and WMP anyway never shows embedded cover art in mp3.

Cover shows for me in windows file explorer (win 7 (64)). I don't have WMP installed, so can't check there.

[Spoon]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

This is being investigated, I notice that the tags are set to 2.4, for maximum compatibility they should be 2.3 really.

[McLion]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

This is being investigated, I notice that the tags are set to 2.4, for maximum compatibility they should be 2.3 really.

You mean, though 2.4 tags are available, one should not use it, right?
I selected 2.4 to be prepared once player software really uses the additional features possible with it. What I forgot to check, does dbP make use of the additional 2.4 features? Deos dbP make a real difference between 2.3 and 2.4, except the tag itself?

[garym]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

and this file has BOTH ID3v1 and ID3v2.4 tags. That shouldn't cause a problem but is not necessary. (I agree with Spoon; IDv2.4 has never really taken over and ID3v2.3 is much more universal. Even foobar2000 which stayed with 2.4 for a long time now defaults to writing 2.3 tags unless user overrides this.)

p.s. I converted the tag type to ID3v2.3 and removed the ID3v1. Now when I open in iTunes the artwork is visible. So I definitely suspect something regarding the ID3v2.4 tag is causing the issue.

[garym]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

dbP make a real difference between 2.3 and 2.4, except the tag itself?

If I understand your question, no. Tags have only to do with tags (metadata) and nothing to do with the underlying audio that was extracted to a digital file. Different tag types may support different data fields, but otherwise no difference.

[McLion]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

If I understand your question, no. Tags have only to do with tags (metadata) and nothing to do with the underlying audio that was extracted to a digital file. Different tag types may support different data fields, but otherwise no difference.

I know that the tags don't have anything to do with the audio. What I meant is, if tags are set to be written in v2.4, does dbP make use any of the additional features/data field or does it actually create the same metadata as when it is set to use v2.3?

Knowing this would help in the decision to create v2.4 metadata for future use when players maybe fully support it, or to stick with v2.3.

[garym]

Re: Corrupt cover art jpeg

there are some differences in tags between 2.3 and 2.4 (a few different fields etc.). I suspect the *content* of the tags is going to be the same, it is just that 2.4 and 2.3 will have some differing field names, additional standard fields, handling of multivalue tags, etc. I'm not and expert on ID3 tags as I primarily use FLAC lossless files and they don't use ID3 tags. But a quick google shows a lot of places to learn about 2.3 vs 2.4. Also keep in mind that if in the future there is a reason to use 2.4 instead (unlikely as 2.4 has failed to take off and it has been years now), one can easily batch convert ones' files from 2.3 to 2..4 (or any other tag type that may come along).

When I create an mp3 mirror of my ~90,000 tracks, I use ID3v2.3 UTF16. On my files that are only mp3 files (no FLAC version) I also use ID3v2.3 UTF16. There is not any metadata content, including lots of things other than standard artist, album, genre, composer, album artist, track, etc. that I can't include in the 2.3 tags. A lot of people I know who are meticulous about their tags and tagging data use ID3v2.3 because it is widely understood by most players.