R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

[garym]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

Does anyone else understand what I am on about? While I know that most people use MP3 and FLAC, I have particular reasons why I use WAV files and that is why it is important to me. Thanks.

I fully understand your question and your issue. But I don't use WAV or ratings tag, so nothing to test on my end. Hopefully another WAV user can chime in. I do think you should at least provide Spoon a R16 created WAV file that you have issues with. Perhaps he can still test out your issue.

[psbte]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

I fully understand your question and your issue. But I don't use WAV or ratings tag, so nothing to test on my end. Hopefully another WAV user can chime in. I do think you should at least provide Spoon a R16 created WAV file that you have issues with. Perhaps he can still test out your issue.

garym - many thanks for taking the time to reply and I appreciate it. However, I really can't see how providing a file for Spoon would help. This isn't a problem with what I am doing or with my system, it worked with R15 so something must have changed in R16. I am just asking Spoon what has changed as he has all the technical details. Spoon can very easily test out my issue himself, if he wants to, by creating a test WAV file and trying to input the rating values that I described above. If he uses R16.2 with Windows 7, the same versions as me, I can't see how it would show different results from what I am getting. If anyone on here really wants to help, and has R16.2/Windows 7, perhaps you could try this test method yourself and let me know what happens. It wouldn't take long to do. I would really appreciate it as this problem is taking a lot of time to resolve and I need answers soon.

[psbte]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

No one seems able to help so I have found a workaround solution of my own. To anyone else using WAV files with Windows 7 and R16 I would highly recommended not using the Rating tag as it is inconsistent.

[garym]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

No one seems able to help so I have found a workaround solution of my own. To anyone else using WAV files with Windows 7 and R16 I would highly recommended not using the Rating tag as it is inconsistent.

I'm happy to try it on my end. But I'm away from my computer for a week. And use win10 in any case. Hopefully someone else can test before a week is past.

[psbte]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

I'm happy to try it on my end. But I'm away from my computer for a week. And use win10 in any case. Hopefully someone else can test before a week is past.

Thanks for the offer, which I appreciate, but I wouldn't want you to waste your time as you would just find the same as me. The thing is, most users do not use the ratings tag with WAV files and I think that is why Spoon isn't interested in helping. Other users have mentioned before on here that dbpoweramp is not the best at tagging and other tagging software is more comprehensive. Anyway, I have had to find a way round my problem and I can now move forward. Thanks again.

[mville]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

Other users have mentioned before on here that dbpoweramp is not the best at tagging and other tagging software is more comprehensive.

It is not that dbpoweramp is not the best at tagging wav files, it is wav files were not initially, well designed to contain tags. So, support for wav tags is notoriously poor in most software, as you are now discovering.

[psbte]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

It is not that dbpoweramp is not the best at tagging wav files, it is wav files were not initially, well designed to contain tags. So, support for wav tags is notoriously poor in most software, as you are now discovering.

Well that's obviously your point of view. From my experience I have a different view. I actually thought that dbpoweramp was the best, and it did everything I wanted before R16, but R16 has actually made WAV rating tags worse for me. Yes I know the WAV format was never intended to have tags like MP3 has, but the fact remains, which I seem I have to keep repeating, that the ratings tag worked correctly in R15. Because no one was able to help me in this forum, and after reading other forum posts from dbpoweramp users frustrated by general tagging issues, I researched other tagging software and what I actually discovered was that at least two others deal with WAV tags in the way I need. I am not saying that dbpoweramp is bad software. It does virtually everything I need it to do. However, I am disappointed that when I paid for a reference upgrade (supposedly meant to include support) which actually caused a problem that I didn't have before, I did not receive the support from Spoon which I was hoping for.

[mville]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

Well that's obviously your point of view. From my experience I have a different view. I actually thought that dbpoweramp was the best, and it did everything I wanted before R16, but R16 has actually made WAV rating tags worse for me. Yes I know the WAV format was never intended to have tags like MP3 has, but the fact remains, which I seem I have to keep repeating, that the ratings tag worked correctly in R15. Because no one was able to help me in this forum, and after reading other forum posts from dbpoweramp users frustrated by general tagging issues, I researched other tagging software and what I actually discovered was that at least two others deal with WAV tags in the way I need. I am not saying that dbpoweramp is bad software. It does virtually everything I need it to do. However, I am disappointed that when I paid for a reference upgrade (supposedly meant to include support) which actually caused a problem that I didn't have before, I did not receive the support from Spoon which I was hoping for.

It is not about my point of view here and I am in no way trying to defend Illustrate software.

My statement was simply meant as a word of advice. You may well have found software that gets around your Rating issue, but as wav tagging is poorly supported you may well have other issues that are, as yet, not apparent.

However, you are perfectly entitled to use any file format you wish and you don't have to take my advice.

[psbte]

Re: R16.2 Metadata Rating Problem

It is not about my point of view here and I am in no way trying to defend Illustrate software.

My statement was simply meant as a word of advice. You may well have found software that gets around your Rating issue, but as wav tagging is poorly supported you may well have other issues that are, as yet, not apparent.

However, you are perfectly entitled to use any file format you wish and you don't have to take my advice.

Mville - I appreciate you trying to help and of course I accept that WAV tags are a compromise because of their format. It did come across to me like you were defending Illustrate software a bit but it seems that was a misunderstanding. Although I did find other software which could have been useful, I have actually overcome my tagging problem using my own method instead of using other software. I just wanted to make it clear that now my main disappointment is with the lack of support from Illustrate rather than the initial problem I had. Thanks again.