Windows reported file size differs from header

[snappa]

Hello,

Can someone tell me why the file size as seen by the Windows file system differs from the file size reported in the header of the file? The header reports a file having a size of 705 KB yet windows thinks it's 707 KB. This is not a problem for me but we have a vendor that is not pleased and thinks the files are damaged. These are MP3 files encoded using the API with the following parameters:

dMC.Convert(srcFile, destFile, "mp3 (Lame)", "-s 44.1 --silent --id3v1-only -mj --preset extreme -V 2 -q 2, "");

Thank you.

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

FYI, this is the same for ALL LAME encoded files. WMA encoded files match the sizes in the header with the file system.

[Spoon]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

The header would not include any ID Tag, the ID Tag could be 2KB.

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

The header would not include any ID Tag, the ID Tag could be 2KB.

There is about a 2k discrepency. This is what the vendor is complaining about. Is this standard? I would think the QA person at this music company would know what they're looking at but maybe I'm giving them to much credit.

Thanks.

[Spoon]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

We need to clarify which header they are talking about, is it a Lame Header or generic VBR mp3 header?

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

We need to clarify which header they are talking about, is it a Lame Header or generic VBR mp3 header?

It is the information that is displayed when you hover over an mp3 track in Windows File Explorer or look at the properties of the given mp3 (right click, properties, click the Audio Properties tab).

This is most noticeable (visibly) when you're looking at a short track which in this case is a 30 second sample that is less than 1mb. Multi megabyte mp3s have the issue but the end user is not seeing it due to fact that the file explorer shows the size in KB and the properties show it in MB.

[Spoon]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

We are generating that field, it does not take into account the ID Tags, it is audio data only. Take a 1KB mp3 file and add a 1MB album art file, it will stay as 1KB.

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

Is this the norm and should I politely tell our vendor to chill out, this is not a problem and the files are OK? Of course I'll be a bit more polite but they're being a royal pain about this.

[Spoon]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

It is normal.

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

It is normal.

Unfortunately our distributor will not take the content with the header. They want it with no ID3 tags. For the life of me I have not been able to get this to go away. Is there a way to NOT generate the header?

[LtData]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

Have you tried using the ID Tag Update DSP effect and telling it to delete all tags?

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

No, I did not try that. Is this a new feature? New since last spring when I purchased. Is this documented somewhere?

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

Have you tried using the ID Tag Update DSP effect and telling it to delete all tags?

OK, I think I figured this out. I found the DSP option. I am now passing the following parameters to the API and it seems to be working.

-noidtag -dspeffect1=\"ID Tag Processing=-delall0\"

Does this make sense and look correct?

[Spoon]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

Personally I would do this:

in dbpoweramp configuration >> codecs >> advanced

Set the ID Tag writing method (for mp3 to id3v1), that only adds 128 bytes to the end which is not going to be spotted, plus the file still has a sort of id tag.

[snappa]

Re: Windows reported file size differs from header

Thank you for the suggestion. I think it's a great idea but the vendor has stated they want nothing extra added. I will run this by them to see if this is acceptable. If not then my solution should suffice for them. Thanks for the help.