Can't SB1.1.1 fetch an album art and save it directly in /artist-album.jpg? SB0.7 did...
why can't SB 1.1.1 fetch album art (e.g. from last.fm or amazon) and save it automatically in a "artist-album-front.jpg" file? when I had SB 0.7 it did, but then I had Album Art Manager add-on installed, and I suspect it was it to gave me that possibility...
Currently Album Art Manager Add-on is unsupported by 1.x because most of its features have been added directly to Songbird. But that feature to save album art in a jpg file in the directory instead of metadata didn't make its way...
I know that users are split into two: iPod users want images stored in metadata, while others (the ones that listen to music mostly from their PCs) that have their library already organized in folders with /artist/album and would prefer a single high quality .jpg file instead of 15 small images in the metadata.
Pros and cons of art-in-metadata:
the cover travels with your file, is displayed in portable mp3 players and iPods;
images are 250x250 px and low-quality;
a single instance of the same image in every track of the same album;
for a library of 10.000 files, each with a 200k cover inside, this means 2 GB more than needed.
Pros and cons of art-in-file:
biggest resolution and quality of images;
a single image for all the tracks of the same album;
less occupation of hard drive space;
covers are no more delivered with your file, and won't show in iPods and other mp3 players that support cover showing.
But as you can see, that's just a matter of personal taste and habits, so I suggest to put an option "save art in: [metadata/jpg file]" (in Tools/preferences; i messed a bit with about:config and -without a guide- it's impossible to understand the effect and meaning of every single option...) and let the user choose what's best for him...
Currently Album Art Manager Add-on is unsupported by 1.x because most of its features have been added directly to Songbird. But that feature to save album art in a jpg file in the directory instead of metadata didn't make its way...
I know that users are split into two: iPod users want images stored in metadata, while others (the ones that listen to music mostly from their PCs) that have their library already organized in folders with /artist/album and would prefer a single high quality .jpg file instead of 15 small images in the metadata.
Pros and cons of art-in-metadata:
the cover travels with your file, is displayed in portable mp3 players and iPods;
images are 250x250 px and low-quality;
a single instance of the same image in every track of the same album;
for a library of 10.000 files, each with a 200k cover inside, this means 2 GB more than needed.
Pros and cons of art-in-file:
biggest resolution and quality of images;
a single image for all the tracks of the same album;
less occupation of hard drive space;
covers are no more delivered with your file, and won't show in iPods and other mp3 players that support cover showing.
But as you can see, that's just a matter of personal taste and habits, so I suggest to put an option "save art in: [metadata/jpg file]" (in Tools/preferences; i messed a bit with about:config and -without a guide- it's impossible to understand the effect and meaning of every single option...) and let the user choose what's best for him...
5
people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
Loading Profile...



