Tagging integration

Discuss Max, an open source CD audio extractor and audio converter.
Post Reply

Should the tagging functionality from Tag be integrated into Max?

Yes
3
30%
No
7
70%
 
Total votes: 10

User avatar
sbooth
Site Admin
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:45 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Tagging integration

Post by sbooth » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:31 am

Recently some requests have come in for integrating the tagging abilities from Tag with Max. Is this a good idea or would it only contribute to bloat?

shanecavanaugh
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:32 am
Contact:

Post by shanecavanaugh » Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:34 am

Separate, I suppose. Tag's interface is so wonderfully simple. The Max interface has enough on its hands with so many formats, but that's another topic (and damn if I haven't been trying to come up with a solution - oy. It's difficult). Maybe just have a simple "Open completed conversions in Tag" Applescript.

User avatar
krmathis
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by krmathis » Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:31 am

No. I prefer them to stay as two separate applications, just like today.
Some points:
* Tag don't support tagging of the imo 3 most important audio formats (Apple Lossless, AAC and MP3).
* You get an application that is specialized for the task. Not a "bloated" one, with lots of features you don't use.
* Cleaner interface.
* Smaller download size and footprint (if you only need one of them that is).

pulk
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by pulk » Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:54 am

krmathis wrote:No. I prefer them to stay as two separate applications, just like today.
Some points:
* Tag don't support tagging of the imo 3 most important audio formats (Apple Lossless, AAC and MP3).
* You get an application that is specialized for the task. Not a "bloated" one, with lots of features you don't use.
* Cleaner interface.
* Smaller download size and footprint (if you only need one of them that is).
I agree ;)

User avatar
Fuga
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:30 pm
Location: Texas

Post by Fuga » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:58 pm

I voted "Yes" but after reading replies am wondering. About half my use of Max is converting lossless to AIFF in preparation for burning. These lossless are mostly untagged files from live performance trading sources. When untagged, Max converts the files such that the results are one number off from the original. To be safe I always use Tag to guess the tags based on the file names so that Max then names the converted files likewise. Doing so makes burn order sure.

So, my first reaction would be to have tagging included. But the idea of one app calling the other has a certain beauty to it also. In my case I'd like a button on Tag to say something akin to "send newly tagged files to Max for custom converting."

I alwould like the "Open completed conversions in Tag" option as a button. I see instances where that, too, would be quite useful.

danpritts
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:02 pm

Post by danpritts » Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:19 pm

tagging is fundamentally part of the process of ripping & encoding CDs. I think it should be included.

Adding the ability to modify id3 tags would be great too.

tomars
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Post by tomars » Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:48 am

I say the less bloat the better, I'd be fine with a command line ripper as long as its secure, then I can do the rest myself. But then again I don't use Tag, so I don't know how much bloat it would be adding.

Post Reply