So I love foobar, but all my music is .wma with embedded art. I know, not really the best way to store music, but whatever. So anyway, I was excited to learn that the new version supports embedded art in wma's, so I downloaded it, but it doesn't work. I'm sure that my music actually has art so that isn't the problem, and there is a wait before I can post on the official forums, so I was wondering if anyone here could help me. Here's a pic:
This probably doesn't help you any, but I always just put a "folder.jpg" file in whatever album's folder I wanted to use a CD cover with. I miss foobar2000.
I liked foobar2000 because it did what it was supposed to and used very little memory while doing it. Foobar2000 uses 3.5mb of RAM on my computer while it's playing something, minimized to the taskbar. By comparison, Quod Libet in Ubuntu is using 32.6 (which, sadly, is still not awful by today's standards).
26.9 mb for MediaMonkey and that's with a 646 file (3.9GB/41hours) playlist. Not the smallest but for the features etc I wouldn't change MediaMonkey for anything.
Foobar2000 version 0.9.5.2 is out now. change log is here if you want the DST plugin version 1.7 , then give me a PM.
Yeah, I have the latest version and in the changelog it says it supports embedded images in wma files. Obviously from my screenie it doesn't support them 100%. What is this DST plugin version 1.7? For me foobar uses around 5x less resources than media monkey and has mostly similar playback features. When I need to organize my library or do similar tasks I'll use media monkey, but when I just need to play my music, why not use something lighter that's just as good?
If I were you, I'd just rerip everything to mp3/ogg (or download it if you own it/it's more convenient). No offense, but I don't know why you'd want to use wma in the first place. I also use flac, which sounds great but the files are pretty big. Flac is reserved for really good albums.
I don't really want to use wma. I use the rhapsody subscription service and strip the drm. I like rhapsody because of the fast downloads, ease of use, and it allows me to easily find new music I like. I tried last.fm and pandora, and they are nice, but truly can't compare to rhapsody. I just got a what.cd account so i plan on re-downloading some albums in flac. As for ogg, I've heard different things--is it really better than mp3?
It sounds pretty much the same to me, and I usually have to jump through hoops to re-encode ogg to mp3, but I still have to do the same thing with flac as well. This is only if I want to burn the music or transfer to an mp3 player, mind you. I "prefer" mp3 because of ease of use. I would like ogg more since it's an open format, but my mp3 players don't support it and neither does my burning software last time I checked. FLAC is still my favorite, but it's huge and most mp3 players don't like it.
