GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 556201
mp3 files ripped give wrong bitrate and playtime values
Last modified: 2012-05-18 18:34:31 UTC
Please describe the problem: Sound ripped from CD with the following settings: audio/x-raw-int,rate=44100,channels=2 ! lame name=enc mode=1 vbr=4 vbr-quality=2 quality=2 ! id3v2mux give wrong bitratevalues in property boxes of songs. Instead ~ 10-192 kbs gives 32 kbs in gnome nautilus sound file proeprties box and in rhtythmbox. Also playtime of the song is from the outer space. On the ~ 78 min record playtimes given of songs in above mentioned progs sums far out of range the total total playtime of the record. Steps to reproduce: 1. Rip with above settings 2. Invoke propeties box of the sounf file in nautilus 3. or import songs in rhthmbox 4. check the bitrate read or play time displayed Actual results: values of bitrate and playtimes seems to be unreasonable in property boxes Expected results: correct bitrate values ( or its reasonable aproximation if vbr included ) and correct playtimes Does this happen every time? yes Other information:
Created attachment 120537 [details] screenshot of the rhthmbox This is to aid describe the bug
a little correction. in seems to gice values from the range 160-196 kbs. Explanation: I write it from the user view - not technical one. But for the average user if it rips with high vbr quality reading of 32 kbs is misleading and gives the feeling that prog is malfunctioning.
This still occurs in the sound-juicer 3.4.0 release. The problem is a missing "xingmux" element before the id3v2mux.
Hm. Christophe, any idea how to get a xingmux in from a profile? It won't autoconstruct it because it's sink and src caps are audio/mpeg mpegversion=1 layer=1,3. Hmm.
Honestly, no clue, I haven't looked at the profile stuff in depth, I've mainly stolen it from rb
Looking around bugzilla, I've found https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=649841 which may be relevant. By the way, https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675275 is a duplicate, since the encoding code has changed since this bug was opened, I'd tend to mark this one as a duplicate, and have the discussion in bug #675275
Agreed. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 675275 ***