Removing ID3 tags from FLAC files

Support
1

Sometimes I want to rewrite the tags in my FLAC files—e.g., to remove ID3v2 tags.

Currently, I use Ctrl+R to remove all tags, and then Ctrl+Z to undo. When I do this, only the FLAC tags are rewritten.

This is great, but images are not kept in the undo, even if they are in the FLAC tags! I have to re-add any images manually.

Is there a way to preserve images when undoing the removal of tags in FLAC? Or is there some other way I can remove just the ID3v2 tags?

2

Have you tried to cut and paste the tags?
You are quite right: the undo-function does not work for pictures.

3

...aha! That does work. I figured I must be overlooking something obvious.

Ctrl+X, Ctrl+V

instead of

Ctrl+R, Ctrl+Z

Thanks!

4

Why?

Or maybe the question should be: should not this be made into a request? Because I guess it is not a bug, but just a way the Mp3tg works for now

5

And even if you made it into a request, I doubt that anything would be changed, simply because of memory restrictions. You may have observed that the undo feature allows to undo several steps. If the embedded pictures would be stored to be undone as well, if would increase the memory requirements dramatically and reduce the number of treatable files just as badly.

So you are quite right: it is not a bug, it is just the way Mp3tg works for now.

6

Well, how many GB would there have to be reserved for pictures in case of for example a 100 GB MP3 collection? What percantage of those 100 GB could such graphics take?

[I do not store covers so I can't run a test of removing them and comparing results of before and after]

7

AFAI have epxerienced it, the pictures are between some 10k and some 100k, whereas the total data of the rest of the tags hardly takes up much more than 4k.
So one picture is worth the tag data of a couple dozen files.
As requests have mostly asked for more files to be loaded and not less, the compromise is not to undo changes in respect to picture data.

8

In comparison to other [texted] tag values those numbers do look bad

But what is 100 KB in comparison to [up to] 20 MB, which is required to store a 3:30 FLAC song in stereo 44 kHz 16-bit [CD quality]?

And if my math is correct, a set of 100 GB of such songs would have 0.5 GB of graphics among them. And that would be 5000 of such songs

So are we really still not at an average computing power point, where this behavior could / should not be changed?