What about the whole "everybody is doing loudness compensation wrong" issue I pointed out? That's an example of something that is not merely a user interface design issue.
If you're referring to the comment I'm thinking of, in which you mentioned mpd not knowing how to read but one format of ReplayGain tags, then it's a good example of what I'm talking about. The correct solution to that problem is to teach mpd about other tag formats, not to require that users retag their entire music libraries to compensate.
Update: The comment I'm thinking of wasn't yours, so presumably it's not the one to which you're referring. I've looked through the thread, but I'm not sure to what you are referring. Can you link it, so that I'll be able to update this comment with a response to what you're actually talking about, instead of merely to what I incorrectly gathered you were? Thanks!
I don't know if I agree that that falls within the scope of my plaint, because as far as I'm concerned, the modern habit of mismastering albums with half a decibel of dynamic range produces a result which can't reasonably be called "well-formed". Worse, not only is it broken, it's irretrievably so, because there is no way to restore the information thrown out in the mastering process.
(I think that's actually why I misapprehended your question so badly; with only the most occasional exception, if something's mastered that badly, I can't stand to listen to it anyway because it's either too quiet to hear or a constant assault on my eardrums.)
Actually what you said about mpd replaygain support is wrong. mpd support both replaygain info store in id3v2 and apev2. It even support flac replaygain.
