Ashampoo MP3 Cover Finder review: Organize your playlists—for a price

You're an audiophile and a neat freak. Years of burning CDs onto your computer have left your digital music library a tattered mess of unnamed tracks by unknown artists—and it's driving you nuts.

You can go through and name them one by one, but that would be an annoying slog, and it wouldn't solve the blank album cover problem. Ashampoo MP3 Cover Finder to the rescue!

Adding songs to the program is an easy process using one of the five options.

MP3 Cover Finder works well, there's no doubt about that. It found art for every obscure song I could throw at it, pulling from sources including Amazon, Bing, Google, and iTunes to find the correct cover art and track information. If it couldn't use its fingerprint technology to identify the MP3 via metadata and file names, it still came up with the best match from all the information provided.

In my cruelest test, I used an unreleased song for which the artist is presumed but not confirmed and the title is just a rumor. It managed to find some generic cover art of the presumed band photos as well as some fan-made art for the song. The service works great.

Ashampoo MP3 Cover Finder couldn't be simpler to use, either. Clicking the "Add" button brings up five different ways to add songs: a single file, a whole folder, your dedicated music folder, drag and drop, or from your iTunes. The songs load up, and the software asks if you'd prefer to find the covers immediately or later. The process could take anywhere from two to ten minutes depending on how many songs you choose: It's off scouring the Internet and file data for the correct information, and these things take time.

The program will load up the songs and scour the internet for the proper covers and data. Be patient!

Hitting the Optimize button lets you select which tracks to change and which options to apply. It automatically clears any manual data and selects the highest rated cover to apply, so you don't have to manually select data for each song.

Despite its usefulness and simplicity, there are major drawbacks. The initial price is $30 for a one-year license. After that you'll have to extend it, presumably by paying for another year, to continue using the product. That's a hefty subscription just to organize your music library. The changes stay in effect, of course, so any improvements made remain after your subscription expires.

Ashampoo MP3 Cover Finder lets you store only 1000 songs at one time as well. Throwing your entire library into the fray takes a few steps. You can load all your songs, optimize them and find the covers, and then clear them out to make room for others. It's a hassle for those with huge libraries, but won't likely affect the majority.

Vendor Ashampoo doesn't bill the program as a music player by any means, and other than quick preview of the song it shouldn't be used as such. Double-clicking a song begins to play it, but there's no way to queue up more. You can click around while a song is playing to review and edit metadata, but the music player doesn't display the current song that's playing. This makes editing a song manually frustrating and confusing, since you can't be sure if the song you're listening to is the song you have selected without double-clicking again and restarting the song.

The user interface is simple and easy to use. Your songs are on the left, available covers are on the right and all the song's information is in the center.

Those who can't stand the blank covers and mislabeled songs when setting up playlists on a phone or MP3 player will get a kick out of Ashampoo MP3 Cover Finder and will make the steep price tag worth it. However, anyone short of being a music organization freak won't get the same value. You'll get a good one-time use for the initial 20-30 songs that have been evading your labeling and then sit dormant until it's time to renew.

Alex covers desktops, everything from fancy to practical. He's also an avid (addicted) gamer and loves following the industry.
More by Alex Cocilova

From PC World. Electronics product reviews and advice for best reference

Touch Cover vs. Type Cover: Empirical test data doesn't lie!

If you’re going to throw down for Microsoft’s new Surface RT tablet, you absolutely must get either the Touch Cover or the Type Cover along with it. Without one of these keyboard accessories, the tablet’s greater productivity package isn’t complete. But which keyboard cover offers the better value for the money? Which one actually performs better under the scrutiny of empirical testing?

The Type Cover features real keys with real key travel.

In my review of Surface RT, I chose the Type Cover, hands-down. The Touch Cover costs less at $120. It’s also incredibly thin (just 3mm) and even spill-resistant. But because it relies on pressure sensors to record finger taps, and not actual keys, I found that using it resulted in way too many typing mistakes. The Type Cover, meanwhile, allowed me to hit typing speeds much closer to what I regularly achieve on full-size desktop keyboards. And why shouldn’t it? It’s an actual keyboard with actual keys and key travel. It costs $130 and is thicker at 5.5mm, but I think those are easy trade-offs to make.

Still, I wanted opinions from other PCWorld editors—touch typists who could challenge the two keyboards with ferocious flurries of fingerwork. I’m a two-finger hunt-and-pecker, and I wanted to make sure that my personal conclusions weren’t anomalous.

To test the keyboard covers, I asked three of my coworkers to record their typing speeds with the tests available on Learn2Type.com. Each test evaluates one’s ability to retype a short but challenging paragraph, and spits back three nuggets of data: your recorded typing speed, the number of errors you’ve made, and your adjusted typing speed (the recorded speed minus errors). We all acknowledged that retyping written text is a slower affair than composing original ideas. Still, the online tests provided an effective, consistent way to evaluate Microsoft’s covers.

Image: Robert cardinThe Touch Cover looks great and is impossibly thin, but it features no physical keys.

We ran each test only a few times per person. And according to Microsoft, performance on the Touch Cover improves with frequent use, so consider that when you're interpreting the data. We recorded baseline typing performance on each editor’s personal desktop keyboard.

Two final notes before we get started: The online typing test will not report any words-per-minute stats if you make too many mistakes, and in the interest of brevity I report only adjusted typing speeds in the text below.

Baseline desktop typing speed: 84 wpm

Touch Cover: The Touch Cover is a light, compact, poor excuse for a keyboard. I spent the lion’s share of my (admittedly brief) time using the Touch Cover simply relearning how to type without peeking at my fingers. Using Surface RT with a Touch Cover is doable, but it isn't enjoyable. Since the keys don’t have any real depth, I couldn’t easily feel where one key ended and the next began, forcing me to look down at my hands, or make a mistake roughly every third keystroke.

Here’s a quick tip for typing better on the Touch Cover: Just hold down the Shift key at all times. You’ll write like the Hulk (if you don’t turn on Caps Lock), but keeping one finger on a known key at all times will help you mentally map out the cramped keyboard more quickly, and ease your transition to Touch Cover typing.

Touch Cover results: Unknown due to excessive errors

Type Cover: The Type Cover is much easier to type on than the Touch Cover because the keys have some travel and thus you can feel exactly where your fingers are on the keyboard without having to glance down. Although it’s just as compact as the Touch Cover (my gorilla-size hands started to cramp after typing on the two covers for roughly 15 minutes each), I had no trouble adjusting from my desktop keyboard to the Type Cover, and I had no mistypes or frustrating mistakes. In fact, according to our typing tests, I typed faster with the Type Cover than I did on my PC.

Type Cover result: 91 wpm

Baseline desktop typing speed: 73 wpm (Adds Melissa: “When I’m really on a roll, I can type in the mid- to high 80s. Not that I'm competitive or anything.”)

Touch Cover: Touchscreen typing can be frustrating for speed demons like me; it can’t keep up. However, I recently spent a week typing on a tablet, and I became willing to trade off some speed for the relief from physical pounding. But the Touch Cover was harder for me to use than a virtual touchscreen keyboard. It is softly textured, like a freshly rubbed eraser. It felt great, but I think that slight friction caused my fingers to catch for just a nanosecond longer on the keys. It also seemed to impede dragging and clicking on the touchpad.

The lack of tactile feedback most affected my attempts to use the Shift key to capitalize. I found myself pounding the board to create my own feedback, much to the repetitive-strain dismay of my fingers. I made three to four times more mistakes than I did on either the Type Cover or my traditional keyboard.

Touch Cover result: 45 wpm

Type Cover: The Type Cover managed to replicate the traditional keyboard well enough that I experienced basically no slowdown compared with using a traditional keyboard. The keys are broad, which is nice. The travel was extremely short—I would have to train my fingers not to pound quite so hard—but it was enough to reassure me that I was hitting my mark. The touchpad worked smoothly; the clicking action on the touchpad was very subtle, but still easier than on the Touch Cover.

After all this, I actually prefer typing on a touchscreen. But if I had to choose one of these two keyboards, I'd pick the Type Cover, which offers the easier learning curve.

Type Cover result: 73 wpm

Baseline desktop typing speed: 61 wpm

Touch Cover: I'm a touch typist. My fingers instinctively fly by feel over a keyboard, if not always at the fastest clip. Furthermore, I don't pound the keys; my touch is more middle-of-the road. For these reasons, my time with the Touch Cover proved to be a mixed experience. I had no issue with the key placement or finding my position on the keyboard—in spite of the flat, pressure-sensitive keys and the ever-so-minute key definition. However, I did tend to skip letters. Frequently. The more I typed, the more it became clear that I wasn’t pressing firmly enough.

Image: Robert Cardin

I found that my accuracy improved over the short time I used the Touch Cover, as I learned to slow down my typing speed, and to vary my pressure to increase the likelihood that I actually struck the keys. That said, I also felt my hands tire more quickly than they would on a physical keyboard. I felt the fatigue even as I dragged my finger over the integrated touchpad, which is made of the same textured material as the rest of the keyboard case. My typing speed reflected the need to adjust: My first take on the Touch Cover was 32 wpm, with one mistake, but when I really concentrated on the pressure I applied to the keys, I came in at 49 wpm.

Touch Cover result: 49 wpm

Type Cover: My experience with the Type Cover was just the opposite. Everything about this keyboard lends itself to touch typing. The surface of the keyboard is a soft-touch, rubberized paint that my fingers could just glide over. And the keys felt well defined. I wasn't error-free on this keyboard, either, but my accuracy was better from the get-go thanks to the physical hardware's feedback.

More important, I found that I didn't need to be conscious of the pressure I applied to strike the keys. Nor did my hands tire as quickly as with the Touch Cover. I also preferred the touchpad on the Type Cover: The smooth surface made navigation seamless, as did the physical feedback from the touchpad's left and right mouse buttons (integrated into the bottom of the touchpad, clickpad-style).

My one gripe: The keyboard itself flexed as I typed, particularly in the center part. Still, for my dollar, I'd pay the little bit extra and go for the Type Cover. The difference, for me, was just that tangible. And my typing speed was more comparable to what I achieved on my desktop.

Type Cover result: 57 wpm

From PC World. Shop computer and accessories from Amazon here

How to Add a Cover Photo to Your Facebook Timeline

So you’ve finally taken the plunge, hitting the “Get the new Timeline” button that forever commits you to the new chronological-style Facebook profile. One of the major differences between Timeline and the old-school profile style is the addition of a cover photo. This is the first thing your friends will see when they view your profile, and it provides an opportunity to add a bit more personality than just that smaller-sized profile pic below.

To change your cover photo, move your cursor over the cover photo canvas on the top of your profile page. Select Choose from Photos if you want to use an image that’s already on Facebook, or pick Upload Photo if you want to add a new picture.

If you’re experimenting with different images, you’ll quickly realize that there’s an optimal photo size for the Timeline cover photo. The exact dimensions are 850 x 315 pixels (8.5 x 3.2 inches), but you can also crop a larger-sized image. Once you find a photo that works, click Save Changes, and your friends will get to see a whole ‘nother side of you.

From Laptopmagazine. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center Here