Article: How To Convert HDtracks FLAC High Resolution Downloads and Add to iTunes (Video with Commentary)

[shekoluw]

first XLD is a lot better than MAX in all aspects, rip, convert, etc...<br />

second, why convert to FLAC to AIFF in the video, I think is you have a flac is better convert to a same relative format in this case, ALAC; if you have a master like a CD you can convert to AIFF, but in the video sounds like "hey convert the flac to aiff" and the sound is better.<br />

I really dont know why hdtracks upload the stuff in full uncompressed .wav like mccartney stuff.

[The Computer Audiophile]

<i>"XLD is a lot better than MAX in all aspects, rip, convert, etc..."</i><br />

<br />

<br />

Hi shekoluw - Can you explain why/how XLD is better than MAX when converting a FLAC file to AIFF or ALAC?<br />

<br />

[shekoluw]

hi, maybe for convert are the same, but! for my experience with xld vs max; the xld devel guy made better and better a xld everyday; see max last update, speak for self "The current stable version of Max is 0.9.1, released 29 August 2009." too old!<br />

<br />

XLD last update some weeks ago, and the next update Im sure to comming in some week<br />

<br />

but heres some important big differences in rip; for example the the ripper mode "XLD Secure Ripper" is the proper way to rip<br />

<br />

other is the easy way to convert to multiple formats..., tagging<br />

<br />

the way that save .cue and .log in rips<br />

<br />

pregaps... single track<br />

<br />

save presets etc...<br />

<br />

audiophiles rippers accept two apps:<br />

PC - EAC<br />

MAC - XLD<br />

<br />

cddb from amazon web services etc..<br />

<br />

new feature for burn cds<br />

<br />

so even for convert I trust in XLD than MAX<br />

<br />

I think IMHO xld is the best app in mac for that jobs... <br />

<br />

by the way, Im new here, I love this site!!! thank you is great!!!!

[shekoluw]

and by the way, why flac to aiff ? looks like is we get some better sound? hd tracks would be sell full uncompressed! .wav like the paul mccartney last reissues band on the run etc...<br />

<br />

but really why to aiff, why not to alac and have the same size mb's of the flac?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi shekoluw - Thanks for the responses. You seem to have good energy for this wonderful hobby of ours.<br />

<br />

<br />

I don't think the date of the most recent update has much to do with the quality of a product. Version 2.0 is not always better than version 1.0.<br />

<br />

I disagree that audiophile accept EAC and XLD as rippers. I am as big of an audiophile as I know and I use dBpoweramp exclusively for ripping and converting file formats.<br />

<br />

MAX and XLD both convert formats bit perfect. I trust both apps. Is there are reason why you XLD more than MAX for converting?<br />

<br />

ALAC is not a format I recommend because only Apple knows the inner workings of the codec. Apple will not release the code. This has lead to issues where certain rippers or converters have problems with ALAC that wouldn't be present with an open source codec. As far as I know the issues get resolved, but I'd rather stay away from ALAC. I would never convert 3000 albums to ALAC but I would use FLAC or AIFF.<br />

<br />

[shekoluw]

"I don't think the date of the most recent update has much to do with the quality of a product. Version 2.0 is not always better than version 1.0."<br />

<br />

True! but xld is improve every week and go better.<br />

<br />

dBpoweramp, better than eac and xld? mmm in the "ripping" community trackers etc... the accepted is xld or eac, but I ear good thing about dBpoweramp, why you think is better than xld and eac?<br />

<br />

"MAX and XLD both convert formats bit perfect. I trust both apps. Is there are reason why you XLD more than MAX for converting?"<br />

same reasons, xld is improve a lot, I trust but well maybe yes is the same.<br />

<br />

"I would never convert 3000 albums to ALAC but I would use FLAC or AIFF" I need take a hard decision beacuse I need rip and sell some audiophile cds... and I want keep a 1:1 copy, si I think I go to AIFF.<br />

<br />

wav better than aiff? your personal comment? or is the same wav and aiff? some people ear the differences.<br />

<br />

thanks

[elcorso]

@shekoluw MAX last version is 0.9.2 built on 01-19-2011, description in their web place is "unstable", but very stable on Snow Leopard, at least for me.<br />

<br />

Have a plenty of conversion possibilities, much more than XLD. I can rip even to "Little Endian" AIFF.<br />

<br />

Once upon a time I was on EAC, but for better CD rip (duplication), before the 'computer audiophile' era, very good by the way, since you can regulate the CD burn speed.<br />

<br />

Right now I'm out of Windows, but some day I'll try dbPoweramp.<br />

<br />

Roch

[Sik_Lescinovid]

Since I'm in the drinking room currently (check my sig) and since the current topic of discussion seems to be about conversion/ripping apps on Max OS X I thought I might share my thoughts on why shekoluw might have a point:<br />

<br />

I've mentioned once before that it seems the pirating community has its own audiophile circle which does seem to have very high standards on the material shared. The people involved in such undertakings are usually technically very skilled and now their ways around computers better than most. The standard among these communities does indeed seem to be EAC for Windows and XLD for Mac. The creator of XLD does in fact seem to have close ties to some of the communities (as the creator of EAC, check the addition of checksums in the logs) which would explain many of the sometimes seemingly odd additions to the app. Now, this doesn't have to mean anything, but I for one prefer to use the knowledge of someone who deals with critical situations on a daily basis (i.e. pirates) than relaxed denizens of the net. Max is surely a fine program (I used it for quite a while) but XLD seems to offer more batch processing and other features that make for a life-saver in critical moments. Then again I'm in the drinking room, so take everything with a pinch of salt.<br />

<br />

p.s.: It most likely doesn't matter if you're using XLD or Max for converting files between formats, but XLD most likely does have a more secure ripping engine than Max. Also note that there's a subdiscussion going on about WAV vs AIFF vs ALAC vs FLAC which should be deferred to the corresponding threads.<br />

<br />

Finally, excuse the drunk attitude. I'll be back to my normal self in roughly 18 hours.

[elcorso]

Then, salute , cheers and Slainte..!<br />

<br />

Roch

[VandyMan]

<cite> but XLD most likely does have a more secure ripping<br />

engine than Max</cite><br />

<br />

That is my impression too. I chose it over Max after comparing them. I did not hear a difference in the output, but the file sizes were different. I found it easier to trust XLD due to the log shown after you rip and also due to the various ripping preferences which reminded me of EAC (which I used to use on my old Windows machine).<br />

<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

People who pirate music don't like to pay for things. Hence the preference for EAC over other paid options?<br />

<br />

[Sik_Lescinovid]

You have a good point there. But my experience has shown that open-source software (and related free software) usually performs better than the paid variant, especially when it comes to small and focused things like CD ripping or file format conversions. There are of course exceptions to the rule (i.e. DVD Audio Extractor) but these can often be replaced by an alternative free version. And note that I'm talking about "little" apps: Pro Tools, Photoshop, Cubase, Ableton Live...etc. are the kinds of things that rarely have a free counterpart (for obvious reasons).

[VandyMan]

I don't pirate music. When I started using EAC it was the only game in town for accurate ripping. I stuck with it for years since once you have it correctly configured, it is very easy to use.

[realhifi]

I think it's odd that most high resolution music sites sell music in flac and an entire computer platform needs to convert it to something else in order to listen to it. <br />

<br />

Am I alone in thinking this is odd?<br />

<br />

Linn Records: flac<br />

Naim Records: flac<br />

HDtracks: flac<br />

Deutsche Grammophon: flac<br />

<br />

etc......<br />

[ted_b]

1) FLAC can be highly compressed for better bandwidth and less stress on download servers. A win/win for both sides of the download.<br />

2) FLAC supports metadata very easily and robustly<br />

3) Only iTunes does not support FLAC. Just about every other music player (including most on MAC and PC) support it.<br />

4) Converting from FLAC takes but a minute, and many conversion tools are free<br />

<br />

I'd much rather have FLAC downloads than the all-compatible wav (even though I like wav better) because it saves time (even counting the conversion, if needed) and saves tag editing.

[Erwin S]

<i>ALAC is not a format I recommend because only Apple knows the inner workings of the codec. Apple will not release the code. This has lead to issues where certain rippers or converters have problems with ALAC that wouldn't be present with an open source codec. As far as I know the issues get resolved, but I'd rather stay away from ALAC. I would never convert 3000 albums to ALAC but I would use FLAC or AIFF.<br />

<br />

@ Chris,<br />

<br />

I haven't ripped to ALAC since I moved the music to the mini. AIFF now (with XLD Secure Ripper)! I guess about 2,000 albums are still in ALAC. Would you recommend to turn these to AIFF any time soon? My 3TB is now about half full. My estimate is that a complete transformation would add 500GB, something I'd rather avoid if unnecessary. Isn't AIFF Apple codec also?<br />

<br />

BTW, I just had a go with one ALAC album. I used iTunes, which took less than a minute. Album art and even the play count is nicely preserved. Then deleted the ALAC, which was still highlighted.<br />

<br />

@ Sik_L.,<br />

<br />

<i>Drinking Room<br />

<br />

? Beautiful! LOL!<br />

<br />

[realhifi]

I meant that I found it odd that one of the preferred choices for computer playback (Apple Macs and iTunes) do not play Flacs in their native form. I don't find FLAC odd at all in fact I really like the file format myself.<br />

<br />

I too would much rather have the FLAC download and in fact rip in FLAC also.

[js]

Dear all, could you please confirm whether MAX and XLD do work well with OS X Lion to convert FLAC into ALAC? I have read confusing information and I would very much value your advice. Many thanks, js

[VandyMan]

I use Max for converting and XLD for ripping and have had no issues under Lion (10.7.2).

[VandyMan]

Huge news in the ALAC/FLAC discussion. ALAC is now also open source!<br />

<br />

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/28/apple_lossless_audio_codec_project_becomes_open_source.html

[shekoluw]

yeap great news about it, I always rip to alac, but im still have the doubt if exist any difference in sound vs aiff or wav or even flac

[ted_b]

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Apple-opens-ALAC

[VandyMan]

Ted - Thanks for the link. I did not see the other topics. Never made the front page, I guess.<br />

<br />

<br />

shekoluw - I'm in the camp that feels there is no audible difference. However, ALAC is my preferred format since I use iTunes and want lossless compression. I'm excited that it will now be easier for audiophile companies to support ALAC in their network streaming hardware.

[jferguson]

I followed your video (which was very nicely done). I got my new HD downloads into iTunes, but i can't transfer those songs to my iPod. I run my iPod through my Wadia iTransport 170i through a Cary Xciter into my regular system. So playing the 24-bit files is the goal.<br />

<br />

I tried to re-convert the files using the AIFF (Apple/SGI) file type, but that didn't work either.<br />

<br />

Any thoughts as to what I am doing wrong?

[ted_b]

A couple of questions:<br />

1) you say you got the downloads into iTunes. What is their format (before you attempted an AIFF re-conversion)?<br />

2) What is their bit/sample rate (i.e 24/96, 24/192)?<br />

<br />

The reason I ask is that FLAC cannnot be played by iTunes or a stock iPod, of course, nor can anything more than 24/48, whether its AIFF, wav or ALAC, be transferred to an iPod. An ipod is not a real great "hirez" player.<br />

<br />

Ted<br />

<br />