Is itunes really inferior to XLD for ripping?

[DigitallyChallenged]

I am setting up a mac mini server music system. After researching this topic I found that XLD is the most highly recommended bit perfect software. I intend to use pure music with my system.

 

Currently I am ripping on a new, clean system with XLD but it is taking about 30 minutes per cd. Would itunes import with error correction be audibly inferior? It is definitely faster. At this rate it will take me forever to get my music on the server.

 

[cfmsp]

 

Check the settings in XLD.

 

Disable anything that has words like pre scan in it.

 

XLD can be configured for ripping times quite similar to iTunes.

 

The advantage of XLD is that it lets you know if the rip was successful. Itunes does not.

 

enjoy

clay

 

[barrows]

tested iTunes, have found that iTunes rips (with error correction engaged) are bit perfect. As Clay mentions, iTunes does not do check sum comparisons with other rips, so one does not know if it is always bit perfect. My CDs are in good shape, and I am confident I am getting good rips in iTunes, if I had a lot of damaged CDs to rip I would consider another ripper (db poweramp, XLD, etc).

 

[alternativesurfer]

If you're ripping alac (and correct me if I am wrong)

But iTunes can only rip at 16 bit 44.1

 

[Audio_ELF]

Yes, iTunes can only rip to 16bit 44.1kHz from a CD ... but why would you want anything else!

 

Eloise

 

[Erwin S]

I use the XLD settings as advised by Chris and the speed is about 4x to 8x on average. This is a bit slower than iTunes for Apple Lossless, but faster than you mention.

 

Only thing I have not figured out is where and how to save a copy of the LOG? Or should I not bother? I manually saved each of them in the folder of its album, but I don't think this the correct way? I just enabled the upgrade to "iTunes Media organization" which has put al the artist folders into the "Music" folder, but left all the logs where they were of course. And a limited number of songs are still in the old place, although it seems that each one has been copied into the new folder, or at least those I checked. I suppose I can delete the doubles, but what about the logs?

 

Headache & frustrations...

 

[rmva]

iTunes cannot read log and, or cue files therefor they won't be moved to the artist/album folder. So you have to move them yourself, or just skip them like I do (If it sounds bad, I don't need a log to tell me so)

 

alternativesurfer said: "If you're ripping alac (and correct me if I am wrong)

But iTunes can only rip at 16 bit 44.1"

 

So does XLD (and correct me if I'm wrong too).

 

[DigitallyChallenged]

Thanks for the info. I turned off the precheck feature and this has cut the time by about half. The resulting reports look about the same. My disks are in good shape so I don't expect many errors ripping.

 

[Ajax]

 

This is a little off the thread but I thought it important to warn that there is a bug in iTunes and it cannot properly convert 24 bit lossless files such as WAV, ALAC or AIFF to each other .. it truncates the word length back to 16 bit.

 

iTunes will however convert 16 bit files between these lossless formats perfectly as I tested the original against the converted files using db poweramp

 

Similarly Apple TV can not play 24 bit files "bit perfect" and also truncates back to 16 bit.

 

[bluedy1]

Hi Digitally Challenged,

If you are interested in the theoretical aspects of things XLD will make you more comfortable with the reports...

If you are interested in music recreation in your home you may realize that the musical result is no different between the 2 options so why should you bother with XLD?

I have experimented both at length, tested on my system (DAC 202/ Leben amp, Magico speakers)and I heard no difference. None.

It is obviously only my humble opinion.

In many discussions regarding ripping theoretical conclusions are not validated by listenings reviews.

Please report your own results as to the musical difference between XLD and Itunes, it will be of interest for all of us.

 

 

[Codifus]

....and potentailly getting things done quicker. You can rip with XLD to AIFF, and import it all into iTunes. The iTunes interface makes it very easy to mass change your media files from one format to another. You would then tell iTunes to isolate all AIFF files and convert them to ALAC. You can leave the Mac churning away overnight on the potentailly 100s or 1000s of AIFFs you imported. The next day you have iTunes isolate all AIFFs and hit delete. Done.

 

I used this method to mass convert a bunch of files to LAMEd MP3s. Converting to MP3 at the highest quality setting taxxed my CPU significantly, slowing down the process. I left that process running overnight. Worked like a charm.

 

CD

 

[cfmsp]

 

"If you are interested in music recreation in your home you may realize that the musical result is no different between the 2 options so why should you bother with XLD?

 

I have experimented both at length, tested on my system (DAC 202/ Leben amp, Magico speakers)and I heard no difference. None."

 

I'm fairly certain most here will hear the differences in sound from a disk that iTunes cannot rip properly (as compared to one that XLD can).

 

With iTunes, one doesn't know if there were unrecoverable errors until playback, which can be quite inconvenient.

 

My recommendation: if one is systematically ripping disks (or otherwise will be unlikely to listen immediately after ripping), use XLD.

 

If one is quickly ripping the latest CD purchase and will listen to it just after, iTunes is probably fine. I've had issues with brand new CDs not ripping probably with iTunes.

 

just my two cents.

clay