Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes (Read 8751 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Hi there all - sorry to start a new topic but noticed no-one seems to be using the 'iTunes and EAC full integration' thread much these days.

Just found iTunesEncoder (with the help of this brilliant resource!) and I think it will do what I want to achieve - which is use EAC to make a perfect archive copy of all my CD’s on my PC but use iTunes to manage and stream these files to my Hi-Fi via a Roku SoundBridge. I am looking to use uncompressed WAV or AIFF files to achieve the best resolution I can, no compression, no psycho acoustic manipulation and with maximum bit rate - in other words I would really like to hear just what came off the CD unmolested.

Anyway I was just starting to use iTunes to master and manage my huge collection, but soon found the error correction software can’t handle an even very slightly dirty  disc (I actually left a mark on it whilst cleaning it ready for archive doh!). There were audible pops and noise when listening to an REM track I ripped a few days ago. Whereas when I tried EAC on the disc it had a good long look at the end of this track before re-reading enough times to sort out the mess. Thankfully I had only ripped 5 or 6 albums!

So it’s EAC for me then and what everyone says is correct - it does the job properly and tells you if there are errors!

The problem is of course EAC can’t manage my collection or stream music to my SoundBridge, nor can Windows Media Connect offer me the usability with the folder structures that EAC creates that iTunes can with it’s built-in indexing. However, iTunes can’t import files you have already ripped via EAC with tags intact (why??) - so unless I want to sit for hours adding tags manually I was stuffed - until I read on here about iTunesEncode!

Anyway after all that (hopefully someone else might get something out of the above if they are going along the same route!) after a session last night into the wee small hours I have a couple of questions I would really like to ask Otto and you guys who know about these things...

1) When using iTunesEncoder as an external compression program in EAC does 'Bit Rate' and 'High Quality/Low Quality' setting on the External Compression options page have any effect (as I want to rip uncompressed as I said above). I don’t think it does because I am sure I read somewhere (this is a big resource!) that Otto said iTunes ‘doesn’t even support bit rate’ tags to it’s COM interface.

2) Why do I have to have the extension as ‘.m4a’ and is Windows lying when it shows these files as ‘MPEG4 - Audio file’ - again I don’t want compression at any stage.

3) When iTunes takes these files and converts them to ‘AIFF’ (so I can use album art - it won’t add album art to WAV files!!) does this introduce any degradation?

Hope someone can be of help (sorry about long post!) - I have a lot of archiving to do and would love to get going but don’t want any more false starts :-)

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #1 –
1) No

2) In EAC "compression settings" change the "additional command line options" to something like:

-e "AIFF Encoder" -a "%a" -l "%g" -t "%t" -g "%m" -y %y -n %n -i %s -o %d

change "use file extension" to ".aiff"

3) Aiff files appear to be completely uncompressed, just as a wave file. You can prove this for yourself by comparing file sizes.

BTW, too bad the Soundbridge doesn't natively support lossless compression such as Apple lossless. Roku says something about "third-party SlimServer software" that can enable the use of losslessly compressed files. If I were you I would look into this, as you are going to waste a huge amount of hard drive space using wave or aiff files.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #2 –
Yeah, using fully uncompressed files is just a waste of disk space. I'd look into using SlimServer so that you could use FLAC or Apple Lossless for storing your music instead (SlimServer supports both of these lossless formats). You can use EAC to create Apple Lossless files easily enough, just change iTunesEncode to use the Lossless Encoder (it'll be an M4A extension) and it'll create the Apple Lossless files. This'll let you use iTunes for organizing and so forth. Then you can use SlimServer to stream these to the Soundbridge as you see fit.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #3 –
Quote
Yeah, using fully uncompressed files is just a waste of disk space. I'd look into using SlimServer so that you could use FLAC or Apple Lossless for storing your music instead (SlimServer supports both of these lossless formats). You can use EAC to create Apple Lossless files easily enough, just change iTunesEncode to use the Lossless Encoder (it'll be an M4A extension) and it'll create the Apple Lossless files. This'll let you use iTunes for organizing and so forth. Then you can use SlimServer to stream these to the Soundbridge as you see fit.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=309244"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Interesting - just had a go with the lossless encoder and found file little smaller (37.9Mb as opposed to 53Mb) but alarmingly bit rate was down from the CD normal of 1411 kbps to 1008 kbps - not sure why this is! Disc space is cheap but lower bit rate is unacceptable for me - guess there's no such thing as a free lunch!

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #4 –
But of course the bitrate will be lower than the original, otherwise what is the point of lossless compression? Unlike with lossy compression, such reduction does not affect the sound in case of lossless compression. Have a look at HA's Wiki for some basic info.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #5 –
Ok I hear what you say but don't understand - anyone fancy explaining the actual relationship between 'bit rate' and 'quality to the original' - everywhere I look I am told 'higher bit rate = higher quality' perhaps this is too simplistic. Now I took a file with 1411 kbps and ended up with one 1008 kbps - sorry if I am being pedantic but based on what I have learned that means lower quality....either I am told wrong or bit rate in this instance means something different...?

I really enjoy getting to the bottom of these things so be patient with me (I know its sad :-) but also if I am to rip these CD's once only then I want to get it right and this sure looks like teh best place to find out how...:-)

PS Thanks lots for help so far...

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #6 –
Quote
'higher bit rate = higher quality' perhaps this is too simplistic[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=309371"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes.

Files that are losslessly compressed will have a lower bitrate, but when they are decompressed (ala converting back to .wav or upon playback) they are bit for bit the same as the original file.  Lossless compression takes advantage of redundancy in the information to reduce size.

The bitrate appears lower due to the compression.  If you have a 50 MB wave that can be losslessly compressed to 70% of original size, your bitrate will be about 1411 * .7 = 988 kbps.

Hope this helps, welcome to HA.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #7 –
Quote
either I am told wrong or bit rate in this instance means something different...?

Bitrate means exactly what it sounds like: The rate of the bits. Meaning that 1411 kbps means it plays back at 1411k bits per second. When you make something smaller, it'll have a lower bitrate, because it's the same length, but smaller, which equals less bits per second. Simple.

As an abstract identifier, bitrate really has nothing to do with the quality of the sound on any kind of inherent level. It's just a number relating the size of the data to the playback time of the audio that the data represents.

In the very limited case where you don't change encoders or formats or anything, bitrate can be related to quality. So a 160 kbps MP3 made with LAME will generally have a higher quality than a 128 kbps MP3 made with the same version of LAME. But even this is overly simplistic in some cases...

The term "lossless" has a very specific meaning here that is important to recognize. It means that the audio has not lost anything in compression. Formats like MP3 and AAC are lossy, meaning that some of the sound is lost, albeit probably sound you couldn't hear in the first place. But lossless means it's all there. Lossless is lossless, regardless of the "bitrate". It's all the same quality, because it always decompresses back to the original audio.

Think of it like a ZIP file. You compress it and it gets smaller. You uncompress it and you have the exact same thing. It doesn't change the data. Lossless compression is the same thing. A ZIP is a form of lossless compression. It just so happens that with audio, specialized lossless compression methods can do better than ZIP (which is a general purpose lossless compression).

FLAC, APE, Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, these all compress audio without losing anything. It'll sound exactly the same as the WAV or the AIFF, because nothing is thrown away. It's just compressed to take up less space on disk.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #8 –
Ah! Now I see - of course, if the file is smaller when compressed then obviously the rate of bits per second will be smaller too - got it. Forgive my pushing this point earlier, but after seeing mp3 lossy compressed and psycho acoustically altered 128kb samples called ‘cd quality’ by downloading sites I was naturally dubious about ‘lossless’ - it could so easily have meant ‘not quite lossless’ to folks who knew the ins and outs :-)

So it is over simplistic to associate (in general terms) bit rate with quality. I was probably getting confused with sample bit rate, which I know generally produces a truer picture of the analogue waveform source the more bits you sample with i.e. it irons out the digital steps.

You wouldn’t believe I have 20 years experience in IT and not only at consultancy level but also writing for just about every PC mag we have over here (mind you - that’s about finance software and e-business integration so I can be forgiven for not getting down to the nitty gritty bit level :-)

PS. Now it’s a matter of playing with slim server so my Roku can see my new ‘lossless’ files - this just gets more and more fun :-)

thanks for all the help...

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #9 –
Quote
PS. Now it’s a matter of playing with slim server so my Roku can see my new ‘lossless’ files - this just gets more and more fun :-)


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=309452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


you'll need to check carefully what the Roku will actually do with the lossless files that slimserver will feed to it. I don't have a Roku, but you may find some issues getting all this to work.  The slimserver software is intended to work with Slim's hardware, the Squeezebox, which most certainly will play FLAC files natively (ie no recoding to a lower rate at any point in the chain). I've just started doing this and it works a treat.
EAC/MAREO to rip to FLAC, slimserver on WinXP, Squeezebox 2 for CD-quality streaming

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #10 –
Quote
Quote

PS. Now it’s a matter of playing with slim server so my Roku can see my new ‘lossless’ files - this just gets more and more fun :-)


[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=309452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


you'll need to check carefully what the Roku will actually do with the lossless files that slimserver will feed to it. I don't have a Roku, but you may find some issues getting all this to work.  The slimserver software is intended to work with Slim's hardware, the Squeezebox, which most certainly will play FLAC files natively (ie no recoding to a lower rate at any point in the chain). I've just started doing this and it works a treat.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=309607"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok - well to update the Roku had to go as sooon as I heard the SB2 with Slimserver - it's brilliant and second generation and it shows! Also I can hear a difference between WAV and FLAC through the Squeezebox 2 (I know I shouldn't be able to but I can - so it's back to AIFF/WAV) - the only niggle I have now is how do I get iTunesencoder to delete the EAC WAV file it creates before sending it to iTunes to encode? -d doesn't seem to do anything?

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #11 –
iTunesEncode doesn't delete the WAV file that EAC sends it. It can't. EAC passes it that WAV file and iTunesEncode passes the WAV to iTunes, which iTunes then encodes into something, like an M4A.

EAC deletes the WAV file when EAC finds the output file that EAC is expecting iTunesEncode to return.

In other words, you have to have the "-o %d" bit in the iTunesEncode command line in the EAC configuration.

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #12 –
Quote
Also I can hear a difference between WAV and FLAC through the Squeezebox 2 (I know I shouldn't be able to but I can - so it's back to AIFF/WAV)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=313243"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Be careful what you say around here. FLAC is an exact copy of the WAV. Thus the reasons that you heard something different may be: placebo, volume change (through ReplayGain or something similar).
"Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored."
—Aldous Huxley

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #13 –
This thread is spiraling out of hand. timbo, you aren't hearing a difference between lossless and waveform, if you are in fact hearing anything at all it has something to do with the codec in slimserver or replaygain info. Also, in your current setup you should be aware that you no longer have any need to encode with iTunes, as slimserver isn't immediately aware of the iTunes db anyway. Just slip the latest version of the FLAC encoder into your EAC folder, set compression options to User Defined Encoder, extension ".flac", Path ...\Exact Audio Copy\flac.exe. Then add whatever command line switches you wish and click delete wav after compression. BTW the bitrate and quality settings don't matter here, FLAC will only respond to the command line switches you set, which of course won't affect "quality" anyway as it's all lossless.

If it makes you sleep better at night, the bits that are getting thrown out in lossless compression are redundant error correction that are only relevant to real-time optical playback of the disc, and can be reconstructed without any loss on decompression back to waveform.
Medium Pimpin...

EAC -> iTunesEncoder -> iTunes

Reply #14 –
Thanks for all that - sorry haven't been back here for a while got into a bit of a do over on the Slim Device's forum with exactly the same issue (just search for post where Timbo is crucified for mentioning FLAC and WAV and ‘sounds different’ in the same thread!)

In fact I came back over here hoping for some audio rationale and ended-up with a few more smacks for daring to mention FLAC in anything other than hallowed tones.

Having said that...

> If it makes you sleep better at night, the bits that are getting thrown out in lossless compression are redundant error correction that are only relevant to real-time optical playback of the disc, and can be reconstructed without any loss on decompression back to waveform.

Now that is very interesting info - thanks, the difference between what a computer CD-ROM does when it’s ripping and an audio CD player does when it’s playing makes a helluva difference to lots of long held ‘audiophile’ ideas concerning getting the best out of CD replay.

But -

> Be careful what you say around here. FLAC is an exact copy of the WAV.

Now I am worried - what is this ‘the FLAC mafia’ or something - lighten up! Nowhere did I ever say FLAC wasn’t an exact copy of the original... I must write one hundred times: FLAC is an exact bit copy of the original data, FLAC is an exact bit copy of the original data....:-)

Have a think however what might be happening if the firmware FLAC decoding engine is sat in a box on top of some twitchy and sensitive analogue preamp which is totally paranoid when it comes to RFI and digital noise and gets its knickers in a right twist when Mr’s Jones puts her hairdryer on two blocks down the road...? I exaggerate - but you get my drift...:-)

Just a final note - I like forums. Forums are a perfect way to get up to speed on a new technology very quickly with the help of those who have already become involved (I was a founder member of CiX too many years ago). I have also been a keen audiophile (hate that word - should say hi-fi fanatic!) for at least 35 years (since Quad first looked sexy in off-brown and orange!). I was really hoping to combine my interest in both subjects in this forum.

Maybe it’s the way I come over, maybe I should pepper my posts with more smileys or something, if so please excuse my perceived rudeness. I thought a forum was just that - a platform for discussion - not a place where someone can make a statement and then be shot down in flames if it goes against the combined wisdom of the assembled gathering :-/

Sorry I may be a bit extra sensitive after my bashing over at Slim Devices...can we be friends because the info I have had back from various topics here about all things ‘ripping and burning’ has been invaluable?

/