XLD for ripping AIFF files on a Mac

set XLD and iTunes to the same folder and chose the "keep iTunes folder organized". Now life will be completely sweet.
I'm in the process of ripping my collection (over 13000 CDs) and this option saves me hours of organizing.

Cheers,
Ruud :)

Thanks Ruud, but you just took all the suspense out of it!

seriously, thanks,
much appreciated,
clay

Sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder. Just been using XLD since the begin and sometimes feel I'm the only one using it... so I guess your post got me excited and I forgot to think. btw I posted about this a few months ago here: http://rmva.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/organizing-your-music-files-the-sim... (I don't think it's spam 'cause I stopped blogging, but remove this link if you think different).

Cheers,
Ruud

Clay,

Thanks for this - something new to play around with.
Did you notice any difference when listening compared to an Itunes rip ?

I currently use Rip from www.sbooth.org - quite simple to use. I particularly like the developers notes as below :
Rip is currently beta software available for public testing. While every effort is made to ensure Rip works correctly, there will be bugs. By using it you acknowledge that Rip may delete your hard drive, cause massive data loss, punch you in the face, cause divorce, etc.

One thing I discovered using XLD: If you set the Format of filename as %A/%T/%n %t then XLD will save the files (under the specified output directory) in the folder / then the files are (use %a for Artist rather than Album Artist).

I also like that XLD creates a file, then imports and iTunes copies it to the correct location, rather than storing straight into the iTunes folder structure - but thats a personal preference.

As for sound quality - well to me there is no real improvement in SQ (though I've re-extracted a few CDs which had errors under iTunes) though I do like the confidence that XLD gives you by using Secure Rip to checksum the extraction, and by giving some feedback of errors it encountered at the end of extraction.

Eloise

Thanks Clay, well written and easy to follow.

But I’ve yet to hear anyone say that it sounds any better than a iTunes RIP with error correction on.
Would be interested to know if you hear a difference?

If better ripping is possible I’m surprised Amarra are not adding this to their software.

I believe there are plans for 'ripping 'software and sample rate conversion and the vinyl archiving package.
Keith.

No problem Ruud, I was joking. I literally didn't know how it would turn out. You see, I was typing this post AS I was using XLD for the first time. I figured I would never remember all the settings and whatnot if I didn't do it simultaneously.

Thanks for the tip Eloise. I had read this in a previous post of yours.

Eric, and others - I've not yet listened to XLD rips in any critical way, meaning at normal listening volumes, at a minimum. I'm making the switch mostly for the error correction improvements and error reporting (which frankly is a little TOO detailed). The 'automatic' setup for drive offset correction (which I was unaware of) is a nice feature, as is the Accurate Rip database check. My only concern had been the ease with which it can obtain track info and artwork and integrate with iTunes for file organization. All reports are that it will be fine, I've just not seen it for myself yet.

However, re any possible sound improvements, my Amarra rep, John Hughes of VRS, has reported (on AA) that he thinks XLD sounds better - "more depth, and slightly smoother sound" or words to that effect. So, I doubt that it will sound any worse, it might sound better on occasion, plus I get 'error correction' piece of mind.

Apologies if I missed a question or two, if so, I'll get back to it later.

clay

Clay & Salwani, thanks for these very helpful posts. I'm about to begin my ripping process (and, like you, awaiting Chris's article on ripping).
Salwani, how are the tagging feature, file structure and ITunes importing features in Rip? I'm considering both these packages as the accurate rip feature seems very useful.
thanks.

Gang,

Yea I have to ask also... what differences do you hear and don't tell me what other people are saying....

Also have you done any file comparisons with iTunes rips? I read a German Magazine did all kinds of tests on ripping using CD's they had mastered and had commercially made (i.e. not burned CD's) and found iTunes Mac was at the top of the list. EAC was like 5th.

Thanks
Gordon

Hi Clay,

I'm glad to read that. My English isn't always as good as I would like it to be and for a minute I thought I did something wrong.
Anyway, XLD (on my current system, with my current ears and brain) seems to be the best solution for ME at the moment. The last two years I have been trying every rip software in the book, both windows and mac, and both freeware and paid. Ripping about 200 of my most favorite CDs over and over again (using flac, alac, wav & aiff, different players and or plugins). I think I can easily say the XLD/iTunes combination is a winner, but experience learned me this might change if tomorrow I have to buy a new dvd drive. Guess I'm saying to everyone who's asking if it sounds better or not; please don't think it is 'cause you read it somewhere. The writer of any article online doesn't have your ears or speakers and even if he did use the same hardware setup, I find two the same drives don't seem to exist. I might not post much, but that's 'cause I have been busy ripping and listening :)
Two months ago I've decided I've done enough research and it's now time to archive my complete collection to AIFF using XLD.

cheers,
Ruud

I haven't heard any yet, just trying to figure out an easy way to import CDs on a Mac with a program that offers error correction AND reporting. XLD seems to fit the bill thus far.

I will listen when I get a decent amount of time to do so, but I'm afraid neither my system nor my ears are likely to have high enough resolution (to meet Steve's standards for being able) to hear the difference. ;0

clay

"I also like that XLD creates a file, then imports and iTunes copies it to the correct location, rather than storing straight into the iTunes folder structure - but thats a personal preference."

I thought I would like that better as well - given that my actual music files are on an external drive, but after only 3 or 4 disk rips, I decided to go with Ruud's simpler, cleaner approach.

One reason was the extra work involved in remembering to delete files and whatnot - which I probably wouldn't really mind - but... the clincher was my concern about using an SSD drive as a temporary storage space for such large files (close to .5G per CD for AIFF, or near that) given the potential 'gridlock issue' with SSDs, in which deleted files are not really erased until the space is needed, and can only be erased in large blocks.

One thing that doesn't seem to be working is the overwrite feature, when importing duplicates. I guess that will make it easier to compare the two and discover that my ears aren't yet bat-like, but I'm not interested in having to delete every single new disc, especially as the individual files wind up being interspersed until sorted.

Ruud, does overwrite work for you?

overall, the rest of the XLD story is rather anti-climactic. Do what Ruud suggests (or Eloise, at your discretion), and you're all set. I fooled around with a couple of settings, but that's about it. I did turn off the settings like "verify suspicious sectors" and "test before copy" and this seemed to speed things up a bit, but we're still talking 2.5x to 4x at best on the standard Mac Mini 2009 (Sony) Optiart drive.

enjoy, and look forward to Chris' ripping article.
As to whether the sound is different, my philosophy is - assume that it's not, but believe that it can be. Re: that last bit - as that great hockey playing philosopher from the Great White North said "100 percent of the shots you don't take, don't go in". IOW, if you don't believe it's (even) possible, you'll (probably) NEVER hear a difference.

thanks
clay

Rayhill

Rip tagging is good and can pull from various sources - it mainly takes it from Itunes so doesnt have cover art. But another menu item lets you pull cover art from 2 sources. File structure options look the same as XLD. As for Itunes importing - you can save files into the Itunes folder but no options within Rip to add to Itunes library. The same developer has MAX which allows you do do this - Max is much more like XLD - but the developer says Rip is better especially where bad/damages discs are concerned. XLD and Max also allow you to convert files already on your computer. Rip does only CDs. One problem i find with Rip is copy protected CDs. It takes forever or it just doesnt do it. For those i go back back to ITunes.

Though i feel that XLD ripping is slower, there are less steps involved than Rip - having to pull cover art separately and then importing. Mind you, i only downloaded XLD after Clay's post so ive only done a few discs. But i will probably keep using it over Rip and Max.

As for SQ with Rip - did it sound better ? Yes, no, maybe ? A few tracks sounded more alive and most sounded the same. So i guess it depends how damaged the disc is.

Clay said:
"One thing that doesn't seem to be working is the overwrite feature, when importing duplicates. I guess that will make it easier to compare the two and discover that my ears aren't yet bat-like, but I'm not interested in having to delete every single new disc, especially as the individual files wind up being interspersed until sorted.

Ruud, does overwrite work for you?"

To be honest I put such an insane amount of time in tagging my rips (by hand 'cause I like it to be exact) that I never have had to try the overwrite option. See the picture and you know what I mean;
http://img11.imageshack.us/i/schermafbeelding2009102z.png/

cheers,
Ruud.

Chris, if you're reading this, a nice addition to the CASH list would be including recommended software programs (Mac and PC) for copying CDs, DVDs, etc. By searching this site and others (like Ayre, Empirical, ...) , you can find recommendations, but you'd be saving people lots of time and headache by saying "If you want great sound from a Mac, get at least 4 mb RAM, Amarra, mactheripper, Ayre QB-9 for 24/96 out of the USB, Weiss for 192 out of the firewire, etc. If you want portable sound with your Mac laptop, get an E-Mu 0404."

VTskier,

I've been thinking about exactly this 'problem', but when I do, I begin to realize that a proper recommendation (of all the various possible elements) would be more like a prescription - which would require a more 'Socratic' approach - i.e. interactive Q&A.

Not the least of the variables is "how far down the rabbit hole does one want to go"? And in cases of newbies, "how far down the hole should they be lowered"?

IOW, to tell everyone at CA that they need Amarra, Ram-disk, maxmum RAM, SSDs, tweaked Firewire cables, non-journaled HFS+ disk drives, vibration absorbing tape, special dedicated ripping drives, etc... is, well , I think you get the idea.

EDIT: And that's not even to mention that some improvements might NOT provide (as much, if any) benefit if others are already in use. E.g. Gordon has just posited (at that other place) that if one has 8Gb RAM, the benefits of an SSD may become non-existent (or perhaps at least not as noticeable). Chris, I believe, has shown differently, albeit on a loudspeaker system of much higher resolution than I even want to achieve.

Chris, I'd be happy to work with you if you've got ideas on this.

clay

I agree that there's certainly no "right" answers in this hobby. Different rooms, budgets, personal preferences, etc.

While it would be nice to have a place here where someone new could go for a primer rather than bouncing around the web to all the different places that offer advice on hardware, software, settings for ripping, playing, etc., that search might be a necessary part of the experience.

I haven't used XLD to rip a CD, but I do use it to convert from FLAC to other formats that are iPod compatible (ALAC / Apple Lossless in my case, but it will do plenty of others).

I just converted a slew of 24bit/88khz and 24bit/96khz albums I purchased from HDTracks to Apple Lossless and the bit rate, sample rate, proper tagging, and album art were all preserved and show up in iTunes perfectly.

In fact, I'm listening to 24bit/88khz recording of Holst's "The Perfect Fool", on Chandos, as I type...

Just want to put in a plug for XLD as a 'simple' ripping solution for a Mac. It's part of my new triumvirate for highest quality performance on a Mac - iTunes for library mgmt, Amarra for listening, XLD for ripping.

XLD setup is more daunting than, e.g. iTunes, but....this is a one-time task.

Just now, I started up XLD, inserted the girlfriends new Sting CD - the Starbucks something-or-other - and it ripped as easily as itunes - including appearing in the iTunes Library and being placed in my external disk - which is a testament to XLD's ease of use once setup.

As compared to the ease of iTunes, one only needs to remember to start XLD prior to inserting a new CD.

OTOH, I just ripped a Nico disk - Chelsea Girl - and got a confidence factor of only '7', as apparently this disc does not appear in the AccurateRip database.

hmmm....

clay

I set XLD up last night. Nice elegant application and easy to use. Got the file locations sorted easily enough and it all works as simply as iTunes alone.

But I have to say, I can detect no sonic difference to iTunes with correction, or Max to my ears.

I like the graphics and can see it's giving information about the rips - 0 errors on all the discs ripped so far. Don't do the test rip option unless you have a disc you are worried about - it takes forever to rip a clean disc, never mind a damaged one.

I also ripped the same discs using Max. No sonic differences between the three.

Unfashionable it may be....but iTunes seems to be all you need unless you want to look at figures after every rip. I might use it if I come across a problem disc - to see if that makes any difference. Maybe Audiophiles just want something like this to be more complex than it is?

Having just read some more rubbish about the Naim HDX being the only unit capable of a proper rip, I am losing the will on this one. :-)

Steve

Steve, I've not even tested for sonic differences personally. I don't (yet?) see the point.

But as you say, it's as easy as iTunes (once setup), AND it provides information about error correction, which iTunes sorely lacks.

It also provides all manner for format conversions, should these be needed as well. All in all, it's a great tool in the Mac computer audiophile's arsenal.

Cheers,
clay

Steve, did you try Max in "Paranoia Mode"?

Yes, I tried Max and XLD on their most thorough, slowest settings. iTunes was used as usual with correction.

I use Max for converting FLAC Hi Res downloads occasionally too.

The XLD reports better - for those who worry about that sort of thing it's the best solution of these three. My concern was merely to rip some of my favourite (and most familiar) music and compare sonically. Neither myself, nor a volunteer who is used to this sort of pedantry on my part, could detect any sonic difference at all.

If I ever come across a disc that is damaged enough not to rip - I will try that. I just don't have damaged CDs and those with scratches I just polish out anyway.

Steve

I employ a rather laissez faire ripping strategy, or rather non-strategy.

I ripped a hundred or so CDs using iTunes alone. Lately, I've been ripping on an 'as needed' basis, IOW, when I think of a CD I want to play - that hasn't been ripped - I just insert it into the drive and XLD takes care of the rest.

My error correction 'strategy' has been - when I notice a defect, I re-rip. This happens very infrequently. Last night it happened for the first time after switching to XLD, so I shall have the opportunity to see how XLD does with the same disk.

cheers
clay

I have devoured this article as I'm planning on ripping my CD collection over the next few months for use on a music server (haven't decided which yet). I've played with XLD and love its simplicity and thoroughness.

Sooooo...before I actually get started with the long slog ahead, other than file size, is there really any difference between ALAC and AIFF as long as storage space is no problem? Is ALAC going to be preferable from the point of view of storing tag data in the files? What would I miss or need to do manually in either format? Thanks guys...fascinating discussion and insights by everyone!

PD

ps I should mention I have a new Mac Mini, Snow Leopard, external LaCie D2 burner. Not planning on using Mini's drive unless someone convinces me otherwise ;-)

PD,

I also use a new Mac Mini. I have compared ALAC and AIFF and I prefer the AIFF. Better soundstage, list digitalitis. I recommend comparing a few yourself. I originally had everything in ALAC. I read that the process of decoding the ALAC on the fly causes some sonic problems. That's what I found and converted my files all to AIFF. I believe AIFF handles id tags and artwork equally well as the ALAC, but the AIFF is more universally compatible. It works particularly well with Mac.

I prefer ALAC because a) it's smaller b) it's compatible with iPods and iPhones and c) I sometimes use AirTunes, which converts everything to ALAC before streaming, anyway.

And the data is identical to that contained in AIFF (you can do WAV conversion tests back and forth to check). So any differences that some believe they hear is probably due to software, not the files.

"Is ALAC going to be preferable from the point of view of storing tag data in the files? What would I miss or need to do manually in either format?"

On a Mac, you should have no (or minimal) manual intervention required.

Per usual, Windows offers more options, but none work as well with as little manual effort as solutions in a Mac, IN MY EXPERIENCE.

Said another way, the discussions you read about tagging issues and whatnot are mostly related to Windows-based formats (.WAV, FLAC, WMA, etc.). AIFF & ALAC are more user-friendly.

On OS X, you may require manual intervention for tagging of classical music, AND you might need to locate album art manually for some music, but that's about it, IME. There are apps, like Tuneup, which do the latter for you.

Clay

I cannot seem to get the overwrite function to work either. Has anyone had any success with that?

My main issue is that I'm re-ripping a load of stuff that I previously ripped with itunes, and some of the tags have been modified. If I re-rip with iTunes the tracks are replaced and the tags remain the same, but XLD will not replace the tracks, so I have to delete the originals and add artwork and fix tags to the newly XLD ripped tracks.

"I cannot seem to get the overwrite function to work either. Has anyone had any success with that?"

Doesn't work for me either, but I've not bothered to venture over to Hydrogen Audio to sort it out. The developer is very responsive, and apparently hangs out there online.

clay

I don't have XLD, so I'm merely speculating:

Try setting the permissions for your iTunes music folder and all enclosed items to Read/Write for owner, group and everyone.

On the CD Rip settings under Preferences you have a choice to ‘Test before copy’.

Besides from doubling the time to rip, I was curious to know if ticking this option has any benefit at all if your going to go ahead and rip the track anyway?

Thanks

Ohh and another question. Is there a difference between the 2 databases used musicbrainz and FreeDB?

Cheers

I'm not sure what the benefit might be, Eric - as I turned it off after the first rip since it took so long... nor do I know the answer to the musicbrainz versus freedb question.

apologies,
clay

I can 't wait until someone hears a difference between the two databases :~)

Hi clay, thanks for this guide.

I only have one question:
What about the "Scan ReplayGain" option? Any special reason to ignore it? (since SRG basically detects the peak level for each track and writes this information in the log, similar to EAC peak level).

By the way, I use XLD to get lossless backup (ALAC) with the following options checked:

√ Rip as accurate as possible (CDParanoia Mode)
√ Max retry count: 100
√ Read sample offset correction value: 667 (in my case); √ Set automatically if possible
√ Query AccurateRip database to check integrity
√ Automatically save a log file: Always
√ Verify suspicious sectors (may slow down ripping)
√ Test before copy (half as fast): Always
√ Scan ReplayGain

Regards, Max

"What about the "Scan ReplayGain" option? Any special reason to ignore it?"

I can't think of any reason not to use it, except for the obvious - it will increase RIP times, which is why I dont.

enjoy,
clay

Thanks for response, but rip time is the same with or without SRG. Basically I use this option to get logs similar to EAC ones.

Cheers,
Max

Hi Max,

I don’t recommend that you check the Scan ReplayGain box when using XLD. The primary reason is that ReplayGain is a metadata tag that will not work with AIFF files.

At the present time, ReplayGain is only supported by a few file formats. FLAC is an example of a format that accepts ReplayGain tags. As mentioned, AIFF does not.

This is because FLAC files use Vorbis metadata tags, referred to as Vorbis comments. For more information about Vorbis comments, here are two links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis_comment and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis

Since iTunes does not currently play FLAC files, ReplayGain will not work with iTunes. However, the Sound Check feature in iTunes is similar to ReplayGain.

Both ReplayGain and Sound Check attempt to automatically attenuate or amplify signals so that album tracks play at similar loudness levels. Since I’m after the purest possible playback, I don’t use the Sound Check feature in iTunes. For the same reason, I would not use ReplayGain.

Here is a link that describes ReplayGain in more detail; it also includes a list of ReplayGain compliant players: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replay_Gain

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Chris

Hi Chris, thank you so much for your response!!!

As I said, I only use this option to get logs "à la EAC". According to tmkk (the author of XLD), with who I talked by email a few days ago, the Scan ReplayGain option only scans the audio amplitude and writes the result into the log and cue sheet, there is no effect on the quality or playback.

But what you say makes sense in Mac OS X environment, especially with AIFF and ALAC, thanks again. By the way, AIFF on Mac OS X is currently AIFF-C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiff), an alternative little-endian byte order format. I guess if both AIFF and AIFF-C contain the same PCM samples, the quality will be the same, I hope...

Regards from Chile,
Max

Anyone else noticed the latest XLD update – 20100214 has an experimental support for Tac decoder.

I haven’t updated because I have no idea what’s a Tac decoder is?
(doesn’t explain it very well - at a guess something to do with compressed files)

I guess TAK it refers to (T)om's lossless (A)udio (K)ompressor (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=77605&st=0&p=678...)

Regards

Yes, IMHO musicbrainz is more accurate and consistent, but their database does not contain as much CDs as FreeDB alone does. For most pop releases it's more or less the same (well if you don't care for correct titlecasing as Musicbrainz does – I can't stand capitalized small words like Of and And).

For classical releases there is a major difference - MB always puts the composer (not the performers) in the artist field and the performers in parentheses like (Philharmonia Orchestra feat. conductor: Otto Klemperer) and therefore tend to be long. See http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide for details.

I've also noticed that XLD sometimes is only able to find a cover after choosing MB as data source...

Thanks Ruud, great advice!

>HINT: next step is to see what happens when I select the output directory folder of XLD as the "Automatically Add to iTunes" folder.

I've tried that to basically accomplish what Ruud's hint now does for me (with the "Move to the destination after finish" checkbox enabled, according to what Apple recommends: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3832) but to no avail – XLD rips fine but then the aiff files remain in an obscure temporary items folder somewhere on the system disk...

X Lossless Decoder (XLD) always creates AIFF with big-endian PCM (the standard AIFF, not AIFC), confirmed by tmkk, its creator and developer.

Regards

After downloading the program and overcoming the fear that I am going to start the whole thing wrong and have to go through it again, I have ripped a few cd's from various categories. Some missing artwork that was easily obtained from amazon, but otherwise a wonderful process and more reassuring with the logs than itunes. I played with the settings a bit and have decoded to multiple formats- AIFF, ALAC, and FLAC. Now I have a problem, both the AIFF and ALAC get placed into the itunes folder, while the FLAC remains unorganized and not in album folders. I was hoping that by making 3 different types of output files that I would be able to achieve what Chris did with dbpoweramp. Is this possible with this program?
Thank you,
Joshua

Has anyone else noticed that XLD seems to offer the option to append only the following ID tags (under "CDDB" menu > "Query Items"): Disc Title, Track Title, Artist, Genre, Year, and Cover Art. I like to include the Composer tag and although I can see that that info is available for many of the discs I rip (if I let iTunes perform the CDDB search initially, for example), XLD does not seem to store it with the files it produces. Then (after ripping) of course iTunes will no longer perform its search because it says, "files were not added to library with iTunes...". Short of re-searching with Jaikoz or Song Genie, etc., does anyone know of a way to get XLD to find/store the Composer tag?

This is interesting, in that it's theoretically (although quite unlikely) possible that one AIFF file playback could sound different from another, due to additional processing required.

clay

Finally got around to testing xld - it's not perfect, but it's quite good, and it's definitely the best thing going on the mac.

Pros:

• No one mentioned that this is a replacement for CueTools on the PC! Meaning you can take a single file FLAC/WAV album with cuesheet and convert it directly to individual AIFF files with tags. This requires several steps with multiple programs on the PC.
• It has one AccurateRip feature I wish dbPoweramp would emulate - it has the ability to check your rip against multiple offsets in case there are discrepancies with CDs based on place/time of manufacture, etc. This dramatically increases the likelihood of getting matches. (CueTools also does this with single file albums when it converts them to tracks)
• Much simpler and more reliable UI than CueTools

Cons:

• Offset handling doesn't seem to work 100% correctly for every CD. I get AccurateRip mismatches on the first and last tracks every now and again, while the other tracks report matching a different offset. After changing the offset to match the other tracks I then get successful matches on the problem tracks after a re-rip.
• Ripping logic isn't quite as good as Dbpoweramp
• Doesn't check AccurateRip when converting single file albums with cuesheets. (a CueTools feature)