iTunes 24 bit AIFF Album Art

It also applies to 16-bit AIFF files as well Chris. Well, 16-bit AIFF files created by Max to be precise. There is a workaround for those files though, as you can use iTunes to create a new AIFF file from the one imported from Max and then album art will work. The problem with the 24-bit AIFF files is that if you convert them in iTunes, the new iTunes created AIFF file will be 16-bit.

--
djp

I concur with David on the duplicating via iTunes working for me. Select the songs, then under the Advanced menu, choose Create AIFF Version and it will make dupes which will accept artwork. You'll need to then delete the originals. I have only done this with 16/44 files converted via Max however, so I'll bet David's warning about it converting 24 to 16 is true. Chris, thanks for contacting Apple about this. I'll send in a complaint form as well. I've seen a few mainstream artists recently offering FLAC downloads and Max is the handiest tool to use for converting to AIFF, but this glitch is annoying.

TheOtherTim

Chris, have you tried to run coverArt script?

It's a Python script which allows you to load album covers into iTunes, without attaching them to individual song files. Works with iTunes 8.0. Here's a link to a personal page of a guy who wrote the script: http://www.jacobweber.com/scripts/

I use WAV files in my iTunes library and since iTunes doesn't support album art for WAV out of the box, coverArt script fixed my problem, supports all files 16 or 24 bit. and it works with AIFF as well, just did a quick test converted a 24 bit WAV file into 24 bit AIFF and added album art w/o any problems.

I know it's more of a workaround but if you don't mind running a script once in a while to upload your album art it will fix your issues untill Apple fix iTunes... just a suggestion.

iTunes applies cover art with 24 bit Apple Lossless. I believe I was having no problems with iTunes 7.7. When they went to 7.71, I lost the ability to apply cover art to 24 bit AIFF.

Hi Dimsal - thank you very much for the information and link. I checked out the script, but don't think it's a solution that I would use or many of the readers would use.

I looks like you need to run a "proxy" or what really is a packet sniffer / interceptor in order for everything to work. It is much more than a script.

Let me know if you think otherwise, I'd be very willing to use this one if it's something other than my research suggests.

Thanks again for the post!

Yes, basically it intercept iTunes' requests for cover art, and allow you to send your own images. They're sent back to iTunes in the same format that the iTMS sends them, so they work just as well. The script includes a basic browser-based interface for selecting images for each album. You can enter your own URLs, or search Amazon for covers.

You'll need to have Python 2.4.3 installed, and not be afraid to edit your hosts file. If you want to search Amazon, you'll also need to sign up for a free Amazon Web Services account.

I do realize it's a bit more work for a regular readers, that's why I suggested it to you personally, knowing you don't afraid to get your hands "dirty". In my own experience the only inconvenience is you have to edit your hosts file. And then when you're done you have to update it back to normal.

At the end, I agree it's a temp workaround, not the perm solution for everyone. In my situation (I only use WAV files in iTunes) unfortunately this is the ONLY solution currently available. Perhaps it will help someone who was looking for something like this...

Hi dimsal - I think the newest version doesn't require a hosts file edit. One step closer to being easy!

Thanks for the detail on your followup post. I certainly did not mean to discredit your work-around. It was me who asked people for work-arounds :-)

Thanks again!

Chris,

I talked to Apple and had them put it in Radar for someone too look at.

Thanks
Gordon

Very cool, thanks a lot Gordon!

As a workaround for the 24-bit AIFF album artwork problem in iTunes, I purchased a copy of Media Rage ( http://www.chaoticsoftware.com/ ). Once I've converted FLAC or WAV to AIFF in Max, I then use Media Rage to add artwork and to modify other fields. Only then do I add the files to my iTunes library.

I've reproduced the problem with AIFF, but for me, the solution is easy: the problem goes away once the file is converted to Apple Lossless.

I just downloaded some albums from High Definition Tape Transfers and underwent a FLAC -> AIFF (via Max) conversion, then import to iTunes, then AIFF -> ALAC (via iTunes). The 24bit sample size and high sample rate were preserved during the entire process. And the files get a bit smaller.

Hi david - Thanks for the Media Rage link. The app looks pretty cool and a tone of features.

Thanks for the tip, watchnerd! When I tried this in iTunes 7.x when the problem first appeared, the conversion resulted in 16bit/44.1kHz ALAC. However, I just tried it now with iTunes 8, and it seemed to work just as you say, with the added benefit of also saving disk space.

I just did a get artwork for John Mellencamp's "Life Death Love and Fredom", and it works with 8.0.1.

Peter

Hi Peter - I just tested it and it's still not working.

Is your AIFF 24 bit?

Do you have another version of this album in your library that does have cover art?

Yes I do, Ok I see now, I'd forgotten that it worked if the album was already there. it is 24bit .aiff, imported from max.

Peter

Hey Peter - I just figured out I was doing all of my testing on the one remaining Mac I own that didn't have the 8.0.1 upgrade!!!

So, I tested everything and it works!! Repeat, 24 bit AIFF files support album art once again!!!

All good here as well! Great stuff. :)

--
djp

Good news, and just to verify, I went through the exercise of re-importing into iTunes an album of songs that I originally downloaded as FLAC (David Byrne and Brian Eno's recent album) and had converted to AIFF via Max, and which previously did not accept artwork. Re-did that with the new version of iTunes and it took the artwork when dragged into the Get Info screen. So, yay.

TheOtherTim

Wondeful that all the AIFF lovers had this fixed. I know it would bug the hell out of me if I was a big AIFF user.

But can I ask an ignorant question: is there an advantage to AIFF compared to ALAC?

Because from what I can tell, they're pretty much equivalent, except ALAC is smaller. Am I missing something?

watchnerd, alac is lossless and compressed and aiff is just lossless. Some other things like alac is stored within an MP4 container and aiff is pcm. The source is wikipedia.

Now, its generally understood that having the computer stream the raw pcm without additional uncompression at the same time just sounds better. Removing the DMR prior to playback better as well. Play the file from a hardrive vs cd/dvd optical drive and hard drive rules. But wait solid state drive is better than regular harddrive. Finally, usb with async is better than optical/spdif. PS My opinion...we need to thank Gordan Rankin for the ultimate usb-dacs and Benchmark for the runner up! Did I say finally, less we forget that no matter what computer or OS or software we use, that we need to set it correctly! PS we need to thank Benchmark for the setup options. I would give my opinion on the best setup, but I dont want to start a war...hehehe.

vortecjr

"Now, its generally understood that having the computer stream the raw pcm without additional uncompression at the same time just sounds better"

By whom?

If the file is lossless, and the uncompression is flawless, the bits should be the same and should sound the same. I don't understand the logic behind your allegation.

Do you have any data to support what you're saying is 'generally understood'?

No raw data, but plenty of supporting evidence. Ill try my best, so have an open mind for the time being.

Ok, why is it that some DACs are so called top 5% and others are not? They were made the same, they were made side by side, they have the same code and they were cooked together? Lets not try to answer the why, but understand that some are special and sound better for whatever reason.

Why do cd players over sample the data and compare notes? The data should be the same if read twice or three times or eight times? Well it does so because of errors. No cd is perfect and some have scratches right? Again, lets not try to answer the why, but understand that no process is perfect.

So now if your on board and have some faith in that no process is free of issues, then things always happen (Murphy's law) and you have two processes going on in tandem at very high speeds....I conclude that you have twice the number of possibilities to have issues and If you uncompress the FLAC with care and store/play the WAV it will sound better. Yes, you could argue that when you uncompress and store the WAV file that you also store the issues and no gain. I would replay, that when you uncompress with good software at a slower speed than playback that you minimize the issues and you get a better file to play back.

My local dealer (who I trust) has been trying this for him self (things are slow with the economy being the way it is) and he confirms via audio tests.

You say, "If the file is lossless, and the uncompression is flawless" well nothing is really flawless, but if you take steps to minimize the flaws then the music will sound better.

Regards

Vortecjr

"well nothing is really flawless"

I think you're applying an analog mentality to a digital data process. And, yes, you can have completely error-free compression/uncompression. In fact, most of the time, you do.

Lossless, but compressed, digital music files can be seen as analogous to compressed text files. If it uncompresses correctly, it can't be worse or better than the original because the content isn't any different from the original.

If a file passes a checksum test, it is bit perfect and therefore can't sound different, unless errors are introduced elsewhere in the chain, because it isn't different.

Regarding errors elsewhere: playback software can definitely introduce errors of its own, but that's true regardless of the file format.

By the way, here is an example of a checksum test for files in WAV, AIFF, and ALAC.

We start off with all three files:

Kagemusha:cktest david$ ls
Sonata.aiff Sonata.m4a Sonata.wav

We then do a checksum on the original WAV file:

Kagemusha:cktest david$ cksum *.wav
305351298 116115932 Sonata.wav

We then delete the WAV file:

Kagemusha:cktest david$ rm *.wav
Kagemusha:cktest david$ ls
Sonata.aiff Sonata.m4a

We then decode the ALAC file to recreate the WAV file, and then do a checksum on the resulting WAV:

Kagemusha:cktest david$ /Users/david/Temp/xld/xld Sonata.m4a -f wav
|===================>| 99% (Track 1/1)
done.
Kagemusha:cktest david$ cksum *.wav
305351298 116115932 Sonata.wav

NOE: The checksum is the same! Which means it is byte identical and a flawless recreation of the original WAV.

Next, delete the WAV file again:

Kagemusha:cktest david$ rm *.wav
Kagemusha:cktest david$ ls
Sonata.aiff Sonata.m4a

And then recreate the WAV file again, this time by decoding the AIFF, and do the checksum test again:

Kagemusha:cktest david$ /Users/david/Temp/xld/xld Sonata.aiff -f wav
|====================| 100% (Track 1/1)
done.
Kagemusha:cktest david$ cksum *.wav
305351298 116115932 Sonata.wav

Again, a flawless, byte perfect recreation of the original WAV file.

Watchnerd, first thanks for taking the time to conduct the test. We need to be careful in interpreting the data though. I am not saying that we need to be paranoid :) just careful. I agree that the compression and uncompression should be flawless. Now having the check sum add up doesn't make it bit perfect. The programs can't dish out 23bit word lengths or 25bit word lengths it has to output 24bit each time. Part of the error correction to achieve this is that it fills in for missing data based on other information. It may even guess right most of the time. Finally, software conversion is not the same as real time conversion during playback. My point is that you would need to compare the actual bits (every 1 and 0) and not the size of the file being produced during playback. In software conversion you can select slower speeds to insure the accuracy and you can't do that in real time playback.

When the concept of jitter was introduced people laughed. People said computers are perfect and in equals out. Jitter is real and present in every conversion. The less conversions the less errors and if you have to convert use a better process like a good software at slow speeds. Some people spend thousands on better gear. All I am saying is to spend some extra time.

Can we agree on flac for everyday and wav for those seeking something better?

Regards

vortecjr

vortecjr wrote:

Can we agree on flac for everyday and wav for those seeking something better?

Uh, no. FLAC and WAV are both lossless, one and the same. One is just compressed. I use AIFF me-self! ;)

--
djp

vortecjr, I'm trying to understand on which basis you believe there are differences between compressed lossless (FLAC, ALAC) and non-compressed (WAV).

Do you believe:

1. The difference lies in the files themselves. Lossless files are not bit perfect equivalents of the original.
2. The files are fine, but the playback software is prone to introduce audible errors.

"Can we agree on flac for everyday and wav for those seeking something better?"

People can do what they like, of course. But I'm waiting for good evidence that WAV is better than FLAC or ALAC.

Hi Guys - The whole lossless v uncompressed discussion can be found here http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/AIFF-or-Apple-Lossless

djp, ok ok I forgot about aiff and aiff is great as well as you know.

Why is Reference Recordings (backed by Keith O. Johnson ) releasing in 24/176.4 in wav.

Why is the Jazz Prologue III (by Kent Poon ) releasing in 24/192 in aiff?

It just sounds better uncompressed!

Remember this is a computer audio forum not a computer forum. The wav and aiff sound better.

regards

vortecjr

watchnerd, tell you what...on Monday I will call the guys at Berkeley Audio. I believe they can shead some light on this topic. They have some pretty smart people who can put this to rest. They are the guys who use to produce pro goods for recording studios and are now on the consumer hi end side. I will also e-mail Keth O. Johnson and see if he will chime in. I will report back to the forum. I will ask them during playback what sounds better....an original 24/96 or the same file converted to wav in computer prior to playback. The computer would be set up properly to actually play these files and the original is a high quality piece and not some converted mp3.

One side thought. For many years we have had uncompressed pcm with digital rights management in 16/44.1. The audio industy took a full step back with mp3 downloads and people were and are thrilled with that format. As long as the picture comes out on the media player most could care less about the quality. What a shame! The flac is great for downloads, but a step forward and backwards for playback. 24/88.2 or higher in uncompressed pcm without drm in wav or aiff is the full step forward.

regards

vortecjr

"I will ask them during playback what sounds better....an original 24/96 or the same file converted to wav in computer prior to playback"

That's fine, but that wasn't what I was debating.

I was debating that the quality between WAV, AIFF, ALAC, and FLAC should be any different.

And if they do say one sounds better, I'd be curious to know:

a) how do they know they're not hearing a placebo effect?
b) what their explanation is for the difference, given that the musical content is bit identical between them?

watchnerd, placebo is when I have two pills, one makes you fart and the other does not, I give the one that does not and I tell you it does, I ask you to take the pill and ask you to tell me later how may times it make you fart. This is just about what sounds better in a heads up. Lets see what they say and if they say why. I sent three e-mails out and will copy the results here as I get them back.

Regards

vortecjr

This might make you smile.

Kent replied:
"Hello JR, Nice to hear from you. the 24/96 Flac is a lossless format. If the player supports this format properly, they are bit identical with WAV or AIFF. Bests,Kent"

This might make you smile or not.

From HDtracks website:
"AIFF files are at the top of the list of high quality file formats, although, since uncompressed, result in larger file sizes."
and
"The FLAC file format has proved in many ways to be one of the best formats in terms of benefits in comparison to competing audio data formats. It is a compressed file; however, since FLAC files are lossless, there is no quality loss. Therefore it is fast, high quality, and does not occupy much space on a hard disk. In addition, the FLAC format is not restricted by patents or DRM, as well as being open format. This allows for format conversions without any loss during the process.
The FLAC format also has a good error resistance. Usually, when streaming errors occur with other formats the stream is destroyed from the point of error to the end of the file. However, FLAC files limit the amount of damage done, and therefore errors only cause about a seconds worth of data loss. The FLAC format is supported by various consumer electronic audio players on the market."

The reads can deside for them selves. More when the rest reply.

Regards

Vortecjr

Sounds to me like both Kent and HDTracks are saying that the quality of compressed lossless is nothing to worry about.

lets see what the rest say and lets not ignor the big "if" Kent put in or worry about loosing a second of sound per HDTracks....more to follow.

regards

vortecjr

In full less my real name;

"Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your email and comments about the Alpha DAC.

In answer to your question; for the best audio quality FLAC files should be converted to WAV (LPCM) files before playback.

The reason is to reduce processing overhead during playback. FLAC files must be unpacked in real time to LPCM during playback.

Ideally, a music server should have very little processing activity during playback and pass LPCM files from storage to a re-clocked low jitter (<20ps) digital output with as direct and simple a data path as possible.

I hope this was helpful.

Best regards,

Michael Ritter

Berkeley Audio Design, LLC

www.berkeleyaudiodesign.com"

Regards

vortecjr

PS So a big "if" from Kent, loosing a few seconds from HDTracks and now this. Honestly, I dont think Keith Johnson will relay...so I will ask my contact at Reference Recording and lets see. Seriously, its about the best audio quality and not who is right or wrong and I really think wav and aiff is the way to go.

In full less my real name....
"Hi XXXX,
Our engineering folks say that files should be de-FLAC'd (converted back to WAV) before playing them for best results. You might ask www.computeraudiophile.com the same question and see what the moderator there says.

Best wishes,
Marcia"

Regards

vortecjr

Hi vortecjr - Wow, Reference Recordings sure must know what its talking about -> "You might ask www.computeraudiophile.com the same question"

Only kidding of course. They do know what they are talking about but when I come in to play all bets are off :~)

in fact I vote to change your name to:
"supreme computer audio commander"

can someone second the motion...

vortecjr