2. pc-audio
  3. 1305478282

Need Help in having Itunes Tag 1 Tb of lssless Wav

..I just got a mac mini and had over 1 tb of lossless wav files that play thue itunes but i can not get the files organized thru itunes...ie artist song and album all mixed as one on itunes..triedto you us tuneup but that didnt work .. Seems I itunes can not tag these files correctily as media monkey did on my windows computer. Also i converted a few files to apple lossless but they transcribed as mp4 and also the file size was almost in half..any aideas?
zugisland
sfar's avatar
sfar
1,768 posts
 

I agree with Herman. There's absolutely no reason to use a format like .wav when there are alternatives that offer the same or better fidelity without the problems with metadata that can't be avoided with .wav files.
herman
2,274 posts
 
.

Zug, what is your file structure? If it is set up as

First Artist folder
--- Album 1 subfolder
-------- song 1
-------- song 2
-------- song 3
-------- etc,
--- Album 2 subfolder
-------- song 1
-------- song 2
-------- song 3
-------- etc,

Second artist folder
--- Album 1 subfolder
-------- song 1
-------- song 2
-------- song 3
-------- etc,
--- Album 2 subfolder
-------- song 1
-------- song 2
-------- song 3
-------- etc,

Then iTunes should be able to build a library. If is not then I think you are hosed.

.
larry_s
128 posts
 
Herman, I may have drifted from the OPs issue, but sonically there's nothing wrong with .WAV files. If you need tags, well, there is something wrong. I use .WAV files and have no problems organizing my music to my liking.
herman
2,274 posts
 
.

Nobody said that wav files have a problem sonically.

Why is it wrong to use tags? I like to use shuffle play by genre and I like to see the album cover and I don't want to have to load them all in again if I switch players.

I don't know what program you are using but if you have any data stored about your files other than (artist - album name - song title) which is actually "stored" in the file structure, that data will be lost if your program's library file gets corrupted or you switch to another player. If you are only interested in (artist - album name - song title) then yes, wav files will suit your needs, but many of us want to store more info about the music; , what is wrong with that?

.
larry_s
128 posts
 
Herman, I'm not trying to argue about anything.

2nd post said: Every time I see someone here advise using WAV files "because they sound better" (NOT validated by my own tests, by the way) I cringe. And this is why: WAV files have no standard way for tagging the file with the song title, composer, artist, etc. So they end up as meaningless files scattered across someone's hard drive."

I was just adding to that. I have a portable USB drive that is a subset of my collection that I consider suitable for serious listening on a decent setup. I use .WAV and all I need to know to select the songs are artist, album and song. Nothing else matters to me. There's nothing wrong with using some other file format if you want to store more meta data.

Now, I could go on about how I think iTunes is a waste of time on a system dedicated to playback, but that's something else entirely - and somewhat subjective. :)

larry
More to discover