Importing WAV files to iTunes with MusicBrainz metadata - any help much appreciated!

itunes
metadata
wav
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe3d4072488> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d4072280> #<Tag:0x00007fe3d40720a0>

#1

I spent days and days ripping CD’s as 44.1 16 bit wav files using the ripping software Max.

Max uses the MusicBrainz database to generate the various fields and the files were automatically imported in to iTunes with track/artist/album/track number information, although the metadata isn’t saved in the wav files.

When I converted all the wav files to mp3s in iTunes (to put on a smaller capacity iPod) all the wav files were removed from iTunes (!!!) and now when I reimport them, the artist/album/track number info are missing and the track name is simply the name of the file.

I can use MusicBrainz Picard to find all the missing information, my question is how do I go about importing this information along with the audio files in to iTunes?

I know that I can’t embed the metadata in to the wav file, but I’m surprised that when I right click on the files and select open in player, the artist/album/track number are missing and the track name is reverted to the file name. Is there any script that I can use?

Any help would be very much appreciated!


#2

I would convert them to FLAC (lossless), tag them with Picard and then try some Google results of the query
"convert flac to alac with metadata" to convert them to ALAC (also lossless and with metadata).
iTunes should be able to play ALAC files.


#3

Can’t Picard tag ALAC anyway?


#4

Thanks for the suggestion. Sounds quite long winded (although I realise my options are limited) and I’d ideally avoid converting them to another format. I prefer the sound of wavs to FLACs and don’t have any experience with ALACs. Will give it some thought


#5

FLAC (unlike e.g., MP3) is lossless. As in if you compress a WAV file to FLAC, then decompress it (which is what the player does internally) you get the exact same data back. Bit-for-bit identical. Absent a broken player, they sound exactly the same.

Unless you mean the sound of the words WAV and FLAC — in which case, yeah, wave is definitely more soothing. :smiley:


#6

Another vote for FLAC from me, there are literally no downsides to using FLAC over WAV. FLAC files are lossless, allow metadata and they’re a lot smaller. Might as well just convert the WAVs straight to ALAC if you take that route though, it’s just Apple’s version of FLAC as far as I know.


#7

If I spent that long ripping and tagging files I would not entrust them to iTunes.
I understand you’re locked in because of the iPod, but I would maybe keep the files separate. It’s been happening less lately it seems (?) but in the past a lot of people have posted about iTunes taking… liberties with files and tags.


#8

One example: If you use iTunes Match, kiss your MB tags goodbye.


#9

Just because the information is bit for bit identical doesn’t mean they sound exactly the same. In theory yes, but the processing on how the bits are fed in to the DAC is very different and therefore is audible if you are listening with good enough equipment (and ears).

FLACs are also not an option as they are for use on an iPod which does not support them.

Come to think of it, ‘wave’ is a very soothing word


#10

I’d call a player that can’t manage to feed bits to the DAC at the required rate broken—skips and dropouts are usually very audible. Or if its electrical noise from the processor (etc.) leaking to the audio output, I wouldn’t call that good equipment. (But I guess you probably meant good equipment on the analog side).

True about iPods, though. You could use ALAC then, which is also lossless.