[fadercraig]

Ok, so after having my ipod stolen a while back, ive been adding all my songs to my new one via my laptop/itunes.

Currently running most recent versions of itunes 8.2.1, osx 10.5.7 on macbook 2.4ghz DCD.

I import from CD's into itunes and have the get track names and get album artwork automaticaly boxes ticked

I use .wav format, exclusively, im not going to change to another format.

So maybe 1/3rd or less of my library has album artwork missing, even if i can see the album available at the itunes store eg The Gordons '1st Album and Future Shock EP', it wont be available to me.

I 'should' be able to manually place the artwork into itunes, however i get the Album Artwork Not Modifiable or error -609 when trying this.

Ive changed the permissions on the tracks in the library but still no joy.

a. its not cos they are .wavs, all my imports are .wavs
b. why cant i manually add artwork?

Ive tried the scripts and widgets and some album cover adding programs, they all seem to be for mp3's or aac's etc and wont work with .wavs. the Amazon widget even told me itunes wasnt running...while i had tracks selected and playing

Ive searched a few forums and tried the above, ill happily settle for manually doing the missing artwork, but itunes wont seem to allow it.

Anyone know what im missing?

Many thanks
Craig

[ibook_steve]

What steps exactly are you using to try to import the artwork manually? Copy and paste or drag and drop should work.

Steve

[fritzw1957]

I was under the impression (maybe falsely) that the WAV format didn't support tags for album artwork?

Please enlighten me if I'm in error about this... I use either MP3 or AAC (iTunes Plus) for my iTunes files.

[Big Mac]

I think fritzw is right. Why fadercraig insists on WAV is beyond me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Bingo.

iTunes: About Adding Artwork to WAV Files

Use Apple Lossless instead.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think fritzw is right. Why fadercraig insists on WAV is beyond me.

Because he's a PCM lover.

[fadercraig]

Sorry quotes/replies out of order...not enuff sleep

Originally Posted by cgc 

Because he's a PCM lover.

Lol. Cos im a sound engineer. I really despise mp3's and the hideous sound quality these formats give. Im even dubious about the changes made when using the 44.1/16 bit wav encoder, but that could be in part due to the ipods a2d converters. im not going to use what my ears tell me is a lower quality version. Im not saying its not geeky and over the top, but thats how it is for me!

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

What steps exactly are you using to try to import the artwork manually? Copy and paste or drag and drop should work.

Steve

Ive tried the drag and drop/copy and paste with .jpgs (but occurs to me now no other image format), ive tried using the track info, tick the box for artwork etc, i drag the .jpg over, get the happy green plus sign, but the artwork doesnt 'stick' the moment i close the info window, the artwork is gone. In the itunes window, bottom left, for the selected track/s the window just says 'album artwork not modifiable'

Originally Posted by fritzw1957 

I was under the impression (maybe falsely) that the WAV format didn't support tags for album artwork?

Please enlighten me if I'm in error about this... I use either MP3 or AAC (iTunes Plus) for my iTunes files.

I have got plenty of album artwork with no problems, all for albums as .wavs

I think thats the bit that bugs me! I like stuff to be consistently working or consistently broken
And of course...id like to be able to add manually...but its a not happening...*shakes fist*

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Bingo.

iTunes: About Adding Artwork to WAV Files

Use Apple Lossless instead.

Ok, this im gonna try. Thanks! Although the document doesn't really say anything about what happens when you transfer the .wavs to your ipod...will the artwork go with it?

Thanks for the interest everyone.

Cx

[Big Mac]

I don't think iPods even support WAV.

[Spheric Harlot]

iPods do Support WAV.

But since WAV doesn't support artwork, it isn't transferred along with the music.

Apple Lossless is by definition of bit equality to the original WAV, supports tags and artwork, and saves you between 20 and 50% disk space, so...

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Apple Lossless is by definition of bit equality to the original WAV, supports tags and artwork, and saves you between 20 and 50% disk space, so...

Now just what crazy idea might be brewing here?

[fadercraig]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

iPods do Support WAV.

But since WAV doesn't support artwork, it isn't transferred along with the music.

Apple Lossless is by definition of bit equality to the original WAV, supports tags and artwork, and saves you between 20 and 50% disk space, so...

I only import cd's into tunes using the wav encoder, all the files are .wavs, 16 bit 44.1khz.
Ive been doing this for the past 3 weeks getting my library back into my ipod.

So all the music files ive been transferring, cd to itunes to ipod are .wav.

Probably 75% of these files.....wait for it....wait for it....Have the Artwork with them, wonderfully and automatically downloaded by itunes AND transferred to my Ipod...with the .wav files.

!!Coverflow works on my ipod and in Itunes just like it should, and it does it with .wav files, except for some tracks, i cant manually add the art work!!.

the 'lossless' format is indeed 20 to 50% less in file size. To me thats not 'lossless', thats 'Heres our format, we have given it a name, we chose 'lossless' instead of 'bacon sandwhich' cos that was already taken. Its just a name, its not a reality. The bit rate may be the same, but the sampling rate isnt. It is totally possible to have a high quality sounding mp3, you convert it with a high sampling rate, and guess what, the file size is pretty much the same as a .wav.

For me the issue is simple. I have a format that works with getting artwork and associating it with the correct file, but its only 'most of the time', and i cant ad manually. Thats it.

Solve^ that and i will totally buy a round of beers*

Cx
^format change is not the solution
*redeemable when you come to new zealand, and we are in a bar, watching bands play.

[Big Mac]

You don't think Apple Lossless is true lossless. How do you trust iTunes at all if you can't even trust Apple to tell the truth about a format it explicitly calls lossless?

[kylef]

Lossless is lossless, whether it's Apple's or FLAC or whatever. Whenever you convert, you can be cutting off a frequency which you may not be able to hear. Sounds the same to you, but the file size is reduced.

[fadercraig]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You don't think Apple Lossless is true lossless. How do you trust iTunes at all if you can't even trust Apple to tell the truth about a format it explicitly calls lossless?

I dont trust apple, or itunes, or the good looking server at the burger stand. I happily use the product, and i think coverflow is 'cute' . Im just after a consistent system, or a coherent reason why... doing thing a, to thing b, wont function for all, thing a's, to thing b's.

Originally Posted by kylef 

Lossless is lossless, whether it's Apple's or FLAC or whatever. Whenever you convert, you can be cutting off a frequency which you may not be able to hear. Sounds the same to you, but the file size is reduced.

If the system works by removing frequencies i cant "literally" hear, it does still affect the frequencies i can hear. In sound engineering, if you have a problem with a low freq say 100hz, you may also have an issue at 50hz or 200hz. They are octaves of each other...they all relate to and affect each other. When you remove a certain amount of 200hz from a sound, other frequencies are easier to hear, the entire sound is clearer. How can something be lossless, if it removes something?

They should have called it Bacon Sandwhich! I Love Bacon Sandwhiches!!

Ill go back to my main point...the format isnt the issue, if coverflow/album art didnt work at all for any wavs, id forget about it, but it does work for a majority of my collection AND i want to be able to add manually for those not found automatically...but for some reason i cant.

So lets forget about the format thing, if some wavs work fine, why don't others?

and thanks for a hearty discussion, the mix i was doing was driving me a bit crazy...

xx
Cx

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

Probably 75% of these files.....wait for it....wait for it....Have the Artwork with them, wonderfully and automatically downloaded by itunes AND transferred to my Ipod...with the .wav files.

!!Coverflow works on my ipod and in Itunes just like it should, and it does it with .wav files, except for some tracks, i cant manually add the art work!!.

If I'm not mistaken, when you tell iTunes to download the album art, it stores it separately from the music files. If you look in the folder where your iTunes library resides, you will see a sub folder called 'Album Artwork'. When you manually add artwork to a music file it embeds the art into the individual file. WAV files do not support embedded art. I think this explains your problem.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

Sorry quotes/replies out of order...not enuff sleep

Lol. Cos im a sound engineer. I really despise mp3's and the hideous sound quality these formats give. Im even dubious about the changes made when using the 44.1/16 bit wav encoder, but that could be in part due to the ipods a2d converters. im not going to use what my ears tell me is a lower quality version. Im not saying its not geeky and over the top, but thats how it is for me!

Nice, I was wondering. I'm a satellite communications guy and we used PCM decades ago...

[fadercraig]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

If I'm not mistaken, when you tell iTunes to download the album art, it stores it separately from the music files. If you look in the folder where your iTunes library resides, you will see a sub folder called 'Album Artwork'. When you manually add artwork to a music file it embeds the art into the individual file. WAV files do not support embedded art. I think this explains your problem.

Hmm, ok i think my brain can reach around to that idea...except...no wait..that still makes sense...

Ok, so if itunes can download the album art and put it in a separate folder, why cant it do the same process for a manual add? It still has some way of associating the artwork with the wav via the download, so yeah, why not manually?

But i do totally get where you are coming from.

And why selectively? My earlier example being The Gordons, i can see their album on itunes? why not cough up the artwork? That i guess could be a commercial consideration, which at least i comprehend.

Originally Posted by cgc 

Nice, I was wondering. I'm a satellite communications guy and we used PCM decades ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
Pulse-code modulation (PCM) is a digital representation of an analog signal where the magnitude of the signal is sampled regularly at uniform intervals, then quantized to a series of symbols in a numeric (usually binary) code. PCM has been used in digital telephone systems and 1980s-era electronic musical keyboards. It is also the standard form for digital audio in computers and the compact disc "red book" format. It is also standard in digital video, for example, using ITU-R BT.601. Uncompressed PCM is not typically used for video in standard definition consumer applications such as DVD or DVR because the bit rate required is far too high.

And to think, they almost went with 14 bit!

"F**K digital, analog is the way of the future"
Albini.

cool.
Cx

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

Hmm, ok i think my brain can reach around to that idea...except...no wait..that still makes sense...

Ok, so if itunes can download the album art and put it in a separate folder, why cant it do the same process for a manual add? It still has some way of associating the artwork with the wav via the download, so yeah, why not manually?

I don't quite understand either.

And why selectively? My earlier example being The Gordons, i can see their album on itunes? why not cough up the artwork? That i guess could be a commercial consideration, which at least i comprehend.

I have a handful of albums that suffer the same problem. I can view them in the iTunes store but it refuses to download the artwork. I've ensured that the spelling of the album, artist, and every single track is identical but no luck.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
Pulse-code modulation (PCM) is a digital representation of an analog signal where the magnitude of the signal is sampled regularly at uniform intervals, then quantized to a series of symbols in a numeric (usually binary) code. PCM has been used in digital telephone systems and 1980s-era electronic musical keyboards. It is also the standard form for digital audio in computers and the compact disc "red book" format. It is also standard in digital video, for example, using ITU-R BT.601. Uncompressed PCM is not typically used for video in standard definition consumer applications such as DVD or DVR because the bit rate required is far too high.

And to think, they almost went with 14 bit!

Thanks for the info but I used to teach satellite communications theory which included PAM/PCM along with emerging lossy A2D technologies ("emerging" as of 2000).

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

If the system works by removing frequencies i cant "literally" hear, it does still affect the frequencies i can hear.

Lossless compression does not remove any frequencies. What you can here or not, everything is preserved. That's why it's called lossless.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

If the system works by removing frequencies i cant "literally" hear, it does still affect the frequencies i can hear. In sound engineering, if you have a problem with a low freq say 100hz, you may also have an issue at 50hz or 200hz. They are octaves of each other...they all relate to and affect each other. When you remove a certain amount of 200hz from a sound, other frequencies are easier to hear, the entire sound is clearer. How can something be lossless, if it removes something?

As a sound engineer, you really ought to know what "bit-identical" means, and you certainly should be able to verify it by phase-inverting a signal.

We've been using file compression (zip, sit, tar, whatever) for DECADES without our databanks and textfiles losing every fifth character or so.

That's what "lossless" means.

Sorry if I sound a little testy, but you're just wrong.

For some reason it seems possible to remove redundancy withou affecting integrity.

[webraider]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

Sorry quotes/replies out of order...not enuff sleep
Lol. Cos im a sound engineer. I really despise mp3's and the hideous sound quality these formats give.

Then why don't you use AIFF? That's Completely Lossless. There is just minor differences between AIFF Files and WAV. The only difference is AIFF is append-able and WAV is not, at least on the Mac. It's hard for windows people to grasp this, but .AIFF is the Original CD file.. not WAV. Wav files were invented solely by Microsoft, CD files are REALLY .AIF Files. Windows chooses to import in to WAV as a lossless wav file. But not all .Wav files are Lossless. On a Mac, when you put a CD in and double click to to browse it.. notice they show up as .AIFF files and Not .WAV files. If you import it as .AIFF you will loose Nothing. It will be the same size as the .WAV file but you will get all the extra benefits of iTunes. Wanna put it back on a CD.. Just burn it and you will get Zero Quality Loss.

I know because I'm also a Sound Engineer. Also All major Audio programs import either AIFF and WAV. You may only have trouble playing an .AIFF file on Windows machines that predate Windows 7 UNLESS you have Quicktime/ iTunes installed.

Summary: On Windows .WAV = PCM Lossless. On Mac .AIFF = PCM Lossless. on Mac .WAV also = PCM Lossless but more limited due to Microsoft Licensing. .WAV is Microsoft Standard, .AIFF is open and embraced by Everyone else ( including Apple). If you import your audio as .AIFF.. you'll get your album artwork.

How to do this.. Use a CD-Rewritable.. Burn your .Wav files to the CD.. Then re-import them as .AIFF files. You can try just re-importing them without burning them but I don't know how that will result. In theory, it should have the same result and save time. You can tray it.

[fadercraig]

Ok folks, im a peace loving guy, i dont like starting arguments, but i do have opinions of my own, rightly or wrongly, and in no way am i the source of all knowledge but i will ultimately follow what my ears tell me.

cgc, That info was for the general hubub, i kinda figured you already knew what pcm was

TETENAL and Spheric Harlot, i cant buy into it being 'lossless', i just cant. If that makes me a bad human being so be it, Dont be testy, come have a beer! Theres bands playing at my local tonight, ill shout.

webraider, yip cd's aint wavs, and as i said, im kinda dubious about the .wavs anyway...however that could be the a2d's in the playback device. true, i could use aiff's i will accept that a a possible solution, so i owe you a drink as well.

Atheist. Thanks, you have avoided talking about the format, and basically you have a simialr issue, its the inconsistency.

I do appreciate everyones input, if someone knows why some wavs can have associated artwork and others cant, id love to read it.

bands at 8pm (local), $5 cover, address is 'The Royal' , Rangitikei St, Palmerston North, New Zealand, beers on me.

Cx

[TETENAL]

Can you buy that if you zip a wav and then unzip it again, it is the same file?

[AKcrab]

Why not compare Apple Lossless to an AIFF and decide for yourself if it's lossless? As an audio engineer I would assume you've got some kick ass equipment to give them both a fair listen.

[0157988944]

I don't understand why you don't trust Apple about the lossless thing, yet you're willing to let their iTunes software handle all your audio files, presumably on one of their computers which you trust with all your files...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

Ok folks, im a peace loving guy, i dont like starting arguments, but i do have opinions of my own, rightly or wrongly, and in no way am i the source of all knowledge but i will ultimately follow what my ears tell me.

cgc, That info was for the general hubub, i kinda figured you already knew what pcm was

TETENAL and Spheric Harlot, i cant buy into it being 'lossless', i just cant. If that makes me a bad human being so be it, Dont be testy, come have a beer! Theres bands playing at my local tonight, ill shout.

If your ears tell you there's an audible difference between an Apple Lossless file and a .WAV file, then I'd keep very, very quiet about that fact if you ever want to work as an audio engineer again.

Not buying into hype is certainly a laudable trait, especially in audio, but you don't need to "buy into" anything:

Verify it.

You have the tools to make sure exactly what's going on: load original .wav into track 1 of your preferred DAW. Load Apple Lossless into Track 2 and invert phase.

Sum at unity gain.

You will get an absolutely flat line.

There is NO mathematical difference between a "lossless" file and the original. Period.

Do your research before spouting plain misinformation, especially when you discount the solution to your posed query on the basis of that misinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_lossless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_c...io_compression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

Now, about that beer: I'll gladly take you up on it when (if) I'm ever down in NZ again (oh I wish).

[fadercraig]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If your ears tell you there's an audible difference between an Apple Lossless file and a .WAV file, then I'd keep very, very quiet about that fact if you ever want to work as an audio engineer again.

There is NO mathematical difference between a "lossless" file and the original. Period.

Do your research before spouting plain misinformation, especially when you discount the solution to your posed query on the basis of that misinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_lossless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_c...io_compression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

Now, about that beer: I'll gladly take you up on it when (if) I'm ever down in NZ again (oh I wish).

My favourite line is the one that mentions 'mathematical'. In my experience, note, in my experience, the maths does not always line up with the reality.

Now you have faithfully and completely proven me to be a maniacal lie spreader, on the verge of destroying the universe , can you explain to me why, some wavs can be associated with artwork, and some cant? which aside from my own personal bias, remains the issue at heart?

As for trusting the software or the machines, i have a backup of my files at home, im going to assume many of us do, in the studio we have 2 forms of archive (separate to the working files), trust with a healthy dose of scepticism.

The offer of beer, or drink of your choice, stands. Hell you should all come down, we have a pretty fine country here.

aiight
Cx

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

My favourite line is the one that mentions 'mathematical'. In my experience, note, in my experience, the maths does not always line up with the reality.

Very true, but the wonderful thing is that the maths always lines up perfectly with the maths.

This is how God made the digital side of things so easily verifiable.

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

Now you have faithfully and completely proven me to be a maniacal lie spreader, on the verge of destroying the universe

Your words, mate, your words.

I must say, though, that that's certainly a FAR more exciting self-characterization than I would have come up with, and certainly one we both can happily live with.

"I AM BITCRUSHER, DESTROYER OF WORLDS."

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

can you explain to me why, some wavs can be associated with artwork, and some cant? which aside from my own personal bias, remains the issue at heart?

I'm not sure, but I'd assume that the artwork that is transferred is the stuff that iTunes found automatically: That material isn't actually added to the files (which, as we've established, is impossible with .wav, as the file format makes no provisions for tagging incl. album art), but is cached and transferred onto the iPod from iTunes' caches.

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

As for trusting the software or the machines, i have a backup of my files at home, im going to assume many of us do, in the studio we have 2 forms of archive (separate to the working files), trust with a healthy dose of scepticism.

That's a given and has nothing to do with file-format specifications.

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

The offer of beer, or drink of your choice, stands. Hell you should all come down, we have a pretty fine country here.

Will do. I've been there - I don't need to tell you how fortunate you are, do I?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by webraider 

Then why don't you use AIFF? That's Completely Lossless. There is just minor differences between AIFF Files and WAV. The only difference is AIFF is append-able and WAV is not, at least on the Mac.

There's a couple of other differences as well, but yes, they're very minor.

Originally Posted by webraider 

It's hard for windows people to grasp this, but .AIFF is the Original CD file.. not WAV. Wav files were invented solely by Microsoft, CD files are REALLY .AIF Files. Windows chooses to import in to WAV as a lossless wav file. But not all .Wav files are Lossless. On a Mac, when you put a CD in and double click to to browse it.. notice they show up as .AIFF files and Not .WAV files. If you import it as .AIFF you will loose Nothing. It will be the same size as the .WAV file but you will get all the extra benefits of iTunes.

The "file format" on a CD is simple PCM audio stream.

It isn't converted to AIFF until you copy it to the Mac. (And actually, it's converted to AIFF-C/sowt - thanks to Wikipedia!)

AFAICT, the sound data streams in AIFF-C/sowt and WAV are identical, but the headers are different, so either is as true to the CD audio format as the other (except, of course, that the .wav file format can also contain a stupid hodgepodge of compressed/lossy encodings).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIFF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAV

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

can you explain to me why, some wavs can be associated with artwork, and some cant? which aside from my own personal bias, remains the issue at heart?

I tried once. I guess I'll try again. There are two ways that iTunes stores artwork.

1. Right-click on album and select Get Album Artwork or click the Automatically download missing album artwork option in the Store section of the iTunes preferences pane. This method results in the artwork being stored SEPARATELY from the media file.

2. Right-click one or more media files and select Get Info. Drag the album art to the Artwork box on the Info tab. This method results in the artwork being embedded in the media file.

As has been established many times in this thread, WAV files cannot have embedded art. Thus, the second method will not work.

A separate and unrelated issue is the fact that iTunes will sometimes refuse to download artwork for albums that are known to exist in the iTunes store. I've no clue why that happens and know of no workaround.

If you want album art for all your media, you will have to switch to another audio format.

[hwojtek]

Originally Posted by fadercraig 

im a sound engineer.(...)im not going to use what my ears tell me is a lower quality version.

You can tell the difference using an iPod as a source? Yeah, right.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by hwojtek 

You can tell the difference using an iPod as a source? Yeah, right.

You mean to say you can't?

Cotton ears, or just never tried in earnest?

128 kbps mp3 sounds abominably inferior on any of my iPods even when played through the ****ing car stereo - which is as far from high fidelity as you're likely to get.

320 is okay, but the difference to Lossless, especially in bass precision, is readily apparent on any above-mediocre sound system (this, I can't tell in the car).

Craig will probably be piping his through several-10-thousand-dollar PA systems (and several-hundred-dollar PA systems ) for sound checks, testing, and as house music before and after concerts.

Please don't open the "320 kbps is good enough for anybody" can of worms: It's well-established that there *is* a perceptible difference, and people involved with sound creation/reproduction are not at all unlikely to be in the top percentile that *does* care.

[cgc]

I understand why .wav is considered lossless (e.g. same format as what's on a CD), but in all reality it is lossy relative to the audio source. Can people really tell the difference between a .wav and a high bit-rate .aac or .mp3 file? I know I can't and the space savings is huge (please don't mention "hard drives are cheap" because there are other considerations to think about when dealing with 50MB audio files vs 4MB audio files). Or, are people concerned with degradation over time as the resample them from aac to the next big thing in the future and want to have the original .wav to work from? I'm curious why .wav is preferred.

[Spheric Harlot]

One, because the sound difference *is* audible, and two, because you're much more flexible for future use/formats if you keep the original soundfile around, as you suggest.

If you actually *work* with sound, the latter is a no-brainer.

[Spheric Harlot]

P.S.: ALL recordings are "lossy" relative to the original sound source.