Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What is the best way to import music as FLACs from CDs on Mac?
- Thread starter levmc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
xld may work for you.
https://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html
Personally, I rip to Apple lossless using itunes, but xld appears to have a built in ripper. (I have other schemes to rip SACDs.)
https://tmkk.undo.jp/xld/index_e.html
Personally, I rip to Apple lossless using itunes, but xld appears to have a built in ripper. (I have other schemes to rip SACDs.)
I searched dBpoweramp and I see that it's about $40 for single user, and $70 for family pack (install on 5 Macs).
Is there a free program that is as good as this one for Windows?
(Just wondering if it's the Mac that requires buying stuff and if free options are available on Windows).
Also if you want to rip it as ALAC first, but want to convert it to uncompressed FLAC later on, is that possible?
Is there a free program that is as good as this one for Windows?
(Just wondering if it's the Mac that requires buying stuff and if free options are available on Windows).
Also if you want to rip it as ALAC first, but want to convert it to uncompressed FLAC later on, is that possible?
Last edited:
You can rip to both formats simultaneously. But yeah, it is a piece of cake to convert later.
[automerge]1593021305[/automerge]
Free program for Windows would be Exact Audio Copy. Hard to set up, nowhere near as fast as dBpoweramp, nowhere near as polished and functional. Also XLD is free for the Mac, but I found it lacking.
[automerge]1593021305[/automerge]
Free program for Windows would be Exact Audio Copy. Hard to set up, nowhere near as fast as dBpoweramp, nowhere near as polished and functional. Also XLD is free for the Mac, but I found it lacking.
I just tried dBpoweramp, and the first time I did it it showed everything as inaccurate. So I changed the setting to "secure" which fixes inaccuracies but makes the burning slower. And this time it got stuck on the first track, saying "Re-Rip [37433 frames]" for Rip Status.
I just noticed that the number goes down only 1 or 2 frames each few minutes. When I did the math it might take a whole month non-stop to burn a single track in the CD.
On dBpoweramp forum I read:
"My experience has been that most external drives are not very good. Besides accuracy problems, most are slow. When ripping to my laptop, I use an "internal" drive with an external SATA power supply and a SATA to USB converter. Works well."
I'm using a Pioneer drive. Does that writer mean that you can make external drive operate like an internal drive if you add an external power supply?
I just noticed that the number goes down only 1 or 2 frames each few minutes. When I did the math it might take a whole month non-stop to burn a single track in the CD.
On dBpoweramp forum I read:
"My experience has been that most external drives are not very good. Besides accuracy problems, most are slow. When ripping to my laptop, I use an "internal" drive with an external SATA power supply and a SATA to USB converter. Works well."
I'm using a Pioneer drive. Does that writer mean that you can make external drive operate like an internal drive if you add an external power supply?
I use an external Pioneer drive as well, however it is connected via USB-C, so power delivery has not been a problem.
It is this one:
www.pioneerelectronics.com
However, I recommend this one:
www.pioneerelectronics.com
I am not sure what is causing the issue you are having.
It is this one:
BDR-XS07UHD
The BDR-XS07UHD slim slot portable USB 3.1 Gen1(3.0) BD/DVD/CD burner is the next generation Blu-ray Disc burner from Pioneer. The drive supports 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray playback using CyberLink software. The BDR-XS07UHD has a smooth slot loading mechanism that both dependable dustproof and...
www.pioneerelectronics.com
However, I recommend this one:
Car Audio, Speakers, Subs & Amps | Pioneer Electronics USA
www.pioneerelectronics.com
I am not sure what is causing the issue you are having.
Last edited:
You are not required to buy anything. ALAC is built-in for free. FLAC is a pain to use on a Mac, so why would you bother?
If the audio bitrate of the FLAC and ALAC files is the same, then the quality should also be the same. I use ALAC files as to my ears they are excellent and are smaller than uncompressed files. The only way I can see ALAC files sounding inferior is if small timing errors were introduced during the decompression phase as the music was being played.
When I search ALAC and FLAC this is what I get:
"FLAC does edge out ALAC regarding sound quality. ALAC is 16-bit and FLAC is 24-bit encoding, and FLAC has a higher sampling rate. ALAC compares to CD quality, which is much better than most of your digital files. FLAC is closer to studio masters, according to the Society of Sound"
"FLAC does edge out ALAC regarding sound quality. ALAC is 16-bit and FLAC is 24-bit encoding, and FLAC has a higher sampling rate. ALAC compares to CD quality, which is much better than most of your digital files. FLAC is closer to studio masters, according to the Society of Sound"
This is quite correct. I have a fairly high end HiFi and to my ears, I can’t tell the difference between CD quality and higher bitrate recordings. Sure, I expect there are some people who can, but for most people and music systems ALAC will be sufficient.
Many, many years back, I ripped my music to 128Kbps MP3 files to save space and soon regretted the lack of sound quality. The difference between FLAC and ALAC will be either inaudible or tiny depending on your ears and system. I would encourage you to experiment and see for yourself. There’s no right or wrong answer to this one, just personal choice.
Many, many years back, I ripped my music to 128Kbps MP3 files to save space and soon regretted the lack of sound quality. The difference between FLAC and ALAC will be either inaudible or tiny depending on your ears and system. I would encourage you to experiment and see for yourself. There’s no right or wrong answer to this one, just personal choice.
CDs are 16 bit-- converting them to a 24 bit format doesn't gain you anything.
But, here is a hires audio file, converted from the dsf using TASCAM Hi Res Editor, and then converted to Apple Lossless in iTunes.
It's just for demonstration purposes, so I haven't filled in the album title, etc.
The Spectrum of the "losslesss file"
and the spectrum of the original.
(Cursor and Peak depend on the position of mouse cursor).
This tells me that the power spectrum is identical (at least by eye), and the apple lossless converter isn't applying some sort of low pass filter. My ears aren't good enough to discern a difference, and I'm not an audio engineer.
It's just for demonstration purposes, so I haven't filled in the album title, etc.
The Spectrum of the "losslesss file"
and the spectrum of the original.
(Cursor and Peak depend on the position of mouse cursor).
This tells me that the power spectrum is identical (at least by eye), and the apple lossless converter isn't applying some sort of low pass filter. My ears aren't good enough to discern a difference, and I'm not an audio engineer.
Nonsense. I rip CD's to ALAC with no problem using multiple external USB drives. None were "slow", other than being limited to the read speed of the drive (1x, 2x, 4x, etc.).
Different levels of lossless? Lossless is lossless. Infinity is Infinity, despite Toy Story's "To Infinity and Beyond!". Only conversion might be if you want to convert lossless it to lossy.
What geniuses. First, this thread is about importing music from CDs. The music is 16 bit, 44.1KHz. Using 24-bit encoding is just a waste of space, and using a different sample rate means the music is resampled (quality loss) before encoding.
Second, ALAC supports higher bit rates.
Honestly, that advice is nonsense. You can't magically make 16 bit audio become 24 bit. ALAC and FLAC are both lossless formats and when ripping from a standard audio cd this will ALWAYS be 16 bit 44.1KHz. And how can you get a higher sampling rate from a 44.1KHz source? My music library is a mix of both ALAC and FLAC (depending on when I ripped it) and they are essentially exactly the same thing.
Do you mean that not only 24 wouldn't make it better since the CD is made in 16, it would actually make it worse because of having to convert to 24?
I'm not 100% I follow sorry - but you cannot create 24bit content from a 16bit source. Anything you rip from a CD to a lossless format will be 16bit whether that is ALAC or FLAC. The line in that 'Society of Sound' thing around FLAC being 24bit just doest make any sense. It's only 24bit if the source is. ALAC files can be 24bit.
If you're happy using iTunes and/or only use Apple products, I would just rip them as Apple Lossless. FLAC will gain you nothing here and you can always convert from ALAC to FLAC in future if you absolutely need to.
There were a bunch of weird schemes for putting hires music onto a CD--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Compatible_Digital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated
as well as things that look like a CD, but aren't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
Each of those extensions could theoretically take advantage of the higher bitrate/higher sample rate-- but if your ripping process produces a 16 bit 44.1 Khz stereo waveform, that's what FLAC or ALAC will faithfully reproduce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Compatible_Digital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Quality_Authenticated
as well as things that look like a CD, but aren't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
Each of those extensions could theoretically take advantage of the higher bitrate/higher sample rate-- but if your ripping process produces a 16 bit 44.1 Khz stereo waveform, that's what FLAC or ALAC will faithfully reproduce.