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 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?
Ah yes, another person bitten by the WAV bug. 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.

Your best option might be to go back to MediaMonkey and export all the files into a format that is mutual between MediaMonkey and iTunes. I would normally advise to use FLAC but iTunes doesn't make that easy. I'm not sure if iTunes and MediaMonkey have any lossless formats in common except for WAV (iTunes uses ALAC and AIFF, MediaMonkey uses FLAC), so it's possible you may need to use high-quality lossy formats (such as MP3).

Maybe someone else has some advise here?

Bottom line: DON'T USE WAV!

WAV files do have some problems.

iTunes can’t organize tracks if it does not see the track ID tags which get embedded into them during the encoding. – ripping process. The ripping software has that info only fo wAVs

Usually WAVs are temp files. Uncompressed tracks used to produce albums songs etc. into other more manageable file formats. The main reason for this is the WAV or wAVE formats do not retain or have embedded into them any meta data . Such as title info, track #, album art work, album release date, etc.

All of that info for those formats resides in the data base of the software you originally chose to rip them into WAVE or wAVs. Not in the tracks themselves . So long as you keep using the database of the orig ripper, you’re ok

But if you start moving them onto some other pc, or drive, the new media player then has none of the orig track and title info available to it as it remains in the previous media players database only.

This is why folks choose to use FLAC, AIFF, WAV PAK, or even apple Lossless (ALAC/M4A), or if going the compressed route, aAC or AAC protected as with older iTunes downloads (m4p), or merely MP3s.

There are marginal sonic diffs from wAV to these other lossless formats but the metadata stays with the tracks, normally regardless the media player you use to replay them with in the future. Metadata is increasingly a quite sought after aspect of musical enjoyment, and a must for continuedd cataloging or archiving.

Maybe your orig media player.. the one you used to rip all those WAV files with can convert them into FLAC, AIFF, Wav Pack, or Appl;e Lossless thereby adding the track info within it’s database into the new file which will contain and keep that info into each track.

Past that it’s going to have to be done all by hand typing in each track, album, artist.. etc. and if you do not convert at some point to file types which maintain the albums pertinent info you can count on doing the renaming process again at some point by hand.

Of course there might be some new whiz bang software out there will do it all for you. Good luck with that.
There's nothing wrong with .WAV files if you're not going to use iTunes. If I had all those files I'd ditch the Mac Mini save myself some work. Windoze or Linux can pop PCM out a USB port.

I have to disagree about "nothing wrong with wav files" and it has nothing to do with iTunes. His problem has everything to do with wav files.

If you organize your library with categories like genre or any other criteria or if you attach album art work, it will all be lost if you transfer it to another player. It will also be lost if the library file on the player you are using gets corrupted. Using a file format you can tag means it stays with the song, not in a separate file that can get corrupted or is incompatible with a new player.

I've taken the time to categorize and add high resolution art work to about 5,000 albums. I would hate to have to do it again.


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.

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.

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.

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?

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, I wouldn't call it an argument, it is a discussion. That's what these forums are for. I found it curious you would state that if one needed tags something was "wrong" and spoke to it.

I agree iTunes alone is not the best choice for playback on the main system, but it is a very good program for organizing a library. When you use iTunes for the library functions and Pure Music for playback it is a very fine way to do things. Sounds wonderful and very easy to get to what you want to play. It is also very easy to share the library with other systems in the house. I have a portable system I can take out on the screen porch or the garage and stream music to it wirelessly all controlled by an iPad and ITunes. Very convenient.

Do you work at USS ?
Agree with Larry_s: iTunes is a great way to organize a library and Pure Music, for the relatively inexpensive cost, is a great sonic upgrade. My library is AIFF all the way. Like so many other posts, this comes down to personal preference. If you like WAV files and are content with the data application so be it. I like the versatility of iTunes and the enhanced sound quality of Pure Music. Isn't PC based music great? So many options!
OOPS! Sorry Larry-s - meant to say I agree with Herman!
Yes, Herman, argument wasn't the best choice but I was in a hurry. It just shows a major flaw in internet discussion vs face to face. Something that would be over in seconds takes days. :)

I do use iTunes to manage stuff for my iPod, but it's too much of a beast for my netbook front end in my system.

There’s nothing wrong with the file size being less than that of WAV or WAVE file sizes in fact nearly every other format, AIFF, ALAC, FLAC, or WAVE pack, will reduce the file size a bit. Some more than others. With FLAC, you can actually choose the reduction algorythym by levels or steps. You can wind up with a quite small FLAC file that is entirely lossless!

Regardless, if the file you choose is a lossless type. Every item in the song or track will be exactly as represented by the orig WAV file. No compression or ommissions occur as with Mp3, or AAC OGG Vorbis, etc.

Whatever the media player or confusre applies in it’s view of the folder tree too is not a big deal. One of my pcs the Vista, I think, calls M4A (apple lossless) as M4P. My XP machines do a better more consistent job revealing the file extensions as they should be . But so what? File extensions are the least thinhg to worry about right now.

The hard drive acreage has plummeted as quickly as has actual real estate. So using file types that eat up significant gulps of HD disc space is of less consequence now. So, for the uninitiated, or inflexible the WAV format affords a fine sonic presentation but that particular type of file has meta data issues once you start tossing them from one pc to another, or onto a NAS and then into some other even if you adore random play 100% of the time!

There will come a time when you will want to demo a certain cut for someone, or yourself. Wanna sit around and wait till it comes up if you have thousands of albums on file? Of course not.

Especially if you have thousands of discs on the drive you need manageability. Seeking and searching functionality. If for no reason than when you go shopping, to know you already have that Lp on hand! I’ve bought and rebought the same disc a couple times perusing CDs in a record store! Online, I have no such problems. I just peek at my library by a quick search to see if it’s already on hand, in part or completely and what format.

There are third party apps which can use online data bases to tag untagged files . BUT it is a user intensive app you gotta select the album at least, and ordinarily you begin by inputing the album info, then telling them/it to seek/search for the info iTunes will allow for this too. But man! A couple thousand CDs is gonna take a while. So get started. These 3rd party apps also cost $$$. And usually require the file to be one supporting tagging!

OR as I said initially use your orig media player that ripped the files into some new format which contains ID Tags, and MetaData. Just see what formats Monkey supports and pick a lossless sort, and let the software convert them . But do get one more drive close to the 1TB size you are converting from unless that drive is like a 2TB drive and has plenty of space for this conversion effort. Then get to converting!

You’ll wind up initially with some redundancy naturally, but then you can simply delete those unwanted ones as you go.

You may also wish to experiment along the way and do a bit of A/B – ing, of the new file type vs your existing WAVs.

Some media players like some sorts over some others. FUBAR for instance likes FLAC more so than AIF IMHO..

Your no brainer pick if iTunes will be the media player should be AIF. Or AIFF. Or Apple Lossless ALAC (M4a). Most other media players support all the file types iTunes does, and MORE!

But if Amara or another iTunes dependant player is ahead for you, stick to the Apple OEM files as stated above in my post. BTW... do your A/Bing, the day after the conversion process is accomplished. somehow, things sound more honest after a little while of residing on the disc, and a shut down and start up. It's wierd but I've noticed this time and time again.

Good luck.
I had my whole library as WAV setup like this:


First I used dBpoweramp to batch convert them to ALAC (as a copy) preserving the directory structure.

Second I used Mp3tag to derive tags from the directory structure in batches.

Now I have an ALAC library with tags.

Also if you have album art stored as a jpeg in the album folder, you can use mp3tag to add the album art.


Nice! How many files at once will or did you enable power amp to convert for you? Same with applying ID3 TAGS?
Wloeb, that's nice you were able to do that, but what about classifying the genres of music in your collection? How did you handle compilations or soundtracks? Also, the year of the disc publication, composer, conductor, etc wouldn't be there.

I just really feel that people should be discouraged from using WAV files. My FLAC files can be queried for music by a particular composer, or I can get all 80's music, or even pieces by a particular violinist. I do this all with my squeezeboxes, and none of this was possible when I was using WAV files around 10 years ago.

I had sub-directories for jazz, classical pop ect. I batch converted one genre at a time. Then, with mp3 tag, you can select all and change the genre. So just sort your wav's into genres. I didn't tag the year. Various artists can be tags as various or done manually. Adding the album art took the longest.

One word of warning: Avoid very long file names, especially for classical as window has a limit on path length and you might have problems doing batch conversion and batch file tagging if the name is too long.

I agree, Wav files should be discouraged. I thought it was a good idea to rip to wavs a few years ago because itunes didn't support FLAC and ALAC wasn't handled natively on the squeezebox 3 at the time.

Now I would reccomend FLAC or ALAC, just pick one, dBpoweramp can always batch convert from one to the other.