I am helping a friend with a project. She recently started training as a fitness instructor. She needs to make a copy of a CD. However, the disk she is to make a copy of is not a real CD per se, it is a CDR that contains two files. One of them has an .aif extension (about 290MB). The other file is a small .xml file (2KB). It will not play in a regular CD player. The .aif file consists of eight music tracks, totaling 28 minutes. But it is only one file. Is it possible to create a CD with eight distinct tracks that can play on ANY CD player? If so, what software will I need (and are there freeware alternatives)? I am running Windows XP Home. Thanks in advance.
It is an audio file used by Apple and con be converted to an MP3 file. You can do it by following the tutorial in the links below.After you covert it to an MP3 then you can convert to an audio cd that will play in a CD player.I'm not sure maybe it will convert it to a regular music cd.I haven't used itunes in a long time and don't have it on my pc anymore. http://www.ehow.com/how_7285762_convert-aif-file-mp3-file.html
Someone must have have not been thinking to make a CD only itunes could play. I would use dbPowerAmp it is the finest converter. I would load up all the codexes the trial version used to still work after the trial period but you could not add any codexes. Burn the mp3s to disk with something like Media Monkey. I wouldn't bother cutting the tracks out until later. That will be work. Medieval Cuesplitter will chop the tracks but you will need to make a cue file to make it work. Maybe the track info you need is in the XML file or get the in for from freeDB. That will be a pain in the ass! There is info how to get both software at the top post/sticky.
They have free trial versions of software at Acoustica.com.I use them all the time.They have an Audio converter and Spin it Again that will split the tracks and convert them from an MP3 to a file you can play on a CD player.The CD burner program can also rip file from a CD. http://www.acoustica.com/spinitagain/index.htm http://www.acoustica.com/mp3-wav-converter/ http://www.acoustica.com/audio-converter/ http://www.acoustica.com/mp3-cd-burner/
I checked out Acoustica. The problem I see with that is they appear to use all in-house codexs. Codexs are not rocket science anymore however tweaking the code to remove all the artifacts is a monumental project. LAME vbr mp3 took years using a volunteer team of thousands to clean that up. That is the only truly clean variable compression codex on the market. Only important new codexes get lots of free help to clean them up. With dozens of products with a dozen codexes for each coming out each year, the users are the test team. There are both primary and secondary artifacts. Primary artifact are you hear things that are not in the original recording when you play the audio. Secondary artifacts only show up after the audio has been converted or edited in some fashion. Apples AAC was created by Fraunhofer, the company that created the mp3. After 15 years, AAC still has over 1,000 known artifacts. Apple doesn't fix them probably because the artifacts are above the range of their ear buds and most if not all computer speakers. They know their market and no audiophile would ever use itunes. The reason dbPowerAmp is the finest converter is you get a choice of dozens of the best codexes available. Both cost about the same. To me the choice is a no-brainer. The only area where I might use it is for capturing analog, vinyl & tape. You can do the same with audacity, then cut it using a cue cutter with cue info gotten from freedb. I am sure Acoustica gets its info from freedb. However, that is a good deal of work, especially if you are capturing more than a few.
Good info, thanks. I wound up using Audacity. I couldn't figure out how to split the file into eight segments. So I wound up MANUALLY creating eight .wav files! Then I used CDBurnerXP to create the CD. For my next project, I have the old Moody Blues album Days of Future Passed pressed from a master tape that has since been destroyed. The version on CD is actually a different mix that what is on the record. I have two .wav files (one of Side One and another of Side Two). I wonder what the best (and quickest) way to divided this up so the CD will have all the correct tracks. I just found this guide: http://manual.audacityteam.org/help/manual/man/splitting_a_recording_into_separate_tracks.html ... but I couldn't get it to work (maybe my version of Audacity is too old). Any ideas? Thanks!
If you use the Acoustica program spin it again. You just load the file and it will split the tracks automatically. you can edit the file after it split it to make sure the splits are in the right place.I have been using their software for 10 years now and it works pretty.I have used it to split 400 albums already. http://www.acoustica.com/spinitagain/index.htm
You can continue to use Audacity. That would be as good as any. I am fairly certain Acoustica will chop using the CD specs but you would need to research that. Maybe they do have a vinyl cue settings database. That would be very awesome! More likely they are using the free FreeDB database created from CDs. I personally would leave it alone. The Moody Blues albums are meant to be played as a side. I do not clean up my vinyl captures at all.
How did I "knock it", other than stating that it uses 'home grown' codex(s) which is a huge issue for me and I explained the reasoning behind it. It is VERY possible that I couldn't hear any artifact made by a poor codex but why should I take any chances? I would be embarrassed to give someone a tune and they hear some kind of screech that was above my range of hearing. Do you know that Acoustica uses high-grade codexes and just doesn't advertise them? Do you know how Acoustica makes the track cuts? By the way I still think it is a good idea to buy it if you are doing a lot of analog captures. I am all for having software doing the work. More CD versions have the same track info as the vinyl. In this instance the guy stated the tape was different than the CD. I feel it is my job to give a flip side to a statement if there is a reasonable one to make.
I wasn't trying to start an argument with anyone.I was just saying to try it and see what you think.You may be suprised.I mainly use it for converting my old cassettes and downloaded MP3 albums to CD's and splitting the tracks.Peace to all.
Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time and money. I have bought and paid for what I believe is the best ripper/converter on the market. I have solid reason for my belief I did the research a long time ago. I do trust that your product is a good one. Even if I did take the time to run extensive tests that would be a lose/lose situation. I am not nearly a good enough tester to qualify as an expert. As I said, I bet I couldn't even hear many of the artifacts created so I would have to run tests graphically. No I am way too lazy for that. I just believe what I believe to be expert organizations and trust them. I would be grateful if you could research Acoustica. Find out what6 kind of codexs it uses and see if any extensive tests were run on them. Find out where it gets its Cue data from. Then post it in the top post/sticky with links to your sources and email me when it is done and I will be certain to review that. I completely distrust reviews written by 'joe blow'. I have seen reviews where joe blow claims something has super base but the tech info provided information to the contrary. Either 'joe blow' was the king of morons or he was paid for the review. I also see in customer reviews where one thinks there is too much base another claims not enough. The average joe is not reliable. I am not calling you 'joe blow' or a moron. I just like to see some credentials before I believe a review hook line and sinker. I do trust you enough that I think it is a good product. I do not trust you enough to believe it is the best on the market. I hope you do not take offense to my frankness.
I'm pretty sure all of their products have a free trial versions for about 30 days.I don't take offense to what you or anyone else says.Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs.
Good and it would be great if you could do that research. As for me I already paid for one that I believe is the best ripper/converter. It doesn't do capture but then I captured my analog collection yrs ago and will not re-do it. I have no need for another utility.
