[Krutsch]

FLAC 24/96 stereo download with 2 bonus tracks

https://www.burningshed.com/store/stevenwilson/product/144/6495/

I went with the BD version... I like the little slideshow that plays through the album. I was wondering if these were real photos from the story of Joyce Vincent, but Wikipedia shows otherwise. Still, heartbreaking story and interesting album concept.

 

[Rob Stewart]

   
There was zero information on that page, just marketing fluff.
 
 

 
Greetings, thank you for your feedback. I agree with you, I could have put more details in the top section for the consumer market. Most of the article is intended to help those looking to publish on iTunes, but, I have made a few updates to improve the content. As others have mentioned in this thread, there is a separate quality control stage for Mastered for iTunes. The primary goal with MFiT mastering is to leave enough room for the AAC encoder to do its job accurately and arrive at an AAC version that is as close as possible to the original source. 
 
I hope this helps. Thanks again!
Rob Stewart

 

[bigshot]

Leaving enough room for the AAC encoder just means lowering the overall volume level a touch. AAC encoders tend to bump up the volume slightly and that can push a track normalized up to 100% into clipping.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
Greetings, thank you for your feedback. I agree with you, I could have put more details in the top section for the consumer market. Most of the article is intended to help those looking to publish on iTunes, but, I have made a few updates to improve the content. As others have mentioned in this thread, there is a separate quality control stage for Mastered for iTunes. The primary goal with MFiT mastering is to leave enough room for the AAC encoder to do its job accurately and arrive at an AAC version that is as close as possible to the original source. 
 
I hope this helps. Thanks again!
Rob Stewart

 
I don't get the point of having to master something specifically for iTune's AAC.  I have inexpensive software that can convert a CD or a high resolution file into AAC and it remains transparent.  Other than making sure the lossy version does not clip, there isn't any reason to use a slightly different EQ, reduce the loudness of only the peaks, or use some alternate dynamic processing that might change the sound characteristics. 
 
Conspiracy theories aside, I'm concerned that mastering engineers will offer separate versions of their work when this is completely unnecessary.  I don't want a library of music available in high resolution that is slightly different than what is offered on iTunes or any other format that is currently used for any of the streaming music services.  
 
Tidal music service already appears to behave in this manner.  I can hear a difference between a Tidal FLAC and a Tidal AAC 320 song; however, if I own the CD and rip this file to both FLAC and AAC 320, I can't hear a difference between the Tidal FLAC, my FLAC, or my AAC 320.  

 

[castleofargh]

aren't the different masters just a way to lower the rights they have to pay to a studio by mastering the track themselves? the artist in many situations got money in advance to make an album, and most of the money made after release goes to the the guys who advertised for the album and own the rights (or am I wrong about all this?)
so I would imagine a famous band recording in a very famous studio, mastered by a famous guy. if you remaster the original tape, you avoid the right for the mastering and save money maybe? or simply make a new version so the legal rights for the song are reconducted for X many years?
anyway as you see my imagination goes with money, never with sound quality.

 

[jcx]

Recording Studio and final production release Mastering are often completely different hired companies today - the people paying them are the ones that own the copyrights, get to tell the Mastering engineers how much dynamic compression to use  

 

[Greenears]

   
Greetings, thank you for your feedback. I agree with you, I could have put more details in the top section for the consumer market. Most of the article is intended to help those looking to publish on iTunes, but, I have made a few updates to improve the content. As others have mentioned in this thread, there is a separate quality control stage for Mastered for iTunes. The primary goal with MFiT mastering is to leave enough room for the AAC encoder to do its job accurately and arrive at an AAC version that is as close as possible to the original source. 
 
I hope this helps. Thanks again!
Rob Stewart

 
Reading between the lines of this non-statement statement you don't list your secondary or tertiary goals, or give any technical information.
 
So the average reasonably technically savvy reader of this long and winding thread might instead conclude that what is really going on is that rights holders are adding a bit of bass EQ and dynamic range compression to make tracks on iTunes "hotter" since they know most listeners are on earbuds or low quality speakers.  Same thing has been done on radio for years.  So MFiT means you are trying to dial that back so that the AAC encoder doesn't clip.
 
We can conclude this because hundreds of people on this forum have shown that any garden variety AAC256 encoder is capable of generating a file that is nigh on impossible to distinguish from the original CD in a blind ABX listening test.  So really MFiT is not needed for the reason you describe, unless the "original source" is not actually the same as the "original CD". 
 
You could easily refute my supposition in one clear sentence, but you won't....

 

[bigshot]

Stuff gets remastered worse and worse because some hairbrained exec listens to a CD in his crappy car stereo on the freeway with the windows open and decides it needs more "oomph" and more "in your face". They send the tracks to a mastering engineer who shrugs his shoulders and adds another layer of compression on top of the four other times it's been sent down because it needed more "oomph" and more "in your face".
 
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by the stupidity of execs.

 

[Rob Stewart]

You could easily refute my supposition in one clear sentence, but you won't....

You are correct. I won't. I am not here to argue.

Cheers to you.

Rob Stewart

 

[limpidglitch]

   
Reading between the lines of this non-statement statement you don't list your secondary or tertiary goals, or give any technical information.
 
So the average reasonably technically savvy reader of this long and winding thread might instead conclude that what is really going on is that rights holders are adding a bit of bass EQ and dynamic range compression to make tracks on iTunes "hotter" since they know most listeners are on earbuds or low quality speakers.  Same thing has been done on radio for years.  So MFiT means you are trying to dial that back so that the AAC encoder doesn't clip.
 
We can conclude this because hundreds of people on this forum have shown that any garden variety AAC256 encoder is capable of generating a file that is nigh on impossible to distinguish from the original CD in a blind ABX listening test.  So really MFiT is not needed for the reason you describe, unless the "original source" is not actually the same as the "original CD". 
 
You could easily refute my supposition in one clear sentence, but you won't....

 
I don't know who this mr. Stewart is, but there seems to be some confusion as to what 'Mastered for iTunes' actually is.
 
It is a purely technical requirement set by Apple, and is made out of two parts.
One: the file sent to Apple should be of the highest resolution possible. If you have a 24/96 master, send that, and don't down-sample it.
Two: That file shall have its levels set so that it won't clip as it is converted to AAC. This includes inter sample clipping.

That is all. Really simple, I can't understand that this hasn't been done all along.
 
They've also made a little software package to help in the process, and it works very well. The RoundTripAAC AU plug-in even has a simple ABX tester included.
 

 
 
As you can see from the screen grab, it is clipping rather badly, even though the source file peaks at -0.3dBFS. I eventually had to attenuate it 3dB to make it come through clean. I also converted that lossless (CD) file to AAC 256 cvbr, with no attenuation, using iTunes, and the number of clipped samples matched what the plug-in predicted.
This phenomenon of lossy compression leading to clipping isn't a new thing, and isn't restricted to AAC. When I converted that same file to LAME V1, it ended up even worse. Lastly I checked the iTunes Store version of the same song (The Trip by Still Corners, in case someone wondered), and lo and behold, no clipping! Seems like the system works.
 
(other than this minor difference in amplitude, and of course some (inaudible) artefacts, the two commercial releases seems to be identical, as they should be)

 

[dprimary]

  aren't the different masters just a way to lower the rights they have to pay to a studio by mastering the track themselves? the artist in many situations got money in advance to make an album, and most of the money made after release goes to the the guys who advertised for the album and own the rights (or am I wrong about all this?)
so I would imagine a famous band recording in a very famous studio, mastered by a famous guy. if you remaster the original tape, you avoid the right for the mastering and save money maybe? or simply make a new version so the legal rights for the song are reconducted for X many years?
anyway as you see my imagination goes with money, never with sound quality.

Remastering will not revert the rights back to the artist. Releasing "enhanced versions"  is how movie studios extend copyright beyond the already ridiculously long copyright terms we already have. The record companies are doing the same thing.

 

[lamode]

  The primary goal with MFiT mastering is to leave enough room for the AAC encoder to do its job accurately and arrive at an AAC version that is as close as possible to the original source. 

 
This doesn't seem to require a different master at all, but a simple attenuation as part of the conversion (in the event of inter-sample clipping).

 

[castleofargh]

 

  The primary goal with MFiT mastering is to leave enough room for the AAC encoder to do its job accurately and arrive at an AAC version that is as close as possible to the original source. 

 
This doesn't seem to require a different master at all, but a simple attenuation as part of the conversion (in the event of inter-sample clipping).

yeah but "reencoded quieter to avoid conversion clipping"  feels like quality loss. when "remastered" makes the eyes shine ^_^.

oh blessed sarcasm, only you can make me smile in those sad moments.

 

[limpidglitch]

   
This doesn't seem to require a different master at all, but a simple attenuation as part of the conversion (in the event of inter-sample clipping).

 
Technically that would be a new master. It's not all about EQ and compression, you know.
Of course you could send that same attenuated file to the CD plant, but that wouldn't normally fly with the interests of maximum loudness. So two masters are made, only differing by a few dB.

 

[lamode]

   
Technically that would be a new master. It's not all about EQ and compression, you know.
Of course you could send that same attenuated file to the CD plant, but that wouldn't normally fly with the interests of maximum loudness. So two masters are made, only differing by a few dB.

 
The louder master should never have been made either, so you are not comparing apples with apples. A properly mastered 16/44 will convert just fine to AAC. Any "mastered for iTunes" label is nothing more than marketing nonsense.