[Tooros]

This is only for itunes store though right? If streaming via apple music - it's just default?

 

[stonesfan129]

This is only for itunes store though right? If streaming via apple music - it's just default?

Apple Music uses the same tracks that are sold on the iTunes Store. They changed the tagging to "Apple Digital Masters," but it's the same thing as Mastered For iTunes.

 

[Tooros]

Apple Music uses the same tracks that are sold on the iTunes Store. They changed the tagging to "Apple Digital Masters," but it's the same thing as Mastered For iTunes.

If you look at the above album in Apple Music there is not ‘logo’ anywhere or comment in song info. If you click ‘open in iTunes store’ it has the logo. Not sure if the source is the same of course.

 

[MrPanda]

Oh ok. lol That's what I thought too, but then I realized that was luckybaer who was talking about it, not you.

Yeah I was saying that too about the CDs, but then Darwin mentioned that his wife listened to classical music. That I could see being more of a hassle to acquire. But the good news is there's a TON of Hi-Res available for classical music, even more so than commercial IMO.

All good points, but the downside is how much room you need to store them, esp if you have a lot of them like I kinda do. Plus I like Google Drive b/c you can store them there and when you need them they're ready to go. No need to spend time ripping each CD to digital to play on your phone. That's why I've been ripping my CD collection as well in recent times.

Yes, convenience is a major factor.

Presto Classical and eClassical are both fantastic for downloads - very recommended

 

[RockStar2005]

This is only for itunes store though right? If streaming via apple music - it's just default?

Yeah I think so. I only use iTunes Store because they sell Hi-Res tracks for HALF the price of EVERYONE else b/c the files are sold in AAC format vs. FLAC. But since I've determined there is absolutely NO audible difference between the two (per my own experience and research), I see no reason to pay double for the same Hi-Res song/album. In some rare cases if they don't have a song/album, I may refer to 7digital, HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds, etc. But I spent like 3 years overpaying for those albums, so no more. lol

If you're on Apple Music and you see the "Apple Digital Master" logo, please let us know Tooros. Thanks!

Here is the updated "Mastered for iTunes/Apple Digital Master" page. (FYI)

 

[RockStar2005]

Apple Music uses the same tracks that are sold on the iTunes Store. They changed the tagging to "Apple Digital Masters," but it's the same thing as Mastered For iTunes.

Oh ok. Thanks for that updated info stonesfan!!

Then ok I guess streamers can enjoy ADM as well!

 

[RockStar2005]

If you look at the above album in Apple Music there is not ‘logo’ anywhere or comment in song info. If you click ‘open in iTunes store’ it has the logo. Not sure if the source is the same of course.

Hmm..........I dunno. lol Stonesfan do you have any solid proof that Apple Music is utilizing the same Hi-Res masters as iTunes Store?

 

[katulu]

All I know is, I got a HiRes version of Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction on HDtracks and the damn thing CLIPS RIGHT THERE IN THE INTRO DRUM FILL, FIRST SONG. No more "Hi-Res" for me, thanks, I got CDs and a MScaler+DAVE now...

 

[RockStar2005]

All I know is, I got a HiRes version of Megadeth - Countdown to Extinction on HDtracks and the damn thing CLIPS RIGHT THERE IN THE INTRO DRUM FILL, FIRST SONG. No more "Hi-Res" for me, thanks, I got CDs and a MScaler+DAVE now...

That was just a bad copy. I've gotten CD-quality songs that had the same issue too. It's all random, and shouldn't be seen as an indication that Hi-Res albums AREN'T worth pursuing after. I've had many album comparisons b/t the two where the Hi-Res one was clearly better. This is only REALLY because when studios put out Hi-Res albums, they utilize the BEST sounding masters for those releases. So the only way to obtain them is to buy the Hi-Res ones, when available.

 

[katulu]

That was just a bad copy. I've gotten CD-quality songs that had the same issue too. It's all random, and shouldn't be seen as an indication that Hi-Res albums AREN'T worth pursuing after. I've had many album comparisons b/t the two where the Hi-Res one was clearly better. This is only REALLY because when studios put out Hi-Res albums, they utilize the BEST sounding masters for those releases. So the only way to obtain them is to buy the Hi-Res ones, when available.

Eh, not really. I'm not going to go into the whole Goldwave graph thing, it is apparent enough and I know that album quite well to know the difference.

I've read in this very forum and elsewhere, some of those hi-res masters are trash, many like that Megadeth album are just the result of trying to go "loudness wars" on the remaster. I don't doubt there may be hi-res masters better than a CD, but I'm not really interested unless the CD sucks - and DEFINITELY not for records I previously heard and know, since I am highly likely to prefer the version I know than a "better" sounding version - sounding "right" (as I previously knew it) will take precedence over "better". And as I mentioned, I now have an upscaler, moot point...

 

[RockStar2005]

Eh, not really. I'm not going to go into the whole Goldwave graph thing, it is apparent enough and I know that album quite well to know the difference.

I've read in this very forum and elsewhere, some of those hi-res masters are trash, many like that Megadeth album are just the result of trying to go "loudness wars" on the remaster. I don't doubt there may be hi-res masters better than a CD, but I'm not really interested unless the CD sucks - and DEFINITELY not for records I previously heard and know, since I am highly likely to prefer the version I know than a "better" sounding version - sounding "right" (as I previously knew it) will take precedence over "better". And as I mentioned, I now have an upscaler, moot point...

I've bought and compared enough Hi-Res albums to the CD version or mp3 to confidently say the vast majority do sound better. It's not something you can really measure, but when I can hear things in the songs that I couldn't before, that isn't something I can ignore, including extra clarity, a wider soundstage, and so forth.

That is true..........I've def had some bad experiences with Hi-Res purchases, but it's so minimal to me vs. all the pluses that come with buying them, that it's essentially irrelevant.

I mean, that's the thing.............the version I know may already sound really good. That actually is the case most of the time. But why would you prefer that over something that gives you even more insight (and quality) into the same song/album?

 

[Sterling2]

Whoa, what happened today? I got a notice from iTunes of an update. I updated, then began streaming "New Music" which was presented to me today from Apple Music. WOW! Either someone cleaned out my ears while I was earlier sleeping or my iTunes stream just got better. Maybe its just my imagination; but, I'm wondering if any here noticed anything peculiar about their iTunes stream today?

 

[visanj]

I was going through Apple Digital Masters pdf file

https://www.apple.com/itunes/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf

and I can see this

"Our encoders then use every bit of resolution available, preserving all the dynamic range of the 24-bit source file and eliminating the need for adding dither. The advantage of this is twofold. Not only does it obviate the need of adding dither noise, it also lets the encoders work more efficiently as they don’t need to waste resources encoding this unwanted and unnecessary noise."

Does it mean Apple AAC encoder doesn't use Dither?

 

[RockStar2005]

I was going through Apple Digital Masters pdf file

https://www.apple.com/itunes/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf

and I can see this

"Our encoders then use every bit of resolution available, preserving all the dynamic range of the 24-bit source file and eliminating the need for adding dither. The advantage of this is twofold. Not only does it obviate the need of adding dither noise, it also lets the encoders work more efficiently as they don’t need to waste resources encoding this unwanted and unnecessary noise."

Does it mean Apple AAC encoder doesn't use Dither?

Good question.

Well given that they mention obviating (or removing) the need to ADD Dither, I'm going to say yes, they DO NOT use Dither.

 

[castleofargh]

I was going through Apple Digital Masters pdf file

https://www.apple.com/itunes/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf

and I can see this

"Our encoders then use every bit of resolution available, preserving all the dynamic range of the 24-bit source file and eliminating the need for adding dither. The advantage of this is twofold. Not only does it obviate the need of adding dither noise, it also lets the encoders work more efficiently as they don’t need to waste resources encoding this unwanted and unnecessary noise."

Does it mean Apple AAC encoder doesn't use Dither?

the part you quote simply talks about the masters themselves, as done by apple or as they want them delivered to Apple by professionals. which is 24bit PCM at whatever sample rate they get. this has nothing to do with the final AAC delivery for consumers.
the final AAC 256kbps tracks are typical lossy format. we can't talk in term of number of bits because it's not a PCM format, and the very concept of bit depth has no meaning for that type of encoding. but to give an idea, if something at -60dB in the track is estimated inaudible in the encoder's psychoacoustic model, poof! it's gone from the file to save some space. that's the lossy encoder's job and AAC does that well.