Mastered for iTunes

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by elpablo, Feb 23, 2012.
Page 1 of 2
  1. ElPablo
  2. bowei006 Contributor
    Thanks for the read! wow
    i just wrote a review on the pl11's too :D it's
    give it a look if you want. u dont' meet too many owners of soundmagics :D
    i knew about the 192KHz and new mastering detail with neil young but this is a new update thanks :D
  3. khaos974
  4. Allforheather


    I read that article few days ago as well, could you elaborate a bit more on your opinion which would be of great help to me and others who are fairly novice with the technical knowledges.  
  5. curtisinoc
    (This was posted in another "Mastered for iTunes" thread, but I'll ask here also)
    So . . .  has anyone here purchased a "Mastered for iTunes" album?  
    1.  What bitrate does it download?  (256, 320 kbps vbr?)
    2.  How does it sound vs "ripping" a cd onto iTunes (@ 256, 320, lossless) ? 
  6. khaos974

    Here you go, I skipped the part I didn't feel like warranted comments though.
  7. liamstrain
    While I do not disagree with any of your analysis, I still applaud the effort - however flawed - to change the quality of their delivered files for the better. Baby steps in the right direction. 
  8. jupitreas
    This article (and Neil Young, apparently) seem to ignore the fact that many rigorous scientific studies demonstrate that the difference between 24/96 audio and the common 16/44 is completely inaudible. Redbook audio indeed is 'good enough' and covers the entirety of all human hearing ability, there is really no good reason to waste bandwidth on larger files. This is really very similar to the whole SACD fiasco... Labels simply want to sell more albums so they try to convince the public that this new high resolution format comes with an audible improvement in sound, even though scientific studies prove that nobody can hear this difference. 
    Higher definition files are useful during recording because using such formats reduces the damage that effects and filters introduce to the sound. For this reason, I'd imagine that the only advantage of using 24/96 audio in a consumer scenario is that DSPs might be able to change the sound while introducing fewer artifacts and distortion. 
  9. jcx
    I don't agree totally with the "single source" concept - binaural releases for the huge portable/headphone crowd makes sense
    properly done this would use completely different micing, mastering than the same material for loudspeakers/room
    the only way "single source" could work is if all stubs/mic feeds were included with mixdown directions for # of channels, headphones - no music producer is going to give up their raw source, few consumers would be able to tweak mixes for different playback setups
    the Smyth SVS Realizer does a nice tech "shortcut" to reproduce loudspeaker/room, multichannel over headphones but is not cheap, portable
    ev13wt likes this.
  10. curtisinoc


    Binaural releases of "mainstream" music would be sweet . . . 
  11. Allforheather


    Thanks very much for the response, I've learned a lot from that. [​IMG]
  12. jupitreas
    ev13wt and UnityIsPower like this.
  13. RexAeterna

    yup. they seriously need to be punched in the face. they have no idea what they're talking about. thing they don't mention while they been babbling none-sense off is that no matter how uncompressed something it is, it all comes down to how well the original source was mastered in the first place. it could be over 9000 bit rate and still sound like absolute ass. people running the music industry nowadays make specially challenged retards look like absolute geniuses. it must be ancient aliens or something. it has to be.
  14. khaos974

    It should be mentioned that theoritically, a high bitrate AAC from a 24-bit file can have a greater dynamir rage than a lossless 16-bit file. MP3 and AAC don't really have a bit depth, it's up to the algorithm to determine what's audible or not. In partice, I have no idea, but it all comes down to mastering though.
  15. RexAeterna

    well of course. it was always known for their ability to allow better dynamic range but like you noticed as well it don't matter much if the original source was mastered bad in the first place. good example be the Pink Floyd SACD remaster i heard. was recorded completely in 24-bit but sounded worst then the original 1979 vinyl release. i forgot who did the remastering job but i thought it was badly done compared to the original.
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page