[329161]

(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) ?

Just resurrecting this thread with the same questions as above. I've read in recent articles that Mastered for ITunes tracks potentially have better dynamic range than the same tracks ripped from cd. Is this true?

 

[RRod]

Just resurrecting this thread with the same questions as above. I've read in recent articles that Mastered for ITunes tracks potentially have better dynamic range than the same tracks ripped from cd. Is this true?

Bitrate for the ones I have is 256k. CDs can already get plenty of dynamic range, especially with noise-shaped dithering, so I think it's more fair to say that neither CD nor AAC have issues with dynamic range. A good thing about Mastered for iTunes stuff is that it should avoid things like clipping due to the conversion to AAC.

 

[ev13wt]

Hi everyone. I'm new here, but have been lurking for a while, and am now the proud owener of some Soundmagic E30s and have some 'Phony' Hybrid tips on order to compliment them.

I saw this and thought some of you woud find interesting:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...io-engineers-tweak-tunes-for-the-ipod-age.ars

Enjoy!

Paul.

This article is only trying to sell you high res, datafile uncompressed "formats" which technically don't make any sense as a delivery format. A well recorded 44.1/16 file output sounds the same as the same master @ 192/24. "Mastered for iTunes" was a little marketing gimmick they used to get people to "rebuy" the remastered versions of compressed files. I don't think a lot of people did.

iTunes died the day they released Appe Radio. Its SQ is so bad, I don't understand how they can even have a single paying customer.

 

[ev13wt]

Just resurrecting this thread with the same questions as above. I've read in recent articles that Mastered for ITunes tracks potentially have better dynamic range than the same tracks ripped from cd. Is this true?

So now the dynamic range is such, that you have to actually raise the volume in quiet passages and lower it in loud ones?

The difference between 16 and 24 bit:

16 bit: If I rock out at 100dBa avg., I can still hear the mouse cough which was recorded during a snare hit.
24 bit: If I rock out at 100dBa avg., I can still hear the atom collision which was recorded during a snare hit.

 

[329161]

So now the dynamic range is such, that you have to actually raise the volume in quiet passages and lower it in loud ones?

The difference between 16 and 24 bit:

16 bit: If I rock out at 100dBa avg., I can still hear the mouse cough which was recorded during a snare hit.
24 bit: If I rock out at 100dBa avg., I can still hear the atom collision which was recorded during a snare hit.

I was thinking about the more recently mastered CDs which were subject to the loudness wars.
Do mastered for iTunes tracks redress this issue?

 

[bigshot]

If iTunes is using a better master than the hot mastered CD. They say they do, but they're at the mercy of what the record company gives them.

 

[ev13wt]

I was thinking about the more recently mastered CDs which were subject to the loudness wars.
Do mastered for iTunes tracks redress this issue?

Sadly yes, no and maybe.

:/

There are guys out there with much love for the music. So some also have access to "masters". Nobody is going to sit down and actually go through the entire mix though...

Some just don't care. Then it sounds the same or worse.

 

[gregorio]

I was thinking about the more recently mastered CDs which were subject to the loudness wars.
Do mastered for iTunes tracks redress this issue?

No. What you put into the container format has nothing to do with Mastered for iTunes. Mastered for iTunes just stipulates a peak level and audio container format which works best for AAC conversion, there's no stipulation to use less audio compression.

G

 

[danadam]

there's no stipulation to use less audio compression

I thought that SoundCheck, which as I understand is a kind of ReplayGain, was an indirect way of pushing for less compression. But to tell the truth I don't know if it is enabled by default for users or not.

 

[RRod]

No. What you put into the container format has nothing to do with Mastered for iTunes. Mastered for iTunes just stipulates a peak level and audio container format which works best for AAC conversion, there's no stipulation to use less audio compression.

G

At least it's doing more than Pono.

I thought that SoundCheck, which as I understand is a kind of ReplayGain, was an indirect way of pushing for less compression. But to tell the truth I don't know if it is enabled by default for users or not.

Without being able to reference the same material without compression, I don't think people will get much out of volume matching other than volume matching.

 

[gregorio]

I thought that SoundCheck, which as I understand is a kind of ReplayGain, was an indirect way of pushing for less compression.

There's no way to know unless Apple actually make a statement to that effect. Soundcheck may have had no motivation beyond just making listening more comfortable by matching perceived loudness. The fact that this loudness normalisation also discourages over compression maybe entirely incidental. BTW, Soundcheck and ReplayGain does not encourage less compression, it encourages less continuous over compression. Also, I don't remember any mention of SoundCheck or over-compression in the Mastered for iTunes requirements, there maybe some mention but if so it's only a recommendation, not a requirement.

G