[1] So the sampling rate/bit-depth war has been raging and most would agree that 16/44.1 is sufficient for human hearing.
[2] Why don't mastering engineers just distribute their better-mastered music on the CD platform?
[3a] "High-resolution" music websites tend to distribute different masters of songs. [3b] Vinyl recordings tend to be different masters of songs. [3c] SACDs often contain different masters of songs.
1. Not really. Most consumers don't know about different sampling rates/bit depth and don't really care. Knowledgeable audio/music engineers know there's no benefit to distributing higher than 16/44.1, a debate settled roughly a decade ago. The "war" is really only in the audiophile community.
2. Mastering engineers don't distribute anything. They just create masters fit for purpose as demanded by their clients; record labels mainly. And, what is "better-mastered"? ... A version/master ("A") with a higher dynamic range will sound better than a highly compressed version ("B") on a decent quality sound system. Version/Master "B" will sound better on a poor system, such as on the internal speakers of a phone, tablet, laptop or when using IEMs/headphones or listening to music in a noisy environment, such as in a car or when on the go. In such circumstances, which are extremely common today, version "A" could easily be so bad as to be un-listenable. So which version is the "better-mastered" is entirely different depending on where you're listening and on what.
3a. For more dynamic range, more suited to critical listening on a decent sound system and as castleofargh effectively stated, they have to have a different master to differentiate the "HR" version from the "normal" version, to justify the price hike.
3b. Vinyl releases need to be mastered differently to counteract the deficiencies of the media, the RMAA curve for example.
3c. Essentially the same as 3a. SACD is not portable and a SACD player is not cheap and therefore the most likely listening scenario is in a relatively quiet listening environment with a relatively high quality sound system. So the master can be targeted to a small, specific demographic.
With the exception of 3b of course, all these different masters could be distributed at 16/44.1 with no loss of quality but then of course it's much more difficult to differentiate between versions and justify double (or more) the price. Actually, the music industry has it easy. In the film industry, a feature film may require more than 70 different "masters"!!
Quote:
Apple sound check aims for a target LUFS of about -16.5 RMS, so anything louder will simply be turned down. Unfortunately not everyone has gotten the memo yet and mixed/mastered music in order to take advantage of that headroom.
It's not that we haven't got the memo yet, it's that many/most clients don't distribute exclusively on iTunes. Youtube for example normalises to the equivalent of about -13LUFS. TV is normalised to -23LUFS. Feature film to roughly the equivalent of around -32LUFS, DVD/BluRay (film) releases to about -27LUFS. Even the TV standard is unplayable on many/most portable devices but audiophiles would very much like us to take advantage of that potential extra dynamic range. How many masters should we make? How much time and money do the clients have to make many different masters? Does the genre, production and artists' intention even lend itself to a large dynamic range? What/who is our target demographic?
It's not a black and white situation with a black and white solution!
G