LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2012

ARSCLIST May 2012

Subject:

Re: Does "Mastered for iTunes" matter to music?

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 1 May 2012 07:12:11 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

This article is interesting, but it seems written by computer people and not audio people. There 
seems to be some misunderstandings about how D-A works in the real world, and even how lossy formats 
are applied to full-resolution audio.

My own use and listening tests tell me that toothpaste-mastered audio sounds crappy in any 
resolution but it CAN (but doesn't always) sound even worse out of an iPod because the iPod DAC and 
post-DAC analog circuitry seems to add distortion, as is the case with many sound cards. My 
conclusion is that the circuitry is not spec'd out to handle constant digital-zero levels because no 
rational person would expect it. To get loud enough for headphones on the battery power provided, 
there's probably not enough current or voltage to blast out toothpasted stuff all day long. It seems 
to my ears that the lossy elements of both MP3 and AAC make the distortion more noticeable and 
"fuzzy" when played back through an iPod or a consumer-grade computer soundcard, more so at lower 
(more lossy) resolutions.

I think the big thing Apple is pushing, but hiding it behind technical jargon, is for producers and 
mastering engineers to keep more dynamic range in the music, master at a lower average level (ie 
more room for peak dynamics) and try to "space out" the frequency spectrum a bit more. All of these 
things will sound better in ANY resolution but may be more dramatic and noticeable via decent 
headphones, and higher-resolution AAC and MP3 (high enough not to have digital pollution and 
artifacts in the high end and leave in some "air and space" around things -- 320kbps seems to be OK 
in MP3 and 256 may be OK in AAC in some cases but probably not for sonically complex music). So I 
think Apple has muddied the waters a bit, but what they are calling for is better "best practices" 
regarding dynamics and average level. They are pushing high-resolution masters because they're 
probably hoping that more care will be taken throughout the process if people think they're working 
in a "better sounding" format -- plus the ample documented reasons why DSP can work better at higher 
resolution during production.

What I continue not to understand in all this is why doesn't Apple just release material in their 
own lossless format? That would solve all the problems and quirks of lossy format conversions.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Arthur Gaer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:50 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Does "Mastered for iTunes" matter to music?


An interesting, if not highly technical, piece on the effects of "Mastered for iTunes" on Ars 
Technica:

"After our original report on the Mastered for iTunes program, some readers were skeptical that 
anything could be done to make a compressed AAC file sound comparable to uncompressed, 16-bit 
44.1kHz CD standard audio. Others believed users should have access to the original 24-bit 96kHz 
files created in the studio for the best sound. Finally, some readers suggested that few people can 
actually tell the difference between iTunes Plus tracks and CD audio, so why bother making any 
effort to improve iTunes quality?...

"Shepard applauded Apple's technical guidelines, which encourage mastering engineers to use less 
dynamic range compression, to refrain from pushing audio levels to the absolute limit, and to submit 
24/96 files for direct conversion to 16/44.1 compressed iTunes Plus tracks. However, he doubted that 
submitting such high quality files would result in much difference in final sound quality. Shepard's 
conclusions led CE Pro to claim that Mastered for iTunes is nothing more than "marketing hype."

"So, we set out to delve deeper into the technical aspects of Mastered for iTunes. We also attempted 
to do some of our own testing to see if there was any difference—good or bad—to be had from 
following the example of Masterdisk.

"We enlisted Chicago Mastering Service engineers Jason Ward and Bob Weston to help us out, both of 
whom were somewhat skeptical that any knob tweaking could result in a better iTunes experience. We 
came away from the process learning that it absolutely is possible to improve the quality of 
compressed iTunes Plus tracks with a little bit of work, that Apple's improved compression process 
does result in a better sound, and that 24/96 files aren't a good format for consumers."

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/04/does-mastered-for-itunes-matter-to-music-ars-puts-it-to-the-test.ars

Over 140 comments made in the last 16 hours since the article was first posted--ranging from 
know-plenty to know-nothings (but think they know-it-all).

Arthur Gaer
[log in to unmask]

Senior Systems Manager
Harvard University
Department of Mathematics
Science Center
1 Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-495-1610

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager