iTunes masters.What's this all about...?

[BobH]

Always look on the bright side, then

 

Like I said, with a library of high res files sitting there all we need is for Apple to see a viable business model in providing them to us and it's job done!

 

They may not see a good business reason to compete with HD Tracks, but then again, they may not see a good reason not to!

 

[Mark Powell]

Many do not like their marketing practices. I don't, and will not buy anything from them. My money, and I can dispense it, or not, as I wish.

 

But they did not get where they are by being stupid. Waiting to see if the market expands. Let others do all the finding out. If it does expand, then watch them! Step aside, you little people.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Waiting to see if the market expands. Let others do all the finding out. If it does expand, then watch them! Step aside, you little people."

 

I don't see Apple as a follower like the above statement implies. Apple can create a market if it so choses. The upgrade to iTunes plus, from 128kbps to 256kbps, was purely Apple's doing. I don't think they waited for a market to appear or even cared about people's ideas of 128 v 256. The other onine stores offering whatever bit rate didn't matter either. Those guys are a blip on the radar. It made business sense to sell the same music to the same people a second time. Maybe by the time people purchase the same music a third or fourth time it will be from the collection of higher resolution Apple requests for the Mastered for iTunes process.

 

[jhwalker]

I think this is of particular note:

 

"As technology advances and bandwidth, storage, battery life, and processor power increase, keeping the highest quality masters available in our systems allows for full advantage of future improvements to your music. Also, though it may not be apparent because there may not always be a physical, tangible master created in LP or CD format, the iTunes catalog forms an important part of the world’s historical and cultural record. These masters matter—especially given the move into the cloud on post-PC devices."

 

Shows Apple is looking into the future, as I would expect. I would not be surprised to see a new offering from iTunes in the next couple of years; e.g., iTunes "Master Quality" or some such - downloads in lossless ALAC first (possibly still in 16/44), then 24-bit and 48k or greater sampling rates later. As they already have the masters online, would simply require re-encoding rather than requesting new source files from the providers.

 

[jhwalker]

n/t

 

[Mark Powell]

Going to pay out for Apples miserly 'improvements'. At their current rate I might have bought the same music 100 times before I get to 24/192. Which is precisely what they intend.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Wow Mark, any more uplifiting comments?

 

You seem to have distaste for most everything related to this wonderful hobby.

 

 

 

[Glennboy]

He is a legend, end of.

Apple are cunning and seem to be able to make me part with my hard earned money.

Have I ever been let down by one of their products?

Not yet

I have not heard a hi Rez track, am I missing much?....

 

[Erwin S]

Doesn't it simply means what it says: mastered for iTunes? Like music on a CD is "mastered for CD" and music on LP-vinyl all have their specific mastering nuances to make the best of the format?

 

[Mark Powell]

Let me give you an idea of how I think about it.

 

A relative beginner was looking at DACs. Fairly low cost ones. Someone mentioned Berkeley and Weiss. 'Even' Berkeley and Weiss, as though they are something exceptional.

 

I said they will probably sound different from each other.

 

I also said that pick a low-cost 'high street' one at random and the difference between that one and either the Weiss or the Berkeley will probably be no greater than the difference between the Weiss and The Berkeley. So price is irrelevant to the quality.

 

Somewhere there may be a DAC that is accurate. If so, any that sound different from it will be incorrect regardless of how much it costs.

 

My distaste, and there is some, is down to the lunatic price of these things, such as 30,000 dollar speaker cables (exceptional I accept), manufacturersw comparing their power cable with a 'high stree' one, and showing a graph with a lower volt drop at 300 amps, and so on.

 

I have spent a qhole lot more money than I intended to. Don't mind. Mainly because my initial success with computer audio has revived my flagging interest in music. BUt I still think many of these prices are nuts, and don't intend to spend any more.

 

Many say the source is important. Fine. Then we get people with 500-800 dollar sources, a typical computer, arguing about whether 5000 dollar USB cables (Synergistic) are any good. Or whether the ten thousand dollar ARC DAC has failings.

 

Do you wonder?

 

[Mark Powell]

When Apples small incremental improvements mean you buy the same music over and over? You run a commercial site. Fine. And there should not, and usually isn't, a conflict between the 'industry' and it's customers.

 

Anyone tries to make a few financially reasonable comments, or says he does not like certain business practices and they are jumped on, as are others when accused of 'advertising', except a very noticeable one or two favoured ones (one of whom's product I am delighted with). Or are we supposed to try and out-spend each other and brag about it in our 'signatures'?. Not that I think you intended them for the purpose they are now often used for.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Mark - I'm very confused by your response, maybe it's just me.

 

I don't really understand why people get upset or have distaste for the high cost of high end audio components. Things cost what they cost and that's that. Why get so involved and spend so much of your valuable time to rail against high priced items?

 

Personally I don't care that Bermester now offers a $50,000 music server or MIT offers $30,000 cables. I also don't care that each company may advertise their product as the best. So be it. I believe consumers are smart and make the right decisions for themselves.

 

Focussing angst on the price of the highest end components is time not well spent in my book. At no other time in history has such good quality been available for such reasonable prices. Why not share nice words about products you consider good parts of the industry instead of being negative about a part of the industry that really doesn't affect you?

 

I can't afford a 20 karat diamond from Tiffany but I have no distaste for the diamond industry. I simply move on. Some day if I want that 20 karat Tiffany diamond I'll either save my money or have to realize it isn't going to happen. I aso realize the price of diamonds is held artificially high by the companies who hold millions of karats in vaults. I accept that as the way it is. Big deal.

 

 

 

[jhwalker]

Mark, the incremental updates you're talking about are, in my mind, very similar to the updates from 78 > 45 > 33 LPs, to cassette tapes, to CDs, to DVD-Audio / SACD, to Blu-Ray, etc.; IOW, updates related to increasing technical capabilities. Would you have had Apple (and others) wait until downloads could be delivered and played at 24 / 192 (or some other arbitrary number) before *beginning* to sell them? As it is, 128k AAC was about the limit for storage / bandwidth capabilities 10 years or so ago, and Apple has since upgraded to 256k once the storage capacity of devices and bandwidth capabilities of the majority of their customers "caught up". I expect other incremental updates to come over the next few years as more and more capabilities come online, but you seem to be advocating either no increases, ever, or for everyone to wait until some Utopian future in which the ultimate quality can be delivered. As it is, I have bought some albums in 4-5 different formats, and have enjoyed the increased fidelity of each one I'd hate to have waited for a 24 /192 download of "Rumors", for example, and missed the LP, cassette, 8-track (!), CD, DVD-Audio, etc., releases I've enjoyed in the meantime!

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"When Apples small incremental improvements mean you buy the same music over and over?"

 

Nobody is forcing you to purchase anything Mark.

 

 

 

"Anyone tries to make a few financially reasonable comments, or says he does not like certain business practices and they are jumped on, as are others when accused of 'advertising', except a very noticeable one or two favoured ones (one of whom's product I am delighted with)."

 

Too bad you feel that way Mark. I think most readers will find your comments over the top and unreasonable. Of course financially reasonable comments are encouraged here. It would be a terrible business decision on my part to ban these comments in any way.

 

You're free to post examples where anyone has been jumped on specifically for making financially reasonable comments.

 

Also, please let me know who is allowed to advertise on CA without paying for it. Nobody is favored. It's a bad business move.

 

 

 

"Or are we supposed to try and out-spend each other and brag about it in our 'signatures'?. Not that I think you intended them for the purpose they are now often used for."

 

This seems much more like a comment than an actual question. Too bad you read signatures as a way to boast. I give CA readers much more credit. Plus, who cares if people are boasting? It's very passive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nemick]

The idea of getting us punters to buy the same thing over and over again, albeit in different formats, quality or packaging is nothing new. It is certainly not something suddenly invented by Apple. Take a look at the Star Wars movies. God only knows how many variations, upgrades and other modifications have been offered. Hell they even re-released the original with added computer generated graphics!

At the end of the day, none of us is forced to buy anything if we don't want to. I have to be honest and state that I don't see Apple as being anywhere near as intent on control as Microsoft.

 

[Mark Powell]

Perhaps it is 'perceived value' I own a fairly expensive auto and a fifth share in a small airplane. The value of the car is obvious to anyone. (So, I'm a show-off in that respect.)

 

But a whole lot of this expensive Hi Fi stuff is not any better than the budget stuff. And my Berkeley/Weiss/high street example shows it. They are not 'ripping people off', none of them are vastly wealthy people. But the only way they can possibly survive is high prices, low quantities, and carefully limited outlets. They wouldn't last five minutes if put in the high street against Sony.

 

Re Apple. I came very close to buying a Mac only yesterday. But eventually, no.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"But a whole lot of this expensive Hi Fi stuff is not any better than the budget stuff. And my Berkeley/Weiss/high street example shows it."

 

You lost me there. I disagree with you 100%. Not only my ears, but objective measurements disagree with you. The Weiss DAC202 was recently named the best measuring DAC ever in Stereophile. When I reviewed the DAC I thought the sound was spectacular and was better than the Berkeley.

 

 

 

"But the only way they can possibly survive is high prices, low quantities, and carefully limited outlets."

 

So what are you saying?

 

 

 

"They wouldn't last five minutes if put in the high street against Sony."

 

You lost me there as well. All high end companies compete against Sony every day. Every customer who has purchased a high end component or even an Apple computer has elected not to purchase Sony's product that competes or doesn't compete.

 

 

 

[Mark Powell]

Make my own purchasing decisions. I do, but if I dare say why, I am jumped on.

 

When I say advertise, let us think of it as 'continual presence', almost asking us to make their design decisions for them. If they want that, they should send their customers a questionnaire. They go far beyond answering a forum question, which I have noticed that they do, helpfully.

 

You once told PeterSt to back off. I don't suppose he would even dream of doing the above, now. That does not mean you would not allow him to, of course.

 

However, you are the owner of the site. I respect that. Also, of course, when I am in a hole it can be unwise to keep digging.

 

[DigiPete]

Summer 2004 I found myself traveling around the great lakes (US).

 

I enjoyed some great blues at Blues on Clark and bought my first CD.

I had been a hard core linear analogue audiophile and music lover for 30 years, but I just had to take this great music with me home.

 

So I got a CDP to supplement my Thorens TD321 with danish hand build Mørch UP-4 tone arm, Ortofon MC2000 MC P-up, gold cables, Ortofon step-up etc.

No contest, but increased music availability.

 

A few years and som CD's later I fell in love with the iPhone 3G.

It sounded quite ok through a pair of iGrados, and my iTunes music collection started to grow (ripped CD's, no downloads).

 

I was sold when hires came around and I discovered 5.1 in 24/96.

This was the quantum leap I had been waiting for!

 

So I leaped straight past hires stereo into hires surround.

I am now in sonic surround heaven!

 

Ironic (to me) how most computer audiophiles are just as ignorant of surround highres bliss, as the average iTunes users are of stereo highres bliss.

 

I wish you all well, but forgive me if I pass on all the "just another stereo DAC" threads.

 

Thanks Apple, for paving my way to be a surround computer audiophile.

I don't agree with everything you do, but my time is way too precious for PC's.

AND now we have PM, BitPerfect, Audirvana+ and for surround: Decibel playing from memory.

 

[jhwalker]

@DigiPete

 

I would be very interested in your surround experience - where do you buy such content? How do you play it? I wasn't aware 1) there was such a thing and 2) that any of the players supported it

 

All ears - maybe you could start another thread to share?

 

[Davisra]

I'm the poor newbie who's been patiently ripping my husband's huge CD collection (I'm up to #986 already). All are being ripped to iTunes using AIFF encoding, which I believe is the CD standard (16-bit 44.1 kHz or 16/44). The entire iTunes Library is being stored on an Iomega Mac Companion 3T external hard drive. I've found a used Macbook Pro with the necessary Firewire 800 port to serve as the processor. My next step is to find an external DAC with integrated amplifier to convert the digital music info back into analog so the music can be played through some speakers (powered or unpowered?) that will be attached to the DAC unit. The DAC will be connected to the Macbook Pro using USB port (unless I should convert from USB to something better?). Hopefully my basic understanding of the process is correct

 

Per page 3 of this article, "an ideal master will have a 24-bit 96 kHz resolution....don't upsample files to a higher resolution than their original format. Upsampling won't recover or add information to an audio file".

 

Okay, does this mean that because all of the music I've ripped is at the 16-bit 44.1kHz resolution (AIFF) I'm wasting my time agonizing over which DAC to purchase? If upsampling doesn't work, then what do I gain by looking for a DAC that can do 24/96 or 24/192 (or whatever that new higher level is)? Have I inadvertantly locked poor husband to lower-than-ideal quality forever by virtue of the resolution used to rip the CDs?

 

 

[Downrange]

CD has always been a "compromise" standard. You should be able to capture all the information available in the 16 bit masters through the process you underwent.

For future material, we here are (mostly) hoping the standard with be 24 bit. As far as upsampling, it helps some, but is not a panacea.

 

Be sure to back up that monster hard drive...

 

[Downrange]

The high end audio road has bifurcated! There is the multi-channel road, and the two channel stereo road. I've dabbled in M/C with the 2L blu-ray release - the same works are available for free on their website btw, but I laid out the 30 bucks on amazon for the blu-ray, and dutifully listened through my (fairly decent) 5.1 system upstairs in the den. I was non-plussed...

 

I think I'm more or less in the "stereo better portrays space than the current 5.1, at least for music" camp. The better my DACs and processors become, and the better the downloads, the more I can "listen into" the space. It's going to take a lot better effort than 2L has waged thus far to get me to consider seriously 5.1 for music...

 

[Davisra]

Thanks for the quick response. My goal is to give husband the best sound given what I have to work with. He has purchased nothing from iTunes store (my kids, on the other hand, have spent a small fortune there!); all of his music is this huge CD collection and a large collection of LPs (doesn't sound as large as yours, however).

 

Where do you find 24-bit downloadable music? I'd seriously consider paying for this vs. having to rip the old LPs using the ion recordable turntable I got for Christmas last year.

 

[Audio_ELF]

YMMV but personally I wouldn't try to transcribe records with the Ion turntable. If you're going to take the time - remember recording a record is done in "real time"; requires supervision and once you get the recording made you (probably) want to split it into tracks and add meta data - then you really need to do the job properly.

 

At a minimum I would look at Pro-jet Debut III or Rega RP3 with a Beringer UCA202 interface and ideally EMu USB 0204 (as a minimum).

 

Recording records is a lot more complicated than CD ripping and only for something very obscure you can't repurchase on digital would I use the Ion Turntable. They really don't produce very good quality recordings.

 

Eloise

 

Sorry that was completely off topic of iTunes Mastering but I hope was useful.