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

[DigiPete]

You obviously did the right thing to try out surround music and I expect that you have a more than decent stereo system.

 

I fully respect your findings, however true sonic bliss in surround takes all the same quality equipment and care as you have in your good stereo setup.

 

The test should be between playing stereo and surround on the same equipment.

With speakers fully aligned and equidistant or time compensated.

Then scale the experience up to what you expect in a stereo setup.

 

2L has those files available in both great stereo and 5.1.

Both are found on the BD and download.

 

I hope that makes sense, or perhaps that was just what you did.

 

A real surround music setup takes 3 times the equipment and 9 times the care setting it up.

The setup should give you the same great stereo experience as we have grown to expect, but with surround as an awesome addition.

 

[Davisra]

Thanks Eloise!

 

Darn, thought it was an easy solution, but I guess you're right. I have 3 very old LPs made of our high school orchestra (1972-1973) as well as a few old tape cassette recordings (also of 1972-1973 high school band concerts) that I can hopefully use the Ion for. The rest...o well, they make good frisbees!

 

[DigiPete]

and other newcomers.

 

Find a list of hi-red download sources in Chris' C.A.S.H. List

(Computer Audiophile Suggested Hardware List)

 

(Menu on the left, last on the page).

 

[orgel]

Davisra wrote:

 

"Where do you find 24-bit downloadable music?"

 

There's a pretty good listing toward the end of the C.A.S.H. list here at CA (see link at left).

 

Don't know if hubby likes classical, but the Reference Recordings HRx discs are sublime, and so are the high-res downloads at Channel Classics.

 

HDtracks has the largest selection, but quality ranges from very good to meh. In my experience, though, you can't go wrong with the stuff from the Chesky label, quality-wise.

 

--David

 

[Downrange]

that's just not what I found! A couple of examples - the 2L material is recorded in a number of venues, using some straight-forward as well as rather unusual recording techniques. There's one where the performers are in a circle surrounding the microphones, iirc, for instance. I found most of the recordings too closely mic'ed, lacking spatial information, and just not very good, in general.

The two-channel versions were a little better, yet compromised by the multi-miking that was evident.

Music, properly reproduced, re-creates the space through amplitude and phase relationships. It's careful mic placement on one end, and proper speaker performance, including placement, on the other. Multi-channel, at least as it seems to me, takes a sledge-hammer approach to the nuances of proper stereo recording - forcing back channels, for example. Now, I have heard some good M/C recordings, but most are not. I believe it's the phase relationships where they miss the mark.

I'd really like to see M/C reach its potential, but aside from the very different medium of cinema (and surround sound for movies) I just don't think it's reached maturity.

 

[DigiPete]

Stereo (from greek - rock solid) was never intended to be necessarily limited to two channels, we just got stuck there.

 

I find that the 2L 5.1 material is great in spatial information on the proper equipment. Precise timing is of cause much more difficult with multi-channel.

 

Amplitude and phase relationship problems that you have encountered are probably gear / alignment related.

It's rock solid (stereo) here, but I cheat and use pro-gear ;-)

 

I agree that it's probably an acquired taste to sit in the middle of the orchestra, but it reminds me of when I played music myself, just sonically much better.

 

BTW - iTrax often has tree options:

2.0

5.1 Audience

5.1 Stage

 

Perhaps you'll like them better.

 

[mwheelerk]

Are you just a grumpy old man. Thread after thread. Complaint after complaint. You offer about as much insight to the topic as this post. Take a breath. It gets really boring with the same old rant

 

[Downrange]

"I find that the 2L 5.1 material is great in spatial information on the proper equipment. Precise timing is of cause much more difficult with multi-channel."

 

We see how hard it is to do two channel "right."

 

Now multiply that challenge with phase and amplitude relationships in a center channel, plus two surrounds, or more. Very challenging.

 

I haven't found that they've pulled it off. But I have a high standard for "stereo," two-channel, and I think having that is what keeps many of us away from M/C for music.

 

It's great for movies, but they don't try to re-create an actual sound space, like live music does. They create a "fantasy" space, which works fine, as it's a studio product.

 

I'll stick with two channel for the "absolute sound," until they can get it right. But, enjoy! That's what this is about.

 

[Davisra]

Thanks - I'll check those out. I didn't know there were high resolution downloadable options out there. I'll probably have to put husband on an allowance though - he's apt to go crazy like a kid in a candy store!

 

[MarkS]

Thanks for brining this to the attention of the forum. I read the linked material and am disappointed.

 

My interpretation is that Apple is establishing a way to make its lossy format sound better. I don't think Apple proposes making mainstream music available in high resolution at all. This is a major bummer.

 

I guess my hope is that if the high resolution material becomes available that Apple can somehow convince and pressure the labels to release it at a premium price.

 

Perhaps I am way off, but I think the labels fear releasing their contemporary new releases and their most popular music in high resolution for fear that highly accessible high resolution material is easy to adapt to pirate the material at cd resolution (or mp3).

 

As someone noted, it was alleged that Steve Jobs was pushing for high resolution downloads, but I also understand that he had a superb system featuring vinyl.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[new_media]

Ever the cynic, I wrongly assumed that "mastered for iTunes" was synonymous with "smashed dynamic range meant for listening through cheap ear buds." I was pleased to read in this article how much care Apple is taking to ensure AAC files are optimally encoded directly from the 24/96 masters. I was especially encouraged by how much effort is being made to help artists and labels avoid clipping. Say what you will about lossy AAC; at least Apple is trying to make it sound as good as possible, and the article does seem to hint that lossless may be an option someday.

 

I do listen to AAC files at times, particularly on my iPod Nano when I'm running or at the gym. (I also use cheap ear buds from Philips that hook behind my ears so they won't fall out when I'm running.) I have played around with encoding AAC files from a 24/96 lossless source. My current workflow is to convert the sampling frequncy from 96K to 48K in Peak Studio and then use Nero's command line encoder to convert to AAC. I generally perform a 2-pass encode and use a 320 kbps VBR bitrate. My results are pretty good, and I'm interested in comparing my files to ones encoded using Apple's "droplet" from the same source files. It would save me a lot of trouble if the results are comparable.

 

[MarkS]

Interesting perception on the post. I wonder whether well and carefully recorded and encoded lossy could sound as good as less well encoded and recorded lossless. I suppose it is very possible, and frankly likely, that it could.

 

I will take a wait and see approach and hope that we don't need to make this choice for long.

 

[Mark Powell]

You said Steve Jobs was 'pushing' for it. Maybe he was. But it is a business decision. Some one said, when I mentioned, in effect, "first 128K, now 256K, low long, etc..." that Apple was limited by the technology.

 

What technology? Some of us download 'real' Hi Res every day. Doesn't take long. Sure, the IPod has limited storage. More if you buy the hard disk 'Classic'. That's quite big. So it is not the technology there either. Probably the next iPod's SSD will be larger.

 

It must be a business decision. Fine, it is their business, not mine. I can make an educated guess at what it is.

 

[new_media]

I would guess licensing agreements and not technology are the rate limiting step in the widespread availability of high res digital distribution. I'm sure that the labels are nervous as cats about releasing a high resolution master of their new releases, not that the type that would pirate torrents are all that concerned about fidelity.

 

Even with HDtracks, you don't see day-and-date releases of high res downloads and CDs, at least not from major labels. The ones that do make it onto HDtracks are typically weeks or months later.

 

I was pleased to see new albums from The Chieftains and Fun on HDtracks this week, day-and-date with the CD release, but those are both on indie labels.

 

[Mark Powell]

I refer you to the heading on an earlier thread that you started.

 

"Mastered for iTunes (When you thought it couldn't get any worse)"

 

Hmm. Negative?

 

Cheers

 

[dmormerod]

More insight....

 

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/mastered-for-itunes-how-audio-engineers-tweak-tunes-for-the-ipod-age.ars

 

 

 

[Mark Powell]

These reports all say the same thing. Does any here really want lo res music, delivered in a lossy format, and volume compressed as well? Maybe they do, but then why all the expensive equipment?

 

They want the studios to produce their pap more carefully? So what?

 

I listen to internet radio quite often. It's fine as background music, and there are stations I would never get any other way. But there is nothing 'Computer Audiophile' about it is there? The same with this Apple stuff.

 

[Downrange]

reassuring the "Neil Youngs of the music world" that their carefully produced music will be handled as "gently" as AAC will allow, that Apple will try to retain as much of the "sense" of the music as possible in a lossy format. Now, as to who wants the product, CLEARLY, it's the consumers that demand the ability to put their entire music library on their 16 GB iPhone. Not us, for 16 gb might only be 15 albums for us.

It's just Apple reassuring the content providers, some of whom have begun to notice how crappy MP3 files sound...

 

Edit: just as an example, in my car, with its stock audio system, my iPod doesn't sound much, if any, better playing ALACs vs. AAC of the same material...

The convenience factor wins out for most consumers.

 

[wgb113]

As others have mentioned it seems to me that Apple has their eye on hi-res in the not-too-distant future and that their petition for 24/96 masters from the labels serves both the purpose of giving the mass market better sounding downloads in the iTunes store while building a library of hi-res masters that it can then release in all of their 24/96 glory.

 

I say it happens in the next 5 years. I realize you're disappointed at Apple for not making it happen now but I'd prefer their approach to those of other "Hi Res" sites that have been caught simply upsampling.

 

As someone who grew up in the 80's with the Walkman I'm a little jealous of the kids today with their iPods.

 

Bill

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

I suspect that Apple won't sell High Resolution music files until they feel everyone (who buys from iTMS) is ready to play High Res music. At the moment for the general population down "sampling" is too inconvenient for putting their music onto their iPod / iPad. I would be interested how many people paid extra for iTunes Plus downloads when it was optional and an extra cost. Not many I suspect.

 

Secondarily I would suspect there is big resistance from the Music Labels to allow sale of high resolution audio.

 

I know the audiophiles amongst us want it all now. If so, don't buy from iTunes Music Store...

 

Eloise

 

[goldsdad]

"[...] building a library of hi-res masters that it can then release in all of their 24/96 glory."

 

If only the future were that rosy.

 

The "Mastered for iTunes" 24/96 files that Apple is requesting from studios are not the flat masters that we crave for playback on audiophile systems.

 

The Mfi 24/96 files are supposed to be specially tweaked by the studio before delivery to Apple so that, after lossy compression to 256 kbps AAC format, the result will sound better on less than audiophile quality equipment than would an AAC derived from a flat master.

 

Apple has released a toolkit to assist in the tweaking/mutilating of masters intended for "Mastered for iTunes".

 

 

 

 

 

[dave_kiwi]

First off - all those complaining about iTunes sourced material - heh, think yourselves lucky you even have a choice -- here in South East Asia - i.e. Singapore & Hong Kong, we don't even have the option. :-)

 

Anyway my point - slightly tangential to the topic at hand.

 

I rip all my CDs as ALAC (24 / 44.1 kHz -- yeah I know heretical and a bit pointless), as well as "collect" 24 / 96kHz and above HI-REZ downloads. I also like to listen to music at work on my iPhone. As most people are aware, you cannot "easily" playback music with sampling frequency above 48 kHz, which tend to preclude listening to the HI-REZ files I have on my iPhone at work. (Note - am very aware of "home sharing" / streaming the music from my server at home -- but even that is only 16 / 44kHz).

 

Apple - in their infinite wisdom - provided an option in iTunes, where as files can be down sampled to 128K aac when being uploaded to the idevice. This is "good" - in that one doesn't need to keep separate copies @ different rates, but does lack some flexibility.

 

However, what I notice, and now believe, is that if one's original source file is of the highest quality possible - i.e. non-losseless (read ALAC in this case), the "one" time conversion to 128k aac is not as bad as you would think. The music is actually quite listenable -- and even with good headphones, one is hard pushed to notice the difference. (especially as one is "not" really critically listening at work). BUT, if I make a "mistake" and include an already "lossy" file in my iPhone playlist an it is "down sampled", I can notice the "second" downsampling -- a bit like the old "tape to tape" copies of my youth.

 

So, what I think Apple is driving at -- if the source material is of the highest quality, then the down sampling to 256k aac will produce material that sounds almost as good - and maybe to some people, no different from the source. Of course a lot depends on the quality of the recording etc -- but starting from the highest possible quality source, the 'copy' cannot help retain some of / most of the qualities of the original.

 

Another example of what I mean.

 

I recently have started "downloading" / purchasing HI-REZ music that have sampling frequencies that far exceed why my DAC is capable of (96kHZ), but what I hear, down sampled, still blows me away -- especially DSD files. Now, does this make it less "valid" to listen to if it is not being played back at the original intended sampling rate ?

 

I would rather listen to my "copies" than not listen to them at all -- and in a way this is what Apple is doing. I rather listen to what they "produce" than not listen at all. (Though I "really" don't have this option ). The fact that Apple is trying to bring some sort of "quality" to the mass download market is to be commended and in the end, the choice is yours - you can "listen" and maybe discover something new, or you can "shut the door" and possibly miss out. No one is forcing you.

 

 

 

[ac3320]

Is it just me, or are the substances of your posts veiled by your utter distain for Apple? That seems to be the underlying notion of all your replies here...

 

Let me say a few things on that

 

1. I feel you man. These days Apple really is the "big brother" they so adamantly wanted to get away from in 1984. People buy there stuff just to be cool (present company excluded). I have so many friends who got the 4S and don't really know why it is better that the 4. Most of them don't know anything about iOS. That's okay, but it really puts a piece of ice in the hot soup for me, if you get my drift. Anyways, if you want to hate them for that, I think that's legitimate. For shizzle.

 

2. I feel like most of the audiophiles here really do agree with your 'take' on Apple. The problem is that you associate the 256 kbps AAC files on the iTunes music store with iTunes (or the company as a whole), and I do not think that you mean to. Well maybe you do. I saw Windows 7 in your sig?

 

The fact is that most of the audiophiles here cringe at the thought of purchasing any music from the iTunes Music Store (just as you do I presume). I'm sure the idea of music "Mastered for iTunes" is just as barfalicious. You don't have to convince anyone of that. Moreover, I think your vocalization of your overt hatred for Apple really takes away from what I think is a good point on your part -- that the iTunes music store music sucks.

 

3. Fanboys suck. Really they do. I hope you do not take me for one, and I hope that you do not take anyone's hesitation to jump ship with you as such. Most of the people here who do like Apple have very good reasons. Many of them started on PCs (likely XP days), and have just preferred OS X. Others use both Windows and OS X and do just fine. I gather from some of your posts that you think everyone's being so quick to defend Apple is just fanboys doing there thing. I do not think that is the case!

 

4. To belabor the point, I am not sure why, but I really get the drift from the site as a whole (which is just plain really pretty looking -- good job Chris) that the majority of guys here are Apple aficionados. What does that have to do with anything? It means that iTunes is the shiz for them. It's not just a music player. Windows Media Player is a music [and more] player. But it looks like poo. Its organization is not pretty. Are there more options? Likely. Does the average smart person need 100 options when 10 will do? Yes, I think so. Don't confuse simplicity with a lack of features. Even diehard Windows peeps like iTunes.

 

 

To recapitulate what I just said: If you are wondering why everyone seemingly jumped to Apple's defense, it is likely a mixture of everything I just said. Take home message for me is #4. iTunes is what all the Apple guys here use, so if you make fun of Apple, you are making fun of iTunes, which just grinds gears.

 

Maybe you had these thoughts yourself. Hope this helps

 

[Mark Powell]

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. Except for a few minor details I agree with you.

 

Not in any order, just writing it as it comes into my head. I expect many people (if they read it at all) will disagree:

 

Apple is possibly the most infuential corporation in the world today. They are everywhere. That gives a *huge* duty of responsibility, which they are just shrugging off. Excepting the various Macs, which I suspect are no longer that important to their business, they dumb down everything to the lowest possible level they can.

 

They have the capacity to destroy any concept of reasonably high quality music reproduction for the 'man in the street' and they are doing just that. Why? It has resulted in them getting to where they are. If Apple quality is the norm, everyone will be happy with it and buy more. They will never know what they have missed.

 

Responsibility? Of course. Legally to the shareholders, morally to the rest of us. There does not have to be a dichotomy between them, but with Apple there is. They don't give a damn about the rest of us, we are merely sources of money that they want.

 

The I4S was mentioned. A total, utter, and complete rip-off to just take even more money from the public while they work on the real change, from I4 to I5 (or whatever they will call it). *Exactly* the same as buying the same music over and over again.

 

People here? I suspect there are *far* more Windows users here than Apple users. They don't need to say much, Windows and its compatible players just work. And work well. We don't get this long stream of constant problems (Amarra, BitPerfect, Pure Music, Mac Mini any good, things stop working on Lion...it is endless). Windows just does the job. And minorities are often vociferous.

 

One only has to read Apple's 'paper' to see where they are coming from. The talk of compression so it it listenable in less than ideal environments is just one example. By itself, just that one idea is sensible in a small mobile gadget. But Apple is so influential that it gets applied to everything.

 

Jobs a hero? Wosniak did all the work. He said so (politely) on a recent BBC television programme. You could see he wanted to say a whole lot more. I know, I saw it all. I was in the computer business before Apple existed, and stayed in it to 2002.

 

Just my thoughts. I could say a lot more. Maybe disjointed. But this is not the 'What Mark Powell Thinks' thread so I will try and shut up, though I may interject briefly now and again.

 

Apple disgusts me. A company driven entirely by greed.

 

[Downrange]

Mark, I think you need to take a powder or something...

 

Apple is just giving the public what it wants. Why do you have such a problem with that? And what's with the "greed" bit? Greed is good -haven't you heard?

 

Dang, I may have to order a new iPad, just because of your rant. You know something - their stuff WORKS. That's why I'm moving all my company systems over to Apple/Mac. It works, it doesn't get viruses. It is "friendly," and has an effective human interface.

 

But, I still listen to my old XP and Media Monkey for the best sound, don't ya know?