256 bit iTunes plus AAC VS CD

[bafonso]

Yeah, I didn't mean to say they will not suffer from compression. I just wanted to make the point that even if the recording is not stellar, it will still swing if the musicianship was great :-)

 

I'm still amazed at how great so many of Rudy's recordings sound... amazing recording engineer.

 

[Viola_Player]

Here are some differences I have noticed when switching resolution, DAC quality etc:

1. Simon Preston's recordings of all of Bach's organ music. The "swell" pedal on an organ opens and closes shutters to control the volume of some ranks of pipes. With low resolution files I could tell the sound was getting louder and softer, with redbook files I could tell which voices (pipes) were getting louder and softer, with a better DAC I could hear the movement of the shutters.

2. Charlie Haden's "Beyond the Missouri Sky": with the lower resolution files (256K?) you can tell the notes apart but the attack of the pizzicato was missing, that characteristic "twang" sounded virtually the same on all of the notes. With redbook you could tell which string he was on and how hard he plucked it.

3. Listen to soft string passages of solo or small groups. You should be able to hear bow noise some of the time, perhaps a page turn or the "ping" of a finger being lifted. This depends a lot on the miking though.

 

As someone already mentioned, it's all about the music and how engaging it is. If iTunes engages you, then it's good. As you become more discerning it may take better quality to maintain that engagement, but worry about that when it happens.

 

Ray

 

[opeydokey]

Sorry to rehash a fairly old discussion, but I'm baffled at the fact that no one was able to give a scientific answer. Aren't you all audiophiles??

 

I'm a professional studio engineer with trained ears and excellent hearing (which I get regularly tested). In my opinion, there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs. So why do people claim there is? The SCIENCE behind this is pretty simple. If you're looking for a difference, you're going to hear one. This is a phenomenon that engineers are supposed to be very aware of. This is because it's a common mistake to adjust the wrong settings in a mix and convince yourself that you're hearing the difference that you're trying to make. It's a placebo effect.

 

Now, when talking about what the difference in each format truly is, for someone to say there's no science behind this is completely ridiculous. The exact differences in formats can easily be shown scientifically. Here's the process...

 

1. Rip a CD track down to several different formats with a high quality encoder.

 

2. Load 2 different formats on 2 different tracks in a multitrack audio program like Pro Tools or Reaper (free). Make sure the tracks are perfectly lined up with one another.

 

3. Reverse the phase of one track. This will cause each track to cancel each other out.

 

4. Press play. You will only hear the difference in the tracks.

 

Any actual music you hear will be what's missing from the compression. Any swishing or static will be artifacts added by the compression. Anything else that you DON'T hear is all in your head.

 

Note: You can't test tracks bought from iTunes using this method, because many albums are specially mastered for iTunes. So the resulting file will naturally be different. There will be no way to tell whether the difference you hear is from the iTunes track or the CD.

 

This is also a great method to see which encoders do a better job converting to the same format.

 

[ianmatthews]

opeydokey

 

"I'm a professional studio engineer with trained ears and excellent hearing (which I get regularly tested). In my opinion, there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs"

 

Is this a wind up?

 

Are you the reason why so many CD's sound crap?

 

Ian

 

[opeydokey]

Actually, I'm one of the few mix engineers out there that reject what pop radio and MP3s have done to mixes.

 

Feel free to troll tho. That's what the Internet is for, right?

 

Meanwhile, I'm the only one that provided an actual scientific answer to a scientific question to a bunch of audiophiles.

 

Btw... I'm not claiming that NO ONE can hear any difference. In fact, if you follow the testing method, you'll hear exactly what that difference is. But it's my OPINION as a person with excellent hearing who is dedicated to hearing great sound that REALISTICLY, there is no dissernable difference. If your explanation of the difference you hear is "I don't know. I can just feel it in my bones!" then my professional opinion is that you're most likely fooling yourself. You know how many people I've had tell me they hear the difference in 2 identical sounds?? It's the go to solution for dealing with an impossible client. "I'll turn this knob that does nothing, and you tell me when you like it." Doesn't just work. Works EVERY time.

 

[orgel]

opeydopey wrote:

 

"Note: You can't test tracks bought from iTunes using this method, because many albums are specially mastered for iTunes. So the resulting file will naturally be different. There will be no way to tell whether the difference you hear is from the iTunes track or the CD."

 

I find your test methodology intriguing and plan to give it a try, but this one thing gave me pause. If iTunes Plus and CD tracks don't sound discernibly different, why are so many albums specially mastered for iTunes? Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to figure it out.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I do think I can, on a modest but fairly revealing system, tell a difference between iTunes Plus, a CD rip, and a 24/96 version. (Not so sure about 24/192.)

 

"'I'll turn this knob that does nothing, and you tell me when you like it.' Doesn't just work. Works EVERY time."

 

Cool. We do that in the graphic arts industry, too: Client doesn't like the way photo looks but can't say exactly what he doesn't like. Wants it to "pop" more or some similar bullpuckey. Says I: "I'll just bump up the luminosity a hair and see if you like that better." Do nothing to photo. Send new proof. Says client: "Oh yeah, that's much better." Miller time.

 

--David

 

[opeydokey]

Great question.

 

Mastering engineers master songs differently for every type of media. Playing a song on iTunes or on an ipod is inherently different than playing on CD. This alone will warrant 2 different masters.

 

But the plain science is that there are differences in the sound, therefore these differences are adjusted for in the mastering process. The testing method I described is the exact method engineers use to see what adjustments need to be made to a mix or master to make up for the differences in different formats.

 

I'm not disputing that some people can hear the differences in different formats. Good mastering engineers can hear the electricity in the walls. But these people can actually describe what they're hearing. My point is just that if you can't explain the difference then you're probably not actually hearing one. And no, I don't expect anyone to actually admit that or come to that conclusion about themselves lol

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi opeydokey - I'm not going to respond to your extremely loaded question that really makes no sense to me. However, I attended the AES convention in SF last year. One of the panels I attended had some great and well respected mastering engineers. The question about mastering for iTunes was asked by a student in the crowd. Every mastering engineer said its preposterous to create another master for iTunes. They master for the best sound. Period.

 

These engineers spoke with their names clearly displayed in front of them. Can you please share your real name and work experience so we have some frame of reference. Your post comes off like a troll so I think telling everyone who you are can dispell that issue.

 

 

 

[opeydokey]

I never asked a question, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't know how respectfully stating my opinion should be considered trolling. Who I am is irrelevant. I'm no one special. I own a local project studio in Baltimore. Regardless, I learned this method in engineering school and have witnessed multiple mastering engineers master for different formats. I understand the concept of a good mix being a good mix, but there's no way you can have one mix that sounds best on all formats. CD, vinyl, and radio alone are drastically different. The reason for such horrible CD mixes is because they mix the songs for radio instead of creating separate masters for different formats. Only having one master is an old school mentality. IMO, it doesn't apply with how many different formats there are now.

 

In fact, go read up about the new Pink Floyd box set that has been specially remastered for iTunes. Those songs have been digitally remastered for CD for years. This is at least the 3rd time they've been mastered. One master to rule them all? If that was the case then every digitally remastered album would be a scam.

 

[opeydokey]

Matter of fact...

 

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082611rhcp

 

I assure you, they're not the FIRST to do this. I learned how to do this in 2006. They're just the first ones to market it.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Who you are matters a great deal. It's like citing resources while writing a paper. You could be some guy who just made this up. Or, you're not comfortable saying who you are because your peers may have other opinions etc...

 

Referencing RHCP as an example isn't something I would do. Their records are notorious for bad sound. Here is a thread we discussed a while ago

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Mastered-iTunes-When-You-Thought-It-Couldnt-Get-Any-Worse

 

 

You mention Mix and Master as if they are interchangeable. Which one are you actually talking about.

 

Immersion box is not all mastered for iTunes. Just the marketing version is done for the iTunes Store.

 

Did you learn how to do this in 2006 while in school?

 

I'm on an airplane right now so am very hurried and can't finish what I want to type.

 

Cabin door shutting ...

 

[opeydokey]

What are you disputing? Whether the practice is done? I cited 2 examples where it has been done. Not to mention the very existence of remastered albums. What more do you need? Are you disputing that flipping the phase when comparing 2 sounds won't reveal their differences? Because that is basic. Hit up google to learn about that. Are you disputing my opinion that the difference TO ME is negligible? That's my opinion and is therefore indisputable.

 

Do I really have to answer why I'm not going to reveal my identity to a bunch of anonymous people on the Internet in order to attach clout to my opinion when I have no clout?? Kinda silly. It's not like anyone in this thread is anyone of any importance. The difference is, I presented actual answers. I'll let those stand on their own. I don't really care who accepts what I have to say. My response was to the OP.

 

Yes, I learned what I'm talking about in school in 2006. No, I haven't been an engineer just since I graduated. I've been learning the trade for a very long time. Not that this has any bearing on the facts that I've stated.

 

[Teresa]

Besides the excellent suggestions in many of the posts in this thread. Here are some of the things to listen for, timbre accuracy of all instruments especially high frequency percussion instruments which sound splashy without the authentic ring in lossy formats. They also have less impact and usually further back in the soundstage compared to the lossless version. Also the CD or lossless version should have a larger and deeper soundstage than the lossy version.

 

The only album I purchased from the iTunes Plus store was the 256k ACC version of Reference Recordings "Pomp and Pipes". Before that I owned the LP and I thought the iTunes version sounded absolutely terrible. I later bought the CD version and it was considerably better. I made 320 kbps MP3 and Apple Lossless versions of that CD and they were way better than the awful iTunes AAC version. I have also downloaded some of the free music from the iTunes store and I didn't like the sound quality and deleted them and no longer get them even for free.

 

For full disclosure I must tell you I am NOT a fan of CD or even 16/44.1kHz, both to my ears are too cold. I noticed for a time that higher bit rate MP3s had an artificial warmth that I found pleasing, however over time the missing resolution and blasé sound quality caused me to delete them all along with all 16/44.1kHz music files lossy and lossless.

 

You mentioned you "did a test on a bass heavy track. The Beatles Come Together from the blue album." I have it on Abbey Road from MFSL LP transferred to 24/96 PCM and it is great. I even created a 24/48 version using XLD to play on my iPod. The bass is excellent and it is one of the best MFSL LPs in my opinion, if you get a chance to hear it do not hesitate. I recently wrote an article comparing various versions of the Beatles recordings in high resolution: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue57/beatles.htm

 

 

Comments on some of the followups

 

Bikemig you say you want to be able to rip all your music in a lossless format and that is why you buy CDs and I curious though why you make 320 kbps to play on your ipod is it an older version? Modern iPods do Apple Lossless, AIFF, WAV up to 24/48kHz.

 

I ask this as I no longer listen to 16/44.1kHz in any form. The lowest resolution on my computer is 24/44.1kHz however I prefer 24/88.2kHz and higher. When I bought my new 4th Generation iPod Shuffle I did reload some of my best 16/44.1kHz music files on my computer from MFSL, DCC, Telarc, Reference Recordings, etc. so I could see how it sounded compared to high resolution. On the iPod shuffle when going from 16/44.1k to 24/44.1 or 24/48 the whole soundstage opens up, there is considerable more air and ambiance and the music sounds more real, this is most noticeable with my over-the-ear Sennheiser headphones, however even with the cheapo earbuds that came with the iPod high resolution music sounds considerable better and more enjoyable. By contrast the 16/44.1kHz music files sounded flat, congested and uncomfortable, they all have been re-deleted and I load my iPod with only 24/44.1kHz and 24/48kHz music files, the 2GB memory holds almost three hours of such files.

 

Audiophile LPs on the iPod are truly amazing, I never got goosebumps walking down the street with my old iPod which didn't do high resolution but with this one I was playing MFSL's Cat Stevens Tea For the Tillerman and I was in ecstasy walking down the street. So if I ever get run over you'll know why.

 

opeydokey you said "Playing a song on iTunes or on an ipod is inherently different than playing on CD."

Why? I find iTunes vastly superior to low resolution CD when iTunes is playing a 24 bit music file in Apple Lossless, WAV or AIFF. Perhaps you are referring to the iTunes store (Yuck!) not the iTunes application? I love the iTunes application and would remove the iTunes store button from it if only I could.

 

The iPod does much more than playing low resolution AACs and MP3s, it also plays lossless formats such as Apple Lossless and AIFF up to 24 bit 48kHz. So why would these need to be mastered differently? The best sounds I have heard on my iPod have included audiophile recordings from 24 bit masters, and rips from audiophile LPs many that I had to convert from 24/96 to 24/48 to play on the iPod. In short with advancements in the memory of portable devices there is no need for any lossy format to exist at all IMHO.

 

[opeydokey]

Yup, I'm referring to the iTunes store. Also to iPods and other digital music players with inferior DAC on the outputs. I love me some 24/96 audio btw. I get ahold of it whenever i can. I'd love to have some Beatles cuts.

 

But on the iPod, high quality music is a waste unless you're going digital out of the dock connector into a nice sound system. And the new airplay isn't bad either.

 

[bdiament]

opeydokey

 

"...Sorry to rehash a fairly old discussion, but I'm baffled at the fact that no one was able to give a scientific answer. Aren't you all audiophiles??...

 

One thing for sure, if I ever ran a forum, I'd insist on real names. That filters a lot of the nonsense and right off the bat.

 

I'm not sure if I should take my hat off to Chris for allowing this condescension under the rubric of free speech or ask why this sort of post is left up.

 

A description of a null test is a description of one method for finding some answers. It should not be confused with "a scientific answer" in and of itself any more than a recipe should be confused with the dish. (Unless of course, one likes to eat recipes.)

 

 

"...I'm a professional studio engineer with trained ears and excellent hearing (which I get regularly tested). In my opinion, there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs..."

 

!

There it is right there.

I note the declaration of a Universal Truth (reverb on those words) rather than an "I listened and don't hear it myself". How can anyone possibly have the vaguest idea of what another can or can not hear?

Running a project studio does not in and of itself confer this knowledge any more than it in and of itself confers any sort of the remotest expertise in audio. Owning a car does not make me a master mechanic.

 

 

"...Meanwhile, I'm the only one that provided an actual scientific answer to a scientific question to a bunch of audiophiles..."

 

"A bunch of audiophiles". Sounds like a dirty bunch at that.

 

 

"...Btw... I'm not claiming that NO ONE can hear any difference. In fact, if you follow the testing method, you'll hear exactly what that difference is. But it's my OPINION as a person with excellent hearing who is dedicated to hearing great sound that REALISTICLY, there is no dissernable difference....

 

When I read a statement like "there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs", it sounds to me like claiming there is no difference, period (as opposed to there is no difference to you, despite your "excellent hearing").

 

 

"...Mastering engineers master songs differently for every type of media...."

 

This is another Universal claim. It is certainly true for some mastering engineers but when you omit the "some" (intentionally or not), it suggests this is true for all mastering engineers, making the claim, in my view, silly.

 

I've mastered a few things in my time and would hold in very high suspicion any engineer who mastered differently for different media. I know some do this but to my ears, their work provides the evidence for why this is at best, a misguided idea. In contrast, the best mastering engineers I've known, master for the recording and not for the medium. They know there is no such thing and also know that a great recording is clearly identifiable as such, regardless of the medium.

 

How, for example, does one master to "compensate" for the wobbly pitch that can result from even the best mp3 encoding. Or the coarsening of sonics and harmonic bleaching of even the best 16-bit, 44.1k digital? A fine Keith Johnson recording will, in my opinion, sound better as an mp3, played in the car, on the highway with the windows open than many other engineers' original masters.

 

 

"...But the plain science is that there are differences in the sound, therefore these differences are adjusted for in the mastering process. ..."

 

As explained in the paragraph above, this isn't science at all. Doing so is, in my opinion, simply bad mastering (when it isn't also gouging the client for additional "versions").

 

 

"...I understand the concept of a good mix being a good mix, but there's no way you can have one mix that sounds best on all formats. ..."

 

I'll take that mp3 from Keith Johnson over most other engineers' masters any day of the week. And it sounds even sweeter uncompressed and better still in its original format.

 

 

"... It's not like anyone in this thread is anyone of any importance...."

 

Well there it is again, isn't it?

Unimportant, unscientific (if bullshit is science, which I don't personally believe it is), audiophiles.

A group which I'm proud to be a member.

 

You know, it is wonderful to read forums like this one and get different folks' perspectives. We certainly all hear differently. The key though, is mutual respect, not shoot-from-the-hip cowboy "expertise".

Just sayin'.

 

Best regards,

Barry

www.soundkeeperrecordings.com

www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

Good show Barry - you said all that very well. I agree with you, especially about anonymous posters and logins.

 

-Paul

 

 

[opeydokey]

That was an awesome semantic analysis of my posts. You're reading between the lines to reach the conclusion you want to reach.

 

"One thing for sure, if I ever ran a forum, I'd insist on real names. That filters a lot of the nonsense and right off the bat.

 

I'm not sure if I should take my hat off to Chris for allowing this condescension under the rubric of free speech or ask why this sort of post is left up."

 

Why exactly should my opinion be deleted? Because you disagree and have no substance to counter my statements? Or because I pointed out that I was surprised that on a site full of technical people, not one user had given a technical answer and several people claimed there was none??

 

"A description of a null test is a description of one method for finding some answers. It should not be confused with "a scientific answer" in and of itself any more than a recipe should be confused with the dish. (Unless of course, one likes to eat recipes.)"

 

The test used to hear the difference between 2 waveforms is absolutely a scientific test using scientific principles of phase. The results of said test gives qualitative as well as quantitative results that can be measured.

 

"There it is right there.

I note the declaration of a Universal Truth (reverb on those words) rather than an "I listened and don't hear it myself". How can anyone possibly have the vaguest idea of what another can or can not hear?

Running a project studio does not in and of itself confer this knowledge any more than it in and of itself confers any sort of the remotest expertise in audio. Owning a car does not make me a master mechanic."

 

Actually, that's exactly what I said. "IMO, there's no discern able difference." I never said there absolutely is no difference. In fact, the whole point of my post was to educate the OP about how to hear the actual difference. Saying that I'm a professional with great hearing and can't hear the difference is a valid statement and certainly helps put the debate in perspective. As you quoted, I clearly clarified that just because I can't hear it doesn't mean that others can't.

 

"When I read a statement like "there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs", it sounds to me like claiming there is no difference, period (as opposed to there is no difference to you, despite your "excellent hearing")."

 

Your failure to comprehend my meaning doesn't really matter to me. If someone tells you that their opinion is that they can't discern a difference in something, you should probably assume that they're saying just that and not that there is actually no difference that exists, even tho they posted for the sole purpose of showing people how to hear the difference. I don't know what to tell you.

 

"This is another Universal claim. It is certainly true for some mastering engineers but when you omit the "some" (intentionally or not), it suggests this is true for all mastering engineers, making the claim, in my view, silly."

 

Claiming that any group of people does any one thing all the time would be silly. You know what's also silly? Hounding someone on the Internet for not using the word "some" to your liking. GTFOH.

 

"I've mastered a few things in my time and would hold in very high suspicion any engineer who mastered differently for different media. I know some do this but to my ears, their work provides the evidence for why this is at best, a misguided idea. In contrast, the best mastering engineers I've known, master for the recording and not for the medium. They know there is no such thing and also know that a great recording is clearly identifiable as such, regardless of the medium."

 

Awesome. You're welcome to your opinion. This in no way contradicts the fact that this method is done by "SOOOOOOOOOOOOOME" mastering engineers, which was the ONLY point I made on the topic.

 

"How, for example, does one master to "compensate" for the wobbly pitch that can result from even the best mp3 encoding. Or the coarsening of sonics and harmonic bleaching of even the best 16-bit, 44.1k digital? A fine Keith Johnson recording will, in my opinion, sound better as an mp3, played in the car, on the highway with the windows open than many other engineers' original masters."

 

The best you can really do is compensate for the frequencies that different compression removes from the original by adding them in more heavily before the conversion process. There are some other mastering tricks that I don't really know about enough to discuss them. As a mix engineer, I mostly just boost frequencies before converting to different formats for a client. A lot of clients stop at the mixing stage and never actually pay a mastering engineer to polish their songs.

 

"As explained in the paragraph above, this isn't science at all. Doing so is, in my opinion, simply bad mastering (when it isn't also gouging the client for additional "versions")."

 

As I said, flipping the phase of one track to hear the difference between 2 tracks is definitely scientifically showing that a sonic difference exists between the 2 tracks. I don't even understand why you're trying to argue semantics in the 1st place. Why are you nitpicking the wording of a forum post?? Get a life man.

 

"Well there it is again, isn't it?

Unimportant, unscientific (if bullshit is science, which I don't personally believe it is), audiophiles.

A group which I'm proud to be a member.

 

You know, it is wonderful to read forums like this one and get different folks' perspectives. We certainly all hear differently. The key though, is mutual respect, not shoot-from-the-hip cowboy "expertise".

Just sayin'."

 

Way to miss the point. Why should I have to provide my personal info and prove some credentials to have a valid opinion in a discussion between people who are no more important than I am? A person who freely admits to having absolutely no clout to back up his opinion. You act like I'm talking about audiophiles like I'm not included in that group. You're way off.

 

I'm not going thru this long winded nonsense again, for now on, do me a favor and take my opinion for what it is. If you disagree then state some facts to refute it. If you want to pick apart my words line by line like some forum police then just move on.

 

I don't think I'll be back to this forum anyway. Thanks for the warm welcome. Your forum clout will no longer be jeopardized lol

 

 

[Teresa]

I'm glad you were only referring to the iTunes store and not the application itself. I will not download music from the iTunes store until they start offering the hinted at 24 bit downloads.

 

I would not connect an iPod to my stereo as in my experiments my computer sounds considerable better though premium headphones than does my iPod. No, my iPod is for when I am not at home, so it must perform well on its own with no external help.

 

For me high quality music on the iPod is not a waste, what is a waste is lossy or lossless 16/44.1kHz music files as I do not mind auto-filling with different selections each time I charge the iPods battery. As I said with 2GB I get up to three hours of 24/44.1kHz and 24/48kHz music files. And yes I know the iPod uses cheap DACs and even cheaper analog components but with a good set of headphones high resolution clearly sounds better. 24 Bit music files are limited to 48kHz which is fine as I would not expect ultrasonic response from the iPod. The greatest sonic advantage of the iPod with 24 bit over 16 bit music files is in the midrange. However the bass is fuller and warmer and the highs add a sparkle and tingle that 16 bit could never do. Also with 24 bit the soundstage is wider and deeper and projects a larger image inside my head. In short I see no reason to listen to 16 bit audio on my stereo or my iPod. 24 bit or DSD is all I need.

 

[cd.vs.mp3]

I believe have very sensitive ears. I can tell a difference between 128 bit files and CD (CD better). However, I am stumped when it comes to the 256 iTunes + files and CD. I used same editions of numerous tracks (example 2011 Animals remaster CD and 2011 Animals remaster iTunes). I listened at all volumes on my studio monitors and main home system. Thru my studio headphones and thru my portable headphones. I cannot hear the slightest difference. I listened for the 'swishy", boominess, punch, breath, space, soundstage etc. I compared a couple of Norah Jones vocal and Dave Brubeck piano pieces. Drum solo tracks, etc. So I'm not asking for people to say "your ears or system components are S%&@3". Please tell me what to listen for. If you point it out, I should be able to hear it. I can hear how bad Sirius/XM is (swishy). Also, I've brought this up on a couple of forums and every expert that sent a link to an mp3 study. I'm not talking about mp3. Specifically 256k arc iTunes purchases. I'm wanting to learn here...not a debate.

Hi, I have tried very hard too, but I can't either. I think iTunes + is really good. I have devised an online blind test to specifically compare CD vs iTunes plus (Lossless vs. Lossy | Can your ears tell the difference?). You might want to take a look. Of the 50 or so people that have taken the test, only one has been able to consistently prove that he can tell the difference (he did it for clips #3 and #6). Try the test and let me know what you think. I also have a post where I null test mp3 and AAC vs CD. The results are interesting.

[miguelito]

I believe have very sensitive ears. I can tell a difference between 128 bit files and CD (CD better). However, I am stumped when it comes to the 256 iTunes + files and CD.

In my experience there are a few things that will affect that perception

 

1- The contrast between the two increases with the resolution of your system. Once I got my latest system I was stumped at the low quality of a few recordings I used to think were decent. In fact I'd rather listen to a few of those on the computer or iPhone rather than my system - it is too painful to see so much into the bad recording quality (Rihanna anyone?).

 

2- The quality of the capture and post processing means many recordings will not sound any better in anything higher than iTunes+.

 

3- The handling of your software also matters - there are plenty of threads talking about smartly upsampled lower res files that sound amazing all of a sudden - I don't doubt it.

 

Miguel

[Sam Lord]

opeydokey, I suggest you re-read the responses Chris and Barry made before you post again. Trolling is a bad habit. I'm not able to distinguish your posts from those of a troll, and I test my trolling comprehension often. OTOH trolling, shilling, and Apple worship are often hard to distinguish. "Mastering for iTunes" is a set of statements and algorithms promoted by Apple to reduce the damage done by both lossy AAC recording and the enemy in the loudness war. It does include tools to support friendlies in the loudness war, which represents a change of sides. But the overall program is reviled since it is designed to remove MEs from the production chain. Some mastering houses like Sterling Sound were bought off, whoops I mean encouraged, to support the initiative.

 

Now you could be a troll, shill, fanboi, or just an honest enthusiast full of piss and vinegar. I hope you're neither of the first two. The last two are fine around here, if so welcome aboard!

 

Oh yeah, I'm a old wannabe so I'm apologizing all the time for grousing (like now). For example, the term PRAT is an abomination. The acronym refers to what the listener does in response to certain music in a certain system, not any attribute of a recording.

[Sam Lord]

Actually, Apple stores the tracks in the native redbook resolution (16/44). The files are compressed & converted (aac) as you download (or right before).

 

I don't mean to contradict you, since I'm without any contrary evidence, but that makes no sense. Why on earth would Apple convert files right before download instead of storing them for download as AAC? Obviously they have higher-res files, but on-the-fly conversion is a massive use of resources for no discernible benefit. Please explain why they would do this if you know the reason. Thanks!