Mastered for iTunes: Rolling out on a worldwide basis, Apple is now featuring songs and albums that have been specifically mastered for the iTunes Store to provide the best sound quality for the format.
More info http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/ (http://www.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/)
An interesting read http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-fo..._for_itunes.pdf (http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf)
Your thoughts?
I don't see anything too bad there. The good news is that they are not promoting dynamic compression. It doesn't look like any of their "mastering tools" are even capable of dynamic compression or otherwise doing any damage (except for possible lossy
file compression artifacts from the AAC format). Overall, the advice seems reasonable.
I did notice one slight error:
Because this SRC outputs a 32-bit floating-point file, it can preserve values that might otherwise fall outside of the permitted frequency range.
Of course, bit-depth and integer/floating-point have nothing to do with
frequency. Change that to "
amplitude range" and it's correct.
I'm not sure why they refer to 24/96 as the ideal master, considering the final delivery SR is 44.1 kHz. The ideal should be 88.2 or 176.4, no?
I'm not sure why they refer to 24/96 as the ideal master, considering the final delivery SR is 44.1 kHz. The ideal should be 88.2 or 176.4, no?
From what I've read, 24/96 is what most studios use. I think the point is that it's more ideal to go "directly" from 24/96 to AAC or MP3, than to convert to 44.1/16 as an intermediate step.
It turns-out that downsampling by an even number isn't an advantage, since you have to low-pass filter anyway, and filtering is more "drastic" than interpolation. If it was me, I'd probably downsample to 48kHz, rather than 44.1, but just because it "feels better"... not because there would be any audible difference.
This is from the pdf:
To take best advantage of our latest encoders send us the highest resolution master file possible, appropriate to the medium and the project.
An ideal master will have 24-bit 96kHz resolution. These files contain more detail from which our encoders can create more accurate encodes. However, any resolution above 16-bit 44.1kHz, including sample rates of 48kHz, 88.2kHz, 96kHz, and 192kHz, will benefit from our encoding process.
How is this true if it's gonna be downsampled to 44.1/16 anyway?
I assumed they’re trying to push the ‘AAC has no inherent bit-depth’ line there.
^ Apparently the Nero AAC encoder takes 24bit/96kHz files as input, no problem, resulting in 96kHz encodes… Get ready for 512kbps high-res AAC tracks on iTunes?
I have tried out a couple of encoders how they handled audio below 16 bits and the audio was around -120 dBFS. LAME, Quicktime AAC and Nero AAC Encoder encoded the signal as clear as if it would have been up around 0 dBFS. Vorbis had sound but more of a low frequency transient response when drum hits were sounding and not exactly much high frequency. Fraunhofer AAC encoder actually managed to somehow apply gain to the signal so that it went up to somewhere around -60 or -70 dBFS instead of -120 dBFS. I used both low and high bitrates with each encoder. I did the test about a month ago so if you proof then download the versions of the encoders that were up to date around then. I should mention that I used 44.1kHz/24 bit PCM.
I assumed they’re trying to push the ‘AAC has no inherent bit-depth’ line there.
^ Apparently the Nero AAC encoder takes 24bit/96kHz files as input, no problem, resulting in 96kHz encodes… Get ready for 512kbps high-res AAC tracks on iTunes?
But doesn't any psychoacoustics based codec work with stuff we can hear? I don't know the specifics of AAC but it should cut the frequencies above 20kHz at least, shouldn't it?
Fraunhofer AAC encoder actually managed to somehow apply gain to the signal so that it went up to somewhere around -60 or -70 dBFS instead of -120 dBFS.
That shouldn't happen. Could you clarify how you created your test file? And I assume you used Winamp for encoding?
Indeed, any decent encoder should also accept 24-bit input and resample prior to encoding if necessary. So nothing iTunes-exclusive here.
andy o: yup, makes no sense really, but could be called "high-res AAC".
Chris
P.S.: check out today's doodle on google.com: Happy 155th birthday, Heinrich "Hi-Res" Hertz! [attachment=6940:hertz_2011_hp.gif]
Fraunhofer AAC encoder actually managed to somehow apply gain to the signal so that it went up to somewhere around -60 or -70 dBFS instead of -120 dBFS.
That shouldn't happen. Could you clarify how you created your test file? And I assume you used Winamp for encoding?
Indeed, any decent encoder should also accept 24-bit input and resample prior to encoding if necessary. So nothing iTunes-exclusive here.
I have Ubuntu on this computer but I will install Winamp, create a beat, lower the volume and encode it and get back to you. Damn, I just started watching a new series ;D Regards.
personally, when they stop beating around the bush and offer lossless already, I'll finally buy my first song or album digitally.
I had to read through the PDF a couple times to make sure I stifled some knee-jerk reactions, and overall, it's pretty reasonable, and actually quite informative (to the lossy-encoding noob) at times.
@db1989: In reference to your response about AAC's internal bit depth, they more-or-less do say it a couple times:
It is this 32-bit floating [-point] file that’s used as the input to the encoder...
Regardless of the bit depth of the original source file (16- or 24-bit), you should generate a 24-bit file to preserve maximum fidelity resulting from the AAC coding process.
It's also nice to see the afclip utility and its tally of inter-sample overs.
I think they still needlessly cast 16/44 audio in a negative light, but at least they provide mostly technically-sound reasons for their request for 24/96 files (no dithering needed, for instance).
@andy o: Sadly, a lossless file does not necessarily equal the original audio - this was from August of last year:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=89818 (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=89818)
Clearly-audible artifacts (watermarking) on FLAC files sold by an online retailer (Passionato) that were completely absent from the same tracks purchased from Deutsche Grammophon's online store. I've since heard similar artifacts on an album that I downloaded from iTunes and that was distributed by UMG (Florence + the Machine's "Ceremonials") - once again, completely absent from a verified FLAC rip.
[…] overall, it's pretty reasonable, and actually quite informative (to the lossy-encoding noob) at times.
Although I only skim-read the first half or so, this is basically what I thought. It’s a total PR piece, obviously; but it’s somewhat redeemed by the fact that they cast a critical eye over the loudness war, explicitly warn against pointlessly upconverting, and a few other things like this—which could do with the extra publicity gained from a mention by such an influential company.
@db1989: In reference to your response about AAC's internal bit depth, they more-or-less do say it a couple times: […]
Thanks! But I did already see those; that’s what I meant by my comment.
Assumption wasn’t the best choice of word!
I think they still needlessly cast 16/44 audio in a negative light, but at least they provide mostly technically-sound reasons for their request for 24/96 files (no dithering needed, for instance).
As with the first quote/paragraph above, I agree.
Winamp didn't want to work for me under WINE but I used the latest dll with the wrapper and encoded through Foobar2000. It did not get the results I expected. I want to remember that when I encoded with Winamp the sound somehow was normalized up to -60 or -70 dBFS but this time that did not happen. It is still very muddy sounding though. All the hihats, snares and high frequencies are gone and left is just dull kick drum hits.
Helmrich:
Well the issue with the sound being louder using Fhg encoder didn't seem to be a problem with the exe wrapper but here is how different encoders sound on a source where the hight peak hit -96dBFS and then normalized so that we can hear it. The wav file is the source file I used to encode all samples with. All encoders used cbr 320 kbps.
http://speedy.sh/d6SBA/Untitled-Song-v3-96dbfs-24bit.wav (http://speedy.sh/d6SBA/Untitled-Song-v3-96dbfs-24bit.wav)
http://speedy.sh/EmCrK/Untitled-Song-v3-96...normalized.flac (http://speedy.sh/EmCrK/Untitled-Song-v3-96dbfs-24bit-fhg-decoded-normalized.flac)
http://speedy.sh/MfY3V/Untitled-Song-v3-96...normalized.flac (http://speedy.sh/MfY3V/Untitled-Song-v3-96dbfs-24bit-nero-decoded-normalized.flac)
http://speedy.sh/H7aDd/Untitled-Song-v3-96...normalized.flac (http://speedy.sh/H7aDd/Untitled-Song-v3-96dbfs-24bit-ogg-normalized.flac)
Doesn't look like we'll be seeing ALAC now for some time if ever, a shame.
From the pdf:
Movies, for
example, have very detailed standards for the final mastering volume of a film’s
soundtrack.
what are these and could they apply to the music industry?
I think movies have standards for both audio and video, so that you get the ~same experience in every theater. Music usually isn't consumed in controlled environments like that, so it makes less sense to apply some official standards.
Did anyone else notice how the PDF also mentioned that Sound Check can be applied across albums (e.g DSOTM)? This is news to me.
Well the issue with the sound being louder using Fhg encoder didn't seem to be a problem with the exe wrapper but here is how different encoders sound on a source where the hight peak hit -96dBFS and then normalized so that we can hear it. The wav file is the source file I used to encode all samples with. All encoders used cbr 320 kbps.
...
Thanks a lot for this investigation! The AAC encoder will preserve more than the bass drum hits in the next version of Winamp.
And sorry for hijacking this thread. So, back on the subject: In the PDF it says,
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.
Does that mean that, when you upload your hi-res masters, Apple actually keep them on their servers? I wonder if every uploader will be fine with that. Maybe they are seriously considering offering better-than-AAC256 encodings in the future, i.e. more bit rate and sampling rate? Interesting.
Chris
About AAC and 24/96
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/Images/AES547...cm182-51651.PDF (http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/Images/AES5476_Beyond_CD-Quality_-_24-96_High_Resolution_AAC_tcm182-51651.PDF)
The AAC algorithm performs the t/f mapping by means of an MDCT with a maximum resolution of 1024 spectral lines. A typical fast and efficient implementation can be realized by a 10 stage radix 2 butterfly operation. Here each butterfly stage reduces the available precision by 0.5 bit in average. Therefore, this implementation loses about 5 bits precision inside the MDCT transformation. In case of a 24 bit data representation, a fi nal precision of only 19 bit can be achieved after the t/f mapping. For most of the remaining parts of the encoder it is in general sucient to be able to handle the dynamic range of 24 bits.
19 bits is very close to state-of-art DACs (effective 20-21 bits). Probably only few percents of people have hardware that will expose the benefit of 19 or more bits. Even less who would actually be able to hear it.
True, but it is still a selling point for their product. I doubt that the majority of iTunes users actually read into this sort of thing. It's like a new shiny design or add on that helps people feel better about their purchase.
JXL
Thanks a lot for this investigation! The AAC encoder will preserve more than the bass drum hits in the next version of Winamp.
No problem at all. I like doing all kinds of test so if you want a beta tester then I am in. Regards.
This was a bit of a frustrating read:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/...he-ipod-age.ars (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/mastered-for-itunes-how-audio-engineers-tweak-tunes-for-the-ipod-age.ars)
However, I was quite encouraged by the majority of the user comments. I'd have to think the followers of ars technica are more technically sophisticated than your average site's followers.
I do however hope that Apple is trying to put a system in place to accept high quality masters in the hope that they move to providing lossless at some point. Short of actually providing lossless this whole mastered for iTunes thing seems like yet another way to market a new way to sell the same music, and sadly I don't even see a concrete jump in technology here, I don't really see what it is guaranteeing at all.
At least the prices are (currently staying) the same - aside from a spot on the "what's new" section at the top of the iTMS home page, and a "This album is Mastered for iTunes" line in the album's description, nothing else seems to have changed from a purchasing standpoint.
Having bought an album i honestly can't hear any difference from my bought CD.
You are experiencing another episode of Apple's marketing genius. Raise just a grain of doubt about lossy compression in preparation for your own lossless rollout. Do it in a way that does not provoke opposition by technical opinion leaders. Get labels into the boat early and not just the big ones (it's 2012).
I can't see Apple offering lossless anytime soon, the files are just to big. Try explaining to the majority of idevice users why lossless is better they just wont have anything of it when all they will see is larger files, shorter batter life and wont won't hear any sonic improvements over the lossy.
They would have to be crazy to stop offering lossy if they do offer lossless, I don't think anybody here was expecting that. "Shorter battery life" is not an issue at all though. With an iPod Classic, to me the difference if there's one, is negligible, one wouldn't notice it unless doing real meticulous testing.
Try explaining to the majority of idevice users why lossless is better they just wont have anything of it when all they will see is larger files, shorter batter life and wont won't hear any sonic improvements over the lossy.
Apple: "Looks like your 16GB iDevice no longer has room for additional lossless audio. Would you be interested in a 64GB version?"
Customer: "Sounds like an excuse to upgrade!"
Or, Apple could add an "automatically convert to AAC when syncing to iPods" option to iTunes. Either way, I think they'd manage just fine.
I definitely don't see lossless happening in the cloud, and that's where Apple (and everyone else) appears to be headed.
Sure, 4G is "coming", but consuming several hundred kb/s of bandwidth over cell phone networks just to play back a stereo music track? Seems more than a little ridiculous, especially with the current price:bandwidth ratios on data plans.
Unless Apple has determined that they will continue to add to their profits by still offering the outmoded and competing concept of local storage, the iPod classic will be discontinued. It seems pretty obvious to me that Apple is not the least bit interested in pushing lossless to the mobile market.
Unless Apple has determined that they will continue to add to their profits by still offering the outmoded and competing concept of local storage, the iPod classic will be discontinued. It seems pretty obvious to me that Apple is not the least bit interested in pushing lossless to the mobile market.
Yeah, that's exactly how I see it, too.
I don't see how continuing to serve the mobile market would contradict cashing in on the stationary market.
Did anyone else notice how the PDF also mentioned that Sound Check can be applied across albums (e.g DSOTM)? This is news to me.
No album normalization in current iTunes. This is either an error or an unintentional announcement of an upcoming feature.
I do however hope that Apple is trying to put a system in place to accept high quality masters in the hope that they move to providing lossless at some point. Short of actually providing lossless this whole mastered for iTunes thing seems like yet another way to market a new way to sell the same music, and sadly I don't even see a concrete jump in technology here, I don't really see what it is guaranteeing at all.
As I see it, the main purpose of all this is to address an audio quality problem introduced by lossy compression. The quality problem is not data reduction but the fact that when you run a squashed masters with true peak >0 dBFS through a lossy encoder it can produce some nasty results. Under the guidelines, the crappy overloud masters should sound just as crappy and not quite as overloud when you buy them from iTunes.
I don't see how continuing to serve the mobile market would contradict cashing in on the stationary market.
It wouldn't. I was specifically speaking about the demise of the ipod classic.
Seriously though, lossless doesn't exactly fit into the new distribution model. As to the stationary market, I'd be surprised if its usage extended beyond the fringe.
The quality problem is not data reduction but the fact that when you run a squashed masters with true peak >0 dBFS through a lossy encoder it can produce some nasty results.
At least it does on paper.
Or, Apple could add an "automatically convert to AAC when syncing to iPods" option to iTunes. Either way, I think they'd manage just fine.
Already there. At least on the OS X version — not entirely sure on the Windows version.
EDIT: Windows too, since 9.1.
Why are my songs taking extra long to download? Why is my HDD all of a sudden 3 times fuller? The problem with auto convert is that it's for all songs so ALAC gets converted to 128 AAC so does 160 AAC get converted to 128 aac.
Why are my songs taking extra long to download? Why is my HDD all of a sudden 3 times fuller?
I think you give too little credit to the average consumer. Did anybody complain when they raised bitrate to double? And for the really clueless, at least they can read: even facebook has a "high quality photos will take longer" message.
In principle encoding from a better source produces better final results.
Did anayone already tried to ABX iTunes encodes from master and home encodes from CDs ?
It would be interesting.
I have not done any ABX tests but with the one album i bought just a casual listen i could not hear any difference at all through my system from the the CD. Frankly if i need to ABX to spot the difference then whats the point.
Well.. I think generally speaking ABX is always requested to identify any difference, since are usually slight.
I mean: AAC 256 don't sound bad at all.. maybe different when compared to the orginal source.
I'm just curious to understand if there is or not a real benefit, as I suppose, to encode from a better source when the goal is to stay as close as possible to the CD sound.
Well.. I think generally speaking ABX is always requested to identify any difference, since are usually slight.
I mean: AAC 256 don't sound bad at all.. maybe different when compared to the orginal source.
I'm just curious to understand if there is or not a real benefit, as I suppose, to encode from a better source when the goal is to stay as close as possible to the CD sound.
Having read the "Mastered for iTunes" .pdf, my understanding is that Apple are requesting that recording companies provide iTunes with the best source material possible, not a replication of "CD sound". In this way, if the master supplied to iTunes has had care taken to represent the original intent of the artist, and that artist, producer and engineering team care about quality, the iTunes encodes stand a good chance of sounding very good indeed.
"Shorter battery life" is not an issue at all though.
The reduced battery life of lossless files are still a big issue for people using iPod's featuring hard drives. In my testing (with a 2009 160GB iPod classic), I can encode up to about 256kbps before the battery life takes a noticeable hit since the HDD has to be accessed a lot more. I conducted several battery life tests on my iPod classic just for the hell of it.
128kbps VBR/CBR - 42 hours
192kbps VBR/CBR - 41.8 hours
256kbps VBR/CBR - 40 hours
Mixed playlist - 41 hours
ALAC - 33 hours
Those results are pretty consistent with my other battery life tests on older iPod's as well (specifically the 3G iPod, 4G iPod, 5G iPod, and 120GB iPod classic). ALAC, AIFF, and PCM WAV drastically reduce the battery life for me on a consistent basis. Is it as bad as with the 3G and 4G iPods? Not nearly and 33 hours is still pretty respectable for a device playing lossless content from an HDD. However, it can be an issue for some people who want to attain or pass Apple's battery life estimates.
As for the whole "Mastered for iTunes" topic, meh. I have only downloaded one album so far (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo soundtrack) and a free Alice Cooper song but I am not hearing anything special. I don't have the lossless source to compare the soundtrack to but I have tried to ABX the Alice Cooper song from the lossless source. I failed at that as both releases (the CD and Made for iTunes version) had the same sound quality to me. I kind of think that this might be more of a marketing ploy. Apple might be doing something good behind the scenes, I don't really know. However, it just comes off as being a marketing stunt to try to get people to purchase more content from the iTunes Store since they will see that little "Mastered for iTunes" stamp in the album description.
I guess the good sign is that Apple thinks there's a big section of the market that wants good mastering, which might be a portent for the end of over-compression.
Maybe the fashion for vinyl is also a sign of a desire for better sound: misplaced, like 24/96, but at least the Apple route won't do extra harm (rather like the difference between homeopathy and 19th century mainstream medicine).
Apple is really quite successful at reading where the market is going to go, so maybe the loudness wars are drawing to an end. And if one relaxes cynicism a little bit, it would fit for Apple to actually push a bit in this way. The Apple market is largely hipster and wannabe, and it would play into this if they really did begin to offer recordings with a cool new ingredient, dynamic range.
From a label and content provider standpoint, this is between-the-lines instruction to
1) push suppliers of audio to provide as high a quality as possible
2) instil the value of high quality masters
and
3) for labels who supply direct, supply their master mixes from the studio as opposed to CD mixes so Apple can establish market monopoly on having the capability of selling THE highest quality audio down the line, as and when it feels like it
Third-party suppliers (who accept any unsigned artist and for a price will upload their music to iTunes and a bunch of other music stores) are also being effectively told to sit up and take note of the quality of audio coming in. You simply would not believe how variable the SQ of much self-released (self-recorded, self-produced etc) music is, some of it is so cringingly poor it makes your ears spontaneously invert. Many albums these days don't even get mixed well, never mind mastered (Unless you count the "Mastering" preset in Logic or Ozone).
I see this as Apple covering their arse and preparing themselves for a future quality bump. Why not ask for the studio master audio files? Makes perfect sense, they can offer any level of quality on a whim or differ the quality or codec provided depending on platform, even perhaps price point or country... Since late 2008 / early 2009 they've required labels to supply lossless from CD or audio files, which is fine by me (prior to that iTunes Producer encoded the AACs locally!) so this is just another incremental step. It was almost two years before we saw the results (in the form of "iTunes Plus") of them requiring lossless supply of source materials.
If anyone's interested, packages are created in iTunes Producer (which runs on Macs only, the latest version - which includes the "Mastered for iTunes" features - finally obsoleted PPC Macs). This creates a folder full of CAF (AIFFs in Core Audio Format wrapper) with an accompanying XML metadata file and artwork. This is FTPed (or SSHed, haven't investigated which) directly to Apple within iTunes Producer. Larger suppliers of content can use Transporter, the XML-based system for which suppliers have to create their own delivery mechanisms.
For the record, this reply was composed whilst listening to a 1991 Tool tape cassette rip 13 kHz is overrated.
Having read the "Mastered for iTunes" .pdf, my understanding is that Apple are requesting that recording companies provide iTunes with the best source material possible, not a replication of "CD sound". In this way, if the master supplied to iTunes has had care taken to represent the original intent of the artist, and that artist, producer and engineering team care about quality, the iTunes encodes stand a good chance of sounding very good indeed.
I binned the unproductive commentary that stemmed from this post, but feel that it should not go unchallenged.
What makes you think that a replication of CD sound will be audibly poor than whatever is the best source material possible?
Do you honestly think that record companies are going to create two masterings, one for CD and one for iTunes that will differ beyond sample rate and bit depth? I don't, though I suppose I have my head up my ass.
Also the artist, producer and engineering team might have a different interpretation of quality. Some people actually believe they are indeed putting out a quality product.
"Shorter battery life" is not an issue at all though.
The reduced battery life of lossless files are still a big issue for people using iPod's featuring hard drives. In my testing (with a 2009 160GB iPod classic), I can encode up to about 256kbps before the battery life takes a noticeable hit since the HDD has to be accessed a lot more. I conducted several battery life tests on my iPod classic just for the hell of it.
128kbps VBR/CBR - 42 hours
192kbps VBR/CBR - 41.8 hours
256kbps VBR/CBR - 40 hours
Mixed playlist - 41 hours
ALAC - 33 hours
Those results are pretty consistent with my other battery life tests on older iPod's as well (specifically the 3G iPod, 4G iPod, 5G iPod, and 120GB iPod classic). ALAC, AIFF, and PCM WAV drastically reduce the battery life for me on a consistent basis. Is it as bad as with the 3G and 4G iPods? Not nearly and 33 hours is still pretty respectable for a device playing lossless content from an HDD. However, it can be an issue for some people who want to attain or pass Apple's battery life estimates.
I did say "unless doing real meticulous testing". But anyway, is it an actual issue? Are many people playing 30+ (or even 10+) hours straight of music, without touching the iPod? Cause once you take the screen constantly turning on, and skipping and whatnot, the difference should shrink, but still you get an inordinately long amount of play time. I remember when 2 hours on a Discman was long enough!
Having read the "Mastered for iTunes" .pdf, my understanding is that Apple are requesting that recording companies provide iTunes with the best source material possible, not a replication of "CD sound". In this way, if the master supplied to iTunes has had care taken to represent the original intent of the artist, and that artist, producer and engineering team care about quality, the iTunes encodes stand a good chance of sounding very good indeed.
I binned the unproductive commentary that stemmed from this post, but feel that it should not go unchallenged.
What makes you think that a replication of CD sound will be audibly poor than whatever is the best source material possible?
Do you honestly think that record companies are going to create two masterings, one for CD and one for iTunes that will differ beyond sample rate and bit depth? I don't, though I suppose I have my head up my ass.
Also the artist, producer and engineering team might have a different interpretation of quality. Some people actually believe they are indeed putting out a quality product.
Greynol, thank you for binning the rubbish.
I did not say or imply that a replication of CD sound will be audibly poorer than whatever is the best source material.
What I did say was, in direct reference to what was actually in the "Mastered for iTunes" document, that Apple are giving recording companies the opportunity to supply iTunes high quality masters and that if they did, there is the potential for good quality offerings from iTunes' "Mastered for iTunes" series.
The reference to "CD sound" was made in repsonse to the post previous to mine and I quote "I'm just curious to understand if there is or not a real benefit, as I suppose, to encode from a better source when the goal is to stay as close as possible to the CD sound." I was pointing out that the reason for a new master is not necessarily to replicate "CD sound" but the actual original recording if the masters of these were to differ, and we know by experience that there have been CD masters that did not replicate the original recordings.
It may very well be wishful thinking that a corporation might revisit the session tapes of a less than good master and produce a new master. I hope that it is not. I also hope that the document inspires mastering engineers to take care with new material. Also, perhaps, wishful thinking.
I agree with your last statement regarding artist intent.
From the paper, it seems that Apple is only pushing for the avoidance of clipping. It is not pushing for the avoidance of overly-aggressive dynamic range compression (yes you can have overly aggressive DRC without clipping!). So I do think it's wishful thinking. Regardless, I'm glad that you clarified your position.
To be honest, I'm kind of troubled in what I see is Apple trying to further co-opt the record industry. On the one hand I welcome that they are at least addressing the loudness war and with it bring hope that there may finally be a large enough economic incentive to curb it (but only if Apple would refuse special branding to titles with aggressive DRC). On the other hand, monopolies can be very very ugly.
According to this, there may not be any difference in the "mastered for itunes" files (compared to their standard AAC).
http://www.cepro.com/article/apples_master...es_is_it_legit/ (http://www.cepro.com/article/apples_mastered_for_itunes_is_it_legit/)
basically what I think is important (especially for apple) is that they provide an easy and decent method (they provide a droplet) of encoding your studio master (whatever that may be). The droplet is doing, by their worlds:
1. downsample - keeping high bitness
2. dump to caf format to do hard-sound-check (thats a replaygain/r128) type of thing <- this is especially important to limit the silly
loudness war, since not all the users are having sound-check turned on i suppose, or are using the platform that is not compatible with that.
3. encode to AAC
so anybody can be covered by that (I did not actually test their software, so its theory...), you just need to upload an AAC at the end I guess.
p.s. The cd vs. itunes relation is really uninteresting when compared to 2. imho
p.s.2.
and @zipr
Shepherd explains this procedure as a method of reversing the phase of a song’s waveform so that after a song’s waveforms and volumes are matched in software a mixing engineer can play them back to see if the song’s out of phase waveform cancels or nulls out the normal version of the song.
is the usual nonsense that would get this Shepherd guy banned from HA and has really nothing to do with anything.
I have but one thing to add to this thread:
"Bastard for iTunes."
Thanks for reading. I'm done here.
It does give the impression of SACD all over again.
Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie, from the album I'm With You (produced by Rick "Most Deaf" Rubin).
iTunes Music Store AAC file from 6 months ago: AAC 256kbps, 44.1kHz, -9.94 dB replaygain.
iTunes Music Store AAC file, "Mastered for iTunes": AAC 256kbps, 44.1kHz, -11.07 dB replaygain.
Well gee, thanks!
Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie, from the album I'm With You (produced by Rick "Most Deaf" Rubin).
iTunes Music Store AAC file from 6 months ago: AAC 256kbps, 44.1kHz, -9.94 dB replaygain.
iTunes Music Store AAC file, "Mastered for iTunes": AAC 256kbps, 44.1kHz, -11.07 dB replaygain.
Well gee, thanks!
Just a question: did you use the same Replaygain algorithm on both files (since Foobar2000 recently changed the algorithm to EBU R128)? Since this might also explain the difference.
That's awesome, Rubin's given us all MORE THAN ONE DECIBEL of increased DR. Small miracles.
You mean decreased dynamic range. The Mastered for iTunes track is louder (hence the larger negative gain)
Just a question: did you use the same Replaygain algorithm on both files (since Foobar2000 recently changed the algorithm to EBU R128)? Since this might also explain the difference.
I replaygained them both with foobar2000 yesterday, at the same time.
Was looking through a recent 'Mastered for iTunes' thread on Slashdot. Anyway, there was this (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2012/02/mastered-for-itunes-how-audio-engineers-tweak-tunes-for-the-ipod-age.ars) rather interesting link that discussed how one particular mastering engineer, Andy VanDette, has created masters of Rush albums
specifically designed to be encoded into AAC for the iTunes store. From the article:
"Mastering for iTunes was a different challenge," VanDette told Ars. "You can't get around it—when you throw away 80 percent of the data, the sound changes. It was my quest to make the AAC files sound as close to the CD as possible; I did not want them to be any more loud, hyped, or boomy sounding than the CD."
...
"For iTunes mastering I focused on making up for the losses created by the iTunes AAC algorithm. Generally, I heard changes in level, bottom, top, punch, and imaging."
The main problem I can see with this approach is that if, in the future, Apple
does start to release lossless material or re-encodes the material using an updated encoder the resulting files will quite possibly sound a bit 'peculiar' I guess.
You can't get around it—when you throw away 80 percent of the data, the sound changes.
Snore.
It was my quest to make the AAC files sound as close to the CD as possible; I did not want them to be any more loud, hyped, or boomy sounding than the CD.
Since when does the encoding process have that effect?
For iTunes mastering I focused on making up for the losses created by the iTunes AAC algorithm. Generally, I heard changes in level, bottom, top, punch, and imaging.
I am sad to know that this uninformed person is fiddling around with Rush’s back-catalogue! Then again, perhaps even he can’t make anything sound worse than the current incarnation of
Vapor Trails.
The main problem I can see with this approach is that if, in the future, Apple does start to release lossless material or re-encodes the material using an updated encoder the resulting files will quite possibly sound a bit 'peculiar' I guess.
The main problem I can see with this approach is that is is based upon unsubstantiated FUD and risks other people being suckered into the same conspiracy theory about lossy formats. That the resultant files might sound different to those mastered by someone with any idea of the relevant technology is a valid concern, but to me it seems like a secondary issue in this case.
^True. Though he does at least speak-out against mastering mainly for people listening on rubbishy earbuds and the like.
Split: Apple developing new format for “high definition”/“adaptive streaming” (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=93804)
Ian Shepherd claims that Mastered for iTunes is does not sound more like the CD. Is he abusing the null test?
http://productionadvice.co.uk/mastered-for-itunes/ (http://productionadvice.co.uk/mastered-for-itunes/)
The idea that people responsible for producing music think they need to pre-color masters so that high-bitrate lossy encodes sound more like CDs of the non-pre-colored masters is scary.
Having these people perform simple ABX tests would go a long way in bringing this latest round of insanity to an end.
As customer i feel a bit confused by all this marketing weirdness.
You can get the impression buying the CD must be worse as getting an magically improved iTunes download. All these loyal CD-buyers have to switch now!
Interesting thread about this on gearslutz...and note post #40, where JJ steps in to school the 'pros' on lossy encoding, and comments on AAC vs MP3.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-f...ines-apple.html (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/702605-mastered-itunes-guidlines-apple.html)
And fires off this well-deserved zinger:
But I have to say that the audio production community went anti-science rather before the republicans
.
I'll post a couple of wav files to the thread (not music, just noise and tones) that show why you must have joint stereo coding. Basically, it's the Suzanne Vega problem, known in the science as "Binaural Masking Level Depression".
=> http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7637595-post171.html (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/7637595-post171.html)
The idea that people responsible for producing music think they need to pre-color masters so that high-bitrate lossy encodes sound more like CDs of the non-pre-colored masters is scary.
Having these people perform simple ABX tests would go a long way in bringing this latest round of insanity to an end.
That's what I thought... until a colleague of mine told me that he made some pro-audio guys ABX a file and its loss
less encoding. As expected, they got like 5 out of 10 on average. My colleague: "Doesn't this show that the lossless encoding is indistinguishable from the original?" They: "Not really, because..."
Some of these people brought you award-winning audio productions!
Chris
P.S.: I'd buy music online if it were 44.1/16 lossless. Preferably HD-AAC
P.S.: I'd buy music online if it were 44.1/16 lossless. Preferably HD-AAC
I am also finally going to switch from buying CDs to iTunes completely, if they would start offering a lossless catalog. Up to this point I do not own more than 10 iTMS AAC tracks.
Audible issues with clipping due to AAC encoding have been a non-issue for years. The Apple AAC encoder has a built in limiter for those cases, which is completely inactive until needed. I am sincerely convinced that the whole campaign is a precursor for Apple's lossless/HD rollout.
Some of these people brought you award-winning audio productions!
You don't need to be particularly smart nor particularly savvy to produce good-sounding content, especially with practically any kind of digital technology (recording, manipulation, etc.) where serious errors in judgement tend to have negligible side-effects. Many who get into the trade seem to believe that a person does need to be smart and savvy, though, which can lead to egotism on the part of those who practice, and with egotism comes a dismissive attitude toward reality.
It's a good thing that making things sound good comes so easily these days. But like with anything else, it's kind of a double-edged sword.
As for the aforementioned Gearslutz thread...heh.
P.S.: I'd buy music online if it were 44.1/16 lossless. Preferably HD-AAC
Corporate shill. >_>
That's your opinion. To me it's just reflecting my personal preference, which probably coincides with a certain corporate prospect. Unbelievable, isn't it?
But here's some corporate shill: the colleague I was talking about was trying to promote the Sonnox Fraunhofer Pro-Codec plug-in (http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugins/products/pro-codec.htm), which includes an ABX mode. So ABXing is available directly in a DAW now. Question is: do producers care about such a feature?
Chris
Y'all might also want to read the same titled thread (modulo a bit) in the mastering forum at Gearslutz.
Just try to ignore some of the interesting contributions
I read through that thread and actually wanted to apologize to you for some of the idiotic BS that was fired back at you. You posted some very interesting and enlightening material.
I read through that thread and actually wanted to apologize to you for some of the idiotic BS that was fired back at you. You posted some very interesting and enlightening material.
De nada.
Compared to the audiophiles ...
That's your opinion. To me it's just reflecting my personal preference, which probably coincides with a certain corporate prospect. Unbelievable, isn't it?
But here's some corporate shill: the colleague I was talking about was trying to promote the Sonnox Fraunhofer Pro-Codec plug-in (http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugins/products/pro-codec.htm), which includes an ABX mode. So ABXing is available directly in a DAW now. Question is: do producers care about such a feature?
Chris
Somewhat unbelievable as you wouldn't believe how many times I seen company employees try to pimp thier products.
but I suppose I can give you the benefit of the doubt :3
MPEG-4 SLS seems interesting for video. It can be used in MP4 container, and it's graceful degradation to lossy core would be useful for compatibility, considering AAC is the most (sometimes only) supported audio format in MP4 by many hardwares.
Not so much for purely audio usage, though. I have no trouble with current solution (FLAC or something).
However, if Apple supports SLS and if iTunes could pull out lossy core from SLS tracks quite quickly when syncing to iPod (compared to usual on-the-fly re-encoding process), it might be interesting for those who living in Apple world, and wants to keep losssless on PC / AAC on iPod.
but I suppose I can give you the benefit of the doubt :3
Thank you
... it might be interesting for those who living in Apple world ...
Not only Apple, every recent smartphone I know supports AAC, and those would (hopefully) play HD-AAC without requiring updates.
Y'all might also want to read the same titled thread (modulo a bit) in the mastering forum at Gearslutz.
Done. The insight of producers listening to a well-known codec developer and showing interest in ABX (and the aforementioned plug-in) made up for the torture of having to read UncleBubba repeat his "thoughts". But I'm curious, JJ, where in your opinion do "ridiculous bit-rates" start (let's split it, with vs. without SBR)?
Chris
But I'm curious, JJ, where in your opinion do "ridiculous bit-rates" start (let's split it, with vs. without SBR)?
Chris
160kb/s is where I draw the line. Your milage may vary.
Not only Apple, every recent smartphone I know supports AAC, and those would (hopefully) play HD-AAC without requiring updates.
Yes. However, to me it seems a huge space waste to carry SLS tracks directly to portable devices where only lossy core is supported, considering how easily on-the-fly re-encoding can be done for audio.
And if transcoding is to be done anyway, playback compatibility seems not so much important.
Not only Apple, every recent smartphone I know supports AAC, and those would (hopefully) play HD-AAC without requiring updates.
Yes. However, to me it seems a huge space waste to carry SLS tracks directly to portable devices where only lossy core is supported, considering how easily on-the-fly re-encoding can be done for audio.
And if transcoding is to be done anyway, playback compatibility seems not so much important.
Do not transcode from one perceptual coder to another perceptual coder. Ever.Yes, I'm shouting that.
.oO( Hmm, now is the chance to make some nasty noise here since it should be temporally masked )
If MPEG-4 SLS had separate lossy and lossless correction files à la WavPack, people could save their voice-boxes.
But I'm curious, JJ, where in your opinion do "ridiculous bit-rates" start (let's split it, with vs. without SBR)?
160kb/s is where I draw the line. Your milage may vary.
In the Gearslutz thread Bob Olhsson reported:
Glenn Meadows did a demo today at the Nashville Recording workshop.
Even at high bit-rates you could hear a loss of depth and even more disturbing from a standpoint of pop music, a loss of "balls" even on a big sound system.
In good Gearslutz tradition no specifications about the test were given but doesn't this seem to conflict with your "ridiculous bit-rates" opinion?
Bob and Glenn are highly respected, award winning engineers and their opinions have a lot of weight in the music production community.
In good Gearslutz tradition no specifications about the test were given but doesn't this seem to conflict with your "ridiculous bit-rates" opinion?
On HA, they would be required to substanciate their claims with ABX results, and the discussion wouldn't go any further until they did…
Bob and Glenn are highly respected, award winning engineers and their opinions have a lot of weight in the music production community.
I doubt anyone is immune to the placebo effect, no matter how competent they otherwise are. And from what I gathered (am I wrong?), double blind tests don't seem to be part of the culture of sound engineers. I'm not in the audio field, but FWIW I would never have learned about such tests if I hadn't be drawn to HA for other reasons (and I would probably be thinking I really need 24/192 FLACs for optimal reproduction of music).
In the Gearslutz thread Bob Olhsson reported:Even at high bit-rates you could hear a loss...of "balls"
Bob and Glenn are highly respected, award winning engineers and their opinions have a lot of weight in the music production community.
I find it strange that anyone would respect the opinion of someone who would engage in any kind of listening test (sighted, blind or double-blind) and describe one of the samples as exhibiting a "loss of balls".