Apple Initiative: "Mastered for iTunes"

[sburrell]

Interesting development:

http://macdailynews.com/2012/02/22/mastered-for-itunes-music-mastered-specifically-for-itunes-for-increased-audio-fidelity/

[bobbasrah]

I wonder if this has possibly anything to do with Apple's media discussions on online distribution and their recent posture on ALAC ????
Remastered? Rebranded more likely....I-Fi anyone?

[Alex_UK]

Oh... My... God...

Marketing flim-flam of the worse kind...


Mastered for iTunes, giving music fans even higher quality audio recordings from their favorite artists. Mastered for iTunes albums are mastered specifically with the iTunes format in mind, ensuring the delivery of the music to listeners with increased audio fidelity, more closely replicating what the artists, recording engineers, and producers intended.

These new recordings are mastered using high-resolution sourced audio to provide fans with an incredibly rich listening experience, taking advantage of the dynamic range enabled by the iTunes format.

...although of course they don't say which format they are comparing this with - wax cylinders, perhaps?

[sburrell]

Hi,

Look, no offence, but it's getting pretty tiresome hearing people slate things they've never heard or experienced. It speaks more of individual bias than informed opinion.

There's a pretty heated debate in the comments on the page linked (including from some audio professionals, and from those who have actually purchased one of the new tracks) - maybe have a wee read, maybe even download a re-mastered track or two, and then have an opinion worth sharing?

EDIT: this reply was composed when only bobbasrah had responded.

[MartinT]

It's a bit difficult to form any opinion when the technical content of that press release is precisely zero. What is the source they are using? What resolution and sampling rate? Will they then ALAC it or compress it lossily? Etc.

[bobbasrah]

Simon, no offence intended, I am indeed being unfairly biased having not heard their release, but beyond the press-blurb, there is nothing substantive there, just typical PR bull.
The same announcement could have equally applied to mp3 or CD.
Apple's prior discussions with the media were rumoured to be looking at 24 bit distribution which I for one would welcome as finally opening up the catalogues the media companies have sat on for years.

[sburrell]

bobbasrah: I apologise - I'm tired. But thank you for admitting you were being biased.

Wouldn't it be fair to sat that we're all simply cautious? We've lived long enough to take "flim-flam" with a pinch of salt.

I may be tired of scepticism, but we're _all_ tired of "snake oil salesmen", on that we can agree, yes?

I remember reading about the 24-bit thing. Maybe this current initiative is a way of gauging consumer reception to (purportedly) higher quality files?

[morris_minor]

Any initiative that makes higher quality downloads available has to be welcomed, but until it becomes apparent of what it is iTunes will be offering it's all conjecture.

Most folk around here bemoan what they perceive to be a lack of interest in sound quality by "young people" brought up on a diet of low bit rate mp3. How true this really is I've no idea, but if iTunes promotes good quality files (hopefully 24bit) then it will raise awareness of sound quality in a way that'll reach a very large number of people. And this can only be good.

[Mr Nad]

more closely replicating what the artists, recording engineers, and producers intended

This means nothing. If I move one millimeter east, then I'm close to China than I was before, but it doesn't explain how far I was from it in the first place.


taking advantage of the dynamic range enabled by the iTunes format
And that dynamic range is what...?

I loathe such marketing-speak!
Washes whiter.
30% bigger.
Half the fat.
New AND improved!

[bobbasrah]

Lovely stuff Lenny.... Reality makes no difference if you can continue to sell the same stuff all over again......

What is ironic is that around the same time that the Apple 24bit story was in the news, there was also an article over Steve Jobs and his love of vinyl, and the fact that he was amazed that the masses so readily accepted reduced quality audio. (He may have been saddened but it was a financially shrewd move....)

A short time thereafter there was a piece where Neil Young IIRC said that he (??) and SJ were working on a new format for audio release to redress the imbalance between studio masters and what was in the marketplace.

Now this....

I'm sufficiently cynical to believe these stories are linked and orchestrated, given that Apple are masters of marketing. I'm also pretty sure however, given the industry's attitude to the whole idea of relinquishing any part of their monopoly, let alone the spectre of downloading, that what we will see is a tarted up version of mp3.

What I CAN foresee happening is an awful lot of 24 bit transcriptions circulating on campuses in the near future....

[twelvebears]

I'm a little disappointed to be honest. With some of the rumours about Apple looking into 24bit high-res files, I saw Mastered for iTunes and got a bit excited...

The thing is that there is a complete lack of any information (as far as I can see) about what this claim actually means.

Personally, I don't see what special mastering could possibly mean, unless they are trying to 'fudge' the compromises that a lossy format introduces. In which case why not just increase the bit rate or offer lossless files, that why you don't have to do anything other than record the music properly in the first place.

[Vincent Kars]

If you read the PDF: http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf


You will find sentences like
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.

Then they start talking about wat to do:

Apple’s latest encoding methodology is a two-step process. The first step in the
encoding path is to use state-of-the-art, mastering-quality Sample Rate Conversion (SRC)
to resample the master file to a sample rate of 44.1kHz.


Or if starting with WAV LPCM file at 48kHz or 96kHz sample rate:
1. To downsample to 44.1kHz LPCM using optimal sample rate conversion and add
Sound Check information, in Terminal, type on one line:
afconvert source.wav -d LEF32@44100 -f caff --
soundcheck-generate --src-complexity bats -r 127
intermediate.caf

Obvious, they go for 24/44.1 regardless of the master.
Redbook without the dither

[MartinT]

So no different from high quality red-book downsampling from the likes of Sony (SBM) etc.

[sburrell]

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.

(From the doc linked to by Vincent Kars)

This certainly encourages the view that the current initiative may be a stepping stone to greater improvements...

EDIT: Just to clarify, I've got no agenda here other than to offer up information that may otherwise have been missed. I rip my tracks from CD and only purchase from the iTunes Music Store if the track(s) is(are) rare, or represent particularly good value - for example, the Fallout 3 EP (http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/songs-wasteland-music-as-heard/id342896474) and Fallout: New Vegas album (http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/songs-from-mojave-wasteland/id403518187).

[bobbasrah]

(From the doc linked to by Vincent Kars)

This certainly encourages the view that the current initiative may be a stepping stone to greater improvements...


I did not find the pdf Vincent linked to. Interesting choice of format, quite surprised that 48 or 96kHz were ignored in preference to 44.1.
As you said Simon, a step in the right direction, but one leaving room for further innovation/exploitation.
Would that this revisit could circumvent the industry's marketing strategy of over-compression, it would probably allow some of the music to get through, but maybe that would be too much to expect....

[sburrell]

Would that this revisit could circumvent the industry's marketing strategy of over-compression, it would probably allow some of the music to get through, but maybe that would be too much to expect....
OMG. Yes. I learned my lesson when I bought a track on CD that I'd previously heard only during the end credits to the film at the cinema, and the same song on CD seriously lacked the proper dynamic range, making it almost unlistenable.

[sburrell]

Twelvebears said:

why not just increase the bit rate or offer lossless files[?]
To quote a selection from my previous quote:

bandwidth, storage, battery life
I don't imagine that processing power would be affected. Bandwidth is important because Apple now offers the iTunes Match service. Storage because iPhones and iPods touch are non-expandable. Battery life is obvious.
I would say Apple's looking at the larger picture, ie. what would happen now if every iTunes customer suddenly had lossless files, not AAC Plus files. Apple thinks in terms of tens of millions of consumers.