A Look at Apple's 'Mastered for iTunes' Program and its Effect on Sound Quality

[milbournosphere]

Here's a supplementary article that might be worth your time. It's rather technical, but is a good piece on 24/192 downloads and how they don't really make all that much sense.

A quick excerpt:

Articles last month revealed that musician Neil Young and Apple's Steve Jobs discussed offering digital music downloads of 'uncompromised studio quality'. Much of the press and user commentary was particularly enthusiastic about the prospect of uncompressed 24 bit 192kHz downloads. 24/192 featured prominently in my own conversations with Mr. Young's group several months ago. Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space. There are a few real problems with the audio quality and 'experience' of digitally distributed music today. 24/192 solves none of them. While everyone fixates on 24/192 as a magic bullet, we're not going to see any actual improvement.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[AppleDroid]

Forgive me, but "7.1" is still going to put 2-channel through your 8 drivers. This kinda needs a "Condescending Wonka" image...

Sigh. Using the multi-channel stereo feature just pumps the left/right channels through multiple speakers with an audio delay so it doesn't distort the sound just fills a large room better.

 

[Drunken Master]

Come on. Are you the same guy that says you want it on vinyl because that's better? Gag.

Vinyls rocks, oh Sound Snob.

 

[Colpeas]

Well how big is a 4 minute AAC song compared to a 4 minute ALAC one?

'bout 4-5 times the size of AAC, it depends on a particular song (ALAC uses VBR instead of iTunes AACs' CBR method)

But for what it's worth, ALAC is really worth sacrificing more space on your hard drive, the difference is off the hook.

 

[Menel]

Forgive me, but "7.1" is still going to put 2-channel through your 8 drivers. This kinda needs a "Condescending Wonka" image...

He's comparing a ipad+headset to a home theatre system... The '7.1' detail may be irrelevant, but his concern and comparison is perfectly justified.

 

[3282868]

If I can pick up a CD version I usually do through Amazon then rip it to ALAC and use the downsample to ipod option/create a second 256kbps copy.

Thanks for the tip. Next time I but music, I'll get the CD and rip it lossless (have had that iTunes setting for years, but stopped buying CDs, it always seemed easier online).

 

[doctorossi]

Apple doesn't want your iDevice getting too full. Both inhibit sales.

Well, Apple has two options here, as far as my patronage is concerned:

1. The status quo, in which my iDevice is full and none of the songs are from iTunes

or

2. Offer ALAC, whereby my iDevice would be full and many of the songs would be from iTunes

As it stands, for me, sales are fully inhibited. It's been this way for nearing a decade now. The day they offer ALAC songs is the day they open the floodgates on my wallet.

 

[iScott428]

We are the minority...I demand digital quality in my car and home. I will sacrifice sound quality on my iPod, but I buy the 64gb's for a reason...

People just have very low standards for...well....everything.

 

[knucklehead]

Unfortunately until "Mastering Engineers" stop with the "Loud is good" ********, none of this matters.

Its literally the practice of polishing a turd.

Actually, the "Mastered for iTunes" process is about avoiding clipping.
Takes care of the loudness war tub of poo ... if it's followed.

Edit-

Good thread on subject:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=94716

 

[50548]

I have the same question. I bought into the iTunes ecosystem only when the iPod started supporting ALAC playback and I expected ALAC content on iTunes to be just around the corner.

Here we are in 2012 and I've never purchased a song from iTunes. If they started selling them in ALAC, I would buy hundreds.

I absolutely agree, even though I must praise Apple for going the extra mile (as always) in order to offer its customers a better experience while keeping file sizes relatively tight.

However, even Ars Technica's article admits that the "future" will be on the basis of lossless/raw audio file downloads, which will give people a higher (subjectively and objectively) quality file as well as much-needed room for high-quality audio editing by professionals and hobbyists.

Once more: it's difficult to understand why Apple can't offer an OPTION for ALAC purchases, when this is widely available in other music outlets - Hyperion Records, for instance, sets the bar for excellent ALAC-format classical music downloads, together with liner notes and illustrations. I have bought many albums from them and couldn't be happier.

As for iTunes, I have only bought a handful of tracks so far (i.e., those I couldn't easily find in physical stores), compared to hundreds and hundreds of CDs which I continue to buy to this day without any regrets.

Apple, it's time: START OFFERING ALAC files on iTunes - you definitely have the storage, and many people already have more than enough bandwidth to do it. I'd buy them even if that option cost a bit more compared to 256k files.

 

[Anaemik]

Hello all,

I'm sorry, but you guys who are meow meowing about not having ALAC stuff... while I understand why you guys want it, 99% of customers don't want the huge files, and Apple doesn't want your iDevice getting too full. Both inhibit sales.

Oh, and I bet if anyone took a Pepsi Challenge on 256 AAC vs 96/24, you would be statistically random. I can beat a 320 mp3 every day of the week, but I can't beat 256 AAC. If that's the case, why can't 256 AAC satisfy? It's not like we all run around saying OMG I NEED UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO - usually people are pretty satisfied with BluRay - hell, even 4k is compressed, but you WANT ALL THE BITS in audio? Come on. Are you the same guy that says you want it on vinyl because that's better? Gag.

You're overlooking one of the key advantages of providing lossless files in the iTunes Store. With a lossless file in their library, a user can transcode to any other format he likes to meet sound quality and storage size requirements. Apple already offer the option to convert any tracks loaded onto an iPod or iPhone to 128Kbps files, so they already accept the notion that many people will have a home library with higher quality versions of tracks than those in their portable library. However, to use that function on content currently available on the iTunes store you will need to encode an encode, which is going to create a whole bunch more audio problems than if you were to encode from a lossless source. I'd go as far as to say that encoding from an encode is really not worth the space saving that it offers. However, this feature coupled with the availability of lossless formats would go a long way to pleasing most of the people most of the time.

 

[knucklehead]

Sorry for the shameless plug, but if anyone wants a handy way to do ABX testing (blind testing of audio files) you can use the free app I wrote called Juxtapose.

Thanks for the app!

Sanity in audio threads -- uphill battle ...

 

[3282868]

We should all get together and start a service for people who want to upgrade their tracks to ALAC. Hey, I'm a dreamer!

 

[Owen Imholte]

Thanks for the app!

Sanity in audio threads -- uphill battle ...

Yeah, I made it because I was curious if I could tell anything apart myself and the depressing thing was due to either/all

1. My ears
2. Audio gear
3. Source material

I wasn't able to discern anything above 128kbit MP3 (and AAC was at least as good).

I'd be really happy to hear about people's experience and if you have a setup where you can definitely tell a certain track apart that would be great to hear about.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Once you go FLAC, you'll never go back.

 

[foodog]

You're right, 24/96 is not a good format. I want 24/192.

I want 24/193... its one better

----------

Yeah, I made it because I was curious if I could tell anything apart myself and the depressing thing was due to either/all

1. My ears
2. Audio gear
3. Source material

I wasn't able to discern anything above 128kbit MP3 (and AAC was at least as good).

I'd be really happy to hear about people's experience and if you have a setup where you can definitely tell a certain track apart that would be great to hear about.

I feel the same way.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Me too...sell me a NON-APPLE PROPRIETARY LOSSLESS FORMAT (such as WAV, APE, FLAC) and I would buy hundreds of songs a year. I own 0 from iTunes. I have over 24,000 songs...all ripped from my cds that I purchase each week from Amazon below $10 a pop with free shipping and 0 tax.

I see a bunch of people already beat me to the punch.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/28/apples-lossless-alac-goes-open-source-its-like-flac-for-ipods/

Apple Lossless went Open Source last year Eric.

 

[Anaemik]

I'd be really happy to hear about people's experience and if you have a setup where you can definitely tell a certain track apart that would be great to hear about.

I have tracks in my library where an MP3 encode at *any* bitrate is instantly noticeable due to an inherent shortcoming of the codec. The tracks in question generally feature low-level background noise, such as tape hiss in older recordings. Something about the MP3 codec renders any quiet, white-noise like passages in such a way as to make them sound very garbled, like water going down a drain.

AAC does not suffer from this shortcoming as far as my own tests have led me to believe.

 

[dokujaryu]

I hope Apple continues in this direction and updates the iPod Classic to be an audiophile class device. Features like a higher quality DAC and overall more professional grade internals, high quality eq built on the device. I think there's also a great case to be made for amplification in the iPod as well for use with audiophile quality cans. It would be a great differentiator for the iPod over the vastly more convenient iPhone.

If Apple can make the iPod classic something that someone might plug $1000 headphones into, they are doing it right.

 

[nuckinfutz]

You're right, 24/96 is not a good format. I want 24/192.

Why?

 

[doctorossi]

Sigh....

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/28/apples-lossless-alac-goes-open-source-its-like-flac-for-ipods/

Apple Lossless went Open Source last year Eric.

Therefor, it would meet his criteria. Why the melodramatic sigh?

 

[cube]

Why?

Just absolutely disagreeing with the OP.

 

[reallynotnick]

While I know it probably wouldn't satisfy many people I would enjoy if Apple started to do 320Kb/s audio files, they would still be just as compatible but just sound a little bit better.

 

[malnar]

I still don't understand why they are not selling ALAC. The huge datacenters they built should support those transfers easily nowadays.

Market confusion. Most people don't know what it is. Apple doesn't want to have to educate them, nor convince them it's worth the trouble. And those who do care are in the extreme minority - there's a small amount more than them who know and still don't care. In the end, most people will not care because they won't hear the difference, ever - period.

Also, don't forget devices are still very limited in storage. How much lossless stuff could people carry on their 16gb iPhone? Not a whole lot. The option to compress to AAC (at 128/192/256) is adding yet another step to the operation that people don't want to deal with. Some people, like my parents, don't ever have their iPhone interface with their computer.

 

[rebelbaserec]

'bout 4-5 times the size of AAC, it depends on a particular song (ALAC uses VBR instead of iTunes AACs' CBR method)

My ALAC and WAV files tend to clock in at around 10x the size of a compressed file. When people ask my about the file size difference, the easiest way I explain it is, "A 5 min song in a Compressed format is around 5MB, where Uncompressed is closer to 50MB."