What's better "Mastered for iTunes" or Apple Lossless?

[StefaanC]

In my experience as a life long researcher, incompetence and corruption in the research field is significantly more prevalent than in many other fields. The paired comparison switching identification research methodology being used in these tests is clearly DICTATING the results. That's blatant incompetence on the part of anyone using those methods.

When you develop some results based on a valid monadic non-switching non-identification methodology, let me know. I suspect you won't though, because those results will clearly indicate that 16/44 sucks and that's apparently something you don't want to hear.

I can understand Your statement.
True 44,1 kHz is audible for some , mostly younger people and they don't like CD at all.
As long as the audio industry is keeping compressing the audio tracks, no matter if it's 16/24 or 32 float , or losless or compressed , this will sound...terrible on consumer devices.

But going to 24 bit 96khz is a mile away from CD audio.
Same for DVD against Blueray

So technology is improving but the one that is recording should stay away from compressor knobs.
Modern music, no, You will not hear any major difference, but for recording from orchestra or any music with silent passages then the difference is notable.

 

[Helmsley]

Just use Flac ( or even mlp if possible ? ) and give us what the creator and artist REALLY hear in the studio

I agree 100%...and that's why I don't use iTunes. Instead, I use TIDAL who do offer FLAC.

The thing is though, most "normal" music listeners aren't too bothered about quality (to an extent).