mjzee Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 The thread about Sun Ra's 100th birthday mentioned that 21 of his albums have been "remastered for iTunes." The thread linked to a JazzTimes news piece, which itself linked to an Apple document regarding "Mastered for iTunes" (see http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf) The document claims that "Recently, using the most advanced AAC encoder, the iTunes catalog was upgraded to iTunes Plus: a variable bit rate (VBR) 256 kbps AAC encoding format. iTunes AAC encoders are now able to transparently encode high definition audio, creating files that retain the small footprint, portability, and ease of use iTunes is known for. And they sound amazing." Earlier in the document, they claim "you can achieve dynamic range that’s superior to red book audio and a final product that’s virtually indistinguishable from the original recording." In essence, they're claiming that the same album "Mastered for iTunes" and downloaded from the iTunes store will sound better than the same album downloaded from, say, eMusic in 256VBR mp3 format. It would be interesting to test this claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I have compared some Mastered For iTunes tracks against their CD counterparts and heard zero difference. No big deal since the Mfi material isn't any more expensive than the regular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted May 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 eMusic can be far cheaper with a membership. Also, Amazon has occasional sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Yeah, I still have a subscription to Emusic. Their only problem being their catalog isn't nearly the size of iTunes catalog, and some of their albums are still in lower (i.e. under 256kbps) bit rate MP3. Whereas everything in the iTunes store is 256 VBR AAC. And that is my personal cutoff point to where I no longer hear a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Snap em all up now. Then get the thrill of buying it all again when the Japanese HD download edition appears in a year or so. The record companies may be said to be on the skids. But you have to admire their success in selling the same music to the same people again and again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) If you already have it on CD, or at least a higher bit rate digital format, then save your money for something you don't already own. Lark is right. This is yet another way for the record companies to separate fools from their money one more time. Edited May 24, 2014 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I don't necessarily think that the "remastered for iTunes" program is directly aimed at "selling the same music to the same people again and again". Many of the people who depend on iTunes and other download sites as their prime source of music don't have large CD collections, so they might not already own the music. Face it, people like us who own thousands of jazz CDs are a dying breed. The future is digital downloads and streaming services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 It's understandable that the latest technology will be used with reissues as with new recordings. Whether those of us who already have the recordings need them in an upgraded format is clearly a personal choice. But the record companies try very hard to persuade us we really do need them. I upgraded from vinyl to CD from 1985. I don't regret that at all as I hated the imperfections of vinyl. I'm not sure the music sounded wildly better or that my enjoyment increased significantly beyond not having to grit my teeth at clicks and pops and inner groove distortion. I re-bought a couple of dozen much loved rock CDs that were very badly remastered in the 80s. But apart from that I'll stick with what I've got. New purchases are 98% mp3 - I experimented with 2 or 3 higher definition downloads but couldn't tell the difference. I don't begrudge new listeners having the advantage of technology's improvements; but having lived through all manner of promised new breakthroughs that have withered on the vine for all but the audiophile, I'm sceptical. Maybe I've become like the old guy in the 50s who can't see the point of getting rid of his 78s for these new-fangled LPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjzee Posted May 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 I also wonder, when I rip a CD to iTunes, whether it will sound better as an .aac rather than as an .mp3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 I don't necessarily think that the "remastered for iTunes" program is directly aimed at "selling the same music to the same people again and again". Many of the people who depend on iTunes and other download sites as their prime source of music don't have large CD collections, so they might not already own the music. Face it, people like us who own thousands of jazz CDs are a dying breed. The future is digital downloads and streaming services. That's an excellent point, Sonny. But there are enough out there that have to have every "new" version of every recording they own. Just take this and Hoffman's website as an example. How many threads at either have to do with original releases rather then re-masters/reissues/hi-rez/HDTracks/SACD and whatever those super duper Japanese CD's are called? There are still plenty of OCD music collectors out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) I also wonder, when I rip a CD to iTunes, whether it will sound better as an .aac rather than as an .mp3. I rip them to ALAC. That way you have the full lossless file that you have on the CD. Then you can create whatever you want from that. I would create a copy of each and see for yourself if one is better than the other. As I said before, 256 is the cutoff for me. And actually, are you using an iPod/Phone? If so, you can designate the format and bitrate to convert your music to before loading it on your device. I set mine for 256 AAC, that way I don't have ALAC files on there taking huge chunks of storage away. I once did a comparo between CD, AAC 256 VBR, MP3 256, as well as a Mastered For iTunes versions of Sympathy For The Devil. Through both loudspeakers and headphones, both of which are surgically clean, I heard zero difference. I actively tried convincing myself that I heard differences. You know, like the MP3 was slightly lighter on bass, or the Mfi version was "rounder", or there was an abundance of sibilance, blah, blah, blah. The same nonsense you hear from those who have convinced themselves that they have bionic hearing and x-ray vision. Or claim to have the laughable "higher resolving" system which is usually centered around tube amps and turntables, the two home audio pieces that introduce the highest levels of distortion to the audio chain. But try for yourself. And go with whichever puts the biggest smile on your face. Edited May 25, 2014 by Scott Dolan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunky Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 When I compared CD to Spotify I noticed CD was always noticeably better. Having said that Spotify ( no idea what bit-rate they offer) serves it's purpose to allow sampling of music and generally sounds good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 When I compared CD to Spotify I noticed CD was always noticeably better. Having said that Spotify ( no idea what bit-rate they offer) serves it's purpose to allow sampling of music and generally sounds good enough. Spotify streams at 160kbps on your computer. So yes, you should notice a big difference between it and CD quality. If you get their premium subscription you get streaming at 320kbps. In that case, you shouldn't hear any difference at all if the file was properly encoded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunky Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 When I compared CD to Spotify I noticed CD was always noticeably better. Having said that Spotify ( no idea what bit-rate they offer) serves it's purpose to allow sampling of music and generally sounds good enough. Spotify streams at 160kbps on your computer. So yes, you should notice a big difference between it and CD quality. If you get their premium subscription you get streaming at 320kbps. In that case, you shouldn't hear any difference at all if the file was properly encoded. It's the premium service I use. It must depend then on the quality of the mastering / encoding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 25, 2014 Report Share Posted May 25, 2014 Maybe. But even then the differences should be next to nothing. Perhaps the compression needed to properly stream it makes a bigger difference? Because a 320 file stored on your computer should sound no different than its CD counterpart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) I have heard stories of people purchasing the premium Spotify service, yet getting the same low-grade sound. Don't know if they've gotten their act together. Edited May 26, 2014 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dolan Posted May 26, 2014 Report Share Posted May 26, 2014 I wonder if that's it. The more I think about it, I'm not sure how anyone could guarantee streaming at any particular bit rate because there are so many factors that are out of their control. Bandwidth and ISP restrictions being very big issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.