A look at the Mastered for iTunes program

[tweet]

Ars Technica takes a look at the Mastered for iTunes program and whether it truly does make a difference to consumers.

Does "Mastered for iTunes" matter to music? Ars puts it to the test

Interesting read.

Terry

[kfr01]

Originally Posted by tweet

Ars Technica takes a look at the Mastered for iTunes program and whether it truly does make a difference to consumers.

Does "Mastered for iTunes" matter to music? Ars puts it to the test

Interesting read.

Terry

I really like Ars and read it every day, but I felt like this was one example of their writer biting off more than he could chew and attempting to be techie without actually doing the hard technical work. Why didn't they process the two files to determine the actual differences with the source? Bizarre not to answer the one question that it would have been the most obvious to address...

Further, I've become annoyed by the articles which disparage high res. audio by saying that most equipment can't handle it and that most people can't tell the difference. These articles miss a huge part of the point of high res. --- if I'm going to buy new music in a downloaded format, I want as close to the original master as possible, not some lossy "Mastered for iTunes" mutilation.

[BuffaloBill]

Originally Posted by tweet

Ars Technica takes a look at the Mastered for iTunes program and whether it truly does make a difference to consumers.

Does "Mastered for iTunes" matter to music? Ars puts it to the test

Interesting read.

Terry

Includes interesting article about 24/192 actually being inferior to 16/44.1 upon playback. Provides more empirical evidence that 16/44.1 provides the highest possible fidelity playback.

[tweet]

Karl - Agreed.

Terry

[bakerman]

Originally Posted by kfr01

...Further, I've become annoyed by the articles which disparage high res. audio by saying that most equipment can't handle it and that most people can't tell the difference. These articles miss a huge part of the point of high res. --- if I'm going to buy new music in a downloaded format, I want as close to the original master as possible, not some lossy "Mastered for iTunes" mutilation.

Agreed. The article "24/192 Music Downloads...and why they make no sense" is just another example of how you can "research" anything on the web, piece it all together to make it sound like you know what you're talking about and publish it on your blog. I'm amazed that people take this as gospel truth without even blinking.

My own comparisons, and in the end that's all that really matters, have shown that I can hear a difference between some file rates. It's my prerogative whether I want to buy hi-res files or not.

As far as the whole AAC vs. iTunes Plus, do people really want better quality files on their iPods? Personally I want as many songs that I can cram on my Ipod as possible. If that means small, crappy AAC files then so be it. I see iTunes Plus as just another marketing ploy.

[MyPal]

Karl...agreed. The ripple effect of subsonic frequencies into the audible spectrum is what we hear naturally! Lossy compression of the original master recording is an inferior reproduction No matter how it is equalized IMO. The intent here is totally different to re-mastering to improve the original material due to its age.

The Apple BS artists have managed to continue to fool the masses. This effort will ultimately culminate into a lossless format of sorts, which is absolutely necessary for them to retain their position longer term as the penny-tech device continues to converge & evolve. No matter how fancy the playback shuffle, it is still much the same transistor radio of the '70s.

Right said Fred...I'm too sexy for iTunes.