Mastered for iTunes at AES 2012

[silverking]

The Soundcheck metadata is generated and moved around with your music each time you sync to your main iTunes library to your iDevice, if it's activated in your main iTunes library.

Upon a sync, the Soundcheck metadata now exists on your iPhone.....but in the iPhone settings menu you can turn Soundcheck on or off.
So the answer to your question is "yes", but only if you activate it in the settings menu on your iPhone.

I've not used every version of iOS, and every iDevice.....but the above is the general idea.

[Twerk]

Originally Posted by grandmasters

Our job as mastering engineers is literally to make the end result sound as best as possible.
Noah

Amen!

[Dopamine]

<<So the answer to your question is "yes", but only if you activate it in the settings menu on your iPhone. >>

Checked my phone and it is there under "settings-->music". Thanks for the tip!

[Huntley Miller]

Originally Posted by Dopamine

<<So the answer to your question is "yes", but only if you activate it in the settings menu on your iPhone. >>

Checked my phone and it is there under "settings-->music". Thanks for the tip!

I don't want Sound Check on. It's my responsibility as an engineer to know what other work sounds like out there. Some people have figured out how to get stuff loud and still be musical, many have not.

[silverking]

If you're listening to music with the intent that you're seeking to discover what levels people are recording/mastering at, then obviously Soundcheck isn't designed for your use.

But then (to be fair) you're listening to your music in order to analyze it, not to enjoy it.

So.....Like higher resolution audio files, Soundcheck is ultimately a technology intended to increase the enjoyment potential of listening to music, it has nothing directly to do with analyzing music.

[Bob Olhsson]

The way our hearing works is non-linear. Distortion and noise can't simply mask earlier distortions and noise in a linear fashion. To a remarkable degree quality in the earlier stages can make a big difference even in the lowest resolution playback media.

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by silverking

Bob Katz spoke about the defined advantages that MFiT offers, and makes much of the information available in his new book, "iTunes Music: Mastering High Resolution Audio Delivery"
iTunes Music: Mastering High Resolution Audio Delivery: Produce Great Sounding Music with Mastered for iTunes: Bob Katz: 9780415656856: Amazon.com: Books

Thanks, ordered and will arrive less than a week. Global priority shipping is more than the book, though

[da goose]

I picked up the book this morning at SAE in Rotterdam. Bob send a couple to NL/Belgium for students and he brought me into contact with SAE so i could pick one up. Haven't read it yet of course, but with a quick browse i thought it is interesting.

[Beech]

Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon

Hi-res is a red herring. 99.9% of the planet doesn't need or want it.

The problem is too loud mixing and mastering, over-use of FX processing and general bad sound. Fixing the "too loud" thing would be a major step in the right direction.

MHO.

Well said!

The sooner the audio industry gets to grips with this the sooner we might get people back to actually placing more value to music again.

[silverking]

Originally Posted by Beech

Well said!

The sooner the audio industry gets to grips with this the sooner we might get people back to actually placing more value to music again.

MFIT, Soundcheck, and higher resolution files are all positive steps towards assisting consumers appreciate (once again) listening to music as more than a passive activity to be undertaken while doing something else.

Considering that loudness wars issues are equally artist and label driven, what ideas do you think will help "get to grips"?

It might be more productive to ADD your ideas to the three underway above.......rather than considering them as a "red herring", continuing to do nothing and offering up no new ideas.

[bendermastering]

In this iTunes era it's ironic that all Katz books (and probably all Focal Press stuff) is not available for iBooks/iDevices through Apple.

They're trying to push iTunes and the whole digital music formats forward yet they are unable to sell eBooks through Apple.

Sorry for going off topic and for my moaning...

[Beech]

Originally Posted by silverking

MFIT, Soundcheck, and higher resolution files are all positive steps towards assisting consumers appreciate (once again) listening to music as more than a passive activity to be undertaken while doing something else.

Considering that loudness wars issues are equally artist and label driven, what ideas do you think will help "get to grips"?

It might be more productive to ADD your ideas to the three underway above.......rather than considering them as a "red herring", continuing to do nothing and offering up no new ideas.

Sorry but I had read every through this topic and I responded on my phone which wasn't a good idea. You're right, I should look more positively at this and I probably would if I could have got to AES. My problem is that I feel angry that a perfectly good format like cd is being ditched by more and more artists.

Anyway, back on topic. MFiT is to be welcomed but I am not in favour of Apple storing the original high resolution file to use as they see fit in the future. At least not without some authority from whoever submitted it to Apple in the first instance. I'm afraid I just don't trust Apple's motives some of the time.

Of course any discussion on higher resolution is great. At present music lovers in the US can download some albums from HD Tracks and hopefully when the EU and the US can get the copyright issues sorted out, then we on this side of the pond can avail of that. At least, I assume it's copyright that's holding this up. But here's why I object to Apple holding our high resolution files. If they were to flood the market with those, where would that leave companies like HD Tracks?

As far as Soundcheck is concerned, it's a nice idea although as an engineer myself, I don't use it as I want to hear the level differences between various masterings. However, I'm sure some of the public would use it if they knew how.

Thanks for the heads up on Bob Katz's book!

[silverking]

I think it's always healthy to be wary of a company handling your product (in this case Apple).

Having said that, the ultimate repository of your 24/96 or higher files is with you, and with however you've chosen to store that file for the ages.....all you're doing is submitting it to Apple in a higher resolution in order that they can down-sample with their improved SRC, and have the higher resolution files stored for future hi-res release.

But.....I would posit that Apple, with their 6 billion downloads on iTunes, is probably speaking the truth when they state that they feel they're responsible for the cultural heritage of a large swath of societies output of recorded music.
I might even guess, that for a large number of musicians and smaller studios and labels.....the Apple Vault is probably safer and more secure than anything most of us could drum up from our own facilities.....especially when one considers we're talking in time frames ranging from decades to centuries.

I appreciate what HDTracks has done to date with their distribution of high resolution files, but find their selection quite limited, and their prices seem particularly high (I'm not sure high resolution files should translate into three times the price of AAC, as the point is to make it available and affordable to all consumers who want to listen to "better sounding" music).

It's probably safe to assume that sometime in the near future Apple will definitely undertake the public release of your higher resolution files......much of their MFiT requirement for 24/96 or higher resolution files should probably consider that it is, in fact, for a higher res release at some point in the future.
That move would no doubt force companies like HDTracks to have to adjust their business model....such is business in general.

Although always wary of large companies, I do appreciate the fact that some of Apple's recent undertakings (MFiT, SoundCheck, etc) seem to have at least opened up some important discussion around the subject of higher quality music for the average consumer.
It's probably also worth note that Apple is heavily dependent on audio engineers, artists, and labels everywhere to make these undertakings work.....for all they are, in terms of music Apple is a simply a distributor of software and hardware....they create no music at all.

[spaceman]

This side of the pond, there is ( in France ) a well-known ( and from what i've heard, pretty successful ) store that sells 24-bit downloads, and their selection is pretty good in all genres , although classical music and jazz are more represented. Téléchargement de musique en haute qualité. Ecoute en streaming.

[Beech]

Originally Posted by spaceman

This side of the pond, there is ( in France ) a well-known ( and from what i've heard, pretty successful ) store that sells 24-bit downloads, and their selection is pretty good in all genres , although classical music and jazz are more represented. Téléchargement de musique en haute qualité. Ecoute en streaming.

Interesting site. Can you recommend anything that you think sounds great? I'd like to try one download just to see what the experience is like and how it will be handled by my computer once it's on there.

[Beech]

Has anyone tried the "Mastered for iTune Droplet"? I downloaded it some time ago but am not really sure if I'm not better letting the labels deal with iTunes uploads.

Wow, as I'm typing there's an ad flashing above me - "Learn from the master", Vlado Meller! IMO that man has done just about as much as anyone to push the Loudness Wars to the limit. And now he's giving workshops!

[Ben F]

I'd personally just be happy with 16 bit 44.1khz from iTunes. Hi-res appears to be just another maneuver from Apple, and indeed mastering facilities, to cash in.

[silverking]

Originally Posted by Ben F

I'd personally just be happy with 16 bit 44.1khz from iTunes. Hi-res appears to be just another maneuver from Apple, and indeed mastering facilities, to cash in.

Apple currently makes no additional revenue from MFiT.
As a matter of fact, they've made the required testing tools available for free for anybody to download and use. It could fairly be stated that instituting the MFiT program has cost Apple money.

Apple may one day offer higher resolution downloads for additional fees (or not) for those who care to download them.....but currently, there's no additional revenue being made by Apple just because a song or album is "Mastered for iTunes".

Note that Apple themselves haven't said anything about offering higher resolution downloads.....all of this current discussion revolves around folks surmising that Apple might one day offer higher resolution downloads, based on their submission policy for 24/96 or higher audio files.

To your note about mastering facilities "cashing in"..........to be fair, it is pretty common for audio engineers to charge for their time......and generating a separate MFiT master does take more time.
Having said that, I do know of some facilities that aren't currently charging any extra to provide masters that follow the MFiT guidelines.
There will always be requirements for "different" masters.....vinyl, radio single, dance/club, uncompressed hi-res, etc.
It's really not at all "new" for some mastering studios to apply a charge for each one of those different masters.

In effect MFiT is really saying, "send us your gently limited file in 24/96 or higher, and without upsampling".

If they (Apple or the various artists themselves) can tempt you to purchase a song or album because it's been "Mastered for iTunes", well...........that's really what the marketing and sale of music has always been about

I often overlook the obvious, but I'm not seeing Apple or mastering engineers undertaking to perpetuate any sort of "cash grab" in this current MFiT discussion.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by Beech

My problem is that I feel angry that a perfectly good format like cd is being ditched by more and more artists.

Interesting point. Apple is moving towards eliminating CD drives from their computers, and somewhere with regards to MFiT, I've read that Apple plans on re-releasing iPod devices that will support the new "high resolution" MFiT files, so I look forward to watching (and laughing at) the new marketing ads that will say how Apple is pioneering high-quality audio, but in order to be in the in crowd, you must ditch your old iPod (that can play 24bit uncompressed files fine) in order to be cool.

One thing I'll say about true Audiophiles, they know their sh*t and don't get caught up in the hype, but then again, this isn't about that market. Apple knows they can create marketing campaigns for their target audience based around lies and people react by throwing their wallet at them.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Beech

... I just don't trust Apple's motives...

After spending considerable time with the Sonnox plug-in, it's clear that modest average levels are mandatory for streaming if you don't want a completely distorted mess and Apple is talking an awful lot about iCloud.

Apple clearly needs mfit in order to stream acceptable lower resolution audio!

[silverking]

A CD really isn't a "format" though, it's a "thing" (round, shiny, hole in the middle).

44/16 (the format) doesn't require a CD or a CD Player in order to play it back. You can play 44/16 files on any number of platforms.

CD's are still the worlds dominant physical playback medium.

The reduction in the consumption of CD's is based on how artists choose to distribute their music......which in turn is based on how consumers have indicated they wish to consume that music.
In this case, consumers have shown a desire to consume their music having been distributed digitally rather than physically.

MFiT, SoundCheck, and hi-res are seem aimed towards ensuring that future digital distribution of music takes aim a bit higher than previous digitally distributed music has aimed.

It may serve this thread better if folks try to keep the discussion to MFiT, etc, and save the generic and broadly applied Apple-Bashing for the hundreds of other web forums out there that exist for that very purpose

..........of course, it is the internet, and this is GS..........

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by silverking

A CD really isn't a "format" though, it's a "thing" (round, shiny, hole in the middle).

Audio CD is absolutely a format. With rules, standards, and everything.

MFiT, SoundCheck, and hi-res are seem aimed towards ensuring that future digital distribution of music takes aim a bit higher than previous digitally distributed music has aimed.

Well....some of it is about quality. Some of it is about business.

Soundcheck is about not having to lunge for the volume control. Aka convenience for consumers.

MFiT is about getting the best source for the encode.

Hi-res is yet to be decided. The market penetration is essentially zero, although it will be interesting to see how the Pono system is received as it's kind of a different thought-process from the others.

How Apple markets 96/24 downloads will also be of interest.

As far as my tests for MfiT, I could certainly write a book.

Ok, a sentence:

"Lower it roughly 1dB and ship it."


DC

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by silverking

Apple may one day offer higher resolution downloads for additional fees (or not) for those who care to download them....

Indeed, it could (and should) also be argued that choice, alone, ought to make it worthwhile (Apple lossless, from full-res).
This not about artificially enhancing a product, but in minimizing degrading it from the outset – something I'd posit that most artists would support.
The rest is education – for which the onus is surely on artists, fans, mastering engineers, and Apple alike.

[Bob Olhsson]

It's worth noting that you can do the "official" 256k variable encode in the current version of the iTunes app which, of course, is free of charge.

[silverking]

I don't disagree with anything in your post Dave.

Audio CD is definitely a format, but I noted that the physical CD (round, shiny, hole in the middle) was "a thing", not a format (you can also store pure data on it)......a statement that's still correct even with Audio CD's brought into the discussion......the round shiny thing remains.....well, a "thing", while Audio CD remains is ultimately "a format stored on a thing".

As the chap whose post I was addressing was ultimately talking about how physical CD's were going the way of the dinosaur, I pointed out that it was really a distribution issue he was noting (not a hi-res vs. lo-res battle), and that the distribution model was ultimately designed to cater to consumers needs and desires.

Consumers have shown that they want their music delivered to their computer digitally, with a simple and direct purchase, and an easy method to play it back.

Also, I actually believe that it's always about business. There's really not much reason behind doing things as Apple is doing them unless it fits into a business plan, makes money, serves the shareholders, and benefits Apple themselves.

But I also don't really see anything wrong with a business making money, AND trying to improve their product for their customers.
I agree that hi-res has little market penetration now, but with the MFiT AND Pono catalogs being upgraded as we speak (type), one can only posit that the ultimate intent is to unleash them on the marketplace.....making them a new standard for digital distribution.

Whether companies like Apple and Pono keep prices the same for hi-res as is currently charged for lo-res, or charge 25% more or ???......their ultimate hope is to re-sell music libraries to the vinyl/8-track/cassette/CD/"old" iTunes crowd yet one more time.....and have everybody else purchase hi-res tracks (likely at a bit of a price increase over the current 99 cent per track model.

Dave, they say every classic movie plot can be summed up in one line.....the "slug line" the movie folks call it.
You've proven that MFiT is a valid concept by generating a perfect (and short) slug line

"Lower it roughly 1dB and ship it."

........will save the busy engineers from reading books, manuals, or threads related to MFiT........perfect for those short of time!

[Franco]

Originally Posted by silverking

It may serve this thread better if folks try to keep the discussion to MFiT, etc, and save the generic and broadly applied Apple-Bashing for the hundreds of other web forums out there that exist for that very purpose

True, as someone who "Apple-bashed", my apologies. I suppose it's the "music lover" in me that gets upset about this issue, which has little to do with actual quality and more to do about profits (by making another proprietary Apple format with questionable practices in terms of providing something that is truly of a higher quality). Why? Well...

Originally Posted by silverking

But I also don't really see anything wrong with a business making money, AND trying to improve their product for their customers.

What guarantees that the source for something submitted to MFiT wasn't for example, a 16/44.1 file that was simply converted to 24/96?

In the end, you're right and this is just another thing to cater to, kind of like when clients ask for the masters to sound "great on laptop speakers as well please." We just comply (even if what they're asking for makes little to no sense).

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Franco

What guarantees that the source for something submitted to MFiT wasn't for example, a 16/44.1 file that was simply converted to 24/96?

Um, that would be our job. (at least to encourage, educate, and in remaining a gatekeeper for high quality sources at pre-mastering).

Originally Posted by Franco

In the end, you're right and this is just another thing to cater to, kind of like when clients ask for the masters to sound "great on laptop speakers as well please." We just comply (even if what they're asking for makes little to no sense).

I don't see MFiT or the push for ALAC from full res as being another thing to cater for. On the contrary, surely it's the down converting and attempting to make concessions for the moving target of lossy formats which became the other thing to cater for. To me, that's the mindset that needs to shift within the "value-add" marketing – the issue is not one of enhanced formats but less degraded and re-processed formats, and at the very least: choice. (nobody seems to argue about quality options with YouTube).

[Franco]

Originally Posted by Adam Dempsey

Um, that would be our job. (at least to encourage, educate, and in remaining a gatekeeper for high quality sources at pre-mastering).

Yea, and you know, this reminds me of the few times this year alone where I've offered to give a label MP3s encoded directly from the 24bit masters (which do sound a bit closer to the original files in comparison to MP3s made from a CD, from my own listening tests). It usually results in someone from the digital distribution company who tells me that the system they use to create and tag the digital files will only accept 16/44.1s.

The whole "gatekeeper for high quality" thing is (from experience) a touchy subject. I've gotten mixed results over the years from past/present clients when I start to point out things they can improve on during the production phase of a project, ranging from "Thank you, we'll try that on the next project" to "Yea, we kinda like the way it sounds the way we're doing it" and never hear from them again.

If it were always a positive response, I might paint a sign that reads "Repent! Record your stuff at 24/96 so your compressed files sound awesome!" and stand outside the local Guitar Center on Saturday afternoons.

No worries though, I WILL play ball (now the question is: How much to charge for encoding these files?)

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

After spending considerable time with the Sonnox plug-in, it's clear that modest average levels are mandatory for streaming if you don't want a completely distorted mess and Apple is talking an awful lot about iCloud.

Apple clearly needs mfit in order to stream acceptable lower resolution audio!

So MFiT wasn't created by a push from certain mastering engineers and from a true desire at Apple to improve audio quality, like Bob Ludwig - with firsthand experience of the development - explains it in Bob Katz' new book, but rather it's part of an evil masterplan by Apple?

Gimme a break with the conspiracy theories. ;-)

There are several benefits to MFiT, and any that promote more dynamics will help streaming quality as well, naturally.

Apart from mastering I was recently asked to become technical advisor to Universal Music Denmark on mastering delivery formats, which means I'll be educating the production staff and A&Rs in everything from DDP to MFiT. This includes a chance to educate the A&Rs on the benefits of avoiding overcompression and clipping - and MFiT was the direct cause of why they got me onboard.

If that isn't good for the future of music quality I don't know what is.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

So MFiT wasn't created by a push from certain mastering engineers and from a true desire at Apple to improve audio quality, like Bob Ludwig - with firsthand experience of the development - explains it in Bob Katz' new book, but rather it's part of an evil masterplan by Apple?...

...If that isn't good for the future of music quality I don't know what is.

It certainly is great for the future of music quality however my point is that Apple has by far the most to gain from MFiT at steaming bit-rates where the difference is huge and not subtle. Yes Apple obviously has a desire to improve quality but lets not paint them as being proponents of the highest quality audio.