The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mastered for iTunes at AES 2012
Old 31st October 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

Mastered for iTunes at AES 2012

Just a couple of comments on the excellent "Mastered for iTunes" workshop chaired by Bob Ludwig at the recent AES, with his two guests Bob Katz and Eric Boulanger (The Mastering Lab).

Bob L. spoke at length about his admiration for the Mastered for iTunes program. He offered clarification as to how the program came about and was developed, and further how various aspects of it were definitely to the advantage of everybody from the artist, to mastering engineer, to consumer.

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"
http://www.amazon.com/iTunes-Music-M.../dp/0415656850

With a lengthy introduction written by Bob Ludwig, Bob K's book instantly becomes the definitive resource on the Mastered for iTunes program.

Bob L. explained further that Apple didn't develop the MFiT program without a lot of input from our industry.
Both Eric and Bob L. were involved in the development of the program (as professional users), and Apple payed lengthy visits to mastering studios in Los Angeles to both listen to the engineers, and also listen to various MFiT concepts their actual rooms, through the gear they do their daily mastering chores on.

Although the entire panel observed that the MFiT program in its entirety isn't that difficult to grasp, there are some fine details that need to be observed at the mastering stage, and the panel again commented positively on Apples offering of their very powerful suite of tools to make sure those fine details can be taken care of at the mastering stage.

There was some information presented on the additional accuracy of the actual Apple software over the Sonnox/Fraunhaufer codec.....which was addressed in the Q&A by a rep from Fraunhaufer as being a trade-off between having a command line interface and ultimate accuracy (Apple), or having a somewhat attractive GUI at the expense of absolute accuracy (Sonnox). The difference between the two is the location in the signal path that the peak measurement is taken.
The above is in reference to the accuracy of measurements only....obviously the Apple software is a command line interface, and the Sonnox allows real-time auditioning of the codec (I use both, as I'm sure many others do as well).

It was a fantastic seminar, well attended, with a passionate panel, and hosted by a man that, quite frankly, continues to display his knowledge of cutting edge mastering issues.....and not hesitating to share that knowledge with his fellow engineers.

If you're interested in Bob Ludwigs extended telling of how the MFiT program came about, as well as Bob Katz's lengthy and detailed look at the finer details of the actual MFiT process spoken about at the seminar, Bob K's book is an excellent read.
Old 31st October 2012
  #2
Gear Addict
 

Thanks for writing this. Having done quite a few Mastered for iTunes masters (24/96) as well as having researched and lectured about it, I have to say that I really feel (because it is a feel thing) that it's better than MP3 and it's a step in the right direction.

I just wish more brokers accepted it (or iTunes accepted it from brokers as it might be) because right now labels are the only people asking for it.
Old 31st October 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

Noah, Bob Ludwig had multiple audio samples which he A/B'd over a large and very decent Meyer PA, and which had many engineers in the audience raising hands (saying "yes" it sounds better) when Bob asked if the MFiT AAC example sounded better than the 44/16 example of the same music. (Bob actually had multiple formats he A/B'd, and the MFiT AAC examples at least held their own against various other formats, even though some are considered to be "better" than AAC).

It opened a lot of folks eyes. Bob doesn't say AAC sounds better in every single example....but he does think (as did many others) that it can sound better than many alternate options. Much of the seminar was Bob, Bob, and Eric offering suggestions on how to maximize your possibilities of having your MFiT mastered tunes "sound better" today as AAC files than many current alternatives.

There was a general tone, shared as well in a different seminar (and by varying degrees) by attendees George Massenberg, Chuck Ainlay, Ed Cherney, Frank Fillipetti, and Elliot Schiener that Apple likely has plans up its sleeve to ultimately release much higher fidelity files in the future (thus their requirement for the higher MFiT sample rate submissions).

One by one, the aggregators are beginning to come on board as being able to submit MFiT files for you......Bob Katz announced that he had just been informed that CDBaby is now (or will be shortly) accepting MFiT files for direct submission to Apple.
Bob did note that there may be a caveat as to whether you get onto the "Mastered for iTunes" page if you submit through an aggregator.

So if Bob Katz's information was accurate, it appears that MFiT is now open to anybody who wants to submit their music into the MFiT program.

It was a seminar with a very positive spin, and sent many engineers out of the room feeling quite good about the fact that the worlds largest music distributor is taking very substantive steps towards offering better sound today, and also ensuring that the appropriate high resolution audio files are in their MFiT database for still higher resolution releases "tomorrow".

More than one of the above luminaries noted that they had heard directly from Apple that the only road blocks to higher resolution files being distributed today is a combination of hardware limitations (of the hundreds of millions of iPods, iPhones, and iPads out there and in daily use), and the more contentious and less unanimously agreed on concept of much longer download times, and consumers not willing to put up with them (at least for now).

That some (but definitely not all) consumers may not give a crap about audio quality was also noted throughout the AES seminars that touched on the subject.
Old 1st November 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
More than one of the above luminaries noted that they had heard directly from Apple that the only road blocks to higher resolution files being distributed today is a combination of hardware limitations (of the hundreds of millions of iPods, iPhones, and iPads out there and in daily use)
Interesting and obvious in the fact that all such devices have long supported WAV, AIFF, and Apple Lossless, with >48k sample rates being the only real limitation (for now). Even basic iTunes software allows for preserving 48k source imports, bypassing SRC – something that MFiT is yet to do. Do you know if that specific and seemingly glaring issue was raised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
and the more contentious and less unanimously agreed on concept of much longer download times, and consumers not willing to put up with them (at least for now).
Also (and obviously contentiously) interesting in that such excuses haven't applied to video content and demand, coupled with the increasing roll out of LTE/4G connectivity and other HD music stores.

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
That some (but definitely not all) consumers may not give a crap about audio quality was also noted throughout the AES seminars that touched on the subject.
Of course, raising the sonic bar doesn't adversely affect catering for the lowest common denominator, whereas the inverse isn't true.

Good to hear of things moving forward though and thanks for the heads up. With a new and streamlined iTunes 11 on the way, here's hoping that positive changes could be sooner rather than later.
Old 1st November 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Interesting report Larry, gracias!

JT
Old 1st November 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

The panel didn't go into great detail, but it was noted that the hardware issue was (as I understood it) more related to capacity, in that somebody who has 1500 AAC songs on their iPod with plenty more room to add more, that at higher resolution might only be able to get 100-200 songs onto their device before it was completely "full".

So although Apple will gladly take your 24/96 file into their MFiT program today, they will move very slowly in sticking those kinds of files onto the existing devices of what are largely uninformed consumers.
The backlash from millions of folks who suddenly have their device filled up at one or two hundred songs could presumably make the current "Maps" fiasco look tame.......at least that's how I understood the primary focus of hardware concerns.

In a nutshell, the storage appliance on your iDevice is fixed, and Apple has to plan and work with what the hundred million (or whatever the number is) current users of iDevices out there......there is invariably more to the discussion from Apples perspective, but that was the extent these folks were willing to go essentially speaking for Apple and their future plans. Although Apple apparently indicated some hardware concerns, l they also didn't tip any specific details as to their upcoming endeavors (and if they did, nobody on the panel felt comfortable sharing with the AES audience).

I think a lot of folks in the engineering field aren't really buying the high resolution/long download story. For lots of reasons, bandwidth today is much cheaper and more readily available than even a year or two ago. I got the impression that even the panel (Bob, Bob, and Eric) didn't really buy into the bandwidth argument as one that held a lot of water when explaining why high resolution files aren't available on iTunes today (and of course they have been, and are available on the high resolution distributors web sites for a while now).

I got the distinct message at AES this year that Apple isn't really interested in catering to the lowest common denominator any longer. Apple is a business, they move very slowly, and one is naturally suspicious of their marketing language and their presumably good intentions.
But a surprisingly large group of AES panel types who spoke about iTunes seemed to think that there was a grass roots move afoot to raise the bar sonically across the board.
The use of Soundcheck to kill the loudness wars once and for all (thus add to the "sonic wellness" we're apparently headed for) entered into more than a few discussions at AES, but I'll leave that one for somebody else to open the floor with.....it was a hot button topic for folks like Frank Fillipetti, who likened it (somewhat light heartedly) to Dictatorships and Death Panels trying to tell engineers what to do with their music

I think that one of the things that makes all of this somewhat difficult to predict is that Apple, as the worlds largest distributor of music, has historically refrained entirely from sharing any information with the public on their future plans, and shares in only a very limited fashion with audio professionals (as seen by their visiting a few L.A. studios while developing MFiT, as well as involving Eric and Bob Ludwig in the process)......Apple has operated largely in silence up until now, only recently expressing their apparent desire to "right a wrong" in terms of the resolution and resulting sonic quality of the music they sell and distribute.
Old 1st November 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Fidelis's Avatar
 

Thank you for sharing all this info. I couldn't make to AES, just ordered the book!
Old 1st November 2012
  #8
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
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.
Old 1st November 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
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.
+1.
Discussing about samplerates right now is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Old 1st November 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
1 Review written
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
More than one of the above luminaries noted that they had heard directly from Apple that the only road blocks to higher resolution files being distributed today is a combination of hardware limitations (of the hundreds of millions of iPods, iPhones, and iPads out there and in daily use), and the more contentious and less unanimously agreed on concept of much longer download times, and consumers not willing to put up with them (at least for now).
Pretty sure all the iThings will play ALAC - Apple Lossless and 16/44.1 Wav
So compatibility with these shouldn't be an issue.
Old 1st November 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

Tom, I should have stated more clearly that the hardware concerns shared by some of the panel (second hand from Apple) seemed to relate more to the size of the existing storage appliance in each iThing, and what happens to those suddenly only able to load only 1/20th of their previous iDevice library in the new, higher resolution format.

Even if there were hardware concerns related to actual hardware capability for playback of high resolution file types, at the rate Apple releases new iDevices, it would likely be no further away than a few months that a "new" iDevice with a hardware capable of playing any file type would be on the market.

To the gentlemen noting the "too loud" concern.....have you investigated the technology behind Apple "Soundcheck"?
George Massenberg and some of his fellow panelists feel that with the worlds largest distributor of digital music already providing the technology in their software and hardware, if folks simply clicked the Soundcheck tick box (or Apple configured the box already pre-clicked), the loudness wars would simply end.

There would be no advantage to heating up your files such that Soundcheck would activate.

Want to know if your file is at a level that would bring Soundcheck into play?.....use something like this to give it a check:

CHANNEL D - Audio Leak

As George Massenberg was trying to explain to Frank Fillipetti, Soundcheck doesn't do anything to your actual music, it only affects your hardware based on the metadata contained within the music file.
Don't want it to turn down your music?......use something like Audioleak to ensure that you're not going to activate the Soundcheck function.

Maybe not a perfect solution, but when Apple (once again, the worlds largest music distributor) is offering up things like MFiT and Soundcheck in order to attempt to address issues of concern to audio professionals (and their customers), it may require those same audio professionals to evangelize the right path towards higher quality audio.

I'm not sure where you got your 99.9% number (of folks who don't want it), but I suspect you're not quoting for accuracy, but rather making a point.

In fact, people gravitated to the iDevice's for their simplicity, their portability, and their capacity.
It would be a mistake (IMO) to presume that at least some of those same iDevice consumers wouldn't like all of the above, PLUS higher quality audio files, now and in the future.

Would iDevice consumers pay for higher resolution files?
Would they tolerate longer download times to get them?
Will iDevice consumers "tick" Soundcheck if they are tutored as to what it does?
If Apple "pre-ticks" Soundcheck, will people turn it off so as not to be "under the thumb of the man"?

All good questions.......but you've got to start somewhere, and most of the tools needed to address the larger concerns of audio professionals are already available from Apple.

As to the quality of writing, recording, and artistic value of current music releases......that's really a whole different subject, and one I stay out of on a daily basis.......or I'd have next to no customers
Old 1st November 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Other stores seem to do OK by offering a choice of lossy or non-lossy files as an option at checkout.
Old 1st November 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Greg Reierson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
5 Reviews written
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
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.
Sound check, Replay Gain, et al make the loudness issue a mute point. That's the message that needs to get out - and since MFiT relies on Sound Check, it's in Apple's interest to get the message out.
Old 1st November 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
1 Review written
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
Tom, I should have stated more clearly that the hardware concerns shared by some of the panel (second hand from Apple) seemed to relate more to the size of the existing storage appliance in each iThing, and what happens to those suddenly only able to load only 1/20th of their previous iDevice library in the new, higher resolution format.

Even if there were hardware concerns related to actual hardware capability for playback of high resolution file types, at the rate Apple releases new iDevices, it would likely be no further away than a few months that a "new" iDevice with a hardware capable of playing any file type would be on the market.
I'm with you. What I was trying to say is there is no need for a new higher res format other than the ones we already have and the ones that are already supported.

Even the service "Pono" that Neil Young is promoting seems to jump the shark a bit.
Neil Young's 'Pono' is a music service and player for audiophiles (Wired UK)

For mass appeal and consumption, going from 256 AAC, it seems the next logical step would be Alac, or Flac. Reaching for anything 24 bit seems a bit over the top as a viable consumer market for the near future.
Even storing a 24/96 version as a high res version in the cloud seems a bit much..

For the people that do prefer having the quality, I think they are the ones who will understand the storage capacity concerns and accept the download times as being longer. You can download a 40 meg wav in less than 15 seconds with decent service and all the idevices have options for greater storage, it just cost more mula.

Having a multi format distribution capability like Bandcamp could probably work well.
Old 1st November 2012
  #15
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
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.

One has nothing to do with the other. One is format delivery and the other is a process of production.

Hi-res is important wether people realize it or not. It's how people 'hear' (or I like to say 'feel') the music that directly leads to their enjoyment of it. The consumer doesn't need to know that it originated from a 24/96 file and why would they care anyway? I think, the better the quality of source the better the end result no matter what format it's in.
Old 1st November 2012
  #16
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
Hi-res is a red herring. 99.9% of the planet doesn't need or want it.
.
99.9% of the industrialized planet also doesn't consider music worth paying for or using for anything other than as a background fragrance during other activity.

Hi-res has the potential of re-engaging people with music as a foreground activity. You need look no further than the resurgence of interest in vinyl.
Old 1st November 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Franco's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Well, we will all have to play ball using Apple's codec eventually, even if MFiT has nothing to do with optimal sonic quality (otherwise, we'd be talking about facilitating distribution of lossless files at a wider scale, which is already possible and being done by some digital distributors).

With MFiT, you're talking about one specific platform (apple devices), a new form of DRM and the fact that it's more about quantity (e.g., how many songs can fit on my iPhone) versus quality (e.g., I don't want "high quality" if I can only get 200 songs on my device).

It's one of those things that has little to do with great sonics, kind of like how you should listen to your masters over a Beats By Dre headphone, even though you know they suck (that's not the point, the point is they look cool and people buy them so you better know how masters translate over them).

I'm pretty sure they'll eventually have AES panels on how to master audio with consideration to noise cancellation circuits built into some of these headphones.
Old 1st November 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Hi-res has the potential of re-engaging people with music as a foreground activity. You need look no further than the resurgence of interest in vinyl.
True, although if I may make a potentially controversial side point....
In terms of download only products, I feel that maybe moving towards some kind of container format / extended metadata for releases that includes a "digital booklet" might help.
Rather than just a 'cover pic' appearing on the music player if we're lucky, it could also house all the liner notes, exclusive pictures and artwork, lyrics - perhaps even interviews etc.
This adds value back to the product - but also the whole experience, and it could be right there at the click of a button whenever you play the release on your media player.

In my experience as a music lover, this part of the experience is largely missing in the download world. Very few labels seem to release a proper digital booklet, and even if they do it is often a separate download, or requires visiting a webpage, or it doesn't really integrate with most media players properly.

I'm still buying CDs for this reason, even though they are ripped as wav straight to a hard drive and then played from there.

Perhaps I am rushing too far here and being unrealistic... but technically it's all fairly easily within reach, and I think those who would relish hi-res downloads would also enjoy this kind of attention to detail for their download products.
Old 1st November 2012
  #19
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

The METAlliance I noted above, with it's panel of well known engineers, considers as one of its primary missions the re-introduction of full album credits attached to digitally downloaded music files.

They're just getting off the ground with this undertaking, but it's of interest that along with discussions of improving the audio quality of music played on iDevices, they're also adamant that distributors give the consumer full details as they relate to those persons who contributed to the writing/recording/production of an album.

They note it's a fledgling effort, but an effort they're going to pursue wholeheartedly to reestablish full and complete credits as we got used to reading them on big squares of cardboard, or in books contained within those big squares of cardboard.
Not yet far enough along to clarify exactly how they would like to see those credits made available to the consumer, they're first working on getting those parties responsible to agree that restoration of full album credits is something of value.

As I noted above, the general tone at AES on the creation/production/engineering/crediting of digitally distributed music was positive. MFiT, Soundcheck, METAlliance........it seems less and less about rambling on endlessly about what's wrong, and more about what people and companies (including Apple) are doing to try and re-engage the consumer as a listener, and trying to restore perceived value to music.

A whole bunch of guilty parties got us to where we are today based on greed, desire for profit, wishing to re-monitize already produced material and simple lack of foresight (all combined with basic human nature)......there seems to be no real point in continuing to cry over milk spilled in the past.

When many of the proposed changes take the form of having to change the consumers habits and expectations, nothing is going to happen quickly.........what's impressive is that it's happening at all.
Old 1st November 2012
  #20
Lives for gear
 
huejahfink's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
When many of the proposed changes take the form of having to change the consumers habits and expectations, nothing is going to happen quickly.
OK - well it's good news that folk are pushing in this direction.

The point you make quoted here though, I'm less sure about.
Not because I don't see your point, but because the right company (unfortunately, I am probably referring to Apple here) could make this a reality quickly with powerful marketing campaigns implying that Apple are yet again the saviours of all mankind, and people will be falling over each-other to get the new device or firmware updates etc so they can stay in the highest tier of the Apple cool club.
Provided the extra information was stored in the file in such a way as to make the musical portion backwards compatible with 'legacy' devices - I don't see why this would need to take an age to come into fruition at all.

Perhaps I am trivialising the amount of work involved in such moves, but at the same time Apple don't seem to be shy in rolling out new OS and devices on a very regular basis. It almost seems like reluctance on their part to push music delivery with the same vigor.
Old 1st November 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasters View Post
One has nothing to do with the other. One is format delivery and the other is a process of production.

Hi-res is important wether people realize it or not. It's how people 'hear' (or I like to say 'feel') the music that directly leads to their enjoyment of it. The consumer doesn't need to know that it originated from a 24/96 file and why would they care anyway? I think, the better the quality of source the better the end result no matter what format it's in.
That may be so, but i checked out a lot of these MFIT threads on GS ('cause i'm interested), and mostly what i read is people bitchin' about hi-res. That's why i mentioned it.
Old 1st November 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Hi-res has the potential of re-engaging people with music as a foreground activity. You need look no further than the resurgence of interest in vinyl.
Nonsense. Hi-res or good quality mp3 is indistinguishable, consciously or unconsciously, for 99.9% of the punters out there.

The vinyl resurgence has little to do with sound quality and everything to do with fashion and marketing.
Old 1st November 2012
  #23
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
Nonsense. Hi-res or good quality mp3 is indistinguishable, consciously or unconsciously, for 99.9% of the punters out there.

The vinyl resurgence has little to do with sound quality and everything to do with fashion and marketing.
What is the source of your information that high resolution audio is indistinguishable from mp3's for 99.9% of the "punters" out there?

Bob Ludwig demonstrated that, in fact, anything can be distinguished from an mp3 file by anybody bothering to listen. That room full of hands up testifies to the easily heard difference between mp3's and almost any other file type.

I will give you this....."caring" and "distinguishing" are two different things, and although you might be able to distinguish high res from low res files, you may not care.
Thus Apple's statement "righting a wrong", hoping that once again listeners might care.

Note too that Bob Olhsson didn't say anything about vinyl and its sound quality......he said high resolution audio had the capacity of "re-engaging people with music as a foreground activity"......which it does.
It can't be wrong, or "nonsense" as it's an informed opinion.

Bob O's reference to vinyl was that it (by design) engaged with people with their music as a foreground activity.
You have to physically touch, manipulate, and flip a record over......hard to do if you're in any place other than your living room, and/or not paying any attention to the physicality of the format (which after all is a big round disc).
Every time I listen to an actual LP, I sit down and listen to it (otherwise what's the point of putting one on the turntable).....I can't say I always do the same thing with my iPod.

That might change if what I was listening to on my iDevice enveloped me in a high resolution audio file, and I was taken to a different place in all the ways music can.......well, take you to a different (hopefully better) place
Old 1st November 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
I.R.Baboon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverking View Post
Bob Ludwig demonstrated that, in fact, anything can be distinguished from an mp3 file by anybody bothering to listen. That room full of hands up testifies to the easily heard difference between mp3's and almost any other file type.
That sounds like a very scientific test...........
Old 1st November 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.R.Baboon View Post
That sounds like a very scientific test...........
If your intent is to yank chains, yank away......

If you're not yanking chains, I apologize, but I'm not at all clear on what it is you're actually saying that's on topic.
Old 1st November 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 

Do you guys think the average listener can distinguish a 256 mp3 from a 24-bit master when listening through earbuds, car stereos, or the typical small ipod dock? In a blind test I personally doubt that 99% of people could.

However, the point is raised that there could be some sort of subconscious benefit in listening to hi res music. That is to say, even though listeners cannot perceive a sonic superiority, it will somehow evoke more of an emotional response. Interesting.

I would love to know what some of the golden ear guys think.
Old 1st November 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Also, how many folks here have Soundcheck turned on for recreational iTunes listening?
Old 1st November 2012
  #28
Lives for gear
 
silverking's Avatar
 

I keep Soundcheck on.

Recordings that are engineered and mastered such that they're not railed don't activate Soundcheck at all, so for 90+% of what I listen to it's not doing anything.

For the other 10% of primarily contemporary recordings I listen to, (that aren't Alison Krauss) it does what its supposed to do, and does it very well......transparent even.

It really should (and likely will at some point) be pre-checked in all new releases of iTunes.
Whether by design at the engineering or mastering stage, or by brute force at the iDevice playback stage......the loudness battles become irrelevant with Soundcheck active.
Old 1st November 2012
  #29
Gear Addict
 

It's not a matter of initially telling the difference. It's about what actually sounds, feels better, has less listening fatigue etc. over a long listening period. The end listener doesn't need to know the mechanics.

Do you think the average listener can tell the difference between 1/2" and 1/4" tape or a $3000 eq and a $10000 one? But we agonize over those things. It's all about those little millimeters that add up.

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

So who cares if they can hear the difference or not... their brain will tell them what they enjoy and what they don't. My brain tells me to not listen to MP3... it's doesn't do quite the same with MFIT and I've conducted listening tests with most the major labels here in Toronto to simular results.

Noah


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopamine View Post
Do you guys think the average listener can distinguish a 256 mp3 from a 24-bit master when listening through earbuds, car stereos, or the typical small ipod dock? In a blind test I personally doubt that 99% of people could.

However, the point is raised that there could be some sort of subconscious benefit in listening to hi res music. That is to say, even though listeners cannot perceive a sonic superiority, it will somehow evoke more of an emotional response. Interesting.

I would love to know what some of the golden ear guys think.
Old 1st November 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 

So if I activate Soundcheck in iTunes on my Mac, will it also affect playback on my iPhone?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 5084 views: 1069853
Avatar for culebras
culebras 1 day ago
replies: 295 views: 57705
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 154635
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
replies: 89 views: 40335
Avatar for SoundWow
SoundWow 3 weeks ago
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump