Mastered For iTunes confusion.

- I believe it is just 24-bit fixed point.
 
- The artist has to submit the .wav files. Apple is in control of all final compression/conversion. You cannot upload a m4a directly to them for the itunes store.

The tool allows you to hear what the encoding will do. (a preview). So you can make changes, tweaks upstream to offset/balance/ etc.. what the codec will do once it hits iTunes servers. You are capturing a .wav (high rez if you like) and that .wav gets sent to iTunes for to be added to the itunes store. (and their encoding).

- since m4a is already encoded, an mp3 encode of an already encoded file wold probably sound pretty lousy since it's already a generation removed. . but try it out and see.

Thanks Tim. So are you creating 24bit .wav files for your clients for the "Mastered For Itunes"? Do you see an advantage to capturing at a high-sample rate for this?

I recently read that iTunes convert the incoming tracks to AFLAC for storage. So a Hi Res Master will be stored in the form supplied. e.g. 24/96, or 24/44.1.   This would allow Apple to offer higher res download and perhaps streaming in the future. Near future I suspect in the case of streaming. 
If this is true, and if anyone has a link to verify? good news I reckon. And a very solid reason to generate Hi Res Masters. 
DD

And a very solid reason to generate Hi Res Masters.

-dandan

Indeed, but as someone mentioned here already if we master specifically for a compromised format (AAC 256K) will be have higher quality versions of these "tweaked" masters unleashed on us later?

Apple sent out another document to providers that basically said that the new AAC encoder is so good that experienced engineers "often cannot tell the difference between the 256k AAC and the original master." which would imply that producers shouldn't need to do anything specific for the format, other than follow the new guidelines not to clip or overly limit dynamic range, but then you read about well-known mastering engineers stating how much they tweaked the master to sound "right" in AAC.   Seems there's a bit of confusion surrounding the whole idea.

..but then you read about well-known mastering engineers stating how much they tweaked the master to sound "right" in AAC. 

-thearflounge

It certainly wouldn't be the first time well know engineers saying strange things in the press...for whatever reason. 

I'm still evaluating the whole thing but I've been experimenting with SRC and working at 88.2/96k exclusively.  This allows me to capture non limited hi res files for potential future use.  I feel my analogue loop is sounding better and my (minimal) digital processing is feeling better too.  I'll probably formally start offering clients iTunes ready files shortly but they won't be eq'd differently, just peaking at a lower level.

Interestingly I did a fairly hot master the other day for a great young indie band.  I decided I'd take advantage of the potential for an iTunes master and backed off my limiting and clipping to print a 2dB quieter master -  it absolutely sounded worse!  I took the limited version and dropped the limiter output.

We just got word from a major label here in Toronto that Apple is only accepting 24bit 96khz files. No other sample rate. Can someone confirm this?

i don't think that's true. . .  the mastered for iTunes thing is where they want hi-res files.  if you want your album to have that special badge and be in that special section of iTunes. . .  i think. . .  i've not seen any definitive wording.

this is what i've found  --  "To earn the words "Mastered for iTunes" the content producers must begin with a high-resolution digitization of the original analog source, follow the Store-recommended best mastering practices we've developed and tested, and audition the results on Apple devices."

http://www.apple.com/itunes/inside-itunes/2012/02/mastered-for-itunes-means-superior-digital-sound-quality.html

 - nick

What about those of us unable to transfer and capture at different sample rates? It's fine if the project comes in at 24/96, but what if it's 24/44 (like most of the projects I receive)? What's to stop anyone unscrupulous just upsampling a 16/44 file to 24/96? I like that they are trying to push "sound quality", but it just seems like it has been poorly thought out in a number of ways. Why can't they just offer lossless ALAC files if they are really concerned about sound quality?

Because that doesn't allow for a special new Apple branding.

Because that doesn't allow for a special new Apple branding.

-compasspnt

Because that doesn't allow for a special new Apple branding.

-compasspnt

+1

-domc_mastering

yeah, i think so.  also, they are giving themselves a bit of a win-win situation.  First, they are addressing that mp3's (and other lossy codecs like AAC) sound crappy, and to the general public it looks like they are doing something about it.  So they win; they're doing something about crappy music formats.  Second, while addressing the first issue, they are not eating up any more bandwidth/storage space on the iTunes site because they are still 256kbps files.

Bottom line:  the weak link is not the source file format (16bit 44.1kHz), it's the delivery format (mp3, aac, etc. . .)

 - nick

Because that doesn't allow for a special new Apple branding.

-compasspnt

Call me a naive dreamer, but that sucks chunks of monkey butt cheese. ;)

I was really hoping things would go lossless 24/96, not another fake flavour of lossy.

Bottom line:  the weak link is not the source file format (16bit 44.1kHz), it's the delivery format (mp3, aac, etc. . .)

-biigniick

I agree but to me the weak link for 90% of music listeners these days are the Apple supplied earbuds.  I hear people championing 24 bit downloads but they would be wasted on the majority of listeners.  I've started listening to mixes and masters on a pair from my laptop and it is shocking what they do to music.

The weak link doesn't remain the same.  Focus should be on both what is the weak link today and what is the format that delivers the most information.

Tomorrow that weak link will move and the relative importance of the extra bits in the delivery format will change in importance with the move.

A fellow from Apple called the studio today to talk about this topic.  Good guy, one of the authors of the documents.  We spoke for about an hour. He was aware that there were a couple technical boo-boo's in the papers, but I definitely came away with the feeling that Apple is concerned with getting better quality audio into iTunes, and is investing time and engineering resources to this end. 

He is preparing a short summary of the whole magilla to present to labels as well as a condensed version for studios.

But if I had to summarize the whole thing, it would be to encode from 96/24 and leave a couple dB of headroom.

DC

But if I had to summarize the whole thing, it would be to encode from 96/24 and leave a couple dB of headroom.

-dcollins

How do people feel about Apple's SRC?  Has anyone had the time to compare a 9624 file converted by Apple's app with a good SRC'd 4424 version?

 But if I had to summarize the whole thing, it would be to encode from 96/24 and leave a couple dB of headroom.DC

-dcollins

Well, there's also this:

"Be Aware of Dynamic Range and Clipping"

Am I the only one that thinks a couple is a lot?