Slashdot Mirror
Master Engineer: Apple's "Mastered For iTunes" No Better Than AAC-Encoded Music
New submitter Stowie101 writes "British master engineer Ian Shepherd is ripping Apple's Mastered for iTunes service, saying it is pure marketing hype and isn't different than a standard AAC file in iTunes. Shepherd compared three digital music files, including a Red Hot Chili Peppers song downloaded in the Mastered for iTunes format with a CD version of the same song, and said there were no differences. Apple or someone else needs to step it up here and offer some true 'CD quality downloads.'"
Those wonderful color screens people could put on their TV's to impreove the picture -- you can't get more out of something than you put into it. If the lossy music process has lost data you can't put it back (but you can always convince the gullible that you can!)
Now, buy my Slashdot Post Converter, which placed on your screen turns each of my posts into a fantastic media experience! Zowie!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The problem with computing the digital difference between two files is that sound, and especially music, is an inherently analog experience. All the digital douchery in the world won't change the fact that your ears are not made of robot.
FLAC is not inherently CD quality.
But it generally is, or the ripper is inherently stupid.
Then again...maybe not...the compression wars are killing me. I just got the latest "remastered" edition of the Stones Some Girls album...I have tried twice to listen to it on my home stereo, and it just is painful to the ears.
That's because you're not using Monster® cables.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I know many friends who have used higher compression on their FLAC files and, with my gear, I can clearly hear the artifacts. I realize most people won't but I've got mostly high end stuff, and I always burn in both my audio and network cables before using them and mark them with directional arrows (only with pvc-free tape and audio-grade markers) so that the don't get installed backwards after they've been burned in.
I'm amazed at how many people can't seem to grasp the fine points of lossless compression for audio work. I find most non-audiophiles expect that lossless means that what you put in exactly matches what you put out. I can tell you first hand, though, that when you spend as much money on gear as I have, you recognize that perfection comes from not just the bits, but the purity in which the bits are delivered. They may be the same ones and zeros, but a discerning ear can always tell the difference in the various lossless formats when listening to the color and soundstage of the reproduced performance.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't think Metallica needs help from a shitty mastering engineer to suck...
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
If you're an asshole, you can use a crappy 96kB MP3 and blow it up into a FLAC file.
As an asshole, I'd like to point out you're not giving us enough credit. I would never use greater than a 64kbps rate for my source files when claiming they're CD quality FLAC.
It's still obvious you're not using Monster® cables, because not only do they transmit perfect sound, they even remove flaws in badly recorded sound.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Has anyone in this thread claimed that FLAC was magic?
Of course not. Apple didn't develop it, so it's most certainly NOT magic.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
FLAC is magic.
""Mastered for iTunes""
Mastered for a piece of software?
No, you only master for a physical listening environment, not a virtual playback one. Try again when you actually record music!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.