Apple iTunes - Mastered for iTunes Options

[JunkieXL]

I read through that thread and actually wanted to apologize to you for some of the idiotic BS that was fired back at you. You posted some very interesting and enlightening material.

[Woodinville]

I read through that thread and actually wanted to apologize to you for some of the idiotic BS that was fired back at you. You posted some very interesting and enlightening material.

De nada.

Compared to the audiophiles ...

[mudlord]

That's your opinion. To me it's just reflecting my personal preference, which probably coincides with a certain corporate prospect. Unbelievable, isn't it?

But here's some corporate shill: the colleague I was talking about was trying to promote the Sonnox Fraunhofer Pro-Codec plug-in, which includes an ABX mode. So ABXing is available directly in a DAW now. Question is: do producers care about such a feature?

Chris

Somewhat unbelievable as you wouldn't believe how many times I seen company employees try to pimp thier products.
but I suppose I can give you the benefit of the doubt :3

[nu774]

MPEG-4 SLS seems interesting for video. It can be used in MP4 container, and it's graceful degradation to lossy core would be useful for compatibility, considering AAC is the most (sometimes only) supported audio format in MP4 by many hardwares.
Not so much for purely audio usage, though. I have no trouble with current solution (FLAC or something).

However, if Apple supports SLS and if iTunes could pull out lossy core from SLS tracks quite quickly when syncing to iPod (compared to usual on-the-fly re-encoding process), it might be interesting for those who living in Apple world, and wants to keep losssless on PC / AAC on iPod.

[C.R.Helmrich]

but I suppose I can give you the benefit of the doubt :3

Thank you

... it might be interesting for those who living in Apple world ...

Not only Apple, every recent smartphone I know supports AAC, and those would (hopefully) play HD-AAC without requiring updates.

Y'all might also want to read the same titled thread (modulo a bit) in the mastering forum at Gearslutz.

Done. The insight of producers listening to a well-known codec developer and showing interest in ABX (and the aforementioned plug-in) made up for the torture of having to read UncleBubba repeat his "thoughts". But I'm curious, JJ, where in your opinion do "ridiculous bit-rates" start (let's split it, with vs. without SBR)?

Chris

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Mar 8 2012, 21:48

[Woodinville]

But I'm curious, JJ, where in your opinion do "ridiculous bit-rates" start (let's split it, with vs. without SBR)?

Chris

160kb/s is where I draw the line. Your milage may vary.

[nu774]

Not only Apple, every recent smartphone I know supports AAC, and those would (hopefully) play HD-AAC without requiring updates.

Yes. However, to me it seems a huge space waste to carry SLS tracks directly to portable devices where only lossy core is supported, considering how easily on-the-fly re-encoding can be done for audio.
And if transcoding is to be done anyway, playback compatibility seems not so much important.

[Woodinville]

Not only Apple, every recent smartphone I know supports AAC, and those would (hopefully) play HD-AAC without requiring updates.

Yes. However, to me it seems a huge space waste to carry SLS tracks directly to portable devices where only lossy core is supported, considering how easily on-the-fly re-encoding can be done for audio.
And if transcoding is to be done anyway, playback compatibility seems not so much important.

Do not transcode from one perceptual coder to another perceptual coder. Ever.

Yes, I'm shouting that.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Mar 9 2012, 05:51

[nu774]

.oO( Hmm, now is the chance to make some nasty noise here since it should be temporally masked )

[db1989]

If MPEG-4 SLS had separate lossy and lossless correction files à la WavPack, people could save their voice-boxes.

[Kees de Visser]

But I'm curious, JJ, where in your opinion do "ridiculous bit-rates" start (let's split it, with vs. without SBR)?

160kb/s is where I draw the line. Your milage may vary.

In the Gearslutz thread Bob Olhsson reported:

Glenn Meadows did a demo today at the Nashville Recording workshop.
Even at high bit-rates you could hear a loss of depth and even more disturbing from a standpoint of pop music, a loss of "balls" even on a big sound system.

In good Gearslutz tradition no specifications about the test were given but doesn't this seem to conflict with your "ridiculous bit-rates" opinion?
Bob and Glenn are highly respected, award winning engineers and their opinions have a lot of weight in the music production community.

[skamp]

In good Gearslutz tradition no specifications about the test were given but doesn't this seem to conflict with your "ridiculous bit-rates" opinion?

On HA, they would be required to substanciate their claims with ABX results, and the discussion wouldn't go any further until they did…

Bob and Glenn are highly respected, award winning engineers and their opinions have a lot of weight in the music production community.

I doubt anyone is immune to the placebo effect, no matter how competent they otherwise are. And from what I gathered (am I wrong?), double blind tests don't seem to be part of the culture of sound engineers. I'm not in the audio field, but FWIW I would never have learned about such tests if I hadn't be drawn to HA for other reasons (and I would probably be thinking I really need 24/192 FLACs for optimal reproduction of music).

[Ron Jones]

In the Gearslutz thread Bob Olhsson reported:

Even at high bit-rates you could hear a loss...of "balls"

Bob and Glenn are highly respected, award winning engineers and their opinions have a lot of weight in the music production community.

I find it strange that anyone would respect the opinion of someone who would engage in any kind of listening test (sighted, blind or double-blind) and describe one of the samples as exhibiting a "loss of balls".