Is "Master For iTunes Droplet" Using Same Encoder As iTunes? Options

[BDW42]

After reading some of the Mastered for iTunes documentation and downloading the accompanying tools, I have a question...

In the PDF, they discuss the previous challenges of encoding high resolution files and note the advances they've made in their new AAC encoding process, which I'm assuming is done through the Master for iTunes Droplet encoding tool provided. Anyways, I experimented with some of the recent 24/96 files I own, from the recent Paul McCartney Archive series, and I found myself quite impressed with the results.

This got me to thinking: while this droplet is aimed at high resolution files, would regular CD rips also benefit from using this droplet, as well? Today, I grabbed my AIFFs of my 2011 Smiths and 2009 Beatles remasters and tried it out and, for me, I noticed a definite improvement. The frequency response seemed better, things seemed tighter, and had some "balls" to them, and, for the first time, I had trouble discerning the AAC from the source. But before I get excited and start re-ripping my entire collection, is this just my imagination or is there really anything going on that's different between the droplet and, say, a regular CD rip in iTunes? I fear this might end up being some placebo effect. If they are different, would it be good practice to use this droplet for regular 16/44.1 files?

I'm a little fuzzy on this, and sort of new to all this, so any clarity would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[db1989]

OK, let me restate: TOS #8 proscribes “subjective impression[s]” without accompanying efforts to substantiate them. Your attempt to invoke some essential difference between a “subjective impression” and a “claim” seems a little too evasive of this requirement, and ineffectively so.

If my reading of your intended meaning was wrong, saying you “noticed a definite improvement” after AIFFs were processed by MfI means what, then?

And I would say that claiming that some files

had more "balls" to them

counts as fuzzy language, for example.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jul 21 2012, 10:44

[BDW42]

OK, let me restate: TOS #8 proscribes “subjective impression[s]” without accompanying efforts to substantiate them. Your attempt to invoke some essential difference between a “subjective impression” and a “claim” seems a little too evasive of this requirement, and ineffectively so.

There's nothing evasive about it. TOS #8 says nothing about "subjective impressions", but making objective claims about subjective audio quality. Because to make a claim is to make an argument; to assert something is fact. An impression is a subjective effect produced upon the intellect or feelings. Note the difference. If the weatherman says "it is going to rain", then he is making a claim, and should prove his conclusion. But if he says, "It might rain, but I don't really trust my senses, so let me defer to greater authority", then precisely what is he claiming or needing to substantiate, other than doubt? To force him to conduct studies proving this doubt would be nonsensical and question-begging, as the purposes of his inquiry is to find the conclusion, in the first place. Otherwise, what's the point?

I invoke these essential differences because they matter. One asserts truth, the other doesn't. This distinction is why this thread isn't titled: "Why the MFI Droplet is Better Than iTunes...", and why there's no assertions of fact or attempts at persuasion; merely an inquiry. And, ultimately, the objected passages are inconsequential to the point of my inquiry. We're discussing periphery. So, we can needlessly go on and on into oblivion, despite my question already being sufficiently answered, but you're misunderstanding the intent of the thread. It is not to make objective claims, but to inquire. There's no TOS #8 violation.

Good day.

This post has been edited by BDW42: Jul 22 2012, 10:02