Mastered for iTunes?

When you submit a file (usually an uncompressed wave) for iTunes distribution, it gets (re)encoded and normalized.
 
What you're accomplishing by mastering to such a conservative standard is making sure that iTunes only raises your volume rather than lowering it. A very hot master suffers when lowered in volume, sounding dull and wimpy. But raising a dynamic master doesn't hurt anything. You're also avoiding artifacts and overs that appear when encoding a hot file using a lossy encoder such as iTunes' AAC (or MP3, for that matter).
 
The only downside to "mastered for iTunes" is that if you also want to put your songs onto a CD, you'll probably want to create separate masters for each. You're going to want a hotter master for the CD, and there is no penalty for doing so as long as you don't go overboard. (At least, not until somebody rips MP3s from the CD, in which case they'll get better results if the CD is a little on the conservative side.) 
 
Then there's the matter of SoundCloud and YouTube. YouTube's normalization standard is even more conservative than iTunes. SoundCloud accepts uncompressed files, but streams everything at 128 kb/s, so that's a whole 'nother can 'o worms. Even though it doesn't normalize, you still have to consider the issue of MP3 artifacts that are exacerbated by loud mastering.
 
Of course, if your tune finds its way to commercial radio or television, there's a whole different standard for that. Broadcasting does the most drastic things to your music, and the -24 (US) or -23 LUFS (rest of the world) standards are strictly enforced so you have no choice but to follow them.
 
Bottom line is that each distribution medium warrants its own mastering standards. However, the overarching message is keep it conservative regardless of the final destination. Limit peaks to no more than -1 dB, which works fine for AAC, MP3, and CDs. For overall volume, you need a LUFS meter and shoot for an average of around -14 to -16 LUFS, a nice compromise that will work for YouTube, SoundCloud and iTunes. -11 LUFS seems to be a nice target for CDs, but that may be too conservative for some genres and too aggressive for others. 

i mix 24 bit files to about -22db RMS,
and about -6 to -8 for peaks.
 
that is an UNMASTERED final stereo bounce.
 
so, saying the word MASTER, DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT LOUD!!!
 
can you hear me now?!!
 
LOL
 
i could 'master' that file, by simply doing minor adjustments of eq, minor compressor tweaks with no extra gain supplied, and no brickwall limiting at all, apply dither, and have the file peak at the same peaks, with only a slightly reduced rms average due to the way i used the compressor......
 
but, on the other hand....
i could upload my unmastered file, according to the itunes format, and that would work just fine with their proprietary encoding,
and supposedly my unmastered file would sound just as loud as a professionally mastered file, that was super loud,
that had been dumbed down by the itunes process.
 
in fact, my unmastered file may sound WAY more dynamic than a professionally mastered file that had been mastered for volume.
 
all that said, i'd like to hear a comparison side by side,
no one has really gone there yet, as i can tell..
 
 

Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me .  It is just attempting to make the best of a bad format.  I haven't heard a "Mastered for iTunes" album that sounds any better than the original CD converted to mp3.  Different, yes.  Possibly worse, definitely.  

if I submit it at RMS -24dBfs, and rely on iTunes to volume match it to match everything else, then I don't REALLY know what it will sound like if they push it 10 db?  
for now i'll just stick to my current ~ RMS -14dBfs and peaks limited to -.5

you don't allow someone to master an already mastered file.
that ruins it.
 

Jeff Evans
 
No client I have ever worked for Bats would accept a -24 dB rms master either for CD. Way too soft.  As a mastering engineer you would not get away with it.  I agree it would be nice but not possible just yet.
 
 

just for clarification:
 
"i mix 24 bit files to about -22db RMS,
and about -6 to -8 for peaks.
 
that is an UNMASTERED final stereo bounce."

Has anyone here w a Mac actually used the Mastered for i Tunes applet for getting an Idea on how your tune will sound ? 
 
Kenny

radio stations have their own limiters they put everything thru.
 
if you have a 'hot' mastered file,
it will sound wimpy and crushed when put thru the radio station equipment.

I'm the odd man on this one, but I personally master for the song and have never paid attention to iTunes or any other online site. I've never noticed any issues with my masters for people other than when any encoding below 192 is used for mp3's. Anything 192 and above, and I hear no differences that make me wish I had taken another approach.
 
In my personal opinion, I do not believe the actual dB reading is the issue. I can squash the heck out of something and keep a sane level....and that is where you will hear changes when something is encoded. If you don't kill the compression and literally master for the song as far as loudness goes without killing your limiter threshold, none of the final output volumes have made a difference negatively.
 
For example, it is rare for me to go louder than -4.5 to -5 on my limiter threshold and I like to keep things at -0.3 to -1 depending on what may sound better for the song. Years ago it was nothing for me to slam -6.8 to -7 on the limiter threshold. The more you comp the mix and squash the life out of it, the more encoding will kill it no matter who does the encoding. For that reason, I honestly never pay attention to final dB numbers unless I specifically have to for a TV or film client etc...or someone that asks for something specific.
 
My advice? Let the music breathe...stop comparing to some of the commercially mixed garbage that caters to loud, lo-def music that only sounds good on earbuds....and you set the example while making people follow you for great fidelity, dynamics and for being yourself. I have a nice little gang of dudes that literally hold some of my mixes as reference mixes. Some of them are higher in the food chain than myself. It's the ultimate pat on the back to have people bench marking their material off of mixes you may have created.
 
Whether I suck as an engineer or am doing things completely wrong or not....I got some people I hold in high regard that think I'm onto something. Don't be afraid to be dynamic and turn up the volume knob. As soon as we remove hyper-compression/limiting from our worlds, all the stupid things I see being debated and discussed on message forums will go away and people will concentrate more on just learning to record with quality, and releasing product faster.
 
Seriously....do you know how many threads get posted on ALL forums about how limiters and final volume outputs are important to people? It shouldn't be important because if you think about it, it's the biggest load of artist stifled creativity ever brought into the marketing world. Seriously think about all the volume related things you have read and how many times you or others you know sat with a mix and tried to get it as loud as something commercial.
 
Then think about how much time was wasted in doing that. No one other than you and any engineers that think they are special for contributing to the loudness/limiter wars will care. Music lovers just want your music. They could give a rats @ss about LUFS, the K system, dB's or how much time was spent loading and re-uploading to iTunes hoping for that magical mix. Keep your volumes sane, your limiting to a minimum or slightly aggressive when need be....and never worry about any of this stuff again. Trust me on this one. :)
 
-Danny

Danny Danzi
My advice? Let the music breathe....and you set the example while making people follow you for great fidelity, dynamics and for being yourself.
 
Don't be afraid to be dynamic and turn up the volume knob.
 
Keep your volumes sane, your limiting to a minimum or slightly aggressive when need be....and never worry about any of this stuff again. Trust me on this one. :)
 
-Danny

Words to live by, for sure...I think I'll keep a copy of the entire post from Danny on my desk :)