SongCraft


Why focused 'only' on iTunes?,.. for example; album and single releases are handled by 'a' distributor; those very same tracks are all distributed to hundreds of other music sites worldwide. Some of those sites also sell CD's.   

So no matter the target (retailer) the final master has to be very well done -- but I suppose this book may have some new tricks up it's sleeve. 

  I just read the article on this in Mix magazine. My take on it is that Apple have found themselves yet another ingenious way to market their Itunes.vs other brands. And from all accounts the competition is gearing up to kick it seriously.
 
 Apple can brag that their "standards" are better,that you are getting the most bang for your buck by using itunes compared to the others. I commend them for at least coming up with a standard for improvement on a product, how much of an improvement it is remains negligible.Cracking down on what is acceptable will push standards up, but any of the competion can do the same thing and mp3  at 256 is still an mp3 at 256 or an AAC mp4 is still what it is.Any of the others can institute similar standards and get the same results.
 
 Unless I'm missing something here(and I could be),this is primarily aimed at getting and keeping the customer in a wider playing field and giving a potential artist/uploader at least the perception that Apple is better.

i hate the sound of streaming audio.

i would much rather listen to silence, than endure a length of song or album that sounds like @ss.


that said, i have not heard any version of a higher-rate mp3 or lossy file, that sounds any better 'audio wise' than what i can do with wavelab outputting mp3 at 320kbps.

just haven't heard it.


so, if ANYBODY can point me to a file, that has better audio quality than any other similarly-created compressed audio file, i'm waiting to hear it.

just for the record, my method:

mix at 24 bit/44.1 khz.


output 24 bit file to wavelab.

apply magic fairy dust ala Waves plugins and a few secret sauces.

dither to 16 bit.


THEN, create (2) output files: 16 bit redbook format wav, and mp3 at 320kbps.

batsbrew

just for the record, my method:

mix at 24 bit/44.1 khz.

output 24 bit file to wavelab.

apply magic fairy dust ala Waves plugins and a few secret sauces.

dither to 16 bit.

THEN, create (2) output files: 16 bit redbook format wav, and mp3 at 320kbps.

I've been doing all my projects 96/32. I export my final master to 96/32 and create a 320/48kHz MP3 from it. No dithering. It's rare that I even make a CD any more so I don't even waste the space with a 16bit file, 32bit one for that matter. I stopped listening to the wav files and just listen to MP3's. When I need a 16bit master, I go back and do it from the project.

I keep my masters a bit lower than Danny. I stopped looking at that number to be honest, and I think my masters have been coming out a lot better. There's a little meter thing-a-ma-bob on Melda's limiter that I use now. I keep it hovering in the middle of the scale and my masters end up around the -2.5 ~ -0.5 range which is fine for me. Depending on the material and how much compression I used, some sound much louder than others anyway, even at -2.5db.

i like the idea of mastering to a ceiling of -0.3

i've historically taken it to -0.2......
but danny makes a good point about trying to hit a number that works across the board for ALL formats.


i did a study of my own, of a bunch of 'louder' modern pro mixes, about a year ago, and almost all of them were at -0.1.

but that's specifically for CD's, and by now most cd players and DVD players SHOULD be able to handle that level without the convertors crapping out.



i just prefer to use 44.1 and 16 bit, as a final output, because it's the lowest common denominator.


and at the point, even tho i prefer wavelab, ANY encoder will work with a 16 bit redbook wav file, so it's a common method of delivery.

batsbrew


i hate the sound of streaming audio.

i would much rather listen to silence, than endure a length of song or album that sounds like @ss.


that said, i have not heard any version of a higher-rate mp3 or lossy file, that sounds any better 'audio wise' than what i can do with wavelab outputting mp3 at 320kbps.

just haven't heard it.


so, if ANYBODY can point me to a file, that has better audio quality than any other similarly-created compressed audio file, i'm waiting to hear it.

Right, and I too am with you on that. However, when you upload to one of these digital distribution places, that beautiful 320 you created *MAY* get smashed down to something else. It may end up 160 or 192. This is the problem at hand. Imagine an mp3 OF an mp3. LOL! This is why some of that stuff sounds so bad.
 
We have to upload in the highest format allowed by the company and sometimes you may even need to compensate once you find out what their format is. For example, you lose a little high end from a 160 kb mp3 if that's what their final conversion will be. So on your end, you may want to mix in a little extra high end to compensate.
 
If the company someone goes with for digital downloads honors 320 kb mp3's, we're all golden. The problem there is, I can't remember ever downloading a 320 from anywhere. Most are 128 that I see. Like for example, my cover band shares a drop box folder. When we have to learn a new song, one of my guys grabs something from iTunes. They all seem to come in at 128.
 
Now, the company that puts everyone into the digital download stores, TuneCore, allows for 16/44 wave to be uploaded. However, they do not mention "what" happens after that wave file leaves you and gets converted. The don't mention any final kb sizes nor do they tell you if you are given choices to select which mp3 option you'd like to use. So that's a bit scary. I emailed them to find out because I'm actually curious about this and I just got a client today that wants to put the stuff I'll be mastering for him on iTunes and all those other stores you can get into using TuneCore. This thread actually comes at a good time for me. LOL :)
 
-Danny

Bub

batsbrew

just for the record, my method:

mix at 24 bit/44.1 khz.

output 24 bit file to wavelab.

apply magic fairy dust ala Waves plugins and a few secret sauces.

dither to 16 bit.

THEN, create (2) output files: 16 bit redbook format wav, and mp3 at 320kbps.

I've been doing all my projects 96/32. I export my final master to 96/32 and create a 320/48kHz MP3 from it. No dithering. It's rare that I even make a CD any more so I don't even waste the space with a 16bit file, 32bit one for that matter. I stopped listening to the wav files and just listen to MP3's. When I need a 16bit master, I go back and do it from the project.

I keep my masters a bit lower than Danny. I stopped looking at that number to be honest, and I think my masters have been coming out a lot better. There's a little meter thing-a-ma-bob on Melda's limiter that I use now. I keep it hovering in the middle of the scale and my masters end up around the -2.5 ~ -0.5 range which is fine for me. Depending on the material and how much compression I used, some sound much louder than others anyway, even at -2.5db.

Bub, that's actually smart you go lower than -0.3. That number is what you might want to consider if you were doing some sort of modern rock or metal where you're trying to make things loud for impact etc. But for sure, anything that doesn't fall into those genre's, I'd have it lower also. For the stuff you do that I've heard which is really clean, you'd do yourself an injustice going any hotter than you are. If you start losing that clean sound that I've come to enjoy by you, I'm, coming after you. LOL! (j/k) It ain't easy making things that clean....I commend thee! :)
 
Bats: I dunno man, something about that WaveLab encoder for me too. Nothing else I've tried does what that thing does. I wish I knew what it was but I can literally tell a difference with other encoders on the stuff I do here. I'd say that thing in WaveLab is the best mp3 encoder I've ever used hands down. It's probably all in my head though. LOL! But I swear I always hear something better when I use that WL encoder.
 
-Danny

As is often the case my ol pal JT cuts right to the chase on two points.  One...there's no use in remaining an obstinate ludite tilting at windmills that have long since fallen down and Two...the "myth" that folks used to listen to "pristine audio" back in the good ol days is just that.  By and large most folks (read younguns) have always listened to the lowest common denominator of available audio formats.  At least with today's lossless formats...it ain't too shabby.

Danny Danzi

Bub, that's actually smart you go lower than -0.3. That number is what you might want to consider if you were doing some sort of modern rock or metal where you're trying to make things loud for impact etc. But for sure, anything that doesn't fall into those genre's, I'd have it lower also. For the stuff you do that I've heard which is really clean, you'd do yourself an injustice going any hotter than you are. If you start losing that clean sound that I've come to enjoy by you, I'm, coming after you. LOL! (j/k) It ain't easy making things that clean....I commend thee! :)
 
-Danny

Thanks! :) I wouldn't be too hard to find actually ... it's not like Peculiar Missouri is all that big. :)

I really struggled with getting my masters up around that -3 ~ 0db. Then I said to myself, I'm spending so much time doing this, and nobody can really hear the difference between a couple db when they're bouncing down the road listing to the CD anyway ... I just go strictly by that meter now in the Melda Limiter and it's served me well. For being free, that Melda Suite is frickin' sweet. :)

 Stupid question- If I add highs of the same frequency to a mix because they are trunciated in the copy why wouldn't they also be trunciated? Will more db in that range offset the characteristics of the conversion?