Danny Danzi ... 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. 

god d@m, i hate this forum software!!!

LOL

response to above:

yep, i know about that "downward encoding" gotcha!

LOL

that sux, eh?

but i found that SOUNDCLOUD lets you upload 320, and IF you select your file to be "Downloadable", then it will let the user download at the same bitrate.

otherwise, i think when you playback the file, it plays back at 128.

i dont' know why these types of providers would not choose the 320 level as the minimum, for streaming even, with servers and hard drives being shrunk and modernized....

i mean, wasn't the whole point of 'mp3s' and lossy formats, all for the sake of file size?

is that even an issue anymore?

This article: 
 
http://images.apple.com/itunes/mastered-for-itunes/docs/mastered_for_itunes.pdf 

is a good and interesting read and the thing I really got from this is the AAC file stuff. It is a better compressed format for music so therefore it can be assumed that ITunes won't be damaging any aspect of your mix as such and that can only be a good thing. You can make your own AAC files too and listen and compare to the original wave files. They are meant to be very close.

So yes common sense could prevail here and as long as you keep your mixes a bit clear of 0dBFS things should be fine. I tend to go down as far as -1 dB. Maybe that is too low but it ensures you wont be pushing any conversion or converters too much either. 

I find when you mastering you can always print alternate versions that may use a little less limiting for the compressed formats. And yes ITunes is not the be all and end all. There are plenty of MP3 format deliveries and we have to master for them too. Some pre conversion processing for MP3 can make a difference.

jeff,
why do you believe the aac thing is a 'better compressed format'?

batsbrew


jeff,
why do you believe the aac thing is a 'better compressed format'?

Improvements include:
    More sample frequencies (from 8 to 96 kHz) than MP3 (16 to 48 kHz)
    Up to 48 channels (MP3 supports up to two channels in MPEG-1 mode and up to 5.1 channels in MPEG-2 mode)
    Arbitrary bit-rates and variable frame length. Standardized constant bit rate with bit reservoir.
    Higher efficiency and simpler filterbank (rather than MP3's hybrid coding, AAC uses a pure MDCT)
    Higher coding efficiency for stationary signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 1024 or 960 samples, allowing more efficient coding than MP3's 576 sample blocks)
    Higher coding accuracy for transient signals (AAC uses a blocksize of 128 or 120 samples, allowing more accurate coding than MP3's 192 sample blocks)
    Can use Kaiser-Bessel derived window function to eliminate spectral leakage at the expense of widening the main lobe
    Much better handling of audio frequencies above 16 kHz
    More flexible joint stereo (different methods can be used in different frequency ranges)
    Adds additional modules (tools) to increase compression efficiency: TNS, Backwards Prediction, PNS etc... These modules can be combined to constitute different encoding profiles.
 
 
Actually I mistakenly thought AAC was lossless, it isn't. It's a marginal improvement over mp3, which like Danny I can hardly distinguish in listening tests at higher bit rates if at all, but I do think there should have been a lossless standard adopted by now.
 
The fact that AAC (mp4) is so widely adopted now it will again hold back the technology that is already available to distribute compact lossless formats.  Even Microsoft have a lossless version of WMA already available and it has been for some time.
It's mass appeal that drives standards though so we'll have to live with lossy formats for some time to come even if they have improved somewhat.

I never thought WMA files were all that bad. There's even Lossless WMA codec.

Thanks Jonbouy for that. I was going to say that there seems to be an all round consensus after doing the research that the AAC file is quite interesting and very good. If anything this discussion has brought myself and maybe some others to the attention of the AAC file in general.

What impresses me even more of the technicalities of presenting music on the myraid of avenues avialable nowadays, and the usual deference to the sea of mediocrity to justify how bad the new stuff is, is the fact that there are some blindingly impressive productions out there that use what is available and so often these days it's individuals operating without the backing of major labels.  Knocking out killer productions full of creative adventure and with pure musicality in a plethora of genres.
 
That's where the emphasis should be, in doing what they do.  We've all got more options for creation and better quality production at our fingertips than ever before as well as more avenues of gaining exposure.
 
The flipside of that is that many more people are taking part, and in order to stand out from the pack you'd better shine brightly, and don't forget that the next guy/gal is working under the same constraints as you are.
 
The depth and appeal of the content will trump miniscule, and many times inaudible issues with the production/presentation format, everytime.

thanks for that info guys.


so...


this is what i think:


that between all of the possible ways you can LOSE fidelity due to delivery methods alone....


the issue of CAPTURING THE MOST PRISTINE TRACKS POSSIBLE...
within your budget...


becomes GOAL #1.

batsbrew


thanks for that info guys.


so...


this is what i think:


that between all of the possible ways you can LOSE fidelity due to delivery methods alone....


the issue of CAPTURING THE MOST PRISTINE TRACKS POSSIBLE...
within your budget...


becomes GOAL #1.

...and REALLY turn up for work when you're laying 'em down.
 
You do alright on that score already btw...