Perhaps they are offering to showcase the remastered content (or free
hosting) and this would appeal to the labels.
They did offer Beatles remasters on USB at 20/44.1 so they must have some
appreciation of (slightly) higher quality formats, and anticipate some
punters would be interested.
As the article states, Neil Young has been famously critical of CD (an
anonymous wall of digital sound), his discussions with Steve Jobs would
have been regarding higher res formats than 16/44.1
We'll have to wait and see if Mr Jobs put any plans in place regarding this
format before his unfortunate departure.
HDTRACKS is a fairly well-known audiophile resource which may have provided
some inspiration to Apple.
Does anyone know if they are profitable, or whether most of their content
simply ends up on "free" file sharing websites?
-----Original Message-----
From: citysoundman
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 5:54 AM
To: SurroundSound
Subject: [SurroundSound] Re: new Mastered for iTunes section
Robert -
As for the 24/96 thing, from what I can tell this is the deal - Apple
has released a guideline for songs that are to be submitted for sale
as Mastered For iTunes tracks. They recommend encoding from masters
that are mastered as 24-bit/96 KHz files, which is fairly common for
songs that are professionally mastered. But I think the guideline says
anything is acceptable as long as it has a minimum of CD quality (16
bit/44.1 KHz). Apple definitely is not paying for anything to be newly
mastered. They are just printing what they call 'best practices' for
people to follow. What appears to be new here is Apple's Sample Rate
Conversion step, which is the first part of encoding the file to AAC.
The end result is STILL a compressed AAC 256 kbps file. But my guess
is the new process will sound a bit better than the older AAC 256
because of this new SRC algorithm.
Until Apple supports delivery of uncompressed audio we will never hear
the music as intended by the artist, and that is a real shame.
citysoundman
On Feb 28, 5:10 pm, ROBERT COOGAN <bobcoo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Looks to me that this means Apple will be paying for thousands of Albums
> to be remastered in 24/96 which would not be otherwise, which can't be a
> bad thing.
>
> I'm not an iTunes subscriber so I won't be paying for it.
>
> Presumably other download sites will start to upgrade their content also,
> so what is the downside?
>
> This is presumably part of the "digital revolution" we have been waiting
> for.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
No comments:
Post a Comment