IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Is "Master For iTunes Droplet" Using Same Encoder As iTunes?
BDW42
post Jul 20 2012, 10:30
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20-July 12
Member No.: 101592



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!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
db1989
post Jul 20 2012, 12:15
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (BDW42 @ Jul 20 2012, 10:30) *
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. [loads of fuzzy language]
Are you claiming that MfIís processing improved the sound relative to the uncompressed originals? If so, thatís nonsense, and you should think quickly about how to provide any reason that I should not immediately bin this as a flagrant violation of #8 of the Terms of Service, to which you were directed and subsequently required to agree in order to register.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BDW42
post Jul 21 2012, 09:11
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20-July 12
Member No.: 101592



QUOTE (db1989 @ Jul 20 2012, 04:15) *
Are you claiming that MfIís processing improved the sound relative to the uncompressed originals? If so, thatís nonsense, and you should think quickly about how to provide any reason that I should not immediately bin this as a flagrant violation of #8 of the Terms of Service, to which you were directed and subsequently required to agree in order to register.


I don't see any violation or "fuzzy language". First, I was not stating a claim, but noting a subjective impression. For if the former, there would be no need to start a thread asking something I already know the answer to. I also can't "claim" the very thing I said I explicitly doubt. Secondly, I never stated, in any way, MFI's processing is superior to uncompressed originals. Not even close. The purpose of this thread, as the subject title clearly says, isn't to publish claims, but to ask whether the MFI encoding is the same used in iTunes. And if not, whether 16/44.1 files are acceptable. The rest is peripheral. I'd like to thank Kohlrabi for seeing this and for sufficiently answering my question, as well as kindly linking me to very useful, helpful tools for the future.

Good day!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th December 2014 - 01:28