Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Is "Master For iTunes Droplet" Using Same Encoder As iTunes?
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.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
post Jul 21 2012, 10:39
Post #2

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

OK, let me restate: TOS #8 proscribes “subjective impression[s]” without accompanying efforts to substantiate them. Your attempt to invoke some essential difference between a “subjective impression” and a “claim” seems a little too evasive of this requirement, and ineffectively so.

If my reading of your intended meaning was wrong, saying you “noticed a definite improvement” after AIFFs were processed by MfI means what, then?

And I would say that claiming that some files
had more "balls" to them
counts as fuzzy language, for example.

This post has been edited by db1989: Jul 21 2012, 10:44
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: 27th November 2015 - 18:27