opeydokey

That was an awesome semantic analysis of my posts. You're reading between the lines to reach the conclusion you want to reach. "One thing for sure, if I ever ran a forum, I'd insist on real names. That filters a lot of the nonsense and right off the bat. I'm not sure if I should take my hat off to Chris for allowing this condescension under the rubric of free speech or ask why this sort of post is left up." Why exactly should my opinion be deleted? Because you disagree and have no substance to counter my statements? Or because I pointed out that I was surprised that on a site full of technical people, not one user had given a technical answer and several people claimed there was none?? "A description of a null test is a description of one method for finding some answers. It should not be confused with "a scientific answer" in and of itself any more than a recipe should be confused with the dish. (Unless of course, one likes to eat recipes.)" The test used to hear the difference between 2 waveforms is absolutely a scientific test using scientific principles of phase. The results of said test gives qualitative as well as quantitative results that can be measured. "There it is right there. I note the declaration of a Universal Truth (reverb on those words) rather than an "I listened and don't hear it myself". How can anyone possibly have the vaguest idea of what another can or can not hear? Running a project studio does not in and of itself confer this knowledge any more than it in and of itself confers any sort of the remotest expertise in audio. Owning a car does not make me a master mechanic." Actually, that's exactly what I said. "IMO, there's no discern able difference." I never said there absolutely is no difference. In fact, the whole point of my post was to educate the OP about how to hear the actual difference. Saying that I'm a professional with great hearing and can't hear the difference is a valid statement and certainly helps put the debate in perspective. As you quoted, I clearly clarified that just because I can't hear it doesn't mean that others can't. "When I read a statement like "there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs", it sounds to me like claiming there is no difference, period (as opposed to there is no difference to you, despite your "excellent hearing")." Your failure to comprehend my meaning doesn't really matter to me. If someone tells you that their opinion is that they can't discern a difference in something, you should probably assume that they're saying just that and not that there is actually no difference that exists, even tho they posted for the sole purpose of showing people how to hear the difference. I don't know what to tell you. "This is another Universal claim. It is certainly true for some mastering engineers but when you omit the "some" (intentionally or not), it suggests this is true for all mastering engineers, making the claim, in my view, silly." Claiming that any group of people does any one thing all the time would be silly. You know what's also silly? Hounding someone on the Internet for not using the word "some" to your liking. GTFOH. "I've mastered a few things in my time and would hold in very high suspicion any engineer who mastered differently for different media. I know some do this but to my ears, their work provides the evidence for why this is at best, a misguided idea. In contrast, the best mastering engineers I've known, master for the recording and not for the medium. They know there is no such thing and also know that a great recording is clearly identifiable as such, regardless of the medium." Awesome. You're welcome to your opinion. This in no way contradicts the fact that this method is done by "SOOOOOOOOOOOOOME" mastering engineers, which was the ONLY point I made on the topic. "How, for example, does one master to "compensate" for the wobbly pitch that can result from even the best mp3 encoding. Or the coarsening of sonics and harmonic bleaching of even the best 16-bit, 44.1k digital? A fine Keith Johnson recording will, in my opinion, sound better as an mp3, played in the car, on the highway with the windows open than many other engineers' original masters." The best you can really do is compensate for the frequencies that different compression removes from the original by adding them in more heavily before the conversion process. There are some other mastering tricks that I don't really know about enough to discuss them. As a mix engineer, I mostly just boost frequencies before converting to different formats for a client. A lot of clients stop at the mixing stage and never actually pay a mastering engineer to polish their songs. "As explained in the paragraph above, this isn't science at all. Doing so is, in my opinion, simply bad mastering (when it isn't also gouging the client for additional "versions")." As I said, flipping the phase of one track to hear the difference between 2 tracks is definitely scientifically showing that a sonic difference exists between the 2 tracks. I don't even understand why you're trying to argue semantics in the 1st place. Why are you nitpicking the wording of a forum post?? Get a life man. "Well there it is again, isn't it? Unimportant, unscientific (if bullshit is science, which I don't personally believe it is), audiophiles. A group which I'm proud to be a member. You know, it is wonderful to read forums like this one and get different folks' perspectives. We certainly all hear differently. The key though, is mutual respect, not shoot-from-the-hip cowboy "expertise". Just sayin'." Way to miss the point. Why should I have to provide my personal info and prove some credentials to have a valid opinion in a discussion between people who are no more important than I am? A person who freely admits to having absolutely no clout to back up his opinion. You act like I'm talking about audiophiles like I'm not included in that group. You're way off. I'm not going thru this long winded nonsense again, for now on, do me a favor and take my opinion for what it is. If you disagree then state some facts to refute it. If you want to pick apart my words line by line like some forum police then just move on. I don't think I'll be back to this forum anyway. Thanks for the warm welcome. Your forum clout will no longer be jeopardized lol

Yup, I'm referring to the iTunes store. Also to iPods and other digital music players with inferior DAC on the outputs. I love me some 24/96 audio btw. I get ahold of it whenever i can. I'd love to have some Beatles cuts. But on the iPod, high quality music is a waste unless you're going digital out of the dock connector into a nice sound system. And the new airplay isn't bad either.

What are you disputing? Whether the practice is done? I cited 2 examples where it has been done. Not to mention the very existence of remastered albums. What more do you need? Are you disputing that flipping the phase when comparing 2 sounds won't reveal their differences? Because that is basic. Hit up google to learn about that. Are you disputing my opinion that the difference TO ME is negligible? That's my opinion and is therefore indisputable. Do I really have to answer why I'm not going to reveal my identity to a bunch of anonymous people on the Internet in order to attach clout to my opinion when I have no clout?? Kinda silly. It's not like anyone in this thread is anyone of any importance. The difference is, I presented actual answers. I'll let those stand on their own. I don't really care who accepts what I have to say. My response was to the OP. Yes, I learned what I'm talking about in school in 2006. No, I haven't been an engineer just since I graduated. I've been learning the trade for a very long time. Not that this has any bearing on the facts that I've stated.

Matter of fact... http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082611rhcp I assure you, they're not the FIRST to do this. I learned how to do this in 2006. They're just the first ones to market it.

I never asked a question, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't know how respectfully stating my opinion should be considered trolling. Who I am is irrelevant. I'm no one special. I own a local project studio in Baltimore. Regardless, I learned this method in engineering school and have witnessed multiple mastering engineers master for different formats. I understand the concept of a good mix being a good mix, but there's no way you can have one mix that sounds best on all formats. CD, vinyl, and radio alone are drastically different. The reason for such horrible CD mixes is because they mix the songs for radio instead of creating separate masters for different formats. Only having one master is an old school mentality. IMO, it doesn't apply with how many different formats there are now. In fact, go read up about the new Pink Floyd box set that has been specially remastered for iTunes. Those songs have been digitally remastered for CD for years. This is at least the 3rd time they've been mastered. One master to rule them all? If that was the case then every digitally remastered album would be a scam.

Great question. Mastering engineers master songs differently for every type of media. Playing a song on iTunes or on an ipod is inherently different than playing on CD. This alone will warrant 2 different masters. But the plain science is that there are differences in the sound, therefore these differences are adjusted for in the mastering process. The testing method I described is the exact method engineers use to see what adjustments need to be made to a mix or master to make up for the differences in different formats. I'm not disputing that some people can hear the differences in different formats. Good mastering engineers can hear the electricity in the walls. But these people can actually describe what they're hearing. My point is just that if you can't explain the difference then you're probably not actually hearing one. And no, I don't expect anyone to actually admit that or come to that conclusion about themselves lol

Actually, I'm one of the few mix engineers out there that reject what pop radio and MP3s have done to mixes. Feel free to troll tho. That's what the Internet is for, right? Meanwhile, I'm the only one that provided an actual scientific answer to a scientific question to a bunch of audiophiles. Btw... I'm not claiming that NO ONE can hear any difference. In fact, if you follow the testing method, you'll hear exactly what that difference is. But it's my OPINION as a person with excellent hearing who is dedicated to hearing great sound that REALISTICLY, there is no dissernable difference. If your explanation of the difference you hear is "I don't know. I can just feel it in my bones!" then my professional opinion is that you're most likely fooling yourself. You know how many people I've had tell me they hear the difference in 2 identical sounds?? It's the go to solution for dealing with an impossible client. "I'll turn this knob that does nothing, and you tell me when you like it." Doesn't just work. Works EVERY time.

Sorry to rehash a fairly old discussion, but I'm baffled at the fact that no one was able to give a scientific answer. Aren't you all audiophiles?? I'm a professional studio engineer with trained ears and excellent hearing (which I get regularly tested). In my opinion, there is no real discernible difference in sound quality between iTunes Plus and CDs. So why do people claim there is? The SCIENCE behind this is pretty simple. If you're looking for a difference, you're going to hear one. This is a phenomenon that engineers are supposed to be very aware of. This is because it's a common mistake to adjust the wrong settings in a mix and convince yourself that you're hearing the difference that you're trying to make. It's a placebo effect. Now, when talking about what the difference in each format truly is, for someone to say there's no science behind this is completely ridiculous. The exact differences in formats can easily be shown scientifically. Here's the process... 1. Rip a CD track down to several different formats with a high quality encoder. 2. Load 2 different formats on 2 different tracks in a multitrack audio program like Pro Tools or Reaper (free). Make sure the tracks are perfectly lined up with one another. 3. Reverse the phase of one track. This will cause each track to cancel each other out. 4. Press play. You will only hear the difference in the tracks. Any actual music you hear will be what's missing from the compression. Any swishing or static will be artifacts added by the compression. Anything else that you DON'T hear is all in your head. Note: You can't test tracks bought from iTunes using this method, because many albums are specially mastered for iTunes. So the resulting file will naturally be different. There will be no way to tell whether the difference you hear is from the iTunes track or the CD. This is also a great method to see which encoders do a better job converting to the same format.