jeffca

Just like any disc drive, if the drive can't read a section, there will be a skip. I'm fairly certain that iTunes doesn't use error correction when reading a disc because it spins several times faster than a disc in a CD player and has plenty of time to go back and attempt to read the data that it missed. The Mac OS sees the data on music CD's as AIFF files. There is one consideration, though, that you haven't thought of... drive noise. Optical drives are pretty noisy. Unlike CD drives, when playing a CD in a Mac, the optical drive spins at full speed (at least 6x real time speed or greater) and can make a fairly audible whurring sound. You'd be best of to spend a minute importing the CD tracks into iTunes before playing if you prefer not hearing the CD drive noise (it's doubtful you'll be able to hear the HD unless you stick your ear near the Mini). You can easily trash the tunes after playing. jeff

I would find it far more valuable to lobby Apple to distribute high resolution audio through iTunes and leave the audiophile player market to the likes of PM and Amarra. I believe Apple is the world's largest distributer of music. Let's get them to press the labels to distribute 24/96 downloads of their catalogues. Now that would be a revenue stream for Apple!! You're missing the point. Apple won't sell anything that it doesn't or can't support. While iTunes can play 24/96 audio, the fact that sample rates don't switch seamlessly and automatically in iTunes may cause big problems with audio interfaces as well as iPods, iPads & iPhones. 24/44.1 files playback just fine on my iPod. I haven't tried 96khz, but my suspicion is that they aren't compatible with their current line-up. Asking for lots of fantastical stuff in iTunes is both useless and a bit idiotic. Apple will only implement those things that will allow compatibility with their hardware. To that end, asking for a high quality audio engine and superb EQ and volume controls in iTunes will have no effect on any of their hardware. As to pushing the labels for hi-res content in the iTunes Store, I wouldn't hold your breath. Nice thought, though. jeff

[email protected] - use that e-mail address to let Steve jobs know that you want an iTunes that an audiophile could love. I just got off the phone with a high-level support exec at Apple. No, not one of the people at a call center (like the jerk-off that was trying to tell me that the type of audio file makes a difference to the DAC in an iPOD... which it doesn't), I'm talking about a person whose job is to contact Apple users and ask them, in depth, what their experience is so that that information can be sent on to the people who design their products. I spent about over half hour talking to her about iTunes shortcomings, how its audio hasn't been improved since almost ever and how they're missing a fairly substantial market by not bringing the sound quality up to 2010 standards. I also asked how many companies need to create high quality, audio engines for iTunes before they get a clue? Her point to me was that a "pro/audiophile" version of iTunes might involve serious expense on the support side making a $40(?) paid version unfeasible. My rebutal was that Apple already has superb audio engine and EQ technology that can be automated in Logic. How could properly implementing that code in the stead of the current substandard crap impact the stability or compatibility of iTunes? Answer: it can't. I'm going to be composing a new letter to Mr. Jobs and Co. explaining how big iTunes is in the audiophile community, how they're missing out on a fairly decent revenue stream by not offering an audiophile version (corporate types loathe leaving money on the table) and detailing my thoughts on how they could turn their music player into my dream, playback machine. Bottom line, please let the Apple chief exec know that you want a better iTunes. And buttering him up by saying that you're glad to see him doing well after just about dying doesn't hurt, either. Being complimentary helps. [email protected] - use it! jeff

This isn't a revelation to me or a DIY article... just a bit of proselytizing. Being a proud owner of Paradigm Reference Active LCR-450 mains and a pair of their Servo 15 subs as well as a Mackie SRM450 for a decade, the virtues of active loudspeakers aren't news to me. But, after re-tasking some cheap pro audio gear and retro-fitting an old pair of Boston Acoustics T830's with new Scan-Speak woofers, I'm amazed at how fantastic some cheap, old crap can sound. The rig is as follows: • Boston Acoustics T830 speakers (circa 1988) with new Scan-Speak 22W/8534G Discovery 8" woofers • 3 old Carvin power amps: two HT150 (mids/tweets - power chip amps circa 1998) and a DCA300 (discreet amp circa 1987) • Behringer DCX2496 digital x-over • Dayton 5-way terminals, Supra wiring and some cheap generic quick connects both gold plated & base metal Currently, I'm in the process of voicing the speakers. It's a pretty arduous task involving hours of listening to music... how terrible. While mid and high drivers could stand upgrading, I was shocked at the difference subbing out one of the HT150's for an old Adcom 535mkII made in the sound. While I hate to use thoroughly unscientific terms to describe audio, it's apt in this case... with the 535 hooked to the mids, this rig sang! It just wasn't me loving it. My partner in crime came over for a recording session and he was impressed as well. I'm now very seriously considering the purchase of a used 535 from Ebay so I can have that goodness all of the time. These cheap Carvin chip amps are really only good for powering dipole surrounds or any other speaker where amp quality isn't critical. They're too noisy and just don't have what it takes to resolve real detail. So, as it stands, the system's imaging is razor sharp as the mid/high on each channel on each speaker is powered with it's own amp and the bass response is amazing for a pair of 8" woofers. And, of course, bypassing the passive X-O improves efficiency by several db's and decreases amp and speaker distortion/nonlinearities by about an order of magnitude due to the elimination of some really old, reactive elements from the signal chain. Capacitors age like vinegar, not fine red wine. As I listen to two vocal titans of last century, James Brown and Robert Palmer, tear through a live rendition of JB's I Got You (I Feel Good), I'm loving life! So, what other cheap improvements could be made? Both Dayton and Morel offer 2" dome mids that are direct replacements (flange size-wise) for the BA mid driver. The Dayton is actually a pretty good transducer, but most likely won't be able to keep up with the Morel in almost any aspect. The Dayton's also an aluminum dome while the Morel's treated fabric. The price differential is $100 and change ($40 vs. $144) so I'll probably do the Dayton and, maybe later, go for the Morel. Also, I could replace the tweeters with Vifa XT19TD00-04 3/4" Ring Radiators. With a little cajoling, I think they could fit perfectly into the BA tweeter flanges (they're an odd size that no one else, including BA, now uses). Is this something you should do without any experience, techinical/scientific expertise and a bunch of cheap equipment lying around? Probably not. But if you have an adventurous spirit, a decent understanding of basic loudspeaker design and some cheap equipment gathering dust, go for it! You can make some old speaker useful again. You will be happy that you did. Trust me. jeff

Funny, after working as both a mix and mastering engineer on and off for the last 3 decades doing both live sound and studio recording, you'd think that I'd know the difference? (Smell the sarcasm?) Dude, a mix engineer takes the individual tracks for a song and mixes them down into composite stereo or surround tracks. A mastering engineer takes the final mixed tracks for an album and adjusts level, EQ, mastering compression, etc. so that all of the songs sit well with each other as well as all of the final metadata for a CD's pressing. A mastering engineer is also the person called when a studio master is going to get freshened up (noise reduction, EQ and the like) for a re-release. jeff

As to point #1, I'm turning 51 in a week. When I started listening to music, most of it sucked fidelity-wise. You liked the song because you liked the song and it sounded like shit most places you heard it. Once getting into hifi, I realized how awful most stuff sounded and have been tweaking it when and where I can ever since. As to point #2, well yeah. What do you think a mastering engineer does? If you're lucky, when you boost any range in a song, it brings out all of the qualities that you were hoping for. That doesn't always happen, but that's no reason to not to try. I used to create compilation discs for friends with full graphics, editorial comments and a total remastering of the 16bit audio from the CD's. A true labor of love (we're talking over 10 years ago). Once my friends really got into iTunes, there was no longer any reason to do that. I'd just shoot them the audio files and be done with it. Then they could do they're thing! jeff

...The perfect set up in a perfect world. Unfortunately, that world isn't our's, but there is no denying the benefits if your room, source material and speakers are close to ideal. Trust me when I tell you that really good digital processing can do wonders. I suggest baby steps into this awful world of digital miracles. There are a lot of pitfalls. Stay frosty, jeff PS - cool that your using a Mini.

Click this link and listen to what I'm ranting about: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/Get-Your-Boogie-down-EQ-iTunes

to see where this all started, click here. Just before George Washington was executed at the Alamo by Napoleon, he exclaimed, "Holy crap, that band sounds lousy! Kill me now if that's the best you've got!" After that the founding fathers drafted the 9th amendment, part of which stated the inalienable rights of citizens to high fidelity and to improve the music they were listening to by the best means available without persecution. I've been opining the lack of truly high quality level and EQ controls in iTunes and its supplemental programs, Amarra and Pure Music. To show why these are needed, I've recorded a song from my iTunes player with Audio Hijack. As to my collection and the song: I have a hugely varied library of music on my machine. Bowie, Basie, Sinatra, Disturbed, Weather Report... I need high quality tone and level controls so that I can enjoy my collection without jumping at the laptop everytime a new song comes on. iTunes facilities for this are not great, but are better than nothing. But, it's not about making each song sound the same. it's about making each song sound as good as it can. Case in point: the Al Jarreau classic, "Boogie Down". Just about as trite a mid-Eighties pop/R&B song as you can find, but it's got a great, uplifting message in it's stupid repetive lyrics and it's pretty damn funky... if you give it a good deal of bass emphasis. And, of course, it's got Al singing, which is always fantastic, but this track got hosed. With the anemic low end from the typically bad transfer of a disc-pressing master tape to the CD (not the studio master - never taking into account that the low end didn't need to be rolled off for the Compact Disc), this cut never had a chance to truly hit its mark as a dance tune. I mean, come on, the song says "You can be what you want to, all you need is to get your boogie down". When I think of getting anything down, it better have some serious thump for my rump. This doesn't until now. This may now have even a bit too much low end, but for a song like this, is that really a bad thing? So here are your downloads. These aren't for headphone or multimedia speaker listening. If you're system doesn't have some serious low frequency output, you're best just moving on. This demo is for those who enjoy listening to music occassionally at levels that approach a dance club or concert. While the rest of you might get some of this goodness, you'll still be missing out. As Moris Day said in The Time song, "The Bird", "This song ain't for everyone, just the sexy people!" With that being said, I hope you get what I'm talking about and enjoy these MP4's in iTunes or Quicktime (better yet) without any alteration. There most likely is a discrepancy between the levels of these three files. Do your best to account for it and let me know which one you prefer. The links: With no equalization: http://www.jeffca.com/With_Without-EQ/Boogie-Down-NoEQ.m4a With a crap load of low EQ: http://www.jeffca.com/With_Without-EQ/Boogie-Down-EQ.m4a With a crap load of low EQ and SRS via the iTunes iWow plugin just for the fun of it: http://www.jeffca.com/With_Without-EQ/Boogie-Down-EQ-SRS.m4a Cheers (it's Friday), jeff

Chris, In this particular case, the phrase resurrection is quite apt. #1: It's an old song that many people have forgotten, but was a minor hit so raising it from the dead fits. #2: With a lot of EQ, this song is worth using over and over again. Sans EQ, it's something that would have been nice if it just got some TLC from the mastering engineer. I look at this from the point of a mastering engineer (since I do that occasionally). If you love a song, but the producer and engineer screwed the pooch, why not do a bit of experimentation to make it sound like it could and should have? Honestly, most records have some pretty dubious engineering. If it's within your means, why not finish the job they started? It's not only your right as a audiophile, but your duty as an music fan. And to all of you shirking your duty, how do you listen to music with a clear conscience? The founding fathers risked their lives so that you could improve the music you listen to as you see fit. Both Bill O'Reilly and I think your un-American. And all of you people who use illegal immigrants to play back your digital audio rather than patriotic Americans, you disgust me! Abe Lincoln died at Pearl Harbor so we could make our digital music playback perfect so don't spit in his face and cower in the shadow of poorly mastered music. Be a patriot and fix it so everyone within earshot can enjoy the beauty you're listening to. God bless America, good night and good luck! jeff

Seems like a bunch of people jumped in as I was getting ready to jump out. First off, any EQ and level scheme should be elegant and robust. That's probably a not going to be easy for any helper program like Amarra or Pure Music since Apple would probably be just fine with them not existing at all. And any remorra-like program such as Pure Music is subject to whatever changes Apple makes to iTunes with no recourse. From my meager vantage point, having Pure Music read the iTunes database for level and EQ info seems the most expeditious, but I have no idea what that entails and could be absolutely wrong. Another consideration is that I'd like to be able to use my iPod with the same iTunes that has my main music library. If EQ and level are done by some arcane message in the metadata rather than from the iTunes database, I'd have to manage seperate libraries for hifi and iPod playback. That's not very efficient. As to not doing what I term "active remastering" in real-time, why would you not want to do that? Even a 3 band linear-phase parametric EQ hardly drains that much power in a modern computer. The other big factor is that you have set anything in stone and can edit your settings later. As to the use of EQ to resurrect a song, I'm going to address that in a new topic with links to a before and after that will leave your mouth gaping. If that won't convince just about everyone that what I'm droning on about is important for music fans, nothing will. Cheers, jeff

OK, you're correct and I was out of line. Being bit perfect is great, but when the source itself is less than perfect and requires some high quality EQ to save it, being bit perfect becomes a moot point. I record and mix audio using Cubase and most of the EQ duties fall upon WaveArts TrackPlug 5 or, especially for mastering & lead vocals, Sonnox Oxford EQ. Both are top notch EQ's. That I could have such EQ native and automatable in a music player. It's not impossible, by any stretch. It's just that no one has the vision to see that it's needed. I'm starting to think that DJ software like Traktor or Virtual DJ is the only way to go. I highly doubt that Amarra or Pure Music will sound better than either of these two. And both DJ apps are a hell of a lot cheaper than Amarra as well as more feature reach than either. jeff

Plugins can not be assigned to each song. And none of the iTunes add-ons that I've seen offers assignable EQ or level controls, period. If there is a Mac music player out there that does, please let me know. Hell, if I wanted to kick it new old school, I'd pull the audio files in contiguously and play everything one album at a time through Quicktime and Audio Hijack. Aah, the good old days where I had to screw around with every song manually. Kinda defeats the purpose of using a computer to playback your music. And I just knew that some poor SOB was going to wander in to this post and offer the often stated, but completely incorrect opinion that EQ in any form will degrade the fidelity of the music. Well, sorry, but good digital equalization doesn't create any audibly perceptible degradation of the sound and the small amount of phase shift it introduces can be measured, but is truly miniscule in the larger scheme of digital audio. Whatever gentle phase shift may occur is more than offset by the positive effects of the equalization and most studies have shown that it can't be heard with any regularity, if at all. All of the research I've read pointed to the human auditory system to be quite tolerant of phase shifts, but very sensitive to frequency variations (hence the popularity of multi-way speakers with a variety of crossover topologies that are not phase or transient perfect). When I have people over to listen to music, at some point, when we're really groovin' on a great tune that was poorly engineered, but saved by EQ, I turn the EQ off and ask them how they like the sound of the original. They never like it better than the EQ'd version. You'll have to excuse me if I'm beginning to suspect that most people here really don't get what I'm talking about... at all. jeff

I can understand leaving well engineered material alone. And most of the sins committed by producers and record companies that don't care about quality (or don't know what it is) can't be easily reversed, if at all. But, shitty mastering EQ can be fixed to a large extent. Case in point: Van Halen. VH's music was slaughtered by both producer Ted Templeman and engineer Don Landee. So much so, in fact, that I have 2 iTunes EQ presets just to bring them back into the real world. Believe me when I tell you that using EQ to reverse the damage caused by the Dynamic Duo is no subtle improvement. A hard rock band is supposed to have some low end. Adding it makes the music quite powerful. When I listen to minimally miked, classical music, this isn't necessary. Those engineers know they're stuff. But, to my mind, a multitracked recording, at best, is still a bastardized product that can sound fantastic, but has no real integrity compared to well done, live, minimalist stereo/surround recordings. Usually, by the time someone listens to the end product of a multitrack recording, so much processing has been done to it that no quality, judiciously applied equalization, whether analog or digital, can really compromise it. We're talking about scraping some of the crap off of a shit sandwich. jeff

I tried broaching this subject a few weeks ago and it seemed that most most of the people that read the post didn't get what I was talking about so I've included a few images this time around so there will be no misundstanding. Let qualify this post from the start by letting you know that I've been a musician for over 30 years and a part-time audio engineer for live sound and recording almost that long. My main speakers are Paradigm's Reference Active LCR-450's and a pair of their Servo 15 subs. My main listening room (the living room) has about $1,000 worth of Auralex acoustic foam products to tame both reverberation and low bass anomolies. At present, this system requires very little equalization to sound really good. With that out of the way, on to the subject: EQ and level controls in iTunes - does anybody use them to improve their listening experience? I have a pretty varied iTunes library. It runs the gamut from Count Basie to Disturbed. With over 1,700 songs from 50's mono to present day, super-compressed metal, average playback levels can fluctuate over 10 decibels and timbres can swing wildly from super linear fidelity to tinny, bass shy garbage. Given that, I do what I've always done (even when I listened to vinyl) and adjust the level and EQ controls to make up for deficiencies in either the recording or mastering of the music. In case you still don't get what I'm talking about, here's an example. Above, you see the frequency response for a song from the Rush album, Counterparts. While the response is basically flat (excepting the rolloff above 10khz), This is not a very pleasant sounding album. While flat frequency response is desirable in speakers and electronics, it sounds bass shy due to the nature of human hearing. Each octave going up from the low end has more energy content due to each octave doubling in frequency width with increasing frequency and the nature of higher frequencies naturally having greater power. This is why pink noise (which rolls off at 3db/octave) sounds linear to our ears and white noise seems bright (and it's response is linear). So, bottom line is that this song sounds tinny. The bass is lacking and the top end sounds dull. Now see what it looks like when the 10 band graphic EQ is engaged. Note that the rolloff above 10khz is gone, the bass is boosted and the response now has a linear rolloff of 3db per octave which, to human ears, sounds flat. The song now sounds like a Rush song should with some very satisfying bass and kick drum impact and a bit of shimmer on the cymbals. With the advent of iTunes, I can now apply seperate level and EQ adjustments to each song. Unfortunately, iTunes level and EQ aren't stellar and I'd like these new iTunes companion programs (Amarra, Pure Music, etc.) to offer level and EQ presets that can be assigned to each song. So, does anyone else do this in iTunes or do you just take every song as it comes regardless of how poorly it's engineered? jeff henning