theoctopus

Yesterday I set up an account for myself with WiMP using a VPN, and today I've just done a comparative listening test, comparing WiMP against AIFF files played back through my iTunes library via Amarra. WiMP doesn't sound the same or as good as the raw AIFF files. It does sound pretty good (and is a big step up from Spotify and Beatsmusic), but it is not the same thing as the raw AIFF. I'm not a codec expert in the least, so I couldn't say what is or isn't happening, but to my ears the top end via WiMP is slightly shinier and grainer, and the music isn't as dynamic. WiMP will bring a higher quality portable service for sure, but I'm going to have to keep buying CDs, sadly. Having said that, anybody know of a resource for accurate album credits? Allmusic.com is getting worse and worse in that department...

Oh, sorry about the rude tone. I was merely responding to the all-knowing, all-seeing author of this article (and editor of this blog). But sticking to the topic here, and let's use the word "if": If Apple had plans to release 96k albums in some manner, they would be starting with a catalog of almost nothing. In most cases it takes anywhere from 1-3 days to master an album, if you include revision notes from the producer, artist, etc. Apple would need a fat number of albums in the can at 96k before they could go live with such a program. Such a thing would take a little while. And I would humbly suggest to the author of this article, in similar fashion to the Iwatch which everyone knows is coming, it's not a big secret that they are collecting 96k album masters and remasters, and began doing so a few years ago. Maybe I'm wrong and that they are doing this so that their AAC files are directly from 96k masters (which I know is partly true), but tying up mastering engineers for months at a time for remastering seems a bit serious for such a thing....

OK, I'm sorry. You're right. I have no idea what I'm talking about and you do. I'm not talking about just random artists and I'm not just a random pro music person. And I've been dealing with this issue with two of the top mastering people in the world. But sure, you run a blog, you must now what you're talking about. You've looked at the "evidence". So, I'm going to go back to work now and let you roll with this column, I don't have time to deal with this nonsense.

I'm going back and forth with mastering right now on a 96K remaster for iTunes of an album I produced ten years ago. If you must insist on having all of the right answers all of the time, then I feel very sorry for you.

As a highly subjective article, this is a fun read. However, as someone who makes records for a living, I can tell you: Apple is going to offer 96k 24bit downloads, at some point in the future, probably when they have a significant catalog . How do I know this? Because I regularly deal with many of the world's top mastering engineers, and they tell me. Also, some of the albums I have worked on in the past were decently successful, and as a result, I have been contacted by artists who are trying to track down their master tapes so that they can remaster the album at 96k, expressly for this purpose. Everyone seems to be trying to keep it kind of quiet, but they aren't really trying very hard. So, yes, it's fun to talk about the good and bad points of iTunes, or to try and read the tea leaves in your glass, or you could just ask people who are making records. It's not even much of a secret at this point, so I'm kind of surprised to see so much conjecture.

The worst thing about the new Peppers album isn't the mastering, it's the content. Surely Vlado is not to blame for that. <br /> <br /> Hack Engineer

What's to elaborate on? I guess I shouldn't be "at liberty to discuss such matters". Sorry.

hi jay,<br /> <br /> the album was mastered at 24/96. itunes is planning on making higher resolutions available on certain recordings. <br /> <br /> <br /> Sincerely,<br /> <br /> hack engineer.<br /> <br /> <br />