#audio encoding

Brand: ClearOne Price: $9,999.00

Product Line: Collaborate| Product Name: Collaborate Room Pro| Marketing Information: COLLABORATE Room Pro is a complete video collaboration system with built-in features far beyond those of competing room systems at an affordable (more…)

Rubin explained his thoughts on the matter to MTV last year, calling the difference between the resulting "Mastered for iTunes" tracks and the original encoding "night and day."

"It seems to contain more sonic information than the typical iTunes file," Rubin told MTV. "It's much closer to the sound of the CD and it took several weeks of additional experimentation and mastering to reach the final iTunes master."

He then loaded the original high resolution master and began applying EQ adjustments. He exported a 24/44.1 WAV file, which we ran through Apple's tools to create an encoded AAC file that's identical to what would be generated by Apple itself. As before, we used Apple's tools to convert the resulting AAC file back into a 16/44.1 WAV file.

Now we could compare the original CD master, the file generated by iTunes from that master, and our own "specially mastered for iTunes" version. Subjectively, our tweaks made the track sound better. Much of the "boxiness" was gone, and the song sounded more "alive."

(via @monquixote and arstechnica.com)

Eurgh, this kind of unscientific "testing" makes me stabby.

You took the master and "applied EQ" before encoding to AAC... and what you got sounded different than just encoding to AAC from the CD version. No shit, Sherlock.

And all those "we listened and we could tell the difference" with no reference to blind testing? Gragh, Ars Technica should know better.

Rubin explained his thoughts on the matter to MTV last year, calling the difference between the resulting "Mastered for iTunes" tracks and the original encoding "night and day."

"It seems to contain more sonic information than the typical iTunes file," Rubin told MTV. "It's much closer to the sound of the CD and it took several weeks of additional experimentation and mastering to reach the final iTunes master."

He then loaded the original high resolution master and began applying EQ adjustments. He exported a 24/44.1 WAV file, which we ran through Apple's tools to create an encoded AAC file that's identical to what would be generated by Apple itself. As before, we used Apple's tools to convert the resulting AAC file back into a 16/44.1 WAV file.

Now we could compare the original CD master, the file generated by iTunes from that master, and our own "specially mastered for iTunes" version. Subjectively, our tweaks made the track sound better. Much of the "boxiness" was gone, and the song sounded more "alive."

(via @monquixote and arstechnica.com)

Eurgh, this kind of unscientific "testing" makes me stabby.

You took the master and "applied EQ" before encoding to AAC... and what you got sounded different than just encoding to AAC from the CD version. No shit, Sherlock.

And all those "we listened and we could tell the difference" with no reference to blind testing? Gragh, Ars Technica should know better.