Skip to main content

Mastering engineer proves “Mastered for iTunes” doesn’t ‘sound closer to the CD’

When Apple started pushing its “Mastered for iTunes” section of albums “specially tuned for higher fidelity sound,” it also published a white paper detailing new guidelines asking publishers to submit high-resolution 24-bit/96kHz files instead of the original CD masters for inclusion in the section. Many were under the impression that the 100 or so albums in the new section are sonically closer to the original CD source in comparison to your average AAC encode from iTunes. According to British mastering engineer Ian Shepherd, “null testing” proves that is simply not true. In fact, he proves a “vanilla” iTunes AAC encoding with default settings sounds closer to the original CD than songs that were specifically “Mastered for iTunes.” Shepherd explained:

the fact that the new Apple encoders can correctly handle high sample rates, and should make a better job on the conversion, STILL doesn’t mean that the files will sound ‘closer to CD’… In fact, since at the end of the day we’re still getting a lossy encode, it’s my opinion that the advantages of higher bit-depths and sample rates will be completely outweighed by the AAC encoding.

Make no mistake; Shepherd does not have a problem with Apple’s guidelines for engineers submitting 24-bit/96kHz files for Mastered for iTunes. In fact, he said, “People may well prefer the “Mastered for iTunes” versions, and there is absolutely no reason not to make a specific master for a particular release format.” However, the point is the master you are getting from Mastered for iTunes, at least in Shepherd’s tests, sounds different from the original CD versions. The test proves the best way to get an iTunes AAC encode that sounds closest to the CD is to simply buy the CD, and then rip it in iTunes.

Shepherd ended his post by urging Apple to offer a “lossless format” if it really cares about high-quality audio. Today reports from The Guardian suggested Apple was working to deliver a new high-definition audio format, while in the white paper for Mastered for iTunes Apple claimed, “Keeping the highest quality masters available in our systems allows for full advantage of future improvements to your music.”

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. John Gardner - 9 years ago

    wish I’d found this before I bought Achtung baby “mastered for iTunes”! yes 256kbps VBR @16 bits & sounds it. dreadful

  2. Jay Gallagher - 9 years ago

    This is just wrong. Completely. If it’s correctly mastered for iTunes, there are less mp3 artifacts.

    100%.

  3. Austin McCree - 7 years ago

    I don’t know how true this was in 2014, but these days (11/2016) “Mastered for iTunes” releases go to a specifically approved list of mastering houses that aim for more dynamic range by taking advantage of 24-bit. So yes, they do sound different. However, you are correct that they don’t sound closer to the CD – in fact they should be sounding very different.

Author

Avatar for Jordan Kahn Jordan Kahn

Jordan writes about all things Apple as Senior Editor of 9to5Mac, & contributes to 9to5Google, 9to5Toys, & Electrek.co. He also co-authors 9to5Mac’s Logic Pros series.