1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Is It Standard to Upload Music to iTunes, Spotify, etc. in 16 Bit Rather Than 24 Bit?

Discussion in 'Recording' started by rbf738, Feb 22, 2012.

  1. rbf738

    rbf738 Active Member

    I was about to upload my music to TuneCore who would then distribute it to iTunes, Spotify, etc. and noticed that they said to make sure my music was in 16 bit format. It was my understanding that 16 bit is just for burning CDs. You have to dither/add the noise to bring 24 bit recordings down to 16 bit because CDs can't handle 24 bit, but it was my understanding also that if I'm uploading my music to online streaming services like Spotify or iTunes where people are purchasing DIGITAL copies of my music, shouldn't it stay in 24 bit?

    Very curious to see what people think here. Thanks!
     
  2. gdoubleyou

    gdoubleyou Well-Known Member

    No most will end up as mp3 or some other compressed format.
     
  3. rbf738

    rbf738 Active Member

    So I should dither my music down to 16 before uploading you're saying?
     
  4. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    Ya, that's what we're saying. You're 24-bit is your master and archive. You commercially release in the most widely acceptable format which is 16 bit 44.1 kHz. So select the dither that makes your music sound best at 16 bit. Dither is basically electronically calculated noise that is calculated differently for the different types of dither sound you want. There will be no loss of quality really, honestly, it's true. Besides, there are still a lot of people that don't have players compatible at 24-bit. 24-bit is not higher in resolution in the way in which you might think. People will argue this with me especially when fine arts, classical music is being talked about. So is this an opera that you do? A symphony? How about rock 'n roll? OK baby, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout. Add rock 'n roll sounds perfectly great at 16 bit. Provided your engineering is good to begin with. And that's the reason for working in 24-bit but not necessarily releasing in 24-bit. I mean back in the day, people thought cassettes sounded OK. I ALWAYS HATED THEM! It wasn't OK to me. But that's what you had to release things in, because folks didn't have 30 IPS 1/2 track stereo, 10 inch reel to reel recorders to play my fabulous sounding mixes on at home or in the car or anywhere. Since I started recording digitally in 1983, it's really upped the ante and we don't have to worry about crappy sounding playback anymore. Even MP3's sound better than analog cassettes ever did. Opera not so much so. But even then, a CD sounds way better at 16 bit, 44.1 kHz. Everything on those download services is data compressed anyhow to begin with. So it's all basically MP3 like, some formats, slightly better sounding than others but all compressed data nevertheless. Which means a wad of data has been eliminated they think you can hear. But we all hear that. So quality has already been automatically yanked out. It doesn't matter if it starts off better. It still all ends up as succotash. And at least sucks in some way or another in the end.

    I always liked working in 30 IPS over 15 IPS back in the analog days. Unfortunately, it wasn't always practical to do that. So then, we worked at 15 IPS. And if you did release anything to a client on a reel to reel tape, it didn't matter if it started at 30 IPS or 15 IPS, you delivered at 7.5 IPS which was still incredibly good sounding over any cassette at 1.78 IPS.

    There you go, everything that didn't make sense for you.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  5. rbf738

    rbf738 Active Member

    Thanks very much for the clarity RemyRAD I really appreciate it. At the very least it got me to shake off that fear of feeling like 16 bit sounds horrible or even noticeably different. I know deep down that it doesn't sound different to MOST people, but it's still nice to hear someone else remind me of it.

    I've been selling my music on BandCamp in 24 bit as is... it never occurred to me to dither digital music down. I guess I've got some ditherin to do.
     
  6. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    Well don't dally with your dithering. Otherwise you will be dallying when dithering. Which doesn't always tally when you dally, daily.

    I didn't shower today so I am as fresh as a dally.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  7. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    I just received an update regarding iTunes. Apparently I'm wrong. They now want you to upload your music in your highest quality format that you happen to be utilizing. If it's 24-bit at 192 kHz, you can upload it to iTunes that way. They have also introduced their own Mastering plan they have implemented. They feel that with the proliferation of broadband high-speed Internet service, the need for highly compressed files and file formats is no longer needed. So, there you go. But that's not necessarily true for everybody. Most crappy little MP3 players are still restricted to 44.1 kHz, 16 bit.

    Check out the Apple website to find out more.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  8. LittleJohn

    LittleJohn Active Member

    Very interesting RemyRAD, please do follow up and let us know. My guess is, they are still going to chop it down themselves, they would just prefer to do it themselves. somehow i doubt they intend to sell 24 bit AIF downloads, but maybe I am wrong. Please advise.
     
  9. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    I neither Purchase anything nor post anything to iTunes and I'm not a Mac person so, it's something I don't need to waste my time investigating. I keep fairly busy an am continuously already devoting a lot of time to Recording.org. So not that I'm trying to be a party pooper, diehard mind you. Of course those are all lame excuses I know. And since I don't deal with iTunes I'm not sure if they are manipulating the audio like the other music posting download services are doing? Maybe they're just leaving it clean, intact, pristine? But when they say they are offering Mastering tools, people are just going to start screwing up their own pristine masters. But at least you might have the option not to? 24-bit 192 kHz is great for all of the audiophiles to enjoy. For many of us folks, Drop Box in other online Internet-based storage sites that are not being hawked as " music sites " aren't screwing with anybody's data. So the files there that you upload are the files there that you download. But that's not exactly a "Reked store" where people are paying to download stuff. And so I think also in that way, everyone of the for sale music sites is adding some kind of processing à la the old days of competitive rock 'n roll loudness wars processing gobbledygook? So when Little Joey compares his download of Britney Spears to his friend Little Danny, he'll say " wow, that sounds better than mine ". We all know that Little Joey & Little Danny are expert audio aficionados at 13 years of age. And there's your competitive profit-making mindset. They're only using a bad emulation, plug-in of old-fashioned FM processing. I can make things sound really good with T-Racks or I can make it sound really bad and really loud depending upon how much aggressive and inappropriate tweaking I may deem necessary to compete with my nearest download music service provider. So it could be a mixed blessing? You can make any 24-bit, 192 kHz pristine audio file sound just as bad as you feel necessary to do.

    It's all good. It's all fun.
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  10. LittleJohn

    LittleJohn Active Member

    Interesting. I do distribute music to all the usual suspects. As i listen to the 30 second previews it is quite obvious each has their own process for conversion and they definitely dont sound the same. At first i thought it might be an artifact of the streaming technologies so i actually bought $0.99 downoads of my own stuff from different stores to compare. Nope, they are different. I suspect there is no actual person listening to them , suspect each submitted file gets a canned ITB volume normalizer and converted to about a 128kbps mp3 (or AIF in the case of itunes )
    Maybe if you are famous you have enough pull to get something better but i certainly don't. (am at the mercy of the aggregators and the "ingestion" prcesses)
    Regarding sumbission of 24 bit mastered files, i am actually wondering how one would come to be in possession of that anyway <?> What you get back from the mastering house is Cd spec. I suppose some mastering houses might save an interim file and let you have it if you requested it. Dunno.
    naturally the work one would submit to a mastering house is likely to be 24 bit, but i would not think it appropriate to upload that file to a download store. (my $0.02)
     

Share This Page