@aerozol - thanks for the input on that portion. I can see both sides, and comparing a mastered for itunes to a non is kind of the same for me. In my thought, I try to compare to physical releases, as that is what this was built on. So, if I take 2 CDs, one from label A and the other from a distributor like BMG that brands them, they are considered different releases here. The reason is that the packaging is different, even though the CD it self is made from the same thing, meaning studio provided content. Then it goes on to the presses where there can be differences in the manufacture. ā¦ If I look at that as a digital file and not as a CD, the file itself is the CD and its meta data the packaging, like the case and stickers. So, in that sense, that is the logic in the file formats (or the container the audio is in) being different releases.
It also ties into what @HibiscusKazeneko is asking here, a separation that by looking at the files and metadata cannot be seen at face value. My opinion is that in the current state with not separating file types, which is an actual difference in the product itself (they can even sound different to the human ear), a digital release is a digital release, given its contents are the same. I would agree that separating mastered for itunes, on its own merit as it is labeled as such, from the rest, as with the containers themselves.
On a side note, I agree on the FLAC statement. Not much of a push for it, In my opinion, with the option of mastered for itunes, I would not consider buying a FLAC release for more money, the gained quality just is not tangible.
The problem with defining consistent rules based on this reasoning is that we would have 6 (or whatever) separate releases for one Bandcamp album, which isnāt at all something I would like to see. Just saying
I agree with that. For bandcamp, I think there are 2 that are shared though. The MP3 would also work for Amazon depending, then there is the FLAC, but your point is valid. My question is if we start to separate, where is the line on it? As I mentioned, when you look at a M4A file (without doing a spectro comparison, the mastered for itunes is the same as the one not mastered for itunes. But we compare a M4A to a MP3, they are completely different.
@aerozol-
Thinking about your statement, even if we just take into consideration the most popular distributions (in my opinion only), we have MP3 in 128 (old), 192 and 320, M4A in 128 (old iTunes), 256 (iTunes Plus) and 256 (Mastered for iTunes) and FLAC without a standard. That does not even include OGG or all of the others, but I am unsure the others are officially distributed.
On that, we have no way to confirm how most all of those files distributions are made, meaning from what āmasterā as discussed earlier. On point, we do know with high probability that Mastered for iTunes files are generated from a non-downsampled master that is said to be mastered specifically for the compression techniques of the M4A/MP4/AAC lossy encoder and container.
Iām for the most part lost. This thread has veered off in a completely different direction from where I started it.
Before I started this thread, I was fully aware that digital releases are not normally separated by storefront, encoding, bitrate, etc. alone. I knew that around the same time the KISS Mastered for iTunes releases came out, those exact same releases had been newly remastered and reissued on vinyl. Logic would dictate that those same remasters were subsequently released on iTunes and the Mastered for iTunes header was used, for whatever reason (likely marketing purposes). This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the phonographic copyrights on all the Mastered for iTunes releases have been updated to 2014 (as opposed to the original release date, which was used for all prior releases). Based on this body of evidence I was convinced that the iTunes releases were their own unique entities and I came looking for a way to represent this. What I got instead was a barrage of nitpicking over what constituted a remaster/unique release, all the while ignoring or pooh-poohing the rest of the evidence I had provided that these were unique and separate from other digital releases of the same albums. It seems the fact that the āMastered for iTunesā header was used has been turned into a red herring.
@HibiscusKazeneko - My opinion on the specific example you provideā¦ I would think that it, along with all mastered for iTunes releases could be separate, if all agree. I do not agree that the master is the same as the one used for vinyl**. The iTunes release is also not labeled as remastered.
My apologies, I did not intend to change the direction, but to address it on a top level, not a specifics example. Meaning, I agree that your mastered for iTunes specific release here could (should maybe) go on its own, but my opinion is not at all based on any of the evidence provided, it is simply based on the fact that iTunes calls it āmastered for iTunesā. That part is fact. The thought the the master is the same is an assumption, and in my opinion, a wrong one. My opinion right or wrong, it is still an assumption either way.
** This is based on the fact that Apple claims that the masters they get are specifically mastered for the methods used in making their M4A/AAC files. This method would be different than that used to make a vinyl. So, either the assumption is wrong, or Apple is not being honest. As we normally look at branding (marketing, labels, etc), it makes sense to me to go with the statement from iTunes, as they label the release that way.
For comparison purposes, I checked some Mastered for iTunes releases by a different artist. This release is listed as Mastered for iTunes. Its phonographic copyright date is the same as the albumās original release date (the iTunes release dates to 2012, based on data gleaned from a lookup). There appear to be some remastered LPs associated with this and other related releases, but they were released after the iTunes releases (rather than before, as was the case with KISS).
In light of this, I normally wouldnāt consider Mastered for iTunes releases to be distinct entries for MB. The only thing separating the KISS releases now are the phonographic copyright dates. Interestingly enough, not all of KISSā catalog was upgraded to Mastered for iTunes (three titles that I know of were re-released on vinyl, and remastered for that purpose, but not upgraded in iTunes).
You are suggesting that normally, a mastered for iTunes release does not get separated from the other lump of them. In some cases, like this one, where the editor(s) believe there is reason to separate it, would add it as a separate release and use disambiguation to say āMastered for iTunesā and add maybe an annotation to explain why this specific one was selected to break out from the rest? This decision is basically to break out a mastered for iTunes release only if we have reason to assume that something makes it more unique than other ones of its kind, thus further distinguishing it from the rest of the non downsampled ones. And the āremasteredā reference would not be actually added to the release, but explained in annotation only. And finally, barring another exception, all other digital versions of this release would be lumped together.
Is the above a correct summary? That is not a bad idea. I am not sure it really addresses the real issue and the move to digital, but it does start the process.
Itās for the most part correct. I was calling into question whether the KISS releases should even be separate either. Iām perusing a few other download sites right now (e.g. HDtracks and Google Play) and the same releases appear to have been added/updated around the same time as the Mastered for iTunes releases but the phonographic copyrights are shown with different dates (though with the same rights holder, Island Def Jam Music Group, which to my knowledge is the holder of all the old imprints KISS used). Interestingly enough, all the albums on Google Play up to Asylum are marked as remastered. I could assume this meant they used the audio from the 1997 remasters, but I know Crazy Nights was also remastered for that set and it is not marked as such in Google Play (though it is marked as such on Amazon mp3).
This is a very strange situation, and in the absence of anything official saying what is what Iām tempted to just merge most of the digital releases I separated out (with some exceptions, such as the German editions and the non-iTunes release of Monster).
EDIT: Apparently HDtracks shows the phonographic copyright date as 2014 as well. Google Play does not.
It makes me wonderā¦ is it the same, meaning they are both remastered, or are they different releases. As you have said as well, there is no way we will really know. This is why I believe that we really do not follow the master, we follow the release. Even with good research as you are doing, we can only speculate.
I also wonder, maybe someone knows the answer, but to what is the copyright tied to. I do not mean in simplistic terms, but in precise detail, what is it exactly. I will ask on this, it might help. I have never look at it in the detail you are, trying to correlate a specific master to a specific release.
Iāve started the merge rollout, but Iāve hit a roadblock: the versions shown on some sites have different barcodes (details in edit #36218826). This was supposed to have been resolved via a schema change a few months ago, but that change was cancelled (from what I remember, it wasnāt ready in time or something along those lines).
I donāt think it makes sense to create a āMastered for iTunesā series, unless youāre creating one specifically for a certain artistās / certain labelās āeventā of some kind. (So in this case, maybe a āKISS Mastered for iTunes 2016ā series or something. Itās not the only artist Iāve seen get a batch remastered release like this.)
Obviously āMastered for iTunesā should go into the release disambiguation when I keep seeing so many editors trying to fight the fact that these releases tend to have exclusive UPC codes that are different from the shared UPC code that other digital stores get instead.
This is part of the issue I mentioned. There is a difference between what sells on amazon to iTunes. It is also there from what @yindesu mentioned on mastered for iTunes having a barcode that is different.
What is meant by master? How do we know which master? Aside from āMastered for iTunesā and āRemasterā?
This makes sense, but is there a line on this? Meaning that mastered for iTunes is considered its own release. How about iTunes Plus vs original iTunes, or Amazon vs iTunes (any)? Or buying from Barnes and Noble vs BeatPort? We have no idea of knowing where those copies were derived from.
Specifically for mastered for iTunes, it can be concluded that the claims have some merit, although I cannot verify the claims exactly, I can verify that the quality of the 256 M4A file is of better quality than I can create using a CD as a source, even increasing the bit rate. This does lead me to believe the claim that it is a 24 bit master used, rather than the 16 bit master intended for CD use.
What do you mean?
If you have reason think a release/storefront is selling a product that has different mastering to another, create different releases. One of those reasons, but not limited to, is iTunes claiming to have a seperate master.
You basically answered it there, assumption becomes a part of it. We are classifying releases by something that is somewhat an unknown. Aside from a release being explicitly labeled mastered for iTunes, remastered, etc, it is an assumption on what master is used, not to mention the confusion on the difference between re-mixed and re-mastered that is showing.
It is fine. I just find it awkward that on physical releases it is so picky on fact and proof, but on digital fact seems less important, when in reality as it relates to the actual release, it is actually more important. I do not understand how a marking difference on packaging is a more distinct difference than the quality of the music itself, but that is just my opinion and that of others with this mindset.
My questions thenā¦ if mastered for iTunes is a different release, then what about Tunes Plus vs iTunes (original)? Also who controls the master(s), and what āreleasesā are they making with them? Example, iTunes has the masters for mastered for iTunes and can make anything they want off of them (as we are told), but is the same for the non-mastered for iTunes? We have no idea at all. I just think guidelines need to have some sort of base clarity. Leaving so much to opinion I think leaves a lot of inconsistency for the future editors to sort out.
itās probably more a case of āif in doubt keep it separateā. The āmastered for iTunesā claim is no sure proof for a different master, but since we donāt know for sure play it safe.
I have found quite a few recordings I think should be merged, but I am not entirely sure and lack of further proof prevents me from merging them. Similar case IMHO.
Agreed, never will anything be perfect. No question about thatā¦ On my side of the point, I was more questioning how specific to get and how to determine what is real fact and what is assumption. Using the example here, my point was we could say that the master is different, because iTunes tells us it is on the release (and likely on the cover) by saying āmastered for itunesā. But we cannot say that the master is the same remastered as used on the vinyl, because we are not told that. The iTunes release is not called āremasteredā, but āmastered for iTunesā. More questioning the tolerance and room for assumption, and not meaning assumption in a negative way, but a conclusion not 100% provable by black and white fact. In this case, meaning that āremasteredā does not equal āmastered for itunesā. So to tie them together requires some non factual reasoning. Now, whether that non factual reasoning is right or wrong, that is where my question really comes in, how do we make a determination?
In this original post, @HibiscusKazeneko uses reasoning to conclude that the master is the same, or if not the same remastered and similar, to the master used on the vinyl release based on date. This reasoning makes sense in its scope. My reasoning tells me that a sound engineer would not master them the same, a vinyl mastering would be quite different than a digital mastering, so I would conclude they are not the same at all. As with the other side, my reasoning makes sense in its scope. So we have 2 different sets of logic, both would appear valid and reasonable (I think we all agree that both make sense?), so what do you do?
I hope that make sense. @HibiscusKazeneko brought a really interesting topic that I have seen discussed and participated in at smaller levels on many other edits. So, sorry it got all off track, it opened an unintended can of worms.
