Better mastered music could be on the way!
I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...
Probably no need...as it seems to have gone into an alternative reality. 
haha a fan of all things Douglassy I take it?
I think he had the answer to life, the universe and 24 bit.! 
well of the reasons hypothesised as to why linn have different masters for different file types I would suspect that 10% are 95% true, 14% are 65% true, 35% are only 5% true and the rest were told by zap hod beeblebrox..
i might start a petition for 42 bit recordings... Possibly proof that recording engineers spend too much time looking in mirrors.
well of the reasons hypothesised as to why linn have different masters for different file types I would suspect that 10% are 95% true, 14% are 65% true, 35% are only 5% true and the rest were told by zap hod beeblebrox..
That's a bit of a simplification!
i might start a petition for 42 bit recordings... Possibly proof that recording engineers spend too much time looking in mirrors.
Ni em tnouc !
From then Linn forum:
Yes I agree. To say that Linn have remasterd the MP3 files was wrong and I take it back. I also apologise for the bad way that sentence was worded. Re-reading it today I can see that it must have come accross as sounding aggressive and argumentative which isn't my intention. Sorry.
The recordings we sell on behalf of these labels are delivered to us in two parts, the CD master and the Studio Master
Thank you for your complete and in depth reply Jim. 
I now understand that Linn doesn't actually do the mastering of the files themselves and that you are in fact given two different versions of each track (the CD master and the studio master).
You say that the MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that Linn offers from their online store are the CD mastered versions of the tracks. Do you think that it would also be possible for Linn to offer MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that have been converted from the original studio versions?
I think that given the choice, many of your customers would prefer to buy MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that have been converted directly from the original studio files. I doubt that anybody would want to buy a lower quality verson with reduced dynamic range if there was a better quality version available that has the full dynamic range of the studio version kept intact.
Didn't I point this out on page 1 of this thread - That Linn are simply passing on what they are given? Oh well.......
Pressurise the labels, not this forum, or Linn. Unless their own recordings are sub-standard, which everyones agrees is not the case. I think. My head hurts now. 
Please correct me if I'm wrong here but as I understand the situation there are usually two different versions of each album available. There's the highest quality studio master version that has the full amount of dynamic range and there's the slightly lower quality CD master version that's had the dynamic range compressed a bit.
Irrespective of whether people want to buy their music in FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format shouldn't they have option to buy their music in the highest quality studio master version with the full dynamic range?
I can see no reason why people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format should be limited to having the lower quality CD master version with the compressed dynamic range.
RS RS RS, I did get your joke, but it was so congested, convoluted and constipated that I fear your effort was a wasted one. The EAC/iTunes thing is not drivel cos rippers are not made equal. And my ears tell me otherwise anyway. Bye now.
It took you the best part of 24 hours to come up with this? See you in six months...
I was talking about the merits (or lack thereof) of highly compressed audio like MP3s alone, regardless of recording.
So much for six months.
Okay, your bias, expectation or otherwise, is like most old school types who can't see through a lot of the baloney that's been written about mp3. In 1998, maybe, now? Nothing like it.
Simply because an mp3 bitrate isn't a direct equal of a WAV file (for instance) doesn't make it the audibly poorer. Plenty of golden eared types think it does, but the reality is that a good quality recording, with a likewise subsequent mastering will do the business regardless of the format.
I've been down this road more than once, have read/heard so many hifi types mutter about the shortcomings of mp3, but in the end, it comes down to multiple inaccurate assumptions that become "fact" in some audio circles. Fiction I think. The proof of the pudding is in the eating however, and a straight playback of a good quality master (take your pick, there are umpteen examples out there in any secondhand CD shop you care to mention), ripped to mp3, 128kbps upwards will be all the proof needed.
I don't see how you could legisalate on how music is produced. People should be free to produce their music however they wish, be it low quality, or high quality. The only option, I could envisage, is a labelling system, at the point where such music is put up for sale to the public. Then consumers can make an informed choice about whether, or not, they purchase it.
Irrespective of whether people want to buy their music in FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format shouldn't they have option to buy their music in the highest quality studio master version with the full dynamic range?
I can see no reason why people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format should be limited to having the lower quality CD master version with the compressed dynamic range.
Can you see any reason why people who want the higher quality bluray shouldn't be able to obtain it for the same price as the DVD?
Irrespective of whether people want to buy their music in FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format shouldn't they have option to buy their music in the highest quality studio master version with the full dynamic range?
I can see no reason why people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format should be limited to having the lower quality CD master version with the compressed dynamic range.
Can you see any reason why people who want the higher quality bluray shouldn't be able to obtain it for the same price as the DVD?
Your question is unrelated to this issue. A bluray is better quality because it's of a higher resoultion than a DVD not because it's been mastered to look different.
A studio master version and a CD master version of a music album sound differerent because they've been mastered to sound different. This has nothing to to do with the file type or resolution of the music.
No matter it you used FLAC, ALAC or MP3 the studio master version will still sound better than the CD master version because it has more dynamic range.
If Linn wants to charge more for FLAC files than MP3 files then this seems perfectly fair to me as the FLAC files are larger in size than MP3 files. The price of storage and server usage will be slightly higher for larger files than it is for small files.
However, I see no reason why the studio mastered version of the music is only available to buy in 24bit FLAC format but not in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 formats.
Why should people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 formats have to listen to a lower quality CD mastered version of the music that has less dynamic range?
The jury is only out in streamers if you don’t have one. Streamers is the future just like the car once was. Don’t worry you will catch on one day.
Oh I get it, cars need endless roads (the good ones anyway), streamers need endless lengths of ethernet cable (the good ones anyway).
Bite me when the word 'convenience' crops up somewhere.
Streamers are not the future, they are the now. Every man and his dog are making them, before that streaming from computers.
Endless ethernet cables? Wake up and realise the convenience of wireless.
Snap, Grrrrr!!!!
No, I won't wake up and realise the convenience of wireless because both Linn and Naim propogate the use of wired ethernet to get the best out of their devices. The former does not even allow wifi directly. And to my knowledge neither does the Marantz streamer.
Woof woof.
When you become a Linn dealer you regularly go to the Linn factory for training. When you go to a Linn dealer they fit the system into your home, reason for the training. I can assure you there is no way I would have spent over 20,000 on the system to get an inferior sound. My only concern before purchase was what the sound difference would be not using earthnet. The dealer did a back to back audition one with earthnet and one wifi , result no loss in sound quality. Ok so purchased the system. Yet again no doubt you will know better than me as I am a user and you are not bit like the Linn changing sound band widths which have now been proved is not the case which I pointed out half a dozen pages back which you also argued they did.
What's "earthnet" ?
What's "earthnet" ?
So you think that blurays and DVD are not mastered in different ways to optimise both their sound and visuals to suit their respective mediums?
(sigh)
I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...
Probably no need...as it seems to have gone into an alternative reality.
haha a fan of all things Douglassy I take it?
I think he had the answer to life, the universe and 24 bit.!
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide