What about the millions of SACDs and players that were flying off the shelves for all those ye...
Oh, that's right. They didn't.
Marantz M-CR603 + AirPlay • Rega R3 loudspeakers • iPhone 5 • iMac • Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n • Apple iPad Mini • Panasonic TX-L32D25B • Sony BDP-S390 • Ruark Audio R1 Deluxe • Humax HDR-Fox T2
Ah yes, I hadn't understood the moral the last few posts have highlighted: wrong thing shouldn't be righted because most people are apathetic.
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?
so, does that mean that in your opinion 99.9% of CD buying market wants dynamically compressed music?
In my opinion 99.9% of the CD buying market couldn't give a EDITED.
sadly, but this is exactly the attitude why the 0.1% gets what we get....
And yet some of the 0.1% are perfectly happy with MP3s. So really then, who gives an expletive?
Arcam Solo Mini/Monitor Audio RX1/Cambridge Audio 751BD/Samsung 37” LCD
So can anybody tell me what the dynamic range of those 'crippled' Linn mp3s are?
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
Other than entertaining yourself through being argumentative, I don't really understand what you've been getting at with most of your posts on this thread JD. Do the specifics matter? It's more a matter of principle as I see it. It's been dynamically compressed when it doesn't need to be. That's what the loudness wars is about.
Anyway, Steve ran it through some analysis software which he put up on the Linn forum (tho I thought you didn't like graphs and numbers). Either go through that yourself or maybe Steve will be good enough to give you the edited highlights here.
So, I hope it's clear this is not an attack on Linn but simply they happen to be a convenient example in the general argument. Once that is understood, I really struggle to see why anyone rational doesn't buy into the argument. Indeed, the only people who seem blinkered against the argument, such as mirren boy, manicm and native_bon, seem anything but rational.
Oh so now we're irrational are we? Let's subtantiate shall we? Where have I ever stated that I don't care about compressed recordings/artifical loudness? Have I ever been for it?
So now let's examine your rationality, or rather the lack thereof; you and your sycophants make a huge hullabaloo about making pure, artifice-free recordings which will cost a lot to produce and sell at higher than average prices which your 'rational' throats are happy to swallow, yet you're perfectly happy to shove MP3s and lossy audio down our 'irrational' throats ain't ya?? And when we claim that MP3s sound inferior to uncompressed audio then our ears are 'irrational' yeah yeah?
So let's take this further, Amazon to this day only offers 256kb MP3s, 7Digital offers only 256kb on many older recordings, and I've even seen 160k files on their site. Never heard your ilk complain about that. Oh, no worrys, you can just gulp down 320k AAC from iTunes. And millions do.
So, then again, as JD put it succinctly, who cares? Especially when I am 'irrational'?
The fanatical, religious zeal of this thread has become so amusing, so baffling, so obtuse, so deliberately obfuscatory.
Oh so now we're irrational are we?
IMO yes you are, hence the ranting.
Yes you have. Earlier in the thread you described a dynamic track (Berlioz?) as being a good argument for dynamic compression.
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.
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.
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.
Mirrenboy, you did not get the gist of my post. Linn DS, unlike Naim's streamers, do NOT offer direct/built-in Wifi access. And both explicitly propogate ethernet streaming for both results. I believe many Linn owners overcome it either by installing bridges and/or using the powerline plugs. I'm absolutely not disputing your wired/wireless results in your system. But I would seriously doubt 24/192 audio on wireless, if not the powerlines. And kudos on your system, but 20,000 quid is not what many of us have at our disposal. And if I had then I would want to dabble in true 24/192. And hopefully sometime in the future, a faster, fatter, more reliable wireless standard will emerge to cope with high-res audio in the home.
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.
128kbps and upwards??? Ha ha ha ha, THIS is why I would take 6 months, to avoid drivel like this. So suddenly we need golden ears to tell against even 128k?? You cannot be serious.
My word, all those people like Mirrenboy who spend 20k on Linn hifi must really be stupid. You're quite brave to imply that to them dear chap. As for Linn giving all those demonstrations comparing MP3s to lossless music on their systems - what a monumental waste of time and money, especially since NO-ONE can tell the difference.
Bye now, and this time I think I'll take 12 months.
These are the results for the Day 8 track 'Sunbeam Melts The Hour' by RM Hubbert.
These are the results for the Day 5 track 'House On The Hill' by Emma Pollock.
PC > AVI Neutron Five 2.1
Sony NWZ-A847 64GB Walkman > Westone UM3x
That's the whole point of this thread.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR THERE TO BE ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
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?
There is 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.
Ahh...I get it now. Thanks for putting it in bold...
There's clearly plenty of people who don't get it, despite it being bleedin obvious. Using bold seems fairly restrained to me.
I referred to one track as an experience and you're making that my general belief??? If you read my post to Andrew I stated that I had to frequently adjust the volume when listening to this track. I DID NOT make a blanket statement that dynamic compression is good. Come to think of it I think my 751BD's analogue stereo output could be a bit low. But in any event, I made one statement about a specific track. Do not put words in my mouth Ben.
So what does that mean in the context of http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ 's DR ratings?
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing