Thanks, doesn't happen often.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
Again Linn explain everything on their own music store regarding all formats and always have done.
This file type should work with all computer types including PC, Mac and Linux. This is similar to what most other download sites refer to as "CD" quality. In fact, what they normally mean is that the file is digital, most other compressed music delivery sites deliver very poor audio quality. The audio that we offer is compressed but only to the point that sound quality doesn't suffer unduly (320kbps compared to other sites which are 128kbps).
If the download speed of your internet connection is a concern then this file is best for you. This type of download file is the only one to consider if you have dial up, the others are much too large to download over a dial up connection.
This statement is disengenuous in itself. The top selling online music stores (of which Linn is not one) sell or stream mp3 at or above 256Kbps, with 256 being the minimum. Certainly 128kbps can no longer be regarded as the norm.
It is the premise that 24 bit is inherently the best playback format that is wrong, when it can be demonstrated that CD resolution offers every bit of the audible quality and dynamic range of 24 bit. Lossy formats also have the ability to accurately portray this quality, but obviously there will be a threshold for audible artifacts at some point (not obvious dynamic compression or volume levels though).
Also people seem to be confusing mastering with remastering. An original 24 bit master will be mixed down for CD, this CD will exhibit every bit of the quality of the original master and subsequent compression to lossless and lossy will also retain the same quality as in the original master, right down the the level of compression artifacts that I mentioned before. Now, if the original master is remastered, the original sound has been changed (not neccessarily for the better as various releases show) and it becomes a different master. It could be argued that a 320kbps mp3 of the original, for example, is actually of better quality than the new master.
Surly we are not going back to the sound quality which studio master has over CD quality. Not even going to answer that.
Michell Orbe Se -TecnoArm -Sumiko Pearwood Celabration 11 Cartridge - Uphorik Phono Stage - Akurate DS - Pre-amp Akurate Kontrol - Power Amps 2 x Akurate 4200 with Activ cards - Aktiv Akurate 212 loudspeakers. Leads Linn Silvers - Speaker Cable Chord Epic
Put aside whether 24bit recordings sound better as 24bit or 16bit files in the audio playback chain.
What steve_1979's findings show is that the dynamic range of a single master does not change across formats. However, the dynamic range does differ across Linn downloads.
Linn have now kindly explained this to us as a result of separate mastering employed by their clients and not due to any processing on their part.
This now raises more questions:
1. Can Linn not offer the more dynamic master to customers of all downloadable formats?
2. Why is there no indication of separate mastering at the point of sale (as exists with other examples of different masters)?
3. Does this mean that Linn's demonstrations of 24bit vs 16bit are compromised in that they compare two different masters instead of solely comparing two different resolutions?
PC > O2+ODAC > HD 650
I'm not trying to take things out of context. I'm trying to understand what those numbers mean in comparison to other dynamic range data that's available - ie what that lower dynamic range file's dynamic range is in comparison to other content, or, indeed, *how* compressed one is compared to the other. I'm just asking so that I understand a bit better. Is that alright with you?
I think I'm with JD here.
Linn's sound quality should be taken in context ie. compared with the quality that is generally available in the market place. If there is any other label who consistently exceeds Linn's sound quality, I would like to hear about it.
As I have said previously, it would be a great achievement to have everybody else in the industry, match the sound quality set by Linn.
IMO. Going after the record company who shows "best practice for the industry", though interesting, is not the right battle.
If you think I'm a Linn fan-boy, it couldn't be further from the truth. I do think they have something with their DS, but IMO, their passive amps and speakers are nothing special for what they cost, and their 24 bit is over priced......
- Would I like to see them master the CD / MP3 from the Studio Master.....Yes, of course.
- Do I understand that there are possible commercial reasons for their current policy, that exceed giving pernickety audiophiles SQ, above what is generally available elsewhere (given that their MP3 / CD is as good as is currently available).....again, the answer would be yes..
As always, this is only my opinion.
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
Had a huge dilemma on my hands here I am with thousands of CD’s and a small fortune spent over the years. All of a sudden I have heard music playback take a huge leap forward from down loading. The gap for me was too big to ignore on sound quality because that is what enjoying music is all about. Spent many months transferring all my CD’s to a NAZ. Sold off the whole cd based system along with the CDs and went for my current system. 24bit recordings are another step ahead of 16bit , it’s not hard to work out there is more information on 24bit to 16 bit.
Given your apparent investment into hifi and music media, including your obvious enthusiasm for 24 bit recordings, I find it quite bizarre when you in effect, purport to support the music industry, but then apparently admit to piracy to the tune of thousands of pounds.
Did you really keep all of that music after selling your CDs?
Not that it matters I suppose, as this is only a forum and nothing should be taken at face value, people talk all sorts of nonsense.
Nice cheap and easy point there, that everyone bangs on about ad nauseum nowadays, after reading it here. The industry doesn't lose out by it, they pretty much admit that themselves. And it isn't piracy in the sense most folk mean.
Formerly known as al7478...
HC: Panasonic PXP 42 V20; Panasonic DMP BD35; Humax Foxsat-HDR
Music: Optical out from Asus P7H55-M Motherboard into AVI ADM 9.1 speakers.
"Music will provide the light you cannot resist"
I think you'll find that it very much is, in any context. I also find it rather hypocritical that so called music lovers think that it's acceptable.
Then I'll agree to differ.
That's fine, we can't all always agree, but it's not me that you have a differing opinion to on this matter, it's the law.
I'm not sure it is. I'm not sure "piracy" is used in law either, except where Jack Sparrer types are concerned.
"Music piracy is the copying and distributing of copies of a piece of music for which the composer, recording artist, or copyright-holding record company did not give consent."
Absolutely right. And the artist/label, whoever, did not consent to someone ripping in effect a free copy of their music. No different to borrowing CDs and copying. The end result is an additional unpaid for copy created and distributed.
Lack of comprehension and ignorance is no defence for non compliance.
Anyway, apologies to the OP and others for going off track.
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.
So what does that mean in the context of http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/ 's DR ratings?
seeing that nobody really answered your question before JD maybe I'll try.
the first picture; RM Hubert - DR 7.5 dB (studio master), as you can see on the scale this is bad result.
the second picture; Emma Pollock - DR 11dB (also studio master), this is better but again, as you can see it's quite poor result, only half way the scale.
so despite the fact 24 bit format is used, which offers huge DR headroom, DR of those recordings is quite squashed, especially in case of the first song. I don't think it's due to using of digital clipping, as we don't see chopped peaks (in case of 24bit files) on Steve's graphs, but definitely during mastering process compressors (a type of effect filter) were used. why I think so? because there's no f***ing way unamplified/ live music could be contained within just 10dB of DR!!! (unless it's some sort of avantgarde humming with your lips shut). and this is exactly my point from the very beginning of this thread. I'd like the music be recorded and produced with maintaining the full, live DR. it doesn't really matter to me if it's going to be 24 bit or 16 bit format (as you can see for the purpose of capturing musical events 16 bit offer DR in spades and then some).
and now's time for a bit of preachin'
a few dozens of pages ago I was referring to old recordings of Dire Staits as one of the best examples how to do things right. check this out!
please note the difference in DR between 1985 master (definitely "only" 16bit) and then 2005 re-mater. 16dB vs. just 8dB average for the album. and whooping 20dB vs. 11dB for the most dynamic song. even 13dB for the least dynamic song on this album is quite a lot compared to modern standards. also note there's a SACD version from 2005. funny thing about is that even though SACD offers similar level of DR as 24bit file they compressed that master somewhat as well compared to the original version .
Giro, InTheGroove, Digit, ClassicOne, MG12
Sorry (I'm not), you completely miss the point. He isn't distributing to anyone but himself, and where do you get thousands of pounds from? He's certainly hardly one of those people "da feds" are out to get!
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing