Better mastered music could be on the way!
I was going to try this exact same thing on the SoundKeeper Recordings site for format comparisons. I suspect that the files are in fact different aside from the resolution.
Yes the FLAC and MP3 files have been mastered differently.
If anyone else wants to compare the two files themselves you'll need to login to the Linn website using two different email addresses because they only let you download one file per user.
[Question to moderator... why is the word p-e-d-a-g-o-g-i-c-a-l edited by the obscenity software?]
Because it contains in its midst a word which, according to the urban dictionary, 'is widely used as an insult to italians and spaniards'.
I have modified it so that it should only be filtered when used on its own.
[EDITED BY MODS - zzzzzzzzzzz]
Thats uncalled for.
I've just downloaded the free track 'Oranges and Apples' from Linn in both 24 bit FLAC and 320kbps MP3 formats.
When comparing the FLAC version to the downloaded MP3 version there is a very slight difference in the way they sound. However when I converted the FLAC file into an MP3 myself it sounds identical to the original FLAC file.
When I analyzed the three files using the program 'Audacity' it's clear that the downloaded FLAC and MP3 files have been mastered to sound different from one another. As you can see from these pictures the downloaded MP3 has less dynamic range than the FLAC file. However when you compare The FLAC file to my own MP3 they both look (and sound) identical and they both have the same amount of dynamic range.
This clearly shows that Linn has deliberatly mastered the MP3 version to sound different to the FLAC version by reducing the amount of dynamic range in the MP3 version.
Linn downloaded 24 bit lossless FLAC
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnlossless.jpg
Linn downloaded MP3
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/LinnMP3.jpg
My MP3 converted from the original Linn FLAC file
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/MyMP3.jpg
Linn's mp3 has clearly higher loudness hence the peaks can't fit within dynamic range boundaries. that'll always sound worse than uncompressed original, no matter the resolution. thanks Steve for the effort!
to all the golden-eared lot; as you can see your ears don't full you. the recording companies do.
Well who'd a thunk it. Good work Steve, look what happens when you do your homework!
Ah yes, nothing like doing your homework when it comes to mastering. Amazing that in some quarters it's taken so long for the Loudness Wars to be front page news. Still, the more the public are aware of some of the issues here (they've been known for years in some quarters) the better. As anyone who bought the Genesis box sets in 2006 will testify to.
Ah yes, nothing like doing your homework when it comes to mastering. Amazing that in some quarters it's taken so long for the Loudness Wars to be front page news. Still, the more the public are aware of some of the issues here (they've been known for years in some quarters) the better. As anyone who bought the Genesis box sets in 2006 will testify to.
you're reading it wrong. it's not about loudness war here. it's about stuffing people BS about how hi-res sounds "better" by some record companies.
...which HD tracks was caught out by some time ago as well, 2010 I think.
I've just downloaded the free track 'Oranges and Apples' from Linn in both 24 bit FLAC and 320kbps MP3 formats.
When comparing the FLAC version to the downloaded MP3 version there is a very slight difference in the way they sound. However when I converted the FLAC file into an MP3 myself it sounds identical to the original FLAC file.
When I analyzed the three files using the program 'Audacity' it's clear that the downloaded FLAC and MP3 files have been mastered to sound different from one another. As you can see from these pictures the downloaded MP3 has less dynamic range than the FLAC file. However when you compare The FLAC file to my own MP3 they both look (and sound) identical and they both have the same amount of dynamic range.
This clearly shows that Linn has deliberatly mastered the MP3 version to sound different to the FLAC version by reducing the amount of dynamic range in the MP3 version.
Linn downloaded 24 bit lossless FLAC
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnlossless.jpg
Linn downloaded MP3
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/LinnMP3.jpg
My MP3 converted from the original Linn FLAC file
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/MyMP3.jpg
Linn's mp3 has clearly higher loudness hence the peaks can't fit within dynamic range boundaries. that'll always sound worse than uncompressed original, no matter the resolution. thanks Steve for the effort!
to all the golden-eared lot; as you can see your ears don't full you. the recording companies do.
Linn is a very open company. Unless it is an actual Linn recording they have no legal right to change anything in the recordings. So I would suggest you send an e-mail to Linn, can guarantee you will be given an answer to your question. It’s a strong accusation. So lets see what Linn have to say
Still, the more the public are aware of some of the issues here
Whilst you derided the very existence of this thread earlier, I believe I said something like that.
Well done Steve, very informative 
Linn is a very open company. Unless it is an actual Linn recording they have no legal right to change anything in the recordings. So I would suggest you send an e-mail to Linn, can guarantee you will be given an answer to your question. It’s a strong accusation. So lets see what Linn have to say
It seems fairly straight forward to me. Providing that Steve has not lied about the files used and the source, then the files from the Linn website are not one and the same recording. I don't think that Steve is particularly bothered about high res recordings anyway, other than to debunk their superiority, but I'd be quite annoyed if I'd been sucked in to believing I was paying for something that was not delivered.
The only saving grace is that these high res recordings may have been better mastered, so would sound better, but then the same recording would sound just as good on 16/44.
I did try a high res to CD compression on Barb Jungrs - Man In A Long Black Coat, when it was offered as a freebee by Linn. I had the same results as Steve, ie no difference in sound. I subsequently went out and bought the CD, which as suspected, was every bit as good as the high res download.
Still, the more the public are aware of some of the issues here
Whilst you derided the very existence of this thread earlier, I believe I said something like that.
My earlier post following Chebby's I stand by - the constant bickering between opposing views was right to a fault.
The premise of the OP here I have no issue with and have been a supporter of for a long time now. You can check my posts on my views on the mastering of recorded music and its importance (which is in part an issue in the OP's petition).
The OP is Craig, he doesn't have a petition. Wrong thread.
I was going to try this exact same thing on the SoundKeeper Recordings site for format comparisons. I suspect that the files are in fact different aside from the resolution.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts