Linn cannot change in anyway recordings from other Record labels it’s against the law.
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
Linn have just replied to oldrics Email:
Thank you for your e-mail.
Linn records generates MP3s of all its titles using a generic MP3
similar to that in Dbpoweramp and other similar programs. We use the same
converter for all the titles available from Linn Records.
However one of the issues with MP3, (despite the fact that the person who
asserting we doctored our files is also claiming that that his MP3 is
identical to the CD version) is that whatever MP3 coder you use, they
react differently to different programme material. So depending on the
you are compressing ( since conversion to MP3 is a form of lossy
compression), some coding algorithms will give better results than others.
This is not generally regarded as contentious, in fact there are now a
number of products such as
enables mixing engineers to listen to the effects of different flavours
MP3 etc while they are mastering.
Of course there is an easier solution, which is not to apply lossy
Linn Products Limited
Tel: +44 ( 141 307 7777
Fax: +44 ( 141 644 4262
Forums: http://forums.linn.co.ukanyway, what Colin writes does not tally with Steve's experiment. he did create an mp3 conversion with soundwave identical to the 24 bit original . back to you guys.
PC > AVI Neutron Five 2.1
32GB Sony NWZ-A846 Walkman > Westone UM3x
What Linn are saying there doesn't really make much sense. Why would converting a FLAC file into an MP3 make such a radical difference to the volume and dynamic range as is seen in the Linn MP3 version?
Unless Linn are trying to say that the MP3 encoder that they use is so ineffective at it's job it's not even capable of creating an MP3 that has the same volume and dynamic range as the original file. Considering that Linn promote themselves as offering high quality music files then you'd expect that they'd be using an MP3 encoder that's at least capable of doing its job properly.
To show you what I mean have a look a the pictures below which show three different versions of the track 'Oranges and Apples'.
The top one is the original Linn FLAC file . The middle one is an MP3 which I converted myself using LAME and as you can see it looks identical to the original FLAC version. The bottom one is the downloaded Linn MP3 which as you can see is very different to the FLAC version and there is absolutely no need for these differences to exist.
Linn downloaded 24 bit lossless FLAC
My MP3 converted from the original Linn FLAC file
Linn downloaded MP3
Steve, I know exactly what I think of Linns statement and I'd like some for my roses. It must take quite some effort to find an mp3 encoder that bad. I have no respect for a company that is happy to release mp3s of that quality and follow it up with a statement like that. Very, very, very poor.
Synology NAS + Audio Station - ATV2 - Benchmark DAC1 HDR - Event Opal
I very much doubt that any MP3 encoder is so bad (or even close to being so bad) that it will change the volume and compress the dynamic range of music to the extent that is seen in the Linn MP3 version of the track 'Oranges and Apples'.
Maybe Linn or someone else here could point out to me an MP3 encoder that it will change the volume and compress the dynamic range of music when it converts a FLAC file into an MP3?
But why would the mp3 files all exhibit different types of compression 'artifacts'? Would an mp3 encoder not give a consistent signature of artifacts?
If the encoder used is so arbitrary in the results of its operation, would not a better encoder be wise, or do all encoders give random artifacts during compression?
And also, as Steve has said, why when a FLAC file is compressed, do the two seem identical in content and construction, but not when taken as is from the web site?
I wouldn't know. I don't work in a studio, respected or otherwise, but I am familiar with rigorous quality systems and these would seem to fail whatever quality process produced them. That or the quality system allows for wide margins of error.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
Very strange! I'd have respected their answer more if they'd said what I expected them to say, ie that their lossless files and their MP3s are aimed at different consumers and are mastered to suit. No Steve, I can't think of any MP3 encoders which change the DR (compression) of a file automatically. I know of software which offers automatic peak-normalisation, but peak normalisation doesn't change the DR of a recording.
I think you've got to be thanked for all the work you've put into this, but now I'm not sure what it's telling us.
Main gear: Mac Mini > HRT Streamer II+ > Cyrus 2 + PSX > Cyrus tuner > Mission 794
Also cluttering-up the place:
Thorens TD160 no cartridge; Technics SL-P777; Marantz CD63 mkII KI; Marantz PM66 KI; Nakamichi DR-1
My simplistic reasoning tells me that the main difference (between Linn's MP3 and Steve's MP3 version) is mostly volume, as the two are probably indistinguishable from each other, when played at the same level......is there anything fundamentally wrong with this ie. if the quality hasn't suffered as a result?
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
I think the issue is this......how much of the difference heard is down to the resolution, and how much is down to the way it was mixed. ie. Does 24 bit stand on it's own two feet, or does it need the "lesser" bit rate alternatives altered to make it sound better.
The important issue is that Linn are selling 24bit files at a premium price on the implication that they are higher audio quality because they are 24bit.
I, for one, am sure that human hearing cannot distinguish any benefit of 24bit, over 16bit in the replay only domain. Creating recordings digitally is a different matter, which does not apply when simply replaying a file.
I doubt that anyone can audibly distinguish lossless digital compression either, and probably not high-rate MP3 or AAC lossy compression also.
But if someone is supplied with an MP3 file which sounds audibly different to a 24bit example of supposedly the same recording, it does suggest, to me, manipulation for marketing purposes.
Excuse my ignorance here as all I do is purchase music and let the ears decide if it’s good or not that being on any format.
When getting my system installed the dealer told me that FLAC was the best for downloading music so my music first goes through dppoweramp. So is MP3 not a more compressed version of downloading even in lossless ?
Also have you tried using dppoweramp for MP3 as I am sure you can have a month’s free trial just to see if there is any difference?
Here is a link to iTrax a company who pride themselves on download quality. There is a selection on what sounds best in download so you might find it an interesting read.
I can only go by my ears using FLAC.Have heard had bad downloads but on the main good ones.
I've just tried to ABXing the MP3 and FLAC versons of the track 'House On The Hill'.
With the peak volume levels matced between the MP3 and FLAC versions it's very easy to tell the between the MP3 and FLAC versions every time in an ABX test.
With the apparent volume levels matced between MP3 and FLAC versions it was much more difficult to tell them apart but I was still just about able to reliably pick out the MP3 version every time in an ABX test.
Can we keep this conversation to one thread rather than copying and pasting from one to the other please?
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | PMC DB1i | A secret shiny box | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
As there are currently two parallel threads about the same subject maybe this one should be locked so that we can all concentrate on the other one?
I considered it but I think the OP was actually about something different. I'm more inclined to clean this one up back to its original point.
EDIT - except it looks too hard so am just leaving it. But please keep your findings to the other one if you don't mind so I don't have to trawl through both.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing