Better mastered music could be on the way!

[Phileas]

show that what is audible is measurable, but not all that is measurable is audible. The graphs (waveforms) posted by Steve, illustrate this perfectly.

:clap:

 

[BenLaw]

show that what is audible is measurable, but not all that is measurable is audible. The graphs (waveforms) posted by Steve, illustrate this perfectly.

:clap:

+1.

Mirren Boy is a WUM, best to ignore.

 

[AL13N]

The price of 24 bit is simple economics ie, Supply and Demand...and as I said, until it is more readily available, I expect prices to remain high.If I sound a bit preachy, I apologize, as I don't mean to.

No need to apologise. We're all just trying to better understand things.

I do think you are mistaken though. As far as the economics of 24bit audio distribution is concerned, it is not a seperate entity. It is included in all the supply and demand of music sales across all different formats.

From a bedroom producer uploading their mixes onto the web to a professional team in the studio creating the next Grammy Award winning album, all music is now created using 24bit (or even 32bit) processing.

From a commercial perspective, this can either be directly uploaded onto the internet via an eCommerce website or further processed to create 16bit files for download and/or physical media.

From an economic perspective, all music supply is 24bit/32bit, whether it is sold as 24bit or 16bit in its intended market depending on demand.

From a marketing perspective, it seems things are rather different.

 

[Anonymous]

show that what is audible is measurable, but not all that is measurable is audible. The graphs (waveforms) posted by Steve, illustrate this perfectly.

:clap:

+1.

Mirren Boy is a WUM, best to ignore.

Yes if no one agrees with you just spit the dummy out Nothing quite like tunnel vision

 

[CnoEvil]

From a marketing perspective, it seems things are rather different.

I think we agree on quite a lot, just looking at it from slightly different angles.

IMO. It is the perceived exclusivity (and the actual rarity) of 24 bit that allows it to be marketed at a premium (even if it's not fully justified).

In some ways, it's like the relationship between Lexus and Toyota (and in some ways it isn't).

 

[chebby]

Mirren Boy is a WUM, best to ignore.

Given the name (derived from St. Mirren in Paisley I assume) and the wall-to-wall Linn system, I think Mirren Boy is, more likely, a hard-core product of the Ivor Tiefenbrun school ('old school') of "If you can't hear the difference, it's not worth talking to you" style of discussion that dominated in the 1980s and percolated down through magazines and dealers (and put back the British hi-fi industry for some 15 years in my opinion).

It doesn't work any more. Being told that 'Linn have spoken' (in so many words) 'so just understand it and move on' is not an acceptable tone when evidence to the contrary has been presented.

(Nor is it acceptable from some other companies who still ape that approach.)

 

[BenLaw]

Mirren Boy is a WUM, best to ignore.

Given the name (derived from St. Mirren in Paisley I assume) and the wall-to-wall Linn system, I think Mirren Boy is more like a hard-core product of the Ivor Tiefenbrun school ('old school') of "If you can't hear the difference, it's not worth talking to you" style of discussion that dominated in the 1980s and percolated down through magazines and dealers (and put back the British hi-fi industry for some 15 years in my opinion).

It doesn't work any more. Being told that 'Linn have spoken' (in so many words) 'so just understand it and move on' is not an acceptable tone when evidence to the contrary has been presented.

(Nor is it acceptable from some other companies who still ape that approach.)

So blind faith, ignorance and stupidity over malicious intention? From the comments not directly related to Linn, like the last one, I have to conclude it's a bit of both. Agree with the sentiment of your post tho.

 

[manicm]

I've used both iTunes and EAC for years. WAV playback is identical to my ears.

The iTunes rip consistently sounds duller than EAC's to me, well to each their own.

 

[manicm]

Unless I am mistaken we have some people here saying they can't hear the difference between mp3 and wav, and other people saying they can hear the difference between the same file encoded by two different wav encoders.

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about this conversation?

it's pointless and no one will win, because we all hear differently, and perceive things differently.

No you are not mistaken, but you have missed the point. The main concern of this thread was about the raising of recording standards to improve mastering quality, laterly it was mainly about the difference between high res and other formats, with high res being sold as superior to standard res files, however, it was found that the standard res recording were apparently not the same source as the high res ones.

Differences between compressed and uncompressed files? Obviously they exist, but are they audible and how much so?

I'm happy with 256KBPS for general use and lossless for archiving.

Emphasis on apparently.

 

[the record spot]

The iTunes rip consistently sounds duller than EAC's to me, well to each their own.

Apple expectation bias at work manic old son.

Blind test it, then ABX it, have your hifi syringed and use some Deoxit on your ears. Then run a green pen round your entire mains wiring. And your neighbour's. Go back home, unlock your door using a pure gold key for your mortice and Yale locks (ensure this is virgin gold as anything but will introduce disruptions to your locally centred ether hence disrupting your audio pleasure), sit back, ideally on new cushions to ensure the minimum dispersions in sonic signatures carried round your couch by your speaker placement/room interaction. Then play something from 1911 on your gramophone. Then we can talk again...

 

[manicm]

Unless I'm mistaken (always possible), there is little issue with the way Linn's own MP3 stuff sounds

I agree. The quality of them all sounds exellent to me.

.....so all they can be accused of is making them a little louder.

No. What they've done on the track 'Oranges and Apples' is reduced the dynamic range. It's this reduction in dynamic that makes the MP3 version seem very slightly louder (although the difference is barely noticable).

The track 'House On The Hill' has also had also had the dynamic range reduced.

The track 'The Missing Plutonium' has had the silent sections cropped off the ends.

The track 'Symphonie Fantastique' has had the volume slightly reduced.

So why would Linn change tack with the Berlioz track? I argued with Andrew Everard that this particular piece could benefit from some compression.

While I don't dispute your results, it equally doesn't make sense to me that Linn would doctor their MP3s, especially if they claim that they're using a widely used ripper? And MP3s sounding slightly 'louder' than uncompressed/lossless audio makes absolute sense to me, since, to refresh your memory, MP3s are not equivalent to zip files where they can be deflated to the original uncompressed file. To remind you and everyone once again, MP3s, AAC etc work on truncating the quietest passages in music, and chunks of bits and bytes that repeat themselves. Now one may claim that our hearing extends to only 15-18khz, but who knows how this is damaging the music. So by their very definition, MP3s etc are 'compressed' in more ways than one.

Unless Linn are completely lying. And that's a tremendous thing to accuse them of when it comes to something as trivial as MP3s.

 

[AlmaataKZ]

As posted on here earlier, My affair with hi-rez has lasted just over a year and is now over. I am no longer looking to buy hi-rez for reasons of limited choice, limited info on file provenance, hit and miss quality and lack of difference in sound with standard rez. I do wish though mainstream downloads e.g. Itunes go cd resolution (lossless 16/44).

I doubt those who try to make money on feeding audiophile myths have long term future in mainstream business, be it hardware or media.

it is so sad to observe hi-rez becoming another myth.

 

[Overdose]

Unless I am mistaken we have some people here saying they can't hear the difference between mp3 and wav, and other people saying they can hear the difference between the same file encoded by two different wav encoders.

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about this conversation?

it's pointless and no one will win, because we all hear differently, and perceive things differently.

No you are not mistaken, but you have missed the point. The main concern of this thread was about the raising of recording standards to improve mastering quality, laterly it was mainly about the difference between high res and other formats, with high res being sold as superior to standard res files, however, it was found that the standard res recording were apparently not the same source as the high res ones.

Differences between compressed and uncompressed files? Obviously they exist, but are they audible and how much so?

I'm happy with 256KBPS for general use and lossless for archiving.

Emphasis on apparently.

The same source, different source. It does not matter. The lossy formats do not appear to come from the original source 24 bit masters unmolested. This would appear to be creating an audible difference between the formats to the favour of the higher resolution files, so 24 bit in this instance, is unsuprisingly 'different' to the rest.

Each to their own of course, but for me lossy formats work most of the time and lossless for when I'm sat at home with a cider or three. You seem like just the sort of discerning chap that needs 24 bit to get the best out of his system though, so good for you.

 

[manicm]

FLAC and MP3 are digital file compression techniques, not audio dynamic range of loudness compression techniques.

Lossless audio and lossy audio employ completely different compression algorithms, to remind you.

 

[Overdose]

FLAC and MP3 are digital file compression techniques, not audio dynamic range of loudness compression techniques.

Lossless audio and lossy audio employ completely different compression algorithms, to remind you.

And none of which are designed to alter dynamic range or loudness.

 

[manicm]

Below is a copy and paste from iTrax that you might find an intresting read

Recently, I was alerted to an article published in HiFi News & Record Review, a British audiophile publication that claims to be "the longest serving and most prestigious hi-fi and music magazine in the world". It was written by Keith Howard, an acquaintance of mine from some years back, and entitled, "HD download debacle". The subtext reads, "High sample-rate music downloads are not all they seem". I couldn't agree more and was quite pleased that the publisher of a major magazine on audio has the wherewithal to take the high ground on this issue. My compliments to editor Paul Miller and HFN. Everything that Keith discovered during his investigation maps perfectly with my own research and reporting. The world of HD digital music retailing is not everything that we would like to expect.

I'd like to share a few of the items that Keith included in his report. I think readers will find this very illuminating. Here's his opening paragraph: "When audiophiles buy a hi-res music download, most do so on trust. If they've paid a premium for a 24-bit/88.2, 24/96, 24/176.4 of 24/192 download, they reasonably expect that the enhanced bandwidth offered by the higher sampling rate will be fully exploited, inasmuch as the source material allows. But our investigations show that this trust is sometimes misplaced, and those price premiums are being asked for audio files in which the signal bandwidth has been curtailed."

First, he points out that this is not a new situation. At the introduction of high-resolution or high definition audio formats back in 2000, Paul Miller published an article exposing many of the early DVD-Audio productions as lacking substantial improvements over CDs. The SACD and DVD-Audio formats were specially designed to, "demonstrate the audible superiority of 96 kHz/192 kHz recordings over CD's 44.1/16-bit format [but, in fact] actually sounded worse." My contention has always been that a standard definition recording from the past placed in a container that exceeds its fidelity standards remains a standard definition recording. We might be getting the best possible rendition of that older track but it is not the same thing as having a new recording done with live musicians at 96 kHz/24-bits. And it shouldn't be marketed as such.

Keith's first example of "ham-fisted" upsampling came from High Definition Tape Transfers, which to me is an oxymoron of the most blatant type. Every analog tape recording is standard definition (limited dynamic range and frequency response) thus transferring it to an HD bucket is pointless…unless the company juices the frequency response somehow. There are a couple of very informative graphs showing the "butterfly" effect of this sort of audio foolery. HDTT remade the files and sent them to all of their customers that had purchased the version on steroids.

The next part of the discussion in the article focuses on HDtracks.com, the company headed by David and Norman Chesky. Keith writes, "has never, to my knowledge, released anything so crass (as the HDTT folks) but is has sold, and at the time of writing continues to sell, files which do not have as wide a bandwidth as you might reasonably expect from their sampling rate."

He continues by pointing out, "as an example that's been on sale for a long time is the 24/96 download Peter Frampton's Frampton Comes Alive, the spectrum of which clearly shows the presence of steep low-pass filter just above 20 kHz." The track, he concludes, "this track has been upsampled." To be fair, Mike Lawson of HDtracks did re-label the Frampton title as 48/24 and it is as good as you will ever get from an analog sourced original. My argument is that it should be labeled accurately from the outset. Anything that goes back to the days of analog tape shouldn't be "upsampled" and sold for a premium price.

In a subsequent paragraph, Keith goes on, "HDtracks removed John Coltrane's Lush Life when this was exposed as being filtered. The spectrum of "Like Someone in Love" appears to have been low-pass filtered twice, probably indicating that it was upsampled from 44.1 kHz to 96 kHz. In contrast, the Frampton download remains available at the time of writing this and, moreover is not an isolated case - in fact it has some notable company among HDtracks' classical titles." He downloaded a couple of classical tracks that are available on the HDtracks site and found that they too, were subjected to "steep low-pass filtering just above 20 kHz."

And it gets worse when you think that customers can spend an additional $10 for the 176.4 kHz versions. Keith's conclusion, "the $10 premium for the 176.4 version buys you, effectively, nothing."

The article also targets Linn's high resolution downloads as suffering from the same manipulations. Linn promises to pay closer attention to the quality of their source, the rigor of their procedures and to do a spectral analysis of all new content. Why wasn't this done previously?

The end of the article doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the press and websites that report on our industry, "Unfortunately the hi-fi press - which ought to be taking a leading role - has mostly sat on its hands: hi-res recordings are routinely reviewed without any attempt to confirm their provenance. Web sites that review hi-res recordings are arguably even worse since their coverage typically outstrips that of the hi-fi magazine but their reviews again include no objective assessment of the signal bandwidth supplied. Online audio forums fill the gap to some extent, but aren't to be relied on, in this matter or any other. For instance, in an Audio Circle forum discussing HDtracks' Rolling Stones downloads, ted_b, described as a Facilitator, wrote, 'Spectrum analysis shows lots of energy way above 30 k for these Stones 176.4 k rips, and not just noise-shaping' - which clearly flies in the face of our own results".

I believe that it's time for digital music retailers, high definition record companies and the press (both printed and online) to adopt an open and honest approach to high definition music recordings. The more information that consumers have the better it will be for everyone…the high-end segment of the business will improve and music lovers will know what is possible with real high definition tracks.

I'm not defending Linn, but a litte knowledge would go a long way. The article is correct in saying that HDTracks is dodgy, as well as 3rd party recordings sold by Linn. But all Linn's new recordings(i.e. on their label) from the last 4 years or so, at least, are mastered natively in high-res. And I don't think they'd be lying about that.

 

[steve_1979]

Please don't ignore the increased cost of storing and bandwidth which the host pays for, which are linear - ie it costs ten times as much to store and ten times as much to serve to you a high res file that is ten times bigger than an mp3.

I don't think that there's any issues with the price. If Linn want to charge more for FLAC than MP3s because they're a larger file size then that's up to them.

 

[the record spot]

As posted on here earlier, My affair with hi-rez has lasted just over a year and is now over. I am no longer looking to buy hi-rez for reasons of limited choice, limited info on file provenance, hit and miss quality and lack of difference in sound with standard rez. I do wish though mainstream downloads e.g. Itunes go cd resolution (lossless 16/44).

I doubt those who try to make money on feeding audiophile myths have long term future in mainstream business, be it hardware or media.

it is so sad to observe hi-rez becoming another myth.

One of my greatest epiphanies in hi-res came in 2007, when Genesis (or Virgin) released the entire back catalogue on SACD, in three box sets. I heard some of the best mastering jobs I'd ever clapped ears on.

Sadly, one did not beget the other. The £80 a throw boxsets were hobbled by a hatchet job, or at least the first two were, the 1970-1975 box was much better. They'd been limited to death, smiley-faced EQd to within an inch of their respective lives and masqueraded as the bog's dollocks. I have played the 76-82 set once, the 83-98 about the same and the 70-75 set more frequently. The bonus video content was more interesting.

And the mastering I'd referred to? The Barry Diament masters he did for Atlantic/Atco, which were pressed by Sanyo or JVC (depending on title) in Japan and I'd picked up off Ebay. Still amongst my favourite pressings, mile wide stereo that kicked the other versions into touch, vinyl included.

Tied in with the original Atlantic CD issue for The Yes Album, these taught me all I needed to know about the importance of the quality of the mastering over the format, whichever the latter may be.

 

[manicm]

I'm not sure which of the recordings are Linn's own and which are not.

You cannot be serious, on their website Linn clearly states which label the recordings belong to. Linn's own will be 'Linn', others are stated too.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

why don't you finally take up Steve's challenge then? you've got nice and shiny Linn's 24bit recordings. rip one into 320kbps mp3 and ask someone to play them for you. then you'll know the difference for sure (or that there's no difference at all). it's as simple as that.

I have said before, and I will say again:

1. Even with Steve's kind instructions, i still have no idea.....I am far more inept with these things than people realize (true technopbobe). Though Oldric, if you find yourself in NI, feel free to call in and walk me through it.

2. I am delighted that Steve has taken up the cause, and will let this all play out to see where it ends......from the back seat..

3. As it stands atm, my different versions sound different, and if after Steve's efforts, MP3 sounds (to me) like 24 bit, I will be more than pleased. Also, IMO. though I can hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit (as Linn has mastered them), I don't think it's worth the current premium (£8 extra)

maybe you could ask Steve to send you his copies of FLAC and his mp3 rip via e-mail? that way the hurdle with ripping will be avoided and all you'll have to do is copy the files to your music server (a NAS?) and ask someone to play them for you in random order? maybe a coin should decide?

 

[John Duncan]

I don't think that there's any issues with the price. If Linn want to charge more for FLAC than MP3s because they're a larger file size then that's up to them.

Of course there are issues with price. If they cost the same, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[manicm]

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.

 

[Overdose]

I don't think that there's any issues with the price. If Linn want to charge more for FLAC than MP3s because they're a larger file size then that's up to them.

Of ocurse there are issues with price. If they cost the same, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes we would, but we'd be moaning about what a rip off the compressed mp3s were.

 

[manicm]

The iTunes rip consistently sounds duller than EAC's to me, well to each their own.

Apple expectation bias at work manic old son.

Blind test it, then ABX it, have your hifi syringed and use some Deoxit on your ears. Then run a green pen round your entire mains wiring. And your neighbour's. Go back home, unlock your door using a pure gold key for your mortice and Yale locks (ensure this is virgin gold as anything but will introduce disruptions to your locally centred ether hence disrupting your audio pleasure), sit back, ideally on new cushions to ensure the minimum dispersions in sonic signatures carried round your couch by your speaker placement/room interaction. Then play something from 1911 on your gramophone. Then we can talk again...

RS, would you kindly take your drivel elsewhere? I've owned 4 iPods and am about to get my first iPhone (5 when it is officially launched here shortly). So much for my Apple bias. And you can take your ABX testing to your own 'locally centred ether'.

 

[CnoEvil]

maybe you could ask Steve to send you his copies of FLAC and his mp3 rip via e-mail? that way the hurdle with ripping will be avoided and all you'll have to do is copy the files to your music server (a NAS?) and ask someone to play them for you in random order? maybe a coin should decide?

Despite your enterprising ideas to get round my phobia, my position, as stated above, will remain unchanged.....but thx anyway.

Cno