Better mastered music could be on the way!

[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.

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

Oh really, it is a fact that lossy compression truncates the quitest bits of music, so you're absolutely sure that in MP3s, AACs etc dynamic range or loudness is not affected, unintentionally or not?????

 

[Overdose]

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.

Snap, Grrrrr!!!!

 

[steve_1979]

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.

I think that you're missing my point. IMO the prices are not an issue. The issue is this:

Linns MP3s have been deliberately remastered to sound worse than the FLAC versions. But there is no need for them to be remastered. As I've already shown it's easy to convert a studio master FLAC file into an MP3 without changing the volume or dynamic range.



Why would anybody want to buy a lower quality MP3 that's had the dynamic range reduced when it's just as easy for Linn to make a better quality MP3 that still has the full amount of dynamic range?

 

[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...

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'.

Au contraire, you obviously didn't get the joke, but I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

As for streamers needing miles of cable, ummm, whatever....I don't bother with ABX testing either, but like I said, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you. CD is good by me.

Oh and your EAC / iTunes thing? That was drivel.

 

[steve_1979]

I think that the issue here is that Linns MP3s have been deliberately remastered to sound worse than the FLAC versions. But there is no need for them to be remastered. As I've already shown it's easy to convert a studio master FLAC file into an MP3 without changing the volume or dynamic range.

Why would anybody want to buy a lower quality MP3 that's had the dynamic range reduced when it's just as easy for Linn to make a better quality MP3 that still has the full amount of dynamic range?

 

[Craig M.]

...it was found that the standard res recording were apparently not the same source as the high res ones.

Emphasis on apparently.

Not really. If you'd read the thread properly you'd have found the part were someone from Linn admitted that quite often their 24 bit and 16 bit albums are mastered differently. To stop you having to search for it, here is the salient part: Hi Guys, Just to clarify, the MP3 version is encoded from the CD master, where as the Studio Master stands alone. Quite often the Studio Master and the CD versions are the product of separate mastering sessions.

Always helps if you read something properly.

 

[the record spot]

Oh really, it is a fact that lossy compression truncates the quitest bits of music, so you're absolutely sure that in MP3s, AACs etc dynamic range or loudness is not affected, unintentionally or not?????

A good recording, is a good recording. If it is a good mastering in 16-bit, it'll come across the same in mp3.

 

[steve_1979]

Oh really, it is a fact that lossy compression truncates the quitest bits of music, so you're absolutely sure that in MP3s, AACs etc dynamic range or loudness is not affected, unintentionally or not?????

A good recording, is a good recording. If it is a good mastering in 16-bit, it'll come across the same in mp3.

+1

Well said RS.

 

[Native_bon]

I think that the issue here is that Linns MP3s have been deliberately remastered to sound worse than the FLAC versions. But there is no need for them to be remastered. As I've already shown it's easy to convert a studio master FLAC file into an MP3 without changing the volume or dynamic range.

Why would anybody want to buy a lower quality MP3 that's had the dynamic range reduced when it's just as easy for Linn to make a better quality MP3 that still has the full amount of dynamic range?

NOW THAT IS WHAT YOU CALL HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. AS SIMPLE AS A.B.C. :clap:

 

[John Duncan]

If you're going to start sniping at each other, I'm going to lock it...

 

[ifor]

If you're going to start sniping at each other, I'm going to lock it...

It should have been locked about 100 posts ago IMO.

 

[char_lotte]

I think I'm going to re-read the entire thread to find out how it evolved from a storm in a tea-cup through to a fully fledged bru-ha-ha....

 

[AL13N]

What we're dealing with here is two separate mastering of one body of music created at the same time and marketed at different price points.

 

[steve_1979]

so you're absolutely sure that in MP3s, AACs etc dynamic range or loudness is not affected, unintentionally or not?????

Yes I am 100% certain that converting lossless FLAC files into MP3 or AAC does not change the dynamic range or loudness at all.

If you go back to page 18 and take a close look at the bottom two pictures in post #5 you will see what I mean.

 

[CnoEvil]

What we're dealing with here is two separate mastering of one body of music created at the same time and marketed at different price points.

Very succinctly put.

 

[the record spot]

I think I'm going to re-read the entire thread to find out how it evolved from a storm in a tea-cup through to a fully fledged bru-ha-ha....

Seeing as we're talking about tea, shouldn't that be a "brew-ha-ha"...?! :shifty:

 

[char_lotte]

I think I'm going to re-read the entire thread to find out how it evolved from a storm in a tea-cup through to a fully fledged bru-ha-ha....

Seeing as we're talking about tea, shouldn't that be a "brew-ha-ha"...?! :shifty:

Believe it or not I did actually think of that....Im glad I decided against it tho.!

 

[CnoEvil]

I think I'm going to re-read the entire thread to find out how it evolved from a storm in a tea-cup through to a fully fledged bru-ha-ha....

Seeing as we're talking about tea, shouldn't that be a "brew-ha-ha"...?! :shifty:

You're a very funny boy!

Though after reading the entire thread, Char_lotte will be ready for a large teapot full of well brew ha haad stuff. :shifty:

 

[John Duncan]

What we're dealing with here is two separate mastering of one body of music created at the same time and marketed at different price points.

So it is about the money...

 

[the record spot]

I think I'm going to re-read the entire thread to find out how it evolved from a storm in a tea-cup through to a fully fledged bru-ha-ha....

Seeing as we're talking about tea, shouldn't that be a "brew-ha-ha"...?! :shifty:

You're a very funny boy! Though after reading the entire thread, Char_lotte will be ready for a large teapot full of well brew ha haad stuff. :shifty:

I thangyew!

 

[steve_1979]

In Jim's reply on the Linn forum he said that the CD and MP3 versions are the product of separate mastering sessions to the studio version (ie they have been deliberately remastered). As we can see from the pictures that I posted earlier in this thread the MP3 versions have less dynamic range than the FLAC versions.

Less dynamic range = worse sound quality.

There is no need for the CD and MP3 versions to have less dynamic range than the studio mastered FLAC versions.

 

[steve_1979]

Surely an MP3 which is a direct conversion of the original FLAC file will have better sound quality than an MP3 that has been remastered to have less dynamic range?

I would be very grateful if Jim C or someone from Linn could answer this question.

 

[steve_1979]

Why would anybody want to buy a CD or MP3 that's had the dynamic range reduced when it's just as easy for Linn to make a better quality CD or MP3 that still has the full amount of dynamic range?

I would be very grateful if anyone on this forum could answer this question.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Snap, Grrrrr!!!!

Should have explained myself more clearly. What I meant by the future is that ( true 24bit) recordings is the future it’s not mass market just now and will probably take a good 10 years to be so. More and more artists are making their new albums available in 24bit directly from their own sites. It’s a market that will only grow.

I’m in total agreement that some recordings do not come up to standard , however the ones ( 24bit) that do take listening to digital music to a whole new level. Everyone that posts on What HiFi forum is an audiophile the aim of the audiophile is to extract the best possible sound from the equipment-music hence this debate with many differing views.

 

[Anonymous]

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.)

t’s your opinion and as it’s about me it’s fair to put a comment. Mirren is a family name first of all. Have written on this thread that vinyl to me is still the superior sounding format. You will notice I don’t own a Linn LP12 as good as they are. Pound for pound Michel sounds better thanks to reading what hifi which made me go and audition one. As for streaming ( my view) Linn are at the forefront given I seen the development 8 years ago. After a audition of their streamer a year ago I changed the whole system from Niam.