Better mastered music could be on the way!

[Anonymous]

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.

In reply..............

The computer is set up in the hall. The HIFI is set up in the music room the connection to the DS is streamed WIFI with no loss of quality so need for runs and runs of long cable.

 

[DocG]

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?

Many people listen to background music, or through earphones on the go. For those occasions, compressed music surely serves better...

I doubt these people search the Linn shop for their music, though... :shifty:

 

[MajorFubar]

Ah well, at least Linn admitted to the fact that the MP3 and the hi-res files are in fact mastered differently. But just like everyone else on this thread, I don't buy into the reason they gave. There is no technical reason to master 16-bit, 24-bit and MP3 files differently, so their argument that the 16-bit files are mastered differently to get the best from the format is rubbish, and they must know that they're talking (typing?) to people who won't buy into that kind of EDITED.

I could just about buy into the argument that the MP3s are purposefully mastered differently because MP3 consumers expect them to be different (eg louder to compensate for different listening environments).
But the curved-ball I didn't expect was Linn admitting that the CDs have the same compression as the MP3s. I can only agree with those who say this is done to make the 'studio master' sound obviously superior to justify the price premium. CDs certainly do not need to be mastered any differently than 24-bit.

 

[DocG]

I don't mean to swear in the church, but... is there an easy way of compressing (and I mean dynamic compression) music yourself? That would allow to listen to the 'real thing' whenever possible, and limit the dynamic range when needed (late nite, on the hoof, ...).

 

[steve_1979]

Please take a moment to think carefully about each one of these three indisputable facts and what this means.

1. Linn have mastered their MP3s to have less dynamic range than the studio master FLAC versions.

2. Less dynamic range = Lower sound quality.

3. There is no need for the MP3 versions to have less dynamic range than the FLAC versions.

Linn's MP3 file

Linn's studio master FLAC file

My MP3 converted from the original Linn FLAC file

 

[jcbrum]

Please take a moment to think carefully about each one of these three indisputable facts and what this means.

1. Linn have mastered their MP3s to have less dynamic range than the studio master FLAC versions.

2. Less dynamic range = Lower sound quality.

3. There is no need for the MP3 versions to have less dynamic range than the FLAC versions.

Hmmmm, well, having thought about your question, and applied the principle of 'Occams Razor' . . .

IMO, the 'explanation' by Linn (Jim C's) is a piece of work which deflects the real issues, and shields Linn from criticism, and confuses the gullible consumer.

As a general point it's disreputable to offer supposedly high sound quality recordings, and then use a crippled master with which to make the cheap ones, so as to make the expensive ones sound better by comparison.

Linn should simply take the best master and then down-sample and re-format it, accordingly. As Steve says, that is what any competent end user could do for himself. EDITED BY MODS

If they want to give the customer the choice of different masters (which I doubt), then put them both out at 24bit + lower options, and say that they are different.

Shame on you, Linn.

JC

 

[jcbrum]

CDs certainly do not need to be mastered any differently than 24-bit.

Well said, MF.

Neither, imo, do MP3s, nor ALACs, nor AACs, nor FLACs, not any other format.

Linn are (presumably) attempting to sell their products to discerning customers on the basis of high quality, particularly in terms of reproduced sound.

If any of their products have been altered to affect the sound quality then they should say that on the tin, and make it clear at the point of sale.

JC

 

[Native_bon]

By now you should know some people just agrue for the sake of it... even when the truth hits them in the face. what Linn has done is clear for all to see. Even more so that no reasonable explanation has been given. >)

 

[Anonymous]

Would say you have been given pretty straight answers over in the Linn forum from some who are very experienced in studio work , none Linn studio’s . What on earth would they know eh Steve ?

 

[eggontoast]

Please take a moment to think carefully about each one of these three indisputable facts and what this means.

1. Linn have mastered their MP3s to have less dynamic range than the studio master FLAC versions.

2. Less dynamic range = Lower sound quality.

3. There is no need for the MP3 versions to have less dynamic range than the FLAC versions.

I haven't read the last 27 pages of this thread but it makes sense to me to master the mp3's this way. Since anyone downloading the mp3 is likely to listen to it on a portable player, which has a restricted (by law) output level, I would master them as loud as possible. It will get worse next year when they bring in a maximum sensitivity rating for headphones too, you will be really disappointed if you purchase an mp3 with its full dynamic range due to the hardware limitations.

 

[CnoEvil]

Further update / clarification (Post. 64): http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&page=7

 

[Anonymous]

I haven't read the last 27 pages of this thread but it makes sense to me to master the mp3's this way. Since anyone downloading the mp3 is likely to listen to it on a portable player, which has a restricted (by law) output level, I would master them as loud as possible. It will get worse next year when they bring in a maximum sensitivity rating for headphones too, you will be really disappointed if you purchase an mp3 with its full dynamic range due to the hardware limitations.

Exactly it’s not rocket science as MP3 To most goes with portable players so + 1

 

[SteveR750]

Steve, would a fair addtional conclusion be:

#1 If the 16/44 and 24/96 are from the same master, then no audible difference

#2 Any audible difference between CD and HD is due to differences in the master, and not inherent in the format

#3 Record companies are going to milk hi res for all they can by making a technically uncessary difference in #2

#3 should come as no surprise really, disappointing though it is.

Have you tried a similar exercise on any of the HD tracks releases?

 

[BenLaw]

Steve, would a fair addtional conclusion be:

#1 If the 16/44 and 24/96 are from the same master, then no audible difference

#2 Any audible difference between CD and HD is due to differences in the master, and not inherent in the format

#3 Record companies are going to milk hi res for all they can by making a technically uncessary difference in #2

#3 should come as no surprise really, disappointing though it is.

Have you tried a similar exercise on any of the HD tracks releases?

I agree with your 1 to 3. It is particularly disappointing because (as I understood it) Linn were at the forefront of the fight against the loudness wars, providing a quality alternative. As it turns out, they are exploiting the loudness wars as the only justification for charging excessive amounts for 'hi res' music.

It would be very easy for them to ask their supplier to give them a downsample of the studio master for their 16/44 and mp3 versions, or to do this themselves (with no loss to the artistic integrity of the original, as they claim). I also don't buy the argument that people expect to get the same product at Linn as anywhere else; I believe people expect to get the best possible product there. To claim that the different formats have inherent dynamic limitations which make this compression necessary is untrue.

 

[Craig M.]

Further update / clarification (Post. 64): http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&page=7

That is a much better and, to my mind, fair response. I'm guessing then that if the original reason for this thread (an end to dynamic compression in sight) comes about, there will be no need for Linns Studio Master range?

It should also mean that Linns own productions are indistinguishable across the formats.

 

[SteveR750]

And of course no-one, not even Linn would surely ever openly admit to such a ruse.

What I'd really like to try is to compare directly a 16/44 track with a 24/96 all other things being equal. Of the couple of albums I have in both formats, I'm pretty sure the HD versions are remastered (Fleetwood Mac - Rumours being the obvious one)

 

[Craig M.]

I agree with your 1 to 3. It is particularly disappointing because (as I understood it) Linn were at the forefront of the fight against the loudness wars, providing a quality alternative. As it turns out, they are exploiting the loudness wars as the only justification for charging excessive amounts for 'hi res' music.

It would be very easy for them to ask their supplier to give them a downsample of the studio master for their 16/44 and mp3 versions, or to do this themselves (with no loss to the artistic integrity of the original, as they claim). I also don't buy the argument that people expect to get the same product at Linn as anywhere else; I believe people expect to get the best possible product there. To claim that the different formats have inherent dynamic limitations which make this compression necessary is untrue.

Hmmm. I had thought Linns response was fair, but this reply raises some very interesting points. If they are all about the quality, they should do what's in their power to improve it when they can.

 

[Native_bon]

Further update / clarification (Post. 64): http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&page=7

so basically linn are saying the mp3 files sold on their site in not converted by them but by the arist or company that provides the music... If i understand correctly.

 

[Craig M.]

What I'd really like to try is to compare directly a 16/44 track with a 24/96 all other things being equal.

This is exactly the point I tried to make earlier in the thread to you.

 

[Craig M.]

Further update / clarification (Post. 64): http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&page=7

so basically linn are saying the mp3 files sold on their site in not converted by them but by the arist or company that provides the music... If i understand correctly.

No. I think Linn are saying that they encode the mp3 version from the CD master, as supplied to them by the record company. They also take their 16 bit flac version from this master. The 24 bit flac files are NOT from the CD master. BenLaw's point is that Linn are in an ideal position to be able to provide better quality 16 bit flac and mp3 versions than they do, but choose not to.

 

[SteveR750]

What I'd really like to try is to compare directly a 16/44 track with a 24/96 all other things being equal.

This is exactly the point I tried to make earlier in the thread to you.

Yes, I realised that!

I'd be fascinated by how many people would still buy a HD track, in the belief that it *might* actually be better, despite what their eyes tell them. You only have to look at new car sales to see this in action...

 

[Craig M.]

Yes, I realised that!

Ah, ok, my mistake. I was under the impression you didn't.

I suspect that no amount of evidence would convince some people that 24 bit files weren't audibly better than 16/44.1.

 

[BenLaw]

Further update / clarification (Post. 64): http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&page=7

so basically linn are saying the mp3 files sold on their site in not converted by them but by the arist or company that provides the music... If i understand correctly.

No. I think Linn are saying that they encode the mp3 version from the CD master, as supplied to them by the record company. They also take their 16 bit flac version from this master. The 24 bit flac files are NOT from the CD master. BenLaw's point is that Linn are in an ideal position to be able to provide better quality 16 bit flac and mp3 versions than they do, but choose not to.

Yes.

I'm still unclear on their position where they are the record label. Steve1979, were there differences between mp3 and 24 bit with Linn's own tracks? If there are, they are unnecessarily creating two separate masters also (one superior, one inferior).

 

[CnoEvil]

I agree with your 1 to 3. It is particularly disappointing because (as I understood it) Linn were at the forefront of the fight against the loudness wars, providing a quality alternative. As it turns out, they are exploiting the loudness wars as the only justification for charging excessive amounts for 'hi res' music.

Playing devils advocate for a moment.....it could be argued that their MP3 is trying to be all things to all possible markets/applications. A lot (most?) of the people who use MP3 couldn't give a flying feck about the nth degree of sound quality (eg. all my children). People who are going to put it through a proper hifi are likely to go for Red Book or above.

It would be very easy for them to ask their supplier to give them a downsample of the studio master for their 16/44 and mp3 versions, or to do this themselves (with no loss to the artistic integrity of the original, as they claim). I also don't buy the argument that people expect to get the same product at Linn as anywhere else; I believe people expect to get the best possible product there. To claim that the different formats have inherent dynamic limitations which make this compression necessary is untrue.

Asking is easy, getting on the other hand...

Giving the market what it wants is key to survival, and as has been pointed out by Linn Jim, that market (for MP3) is as wide as it is varied (even though we, as a tiny group of discerning audiophiles, think we have the right to the best sound possible). Don't lose sight of the fact that Linn's 320 Kbps is as good, if not better than what's out there atm.

Nb. Still trying to remain neutral / objective, but feel the alternative viewpoint needs emphasized in all this.

 

[BenLaw]

I agree with your 1 to 3. It is particularly disappointing because (as I understood it) Linn were at the forefront of the fight against the loudness wars, providing a quality alternative. As it turns out, they are exploiting the loudness wars as the only justification for charging excessive amounts for 'hi res' music.

Playing devils advocate for a moment.....it could be argued that their MP3 is trying to be all things to all possible markets/applications. A lot (most?) of the people who use MP3 couldn't give a flying feck about the nth degree of sound quality (eg. all my children). People who are going to put it through a proper hifi are likely to go for Red Book or above.

This is true, obviously, although Linn would have greater credibility if they'd used this argument in the first place. I believe the Major first anticipated this as the 'correct' (or best) answer! 'Red book or above' is problematic tho, because the 16/44 is an inferior, dynamically compressed master compared to the 24 bit. This is unnecessary, as a 16bit version of the studio master can be made without any dynamic compression.

It would be very easy for them to ask their supplier to give them a downsample of the studio master for their 16/44 and mp3 versions, or to do this themselves (with no loss to the artistic integrity of the original, as they claim). I also don't buy the argument that people expect to get the same product at Linn as anywhere else; I believe people expect to get the best possible product there. To claim that the different formats have inherent dynamic limitations which make this compression necessary is untrue.

Asking is easy, getting on the other hand...

Giving the market what it wants is key to survival, and as has been pointed out by Linn Jim, that market (for MP3) is as wide as it is varied (even though we, as a tiny group of discerning audiophiles, think we have the right to the best sound possible). Don't lose sight of the fact that Linn's 320 Kbps is as good, if not better than what's out there atm.

Nb. Still trying to remain neutral, but feel the alternative viewpoint needs emphasized in all this.

Again, in a sense you're right. Although to accept your argument means accepting defeat in the 'loudness war', which I don't think anyone here (except manicm, bizarrely) wants or feels it is necessary.

But in reality, this isn't a good point. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of your average mp3 consumer buys their mp3s from Linn. Linn's market for all its file formats is the 'audiophile' (sorry), who would expect IMO best possibly quality whatever the format. Given that it is possible with utterly minimal hassle they ought to be doing it IMO. That they are not has a clear financial benefit to them.

As for 'getting not being easy', I don't see why any supplier would refuse to supply just the one file and give permission for it to be downsampled, it would be less work and take up less space.