Better mastered music could be on the way!

[tyranniux42]

oi! I'll take you outside and beat you 24 shades of 1 if your not careful!

You only need 16.........apparently! :twisted:

Edit. I must be part of your alter ego, in an echoey sort of way. :doh:

welcome on board hms tyranniux. We were getting bored of the same conversations with eachother anyway...

 

[tyranniux42]

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.

RS RS RS, I did get your joke, but it was so congested, convoluted and constipated that I fear your effort was a wasted one. The EAC/iTunes thing is not drivel cos rippers are not made equal. And my ears tell me otherwise anyway. Bye now.

indeed, jack was my least favourite.

 

[CnoEvil]

oi! I'll take you outside and beat you 24 shades of 1 if your not careful!

You only need 16.........apparently! :twisted:

Edit. I must be part of your alter ego, in an echoey sort of way. :doh:

welcome on board hms tyranniux. We were getting bored of the same conversations with eachother anyway...

I can do Looney Tunes with the best of 'em....but ships....that's a whole other departure.....only ones that were launched by HRH! :twisted:

 

[tyranniux42]

oi! I'll take you outside and beat you 24 shades of 1 if your not careful!

You only need 16.........apparently! :twisted:

Edit. I must be part of your alter ego, in an echoey sort of way. :doh:

welcome on board hms tyranniux. We were getting bored of the same conversations with eachother anyway...

I can do Looney Tunes with the best of 'em....but ships....that's a whole other departure.....only ones that were launched by HRH! :twisted:

We increasingly feel like part of the crew from the starship titanic...

 

[manicm]

indeed, jack was my least favourite.

:rofl: But certainly one of the most interesting.

 

[BenLaw]

With the exception of Cnoevil, there seems to be an interesting correlation between subjectivism and ranting mania....

 

[John Duncan]

I disagree. You should see some of the **** I get in my mailbox...

 

[MajorFubar]

For a second there I nearly typed a post that veered back on topic, but then I thought, hey, why go and spoil a good thread...

 

[BenLaw]

I disagree. You should see some of the **** I get in my mailbox...

The lesson seems to be that subjectivism generally implies ranting mania, ranting mania does not necessarily generally imply subjectivism.

 

[CnoEvil]

With the exception of Cnoevil, there seems to be an interesting correlation between subjectivism and ranting mania....

If that's a complement, I'm banking it! :cheer:

 

[John Duncan]

I disagree. You should see some of the **** I get in my mailbox...

The lesson seems to be that subjectivism generally implies ranting mania, ranting mania does not necessarily generally imply subjectivism.

I like to think my subjectivism is reasonably considered...

 

[tyranniux42]

I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...

 

[Alec]

I disagree. You should see some of the **** I get in my mailbox...

Yeah...sorry 'bout that...

 

[CnoEvil]

I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...

Probably no need...as it seems to have gone into an alternative reality. :shifty:

 

[tyranniux42]

I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...

Probably no need...as it seems to have gone into an alternative reality. :shifty:

haha a fan of all things Douglassy I take it?

 

[steve_1979]

From then Linn forum:

While I agree with Steve when he says "there is no need for the CD and MP3 versions to have less dynamic range than the studio mastered FLAC versions" I think it's very unwise to accuse Linn of deliberately doing so.

Yes I agree. To say that Linn have remasterd the MP3 files was wrong and I take it back. I also apologise for the bad way that sentence was worded. Re-reading it today I can see that it must have come accross as sounding aggressive and argumentative which isn't my intention. Sorry.

We do not do mastering — or "remastering" — of any kind on these albums, for that is the preserve of the label and artists themselves. I think it would be quite outrageous if we started dabbling in such an important part of the production of a record not our own — it's a process that can change the aesthetic and have a dramatic effect on quality.

The recordings we sell on behalf of these labels are delivered to us in two parts, the CD master and the Studio Master

Thank you for your complete and in depth reply Jim.

I now understand that Linn doesn't actually do the mastering of the files themselves and that you are in fact given two different versions of each track (the CD master and the studio master).

You say that the MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that Linn offers from their online store are the CD mastered versions of the tracks. Do you think that it would also be possible for Linn to offer MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that have been converted from the original studio versions?

I think that given the choice, many of your customers would prefer to buy MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that have been converted directly from the original studio files. I doubt that anybody would want to buy a lower quality verson with reduced dynamic range if there was a better quality version available that has the full dynamic range of the studio version kept intact.

 

[CnoEvil]

I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...

Probably no need...as it seems to have gone into an alternative reality. :shifty:

haha a fan of all things Douglassy I take it?

I think he had the answer to life, the universe and 24 bit.!

 

[tyranniux42]

I wonder if this thread will undergo spontaneous massive existence failure...

Probably no need...as it seems to have gone into an alternative reality. :shifty:

haha a fan of all things Douglassy I take it?

I think he had the answer to life, the universe and 24 bit.!

well of the reasons hypothesised as to why linn have different masters for different file types I would suspect that 10% are 95% true, 14% are 65% true, 35% are only 5% true and the rest were told by zap hod beeblebrox..

i might start a petition for 42 bit recordings... Possibly proof that recording engineers spend too much time looking in mirrors.

 

[CnoEvil]

well of the reasons hypothesised as to why linn have different masters for different file types I would suspect that 10% are 95% true, 14% are 65% true, 35% are only 5% true and the rest were told by zap hod beeblebrox..

That's a bit of a simplification!

i might start a petition for 42 bit recordings... Possibly proof that recording engineers spend too much time looking in mirrors.

Ni em tnouc !

 

[DavieCee]

From then Linn forum:

While I agree with Steve when he says "there is no need for the CD and MP3 versions to have less dynamic range than the studio mastered FLAC versions" I think it's very unwise to accuse Linn of deliberately doing so.

Yes I agree. To say that Linn have remasterd the MP3 files was wrong and I take it back. I also apologise for the bad way that sentence was worded. Re-reading it today I can see that it must have come accross as sounding aggressive and argumentative which isn't my intention. Sorry.

We do not do mastering — or "remastering" — of any kind on these albums, for that is the preserve of the label and artists themselves. I think it would be quite outrageous if we started dabbling in such an important part of the production of a record not our own — it's a process that can change the aesthetic and have a dramatic effect on quality.

The recordings we sell on behalf of these labels are delivered to us in two parts, the CD master and the Studio Master

Thank you for your complete and in depth reply Jim.

I now understand that Linn doesn't actually do the mastering of the files themselves and that you are in fact given two different versions of each track (the CD master and the studio master).

You say that the MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that Linn offers from their online store are the CD mastered versions of the tracks. Do you think that it would also be possible for Linn to offer MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that have been converted from the original studio versions?

I think that given the choice, many of your customers would prefer to buy MP3 and 16bit FLAC files that have been converted directly from the original studio files. I doubt that anybody would want to buy a lower quality verson with reduced dynamic range if there was a better quality version available that has the full dynamic range of the studio version kept intact.

Didn't I point this out on page 1 of this thread - That Linn are simply passing on what they are given? Oh well.......

Pressurise the labels, not this forum, or Linn. Unless their own recordings are sub-standard, which everyones agrees is not the case. I think. My head hurts now.

 

[steve_1979]

Didn't I point this out on page 1 of this thread - That Linn are simply passing on what they are given?

Please correct me if I'm wrong here but as I understand the situation there are usually two different versions of each album available. There's the highest quality studio master version that has the full amount of dynamic range and there's the slightly lower quality CD master version that's had the dynamic range compressed a bit.

Irrespective of whether people want to buy their music in FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format shouldn't they have option to buy their music in the highest quality studio master version with the full dynamic range?

I can see no reason why people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format should be limited to having the lower quality CD master version with the compressed dynamic range.

 

[the record spot]

RS RS RS, I did get your joke, but it was so congested, convoluted and constipated that I fear your effort was a wasted one. The EAC/iTunes thing is not drivel cos rippers are not made equal. And my ears tell me otherwise anyway. Bye now.

It took you the best part of 24 hours to come up with this? See you in six months...

 

[the record spot]

I was talking about the merits (or lack thereof) of highly compressed audio like MP3s alone, regardless of recording.

So much for six months.

Okay, your bias, expectation or otherwise, is like most old school types who can't see through a lot of the baloney that's been written about mp3. In 1998, maybe, now? Nothing like it.

Simply because an mp3 bitrate isn't a direct equal of a WAV file (for instance) doesn't make it the audibly poorer. Plenty of golden eared types think it does, but the reality is that a good quality recording, with a likewise subsequent mastering will do the business regardless of the format.

I've been down this road more than once, have read/heard so many hifi types mutter about the shortcomings of mp3, but in the end, it comes down to multiple inaccurate assumptions that become "fact" in some audio circles. Fiction I think. The proof of the pudding is in the eating however, and a straight playback of a good quality master (take your pick, there are umpteen examples out there in any secondhand CD shop you care to mention), ripped to mp3, 128kbps upwards will be all the proof needed.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't see how you could legisalate on how music is produced. People should be free to produce their music however they wish, be it low quality, or high quality. The only option, I could envisage, is a labelling system, at the point where such music is put up for sale to the public. Then consumers can make an informed choice about whether, or not, they purchase it.

 

[John Duncan]

Irrespective of whether people want to buy their music in FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format shouldn't they have option to buy their music in the highest quality studio master version with the full dynamic range?

I can see no reason why people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 format should be limited to having the lower quality CD master version with the compressed dynamic range.

Can you see any reason why people who want the higher quality bluray shouldn't be able to obtain it for the same price as the DVD?