Better mastered music could be on the way!

[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!!!!

No, I won't wake up and realise the convenience of wireless because both Linn and Naim propogate the use of wired ethernet to get the best out of their devices. The former does not even allow wifi directly. And to my knowledge neither does the Marantz streamer.

Woof woof.

When you become a Linn dealer you regularly go to the Linn factory for training. When you go to a Linn dealer they fit the system into your home, reason for the training. I can assure you there is no way I would have spent over 20,000 on the system to get an inferior sound. My only concern before purchase was what the sound difference would be not using earthnet. The dealer did a back to back audition one with earthnet and one wifi , result no loss in sound quality. Ok so purchased the system. Yet again no doubt you will know better than me as I am a user and you are not bit like the Linn changing sound band widths which have now been proved is not the case which I pointed out half a dozen pages back which you also argued they did.

 

[steve_1979]

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?

Your question is unrelated to this issue. A bluray is better quality because it's of a higher resoultion than a DVD not because it's been mastered to look different.

A studio master version and a CD master version of a music album sound differerent because they've been mastered to sound different. This has nothing to to do with the file type or resolution of the music.

No matter it you used FLAC, ALAC or MP3 the studio master version will still sound better than the CD master version because it has more dynamic range.

 

[steve_1979]

If Linn wants to charge more for FLAC files than MP3 files then this seems perfectly fair to me as the FLAC files are larger in size than MP3 files. The price of storage and server usage will be slightly higher for larger files than it is for small files.

However, I see no reason why the studio mastered version of the music is only available to buy in 24bit FLAC format but not in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 formats.

Why should people who want to buy their music in 16bit FLAC, ALAC or MP3 formats have to listen to a lower quality CD mastered version of the music that has less dynamic range?

 

[chebby]

The dealer did a back to back audition one with earthnet and one wifi...

What's "earthnet" ?

 

[hammill]

The dealer did a back to back audition one with earthnet and one wifi...

What's "earthnet" ?

I don't know, but if they start using skynet we should all be worried.

 

[John Duncan]

Your question is unrelated to this issue. A bluray is better quality because it's of a higher resoultion than a DVD not because it's been mastered to look different

So you think that blurays and DVD are not mastered in different ways to optimise both their sound and visuals to suit their respective mediums?

(sigh)

 

[BenLaw]

Your question is unrelated to this issue. A bluray is better quality because it's of a higher resoultion than a DVD not because it's been mastered to look different

So you think that blurays and DVD are not mastered in different ways to optimise both their sound and visuals to suit their respective mediums? (sigh)

Are you saying that dynamically compressing music is optimising it for CD?

(sigh, etc)

 

[MajorFubar]

Can someome who is also on the Linn forum ask Linn why they don't make the 16-bit download and the MP3 download directly from the studio master file? Perhaps the answer is they're not allowed to, but it wouldn't hurt to ask.

 

[John Duncan]

Your question is unrelated to this issue. A bluray is better quality because it's of a higher resoultion than a DVD not because it's been mastered to look different

So you think that blurays and DVD are not mastered in different ways to optimise both their sound and visuals to suit their respective mediums? (sigh)

Are you saying that dynamically compressing music is optimising it for CD?

(sigh, etc)

Are you saying that mastering for CD is by definition deliberately hamstringing it so that they can sell a more expensive 24 bit master, or is it using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?

(etc)

 

[BenLaw]

Your question is unrelated to this issue. A bluray is better quality because it's of a higher resoultion than a DVD not because it's been mastered to look different

So you think that blurays and DVD are not mastered in different ways to optimise both their sound and visuals to suit their respective mediums? (sigh)

Are you saying that dynamically compressing music is optimising it for CD?

(sigh, etc)

Are you saying that mastering for CD is by definition deliberately hamstringing it so that they can sell a more expensive 24 bit master, or is it using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?

(etc)

What you put forward are not the only alternatives. Your second proposition (I say again) would be a capitulation in the 'loudness war'. Not good.

I say categorically it is NOT the best possible mix for the target medium. If you think that music on CD has to be dynamically compressed, please explain why.

I'm not saying it is deliberate 'hamstringing' by Linn because they haven't produced the third party masters. However, to leave the situation as is does benefit them., due to the artificial benefits of 24 bit (ie benefits which are not related to the medium, but to the different masters). I said straight after Linn's response, and others have since agreed, that Linn could and should downmix the studio master to 16 bit formats and below (whether they do it themselves or get the third party to do it).

You come closest by saying 'best possible mix for the target MARKET', I'm sure from the producer's perspective that is why the masters exist in this form. This is the whole point of the loudness war. It is also what those who disagree with dynamic compression are opposed to in the loudness war.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm not saying it is deliberate 'hamstringing' by Linn because they haven't produced the third party masters. However, to leave the situation as is does benefit them., due to the artificial benefits of 24 bit (ie benefits which are not related to the medium, but to the different masters). I said straight after Linn's response, and others have since agreed, that Linn could and should downmix the studio master to 16 bit formats and below (whether they do it themselves or get the third party to do it).

Ben, have you heard anything from Linn Records?

This is not meant as a stirring comment.....but it helps to put the argument (re Linn) in perspective, with regards to their present sound quality.

As to other record labels and the recording industry as a whole, that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[BenLaw]

I'm not saying it is deliberate 'hamstringing' by Linn because they haven't produced the third party masters. However, to leave the situation as is does benefit them., due to the artificial benefits of 24 bit (ie benefits which are not related to the medium, but to the different masters). I said straight after Linn's response, and others have since agreed, that Linn could and should downmix the studio master to 16 bit formats and below (whether they do it themselves or get the third party to do it).

Ben, have you heard anything from Linn Records?

This is not meant as a stirring comment.....but it helps to put the argument (re Linn) in perspective, with regards to their present sound quality.

As to other record labels and the recording industry as a whole, that's a different kettle of fish.

Hi Cno,

don't worry, I don't take your question as stirring. The answer is no, I have no 24bit playback facility, I don't really download music at all and in any event my tastes don't tend to match their output. However, given your earlier suggestion I have checked that I can access the Linn radio stations via Sonos. I don't have much time to listen at the moment, but I will check it out when I get the chance.

I don't doubt that their general quality is high. Just to be clear, from my perspective (and I think from Steve's also) Linn are not being singled out because they are a particularly bad offender, far from it. In fact, it is a coincidence they are being singled out, based (I believe) on the fact that they have been giving away tracks for free and therefore have given Steve this opportunity without expense.

However, whilst the mp3s and red book they are selling no doubt remain excellent, clearly they could be improved upon by NOT being dynamically compressed. For a company renowned for its quality, it is a big opportunity missed in the loudness war. Any lesser company than Linn can easily say 'well even Linn aren't bothering, why should we', or 'even Linn thinks compressed red book is fine, why should we do anything else'.

So, I hope it's clear this is not an attack on Linn but simply they happen to be a convenient example in the general argument. Once that is understood, I really struggle to see why anyone rational doesn't buy into the argument. Indeed, the only people who seem blinkered against the argument, such as mirren boy, manicm and native_bon, seem anything but rational.

 

[CnoEvil]

Hi Cno,

don't worry, I don't take your question as stirring. The answer is no, I have no 24bit playback facility, I don't really download music at all and in any event my tastes don't tend to match their output. However, given your earlier suggestion I have checked that I can access the Linn radio stations via Sonos. I don't have much time to listen at the moment, but I will check it out when I get the chance.

Can't say fairer than that.

IMO. If we could get everybody up to Linn's standard, it would be a huge improvement........if that's ever achieved, then it might be time to pressurize Linn into giving a sound quality that few, if any achieve atm (ie. MP3 and CD).

Confronting Linn for an explanation, though worthwhile given Steve's findings, is in my opinion tackling the serious issue of mastering quality at the wrong end. ie. Start with the serious culprits.

 

[steve_1979]

Ben, have you heard anything from Linn Records?

This is not meant as a stirring comment.....but it helps to put the argument (re Linn) in perspective, with regards to their present sound quality.

As to other record labels and the recording industry as a whole, that's a different kettle of fish.

This is a good point Cno. Lets not forget that the sound quality of Linn's music is of a very high standard, especially when compared to most of the other record labels.

Much of the modern music that's available from the other record labels has had the dynamic range compressed to a much greater extent than the music that Linn sells. For example if you listen to any of the Red Hot Chili Peppers albums from the past ten years you'll find that they have a massive amount of compression which is very clearly audiable.

 

[steve_1979]

Here is a short YouTube video that explains how reduced dynamic range affects the sound quality of music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

 

[basshound]

Is this the longest thread ever on the forums ? :quest:

 

[chebby]

Is this the longest thread ever on the forums ? :quest:

No...

This one is.

It's about people actually [sharp intake of breath] listening to the stuff!

Subjective fools. (Don't they have software to analyse the music for them?)

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I would have spent over 20,000 on the system

WOW! you don't say!...

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?

(etc)

so, does that mean that in your opinion 99.9% of CD buying market wants dynamically compressed music?

 

[John Duncan]

using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?

(etc)

so, does that mean that in your opinion 99.9% of CD buying market wants dynamically compressed music?

In my opinion 99.9% of the CD buying market couldn't give a ****.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?

(etc)

so, does that mean that in your opinion 99.9% of CD buying market wants dynamically compressed music?

In my opinion 99.9% of the CD buying market couldn't give a ****.

sadly, but this is exactly the attitude why the 0.1% gets what we get....

 

[chebby]

In my opinion 99.9% of the CD buying market couldn't give a ****.

What about the millions of SACDs and players that were flying off the shelves for all those ye...

Oh, that's right. They didn't.

 

[BenLaw]

Ah yes, I hadn't understood the moral the last few posts have highlighted: wrong thing shouldn't be righted because most people are apathetic.

 

[manicm]

using the mastering engineer's judgement to produce the best possible mix for the target medium and market (which also happens to account for about 99.9% of sales)?

(etc)

so, does that mean that in your opinion 99.9% of CD buying market wants dynamically compressed music?

In my opinion 99.9% of the CD buying market couldn't give a ****.

sadly, but this is exactly the attitude why the 0.1% gets what we get....

And yet some of the 0.1% are perfectly happy with MP3s. So really then, who gives an expletive?

 

[John Duncan]

Ah yes, I hadn't understood the moral the last few posts have highlighted: wrong thing shouldn't be righted because most people are apathetic.

So can anybody tell me what the dynamic range of those 'crippled' Linn mp3s are?