Better mastered music could be on the way!

[Overdose]

Hmmmm, This is the information which Linn provide on their website . . .

Linn makes download files available in three quality levels: Studio Master (best), CD Quality (better) and MP3 (good).

You should select the level you require based on the sound quality you desire. Do remember though, the better the sound quality the larger the download file size.

Studio Master FLAC/ALAC

If absolute sound quality is what you want then this file is best for you.

Studio Master files are lossless at various high sample rates, for example, 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz and 192KHz (check each title for actual details). The format will be dependent on the actual recording method we used originally. These files offer true studio quality and are far higher in quality than can be achieved on CD.

This information is misleading, imo.

JC

Agreed.

If CD is able to adequately capture all the required dynamic range of a recording in stereo, then the statement in bold is wrong, no?

There is quite obviously a difference in some of the recordings across the formats, as Steve has highlighted. The thing is, if a recording is made, it is already 24 bit in the first instance. It is then downmixed to 16/44.`1 for CD, retaining the same quality and then compressed further, to lossless and then lossy, as required. As I mentioned before, no audible differences will exist until compression artifacts start to appear. 24 bit studio masters are not additional recordings made specially in isolation to a CD mix to have higher quality, they are the original file. If an additional 24 bit studio master is created, it is either a completely new 're-master' or a rerecording. In any case, it is not the same master as used to create the CD and compressed formats., so cannot be directly compared in quality with those formats.

 

[shooter]

32 bit is the norm for studio work, it allows head room for editing without adding noise (quantisation) whilst the work is done.

Afterwards its mixed down to whatever bit rate file/disc is required, either 24 bit or 16 bit with 24 bit having less noise or higher S/N.

 

[Anonymous]

. . . around 90db's of listenable range, with lesser (normal) speakers around 75 to 80db's, 13bit.

Which is probably equivalent to, or a bit better than the best vinyl, most of which is about 10 to 12 bit equivalency, and can sound extremely good.

Looking at the DRLoudness site it may be fair to say that the current crop of vinyl releases are mastered sympathetically, just do a quick search on any 2012 release. Muse or Lana Del Ray for instance are worse off dynamically with CD and the HD Tracks release compared to vinyl, on the face of it its the medium to be on at the moment, but it costs.

Shooter this confirms what I wrote further back, having two formats on the new Muse album. First bought the vinyl edition then found out the 24bit could be downloaded from Muse’s official web site, downloaded the 24bit version. First impression was a bit of a surprise as it sounded so much brighter not in a good way. The band width was there unfortunately it was a big letdown in comparison to the vinyl version which sounds superb.

When I first got the DS player everything I could get my hands on that appealed in 24bit was downloaded. The Doors – LA Woman 24bit sounds great, funny enough so does the CD remaster version. The Beatles in 24bit sound better than any format in my collection. Here is a thing was music recorded in 24bit back then as I’m not sure. The bass on these 24bit Beatles version is deeper than the vinyl version while the band width is wider. Now I just wait and read what 24bit versions are recommended on forums otherwise it’s the vinyl version I will get. The Bob Marley album in 24bit from Linn sounds really really good. HDTracks is a bit of a hit and miss In my experience

 

[relocated]

. . . around 90db's of listenable range, with lesser (normal) speakers around 75 to 80db's, 13bit.

Which is probably equivalent to, or a bit better than the best vinyl, most of which is about 10 to 12 bit equivalency, and can sound extremely good.

Looking at the DRLoudness site it may be fair to say that the current crop of vinyl releases are mastered sympathetically, just do a quick search on any 2012 release. Muse or Lana Del Ray for instance are worse off dynamically with CD and the HD Tracks release compared to vinyl, on the face of it its the medium to be on at the moment, but it costs.

Shooter this confirms what I wrote further back, having two formats on the new Muse album. First bought the vinyl edition then found out the 24bit could be downloaded from Muse’s official web site, downloaded the 24bit version. First impression was a bit of a surprise as it sounded so much brighter not in a good way. The band width was there unfortunately it was a big letdown in comparison to the vinyl version which sounds superb.

When I first got the DS player everything I could get my hands on that appealed in 24bit was downloaded. The Doors – LA Woman 24bit sounds great, funny enough so does the CD remaster version. The Beatles in 24bit sound better than any format in my collection. Here is a thing was music recorded in 24bit back then as I’m not sure. The bass on these 24bit Beatles version is deeper than the vinyl version while the band width is wider. Now I just wait and read what 24bit versions are recommended on forums otherwise it’s the vinyl version I will get. The Bob Marley album in 24bit from Linn sounds really really good. HDTracks is a bit of a hit and miss In my experience

This is priceless, pure comedy gold. You wonder why people do not take you seriously? You really don't understand this at all.

 

[Anonymous]

. . . around 90db's of listenable range, with lesser (normal) speakers around 75 to 80db's, 13bit.

Which is probably equivalent to, or a bit better than the best vinyl, most of which is about 10 to 12 bit equivalency, and can sound extremely good.

Looking at the DRLoudness site it may be fair to say that the current crop of vinyl releases are mastered sympathetically, just do a quick search on any 2012 release. Muse or Lana Del Ray for instance are worse off dynamically with CD and the HD Tracks release compared to vinyl, on the face of it its the medium to be on at the moment, but it costs.

Shooter this confirms what I wrote further back, having two formats on the new Muse album. First bought the vinyl edition then found out the 24bit could be downloaded from Muse’s official web site, downloaded the 24bit version. First impression was a bit of a surprise as it sounded so much brighter not in a good way. The band width was there unfortunately it was a big letdown in comparison to the vinyl version which sounds superb.

When I first got the DS player everything I could get my hands on that appealed in 24bit was downloaded. The Doors – LA Woman 24bit sounds great, funny enough so does the CD remaster version. The Beatles in 24bit sound better than any format in my collection. Here is a thing was music recorded in 24bit back then as I’m not sure. The bass on these 24bit Beatles version is deeper than the vinyl version while the band width is wider. Now I just wait and read what 24bit versions are recommended on forums otherwise it’s the vinyl version I will get. The Bob Marley album in 24bit from Linn sounds really really good. HDTracks is a bit of a hit and miss In my experience

This is priceless, pure comedy gold. You wonder why people do not take you seriously? You really don't understand this at all.

Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Of course there was no digital recordings back then. What was meant ? Don’t think there was even a 24channel mixing desk back then which equates to the official recording being mastered today for 24bit. Hope that’s better for you.

 

[steve_1979]

Hmmmm, This is the information which Linn provide on their website . . .

Linn makes download files available in three quality levels: Studio Master (best), CD Quality (better) and MP3 (good).

You should select the level you require based on the sound quality you desire. Do remember though, the better the sound quality the larger the download file size.

Studio Master FLAC/ALAC

If absolute sound quality is what you want then this file is best for you.

Studio Master files are lossless at various high sample rates, for example, 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz and 192KHz (check each title for actual details). The format will be dependent on the actual recording method we used originally. These files offer true studio quality and are far higher in quality than can be achieved on CD.

. . .

This information is misleading, imo.

I agree that saying "These files offer true studio quality and are far higher in quality than can be achieved on CD" is very misleading to the layman who doesn't fully understand digital audio technology.

Technically speaking though it's not actually a lie because the 24bit FLAC files do have a higher bit rate than a CD even if it is totally impossible for anyone to be able to hear the difference between the two.

 

[WinterRacer]

Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Of course there was no digital recordings back then. What was meant ? Don’t think there was even a 24channel mixing desk back then which equates to the official recording being mastered today for 24bit. Hope that’s better for you.

I think you're getting the number of channels on the mixing desk confused with number of bits when encoding samples; they have nothing to do with one another.

 

[WinterRacer]

I agree that saying "These files offer true studio quality and are far higher in quality than can be achieved on CD" is very misleading to the layman who doesn't fully understand digital audio technology.

Technically speaking though it's not actually a lie because the 24bit FLAC files do have a higher bit rate than a CD even if it is totally impossible for anyone to be able to hear the difference between the two.

Hmm, not so sure Steve, I've just watched Batman and think he might have been able to tell. The rest of us, no chance.

 

[Overdose]

32 bit is the norm for studio work, it allows head room for editing without adding noise (quantisation) whilst the work is done.

Afterwards its mixed down to whatever bit rate file/disc is required, either 24 bit or 16 bit with 24 bit having less noise or higher S/N.

I thought the recording was done in 24 bit and the mastering (sometimes) done in 32 bit and even 64?

Either way the original recording and final master are 24 bit, no?

 

[relocated]

Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Of course there was no digital recordings back then. What was meant ? Don’t think there was even a 24channel mixing desk back then which equates to the official recording being mastered today for 24bit. Hope that’s better for you.

I think you're getting the number of channels on the mixing desk confused with number of bits when encoding samples; they have nothing to do with one another.

Mirren Boy,

You clearly really don't know what you are talking about. Please do everyone, ESPECIALLY YOURSELF, a favour and bow out of this. You are, sadly, making a fool of yourself.

 

[shooter]

32 bit is the norm for studio work, it allows head room for editing without adding noise (quantisation) whilst the work is done.

Afterwards its mixed down to whatever bit rate file/disc is required, either 24 bit or 16 bit with 24 bit having less noise or higher S/N.

I thought the recording was done in 24 bit and the mastering (sometimes) done in 32 bit and even 64?

Either way the original recording and final master are 24 bit, no?

According to Linn the "studio master" is the highest quality music file available anywhere...

 

[AL13N]

Here's an interesting article that explains things in a clear and easy to understand manner:

http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

What is 32 bit float point processing? Most major sequencers and many of the better multi track recorders will render audio temporarily in a 32 bit floating point format. This should not be confused with 32 bit recording. Basically, the extra bits are added onto the file after recording to allow generous headroom for audio mathematics in the digital domain. Before the file is output it will go through the 24 bit converters on your interface.

Its not that 24 bits of data makes the sound better. It actually does not. What is does is give your audio more room to breathe in the numeric realm of digital audio. Remember, we are talking about numbers, calculations, not analog waveforms. With 24 bits of data demarcing your recording medium, its is possible to record extremely dynamic music, with very quiet soft passages and extraordinary loud passages. Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system. One can record with no compression. You can record at lower levels, with more headroom. This ensures that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, your instruments will sound clearer, and the vocals may sound "cleaner", the song will mix better and there will be less noise. So its not that 24 bit recordings sound better. In fact they may sound just as bad or worse than 16 bit. But 24 bits gives the recordist a noise floor and headroom to create an excellent recording. Its a tool, and in the right hand, it can blow you away, audio wise.

 

[CnoEvil]

Here's an interesting article that explains things in a clear and easy to understand manner: http://tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Yup, which is why I linked to it some 40 pages ago .........it seems to have got lost in the feeding frenzy: http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/better-mastered-music-could-be-on-the-way?page=4

 

[AL13N]

Please note the difference in DR between 1985 master (definitely "only" 16bit) and then 2005 re-master.

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=dire+straits&search_album=brothers+in+arms

Also note how the Dynamic Range of the 1985 "lossy" file is the same as the 1985 "lossless" version, perfectly in keeping with steve_1979's findings.

Dynamic Range differs between different masters, not between different formats (regardless of ones view on whether or not the sound quality of lossy suffers due to compression artifacts).

 

[Overdose]

32 bit is the norm for studio work, it allows head room for editing without adding noise (quantisation) whilst the work is done.

Afterwards its mixed down to whatever bit rate file/disc is required, either 24 bit or 16 bit with 24 bit having less noise or higher S/N.

I thought the recording was done in 24 bit and the mastering (sometimes) done in 32 bit and even 64?

Either way the original recording and final master are 24 bit, no?

According to Linn the "studio master" is the highest quality music file available anywhere...

Ahhh, right.

 

[steve_1979]

Earlier in this thread I was asked to compare files from other companies that offer hi-rez music in various different formats.

Erm ok. I'm not sure where to start though...

Can anybody suggest any music sites where I can download the music files in various different formats? Preferably for free or at least very cheaply.

 

[the record spot]

Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Of course there was no digital recordings back then. What was meant ? Don’t think there was even a 24channel mixing desk back then which equates to the official recording being mastered today for 24bit. Hope that’s better for you.

I think you're getting the number of channels on the mixing desk confused with number of bits when encoding samples; they have nothing to do with one another.

Mirren Boy,

You clearly really don't know what you are talking about. Please do everyone, ESPECIALLY YOURSELF, a favour and bow out of this. You are, sadly, making a fool of yourself.

I suppose relocation wouldn't be something you'd consider Relocated? Leave the guy alone. One thing not to know about the finer points of an obscure topic 99%+ of us have little idea about in detail, another thing to show off our own lack of class. Live and learn.

 

[jcbrum]

I think we must all remember that the important thing (and the underlying message of this thread) is to avoid the awful audio compression which is ruining much of the newer music releases.

Audio compression on recordings, is used to reduce their dynamic range and make them sound louder. It's nothing to do with digital file compression which is used to make digital file sizes smaller.

There is no correlation between the two processes.

Perceived audio quality depends on an expert master recording, and has little to do with what bit-rate, or sampling rate, is used for the distribution version.

These facts have been clearly identified during the discussions of this topic, on this forum and others, and seem to be generally agreed by those with a technical understanding of these issues.

I do feel that Linn could help the cause by changing their sales techniques and information. There is no doubt that they provide some excellent quality recordings, but they are not helping by implying that high bit rate alone determines audio quality in the consumers' hands.

I have no doubt that Linn are competent to understand the issues, and they should take a lead in this case, and not allow themseles to be criticised because of poor marketing and sales information.

Just because a file is 24/192 format does not follow it must be 'high audio quality', it might be the most horribly compressed, poorly recorded, effort ever made, but sold at a high price as a premium product simply on the claim of '24bit'.

JC

 

[the record spot]

Indeed JC, and as anyone who lashed out £75 and upwards on the Genesis boxset(s) will testify to that readily. I've said for a long time that something being put out in hi-res alone is not guarantee of audio quality.

 

[steve_1979]

You have made some very good points there JC and I completely agree with you.

We both understand that there are many things needed to make a good quality audio file such as the recording and mastering of the music. We both also understand that even though a 24bit file has a higher resolution than a 16bit file they're both still going to sound exactly the same. So IMO as far as the end user is concerned they're both exactly the same quality dispite having a difference in bit rate.

What Linn have said is that the 24bit studio mastered files are of a higher quality than what can be achieved on a 16bit CD. When taken in a very literal sense they are a higher bit rate so technically speaking they better in this one respect. Although IMO this isn't actually the same thing as being better quality. So yes it is misleading to the layman who doesn't understand digital audio technology but when taken in this one very literal sense they haven't actually told a lie.

What Linn has failed to do though, is make it clear to their customers that there are in fact two different versions of the music which only sound different to one another because they've been mastered to sound different and that this has nothing to do with the bit rate.

Like I said: they haven't actually lied but it is misleading.

 

[Overdose]

................24bit studio mastered files are of a higher quality than what can be achieved on a 16bit CD.

16 bit CD is more than adequate to fully capture the enitre audible dynamic range of any piece of music, so I'd say that the statement is wrong. You can't get any better because there is no audible benefit. What's the point in trying to replay sub and ultra sonic noises that humans cannot hear? All it does is create an uneccessarily large file.

Remember that we are taliking about music and what we can hear, anything outside of the range of our hearing is irrelevant.

 

[steve_1979]

................24bit studio mastered files are of a higher quality than what can be achieved on a 16bit CD.

16 bit CD is more than adequate to fully capture the enitre audible dynamic range of any piece of music, so I'd say that the statement is wrong. You can't get any better because there is no audible benefit. What's the point in trying to replay sub and ultra sonic noises that humans cannot hear? All it does is create an uneccessarily large file.

Remember that we are taliking about music and what we can hear, anything outside of the range of our hearing is irrelevant.

I agree.

24bit files are used in studios when making the music because (for mathematical reasons) they're more convenient to edit. However as far as the musical playback is concerned 24bit and 16bit audio files will both sound exactly identical and therefore they both have exactly the same level of sound quality.

 

[Native_bon]

32 bit is the norm for studio work, it allows head room for editing without adding noise (quantisation) whilst the work is done.

Afterwards its mixed down to whatever bit rate file/disc is required, either 24 bit or 16 bit with 24 bit having less noise or higher S/N.

Dnt even go into 32bit float, cause u will just get so many even more confused.. Phew!!. I THNIK SOMETIMES ITS JUST BETTER TO LISTEN & LOOK AS THE STORM GOES ON.

 

[Native_bon]

I think we must all remember that the important thing (and the underlying message of this thread) is to avoid the awful audio compression which is ruining much of the newer music releases.

Audio compression on recordings, is used to reduce their dynamic range and make them sound louder. It's nothing to do with digital file compression which is used to make digital file sizes smaller.

There is no correlation between the two processes.

Perceived audio quality depends on an expert master recording, and has little to do with what bit-rate, or sampling rate, is used for the distribution version.

These facts have been clearly identified during the discussions of this topic, on this forum and others, and seem to be generally agreed by those with a technical understanding of these issues.

I do feel that Linn could help the cause by changing their sales techniques and information. There is no doubt that they provide some excellent quality recordings, but they are not helping by implying that high bit rate alone determines audio quality in the consumers' hands.

I have no doubt that Linn are competent to understand the issues, and they should take a lead in this case, and not allow themseles to be criticised because of poor marketing and sales information.

Just because a file is 24/192 format does not follow it must be 'high audio quality', it might be the most horribly compressed, poorly recorded, effort ever made, but sold at a high price as a premium product simply on the claim of '24bit'.

JC

Most sensable post on the whole thread. Most acurrate description of mastering music :clap:

 

[relocated]

Maybe I should have explained in more detail. Of course there was no digital recordings back then. What was meant ? Don’t think there was even a 24channel mixing desk back then which equates to the official recording being mastered today for 24bit. Hope that’s better for you.

I think you're getting the number of channels on the mixing desk confused with number of bits when encoding samples; they have nothing to do with one another.

Mirren Boy,

You clearly really don't know what you are talking about. Please do everyone, ESPECIALLY YOURSELF, a favour and bow out of this. You are, sadly, making a fool of yourself.

I suppose relocation wouldn't be something you'd consider Relocated? Leave the guy alone. One thing not to know about the finer points of an obscure topic 99%+ of us have little idea about in detail, another thing to show off our own lack of class. Live and learn.

Record Spot,

Thank you for your contribution. I do "live and learn" and if you ever become the arbiter of class then we all have a serious problem.

Learning is particularly difficult when some ill-informed, but noisy people, keep bleating on. If you have followed the whole of this thread, as I have, you would know that Mirren has been praising 24bit downloads and bagging out people, who actually know what they are talking about, from a position of clear ignorance. I have continued with this thread so that I can better understand about recording and replay in the digital domain and the apparent mismarketing of certain products. I am much wiser now than when I started. I have not been helped by anything Mirren Boy has had to say, or you for that matter.

"Leave the guy alone". If there were a way of messaging someone on here then I would have conveyed my message that way. As far as I know there isn't, so my appeal to him to stop making a fool of himself had to be done in the thread.

But congratulations for bringing the matter front and centre again, when it could have slept where it first lay.