Better mastered music could be on the way!

[jacobmorrison]

Fascinating stuff, particularly the analysis of the Linn sampler. I was all geared up to purchase a streamer capable of 24/192 as I'm still able to download stuff from HDTracks, but I was curious so I compared a 16/44 flac backup of my old CD of Massive Attack's Blue Lines to the new 24/96 flac that's just come out, both streamed via my Oppo through a Musical Fidelity VDACII and piped through my thoroughly run-in Fidelity Audio HPA100 headphone amp and AKG Q701 headphones. Huge differences, night and day. Then I downsampled the new 24/96 flac down to 16/44 using "Switch" and streamed it through the same setup. I went backwards and forwards expecting to hear something but I drew a blank. I tried the same thing with Linda Ronstadt's "What's new", old CD/Flac to remaster then downsampled remaster. Exactly the same pattern, huge benefit with the remaster but nothing between the high res remaster and the downsampled one. I suspect if my setup had a "Studio Remaster" light that came on when streaming the 24/96 I could probably convince myself I could hear a difference, but without it I had to conclude that either my own ears were incapable of discerning the difference, or my set up was incapable of resolving the difference. If it's my ears then it's not worth spending more money, if it's my setup then the benefits are beyond my own budget. It's obvious to me that if it's mastered well then the benefits are audible, but then I guess that was the point of this thread in the first case.

 

[Anonymous]

Fascinating stuff, particularly the analysis of the Linn sampler. I was all geared up to purchase a streamer capable of 24/192 as I'm still able to download stuff from HDTracks, but I was curious so I compared a 16/44 flac backup of my old CD of Massive Attack's Blue Lines to the new 24/96 flac that's just come out, both streamed via my Oppo through a Musical Fidelity VDACII and piped through my thoroughly run-in Fidelity Audio HPA100 headphone amp and AKG Q701 headphones. Huge differences, night and day. Then I downsampled the new 24/96 flac down to 16/44 using "Switch" and streamed it through the same setup. I went backwards and forwards expecting to hear something but I drew a blank. I tried the same thing with Linda Ronstadt's "What's new", old CD/Flac to remaster then downsampled remaster. Exactly the same pattern, huge benefit with the remaster but nothing between the high res remaster and the downsampled one. I suspect if my setup had a "Studio Remaster" light that came on when streaming the 24/96 I could probably convince myself I could hear a difference, but without it I had to conclude that either my own ears were incapable of discerning the difference, or my set up was incapable of resolving the difference. If it's my ears then it's not worth spending more money, if it's my setup then the benefits are beyond my own budget. It's obvious to me that if it's mastered well then the benefits are audible, but then I guess that was the point of this thread in the first case.

Have down loaded quite a lot from HDTracks which is a hit and miss. All their high resolution tracks have been taken from a copy of a SACD they have a license to do this . Anyway down loaded a couple of 24bit Talking Head albums which did not sound right. Have remasters of the same album on CD which are way better than the 24bit from HD tracks. After playing tracks back to back from both albums I discovered HDtracks had copied the 5.1 surround mix which obviously does not work right in stereo. Wrote to HDtracks about this and was given a full refund for both talking head albums. Another bad 24bit recording is Nirvana Nivermind to me it’s shocking. Have burnt Mobile Fidelity gold CD of Nevermind which knocks the socks off 24bit Nivermind. However I have plenty other 24bit that are a much more enjoyable to listen to over the CD versions. Linn’s own recordings are very reliable they have one of the most modern recording studios in the UK up in Glasgow

 

[Craig M.]

Back in 2010, Linn became aware of 24/96 being a problem from Arts (initially with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto, discovered much like this). The original recording was fine, but somewhere in the "translation" to Linn, the resolution got upsampled from 16/44.....something to do with incorrect filtering, I think.

All customers were informed, and the Arts Catalogue withdrawn from sale until checked.

You'd think then, given they've had the same problem in the past, that they'd be more careful, especially as the free downloads are probably being offered as a promotional tool to entice people to buy their offerings. I think this thread now highlights the benefit of testing things for yourself, and not relying on someone with something to sell to look out for your interests.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

Linn is a very open company. Unless it is an actual Linn recording they have no legal right to change anything in the recordings. So I would suggest you send an e-mail to Linn, can guarantee you will be given an answer to your question. It’s a strong accusation. So lets see what Linn have to say

I would also suggest this.

Back in 2010, Linn became aware of 24/96 being a problem from Arts (initially with Bach's Brandenburg Concerto, discovered much like this). The original recording was fine, but somewhere in the "translation" to Linn, the resolution got upsampled from 16/44.....something to do with incorrect filtering, I think.

All customers were informed, and the Arts Catalogue withdrawn from sale until checked.

@Steve 1979

If this isn't a Linn Records recording, it would be worth doing the same thing, with one that is....would be interesting to find if this is a rare case, or an endemic problem.

FWIW I have found Linn's own 320 kbps recordings to sound better than most.

BTW. Good job

done. let's now see what Linn have to say.

 

[Anonymous]

Good man Oldric should be intresting

 

[steve_1979]

done. let's now see what Linn have to say.

Hopefully they'll be able to answer my three questions.

 

[CnoEvil]

I think this thread now highlights the benefit of testing things for yourself, and not relying on someone with something to sell to look out for your interests.

I agree with your sentiment......though at this stage, all we have is one (non-Linn production?) example. One swallow doesn't make a Summer, which btw doesn't mean it's excusable.

I too will be waiting with interest for the outcome, but I will be most surprised if Linn is deliberately setting out to hoodwink their customers. It's not their style, and goes completely against why they set up their own Record company in the first place....their standard has been too high, and won awards on the back of this.

At the money they charge, everything needs to be well above board.

 

[Craig M.]

done. let's now see what Linn have to say.

Hopefully they'll be able to answer my three questions.

A detailed response on how this could happen would be good. My understanding is it would require actions other than simply creating an mp3 version of the flac file.

 

[steve_1979]

I've just downloaded todays free song 'Symphonie Fantastique' from Linn in 24bit lossless FLAC and 320kbps MP3 formats.

When comparing the two files by listening to them they both sounded the same to my ears. When comparing the two files using Audacity it shows that the volume on the MP3 version has been very slightly reduced in comparison to the FLAC version.

This raises three questions:

1. It's easy to convert 24bit 192kHz lossless FLAC files into 320kbps MP3s that look and sound the same as the original FLAC file so why do Linns MP3 versions differ?

2. Why is the volume on todays MP3 file slightly reduced compared to the FLAC version?

3. Why was the dynamic range in yesterdays MP3 file compressed compared to the FLAC version?

Todays Linn 24 bit lossless FLAC file

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnday3flac.jpg

Todays Linn MP3 file

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnday3MP3.jpg

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

keep 'em coming steve. already waiting for the next episode. this is getting interesting.

 

[steve_1979]

A detailed response on how this could happen would be good. My understanding is it would require actions other than simply creating an mp3 version of the flac file.

Yes that's right. When simply converting a FLAC file into an MP3 file the volume and dynamic range of the music doesn't change. To change the volume or compress the dynamic range of the music in the converted MP3 file it would require additional actions to taken.

I do however feel that I should apologise to Linn for saying "Linn has deliberately mastered the MP3 version to sound different" in my post on page 7 of this thread. If I was able to edit that post I would like to remove the word "deliberately". It may have happened by accident and be a genuine mistake.

It would be very interesting to find out how this could have happened though.

 

[Anonymous]

A detailed response on how this could happen would be good. My understanding is it would require actions other than simply creating an mp3 version of the flac file.

Yes that's right. When simply converting a FLAC file into an MP3 file the volume and dynamic range of the music doesn't change. To change the volume or compress the dynamic range of the music in the converted MP3 file it would require additional actions to taken.

I do however feel that I should apologise to Linn for saying "Linn has deliberately mastered the MP3 version to sound different" in my post on page 7 of this thread. If I was able to edit that post I would like to remove the word "deliberately". It may have happened by accident and be a genuine mistake.

It would be very interesting to find out how this could have happened though.

I’ve been in touch with Linn a few times. Normally you recive a thank you for your e-mail and a message saying a member of staff will reply later. Have you had that ? Your not to know it’s a Linn recording when we download music it is for exactly that I for one don’t look to see what label the artist is on.

 

[richardw42]

It shouldn't matter one bit if its a Linn recording or not. If they retail it they should know what they're selling.

Its in these companies interests to perpetuate the myth? And profit from customers quest for higher quality.

 

[Anonymous]

It shouldn't matter one bit if its a Linn recording or not. If they retail it they should know what they're selling.

Its in these companies interests to perpetuate the myth? And profit from customers quest for higher quality.

Are you on Drugs ?

Q - Hi Johnny where do you work

A – Quality control at Linn.

Q- Wow must be great checking out all the HIFI gear

A- No , I sit an measure every album sold on the Linn music store to make sure every album and every track is as it should be.

Just like the guy’s at HMV who sit and play every album in every format to make sure they are ok.

 

[relocated]

It shouldn't matter one bit if its a Linn recording or not. If they retail it they should know what they're selling.

Its in these companies interests to perpetuate the myth? And profit from customers quest for higher quality.

Are you on Drugs ?

Q - Hi Johnny where do you work

A – Quality control at Linn.

Q- Wow must be great checking out all the HIFI gear

A- No , I sit an measure every album sold on the Linn music store to make sure every album and every track is as it should be.

Just like the guy’s at HMV who sit and play every album in every format to make sure they are ok.

Congratulations Mirren Boy. :clap: :clap:

You have managed to destroy any credibility that you might have had. Although none was apparent to me. :hand:

 

[Anonymous]

It shouldn't matter one bit if its a Linn recording or not. If they retail it they should know what they're selling.

Its in these companies interests to perpetuate the myth? And profit from customers quest for higher quality.

Are you on Drugs ?

Q - Hi Johnny where do you work

A – Quality control at Linn.

Q- Wow must be great checking out all the HIFI gear

A- No , I sit an measure every album sold on the Linn music store to make sure every album and every track is as it should be.

Just like the guy’s at HMV who sit and play every album in every format to make sure they are ok.

Congratulations Mirren Boy. :clap: :clap:

You have managed to destroy any credibility that you might have had. Although none was apparent to me. :hand:

You sem to think record stores and online download stores are checking every album for it’s bandwith. Honestly I have never read so much nonsense on a hifi forum before.

 

[Phileas]

I have never read so much nonsense on a hifi forum before.

What, not even this one?

 

[steve_1979]

Here are another pair of pictures that you may find interesting. They show the FLAC and MP3 versions of the track 'Oranges and Apples' from two days ago (the one on page 7 of this thread). This is the track that had the dynamic range compressed on the MP3 version.

The original pictures that I posted on page 7 were zoomed into a 1 second long section of the song. These new pictures show the entire length of the song. The red lines on the MP3 version show where the peaks have reached the maximum possible volume and have been clipped.

FLAC version

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnday2FLACfull.jpg

MP3 version

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Linnday2MP3full.jpg

 

[steve_1979]

Here are todays Linn downloads. The track is called 'The Missing Plutonium'.

As you can see from these pictures the two files are different again today. The FLAC version has several seconds of silence at the beginning and end but the MP3 version has had these silent sections removed. Apart from that the two tracks are the same. They are both at the same volume level and they both have a matching amount of dynamic range.

IMO this is actually a sensible way of editing the original 24bit FLAC studio version before converting it into an MP3. Just cropping the silent sections off the beginning and end but leaving the rest of the sound exactly as it is.

What does seem odd though, is that over the past three days all of the MP3 tracks have been edited but in different ways. The first had the dynamic range compressed, the second had the volume altered and the third had the silent sections cropped. :?

Wednesdays 24 bit FLAC

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Day4FLAC.jpg

Wednesdays 320kbps MP3

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/Day4MP3.jpg

 

[dariushifi]

I think WHF forum found its own quality controller. Well done Steve.

If only your findings could be made more public and companies involved actually took any notice.

 

[the record spot]

I have never read so much nonsense on a hifi forum before.

What, not even this one?

Whatever I've seen on here has generally been from a good place. Generally. All fora have their issues, but compared to some I can think of, most of the folk on here probably don't need to take a good hard look at themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

Oldric , It would be so easy for me to go online and pick experts posts on 24bit being superior to 16bit just as you have against. Funny enough the ones who say 24bit is no better than 16bit are people who don’t use the format and only go on what they read. ( if they are honest )I’m not here to convince or argue each to their own but never forget let your ears do the testing.

I am aware of many opinions and subjective impressions that say 24-bit is better, but objective studies with blind tests and carefully setup and volume-matched comparisons, with music rather than test tones, are scant indeed.

I doubt it is for lack of trying.

I have many hi-res recordings but when I downsample to 16/44 and compare them blind they sound the same.

When I run SACD output through a 16/44 ADC and DAC conversion it sounds the same (though with two conversions here you could expect it to sound fractionally worse). Perhaps there is someone out there or some system that would enable a difference to be heard, but if it exists, it is very very small.

Tim

 

[Anonymous]

duplicate deleted

 

[Anonymous]

Oldric , It would be so easy for me to go online and pick experts posts on 24bit being superior to 16bit just as you have against. Funny enough the ones who say 24bit is no better than 16bit are people who don’t use the format and only go on what they read. ( if they are honest )I’m not here to convince or argue each to their own but never forget let your ears do the testing.

I am aware of many opinions and subjective impressions that say 24-bit is better, but objective studies with blind tests and carefully setup and volume-matched comparisons, with music rather than test tones, are scant indeed.

I doubt it is for lack of trying.

I have many hi-res recordings but when I downsample to 16/44 and compare them blind they sound the same.

When I run SACD output through a 16/44 ADC and DAC conversion it sounds the same (though with two conversions here you could expect it to sound fractionally worse). Perhaps there is someone out there or some system that would enable a difference to be heard, but if it exists, it is very very small.

Tim

I agree there is an issue the graph above shows that. However I firmly believe good 24bit recordings are out there going by my own collection. Have also written on this thread about the duff ones I have from HDtracks such as Talking Heads and Nirvana.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree there is an issue the graph above shows that. However I firmly believe good 24bit recordings are out there going by my own collection. Have also written on this thread about the duff ones I have from HDtracks such as Talking Heads and Nirvana.

Agreed, there are lots of good 24 bit recordings out there. The only thing I doubt is whether they sound any better than they would at 16/44!

Tim