Linn Free Hi Res Download

[Ambrose]

 

[Ambrose]

Lost my post!

There is a free hi res download daily up to christmas.

Chance to sample something different and see what hires is like.

Got a good dawm langstroth (never heard of) track which is nice. Getting a lot more bottom end presence and music is quite immersive.

 

[CnoEvil]

Yup.......and you've missed all the fun (post 6 and on, and on, and on):

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/better-mastered-music-could-be-on-the-way?page=6

Will be interesting to see how it all pans out, as Linn does have a case to answer....and the longer they leave it......

 

[steve_1979]

Will be interesting to see how it all pans out, as Linn does have a case to answer....and the longer they leave it......

I've just contacted Linn via their forum.

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&pid=230536#pid230536

 

[CnoEvil]

Will be interesting to see how it all pans out, as Linn does have a case to answer....and the longer they leave it......

I've just contacted Linn via their forum.

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=20029&pid=230536#pid230536

I saw that, and admire your tenacity.

 

[steve_1979]

I saw that, and admire your tenacity.

Thanks Cno.

I don't want to cause any forum unfriendliness there. I also expect that Linn are a good company and wouldn't want to cause them too much trouble but it's only fair that I share what I've discoverd and ask them about it.

 

[CnoEvil]

Thanks Cno.

I don't want to cause any forum unfriendliness there. I also expect that Linn are a good company and I wouldn't want to cause them too much trouble but it's only fair that I share what I've discoverd and ask them about it.

TBF I have always found your approach polite and far from confrontational.

Despite the scepticism about my tech ability, I seriously find the whole thing very daunting.....so I'm happy for you to do the hard work.

I am watching with interest.

Cno

 

[Overdose]

Replies given or not, I'd be very suprised if Linn were not already well aware of the question or questions raised, both here and elsewhere.

Situations like this would probably need time to produce the correctly worded response.

 

[CnoEvil]

Replies given or not, I'd be very suprised if Linn were not already well aware of the question or questions raised, both here and elsewhere.

Situations like this would probably need time to produce the correctly worded response.

Agreed.

They need to get this one right first time.....though it would be nice if they acknowledged Oldic's email.

 

[Ambrose]

Yup.......and you've missed all the fun (post 6 and on, and on, and on):

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/better-mastered-music-could-be-on-the-way?page=6

Will be interesting to see how it all pans out, as Linn does have a case to answer....and the longer they leave it......

Cripes!!!!!!!!!!!!! :doh:

Well that was some reading, as you guessed not been following thread LOL

It makes you very suspicious about the whole hires thing. Some recordings I have sound amazing on standard cd such as jethro tull 40th edition and the who whos next mca version 008811126926 (had imported and is very good) but cannot be sure if the mastering on 24 bit hi res is masked by the quality of the recording rather than hires making sound superior.

A few free downloads I have in hi res do all sound impressive (some more than others).

Did anyone compare the dawn langstroth versions on Linn DL out of interest?

Good on Steve for spotting anomolies, although I find it all confusing.

The thing that gets me the most is all the versions and re-releases of cds and varying differences and how the original ones seem to be better in some cases.

What is the opinions on Audio Fidelity? I have one gold 24k cd - dio holy diver and there is most definately more clarity here than the other 3 odd versions I have. Just wish there wasn't all this crap to filter through when all you want it to pay a fair(ish) price for a decent recording of the music you love.

Yes, I am an optimist!!!!!

Ambrose

 

[DavieCee]

Re Linn,

I contacted them questioning the mastering of The Rolling Stones - Grrr! and was told that they were simply using the files supplied by the record company and couldn't answer the question.

Therefore it sounds as if they are simply a middle man and it is the record companies that we have to pressurise but at least Linn had the courtesy to reply to the query. FWIW - Universal never replied to my e-mail. Read into that what you will.

 

[Anonymous]

Re Linn,

I contacted them questioning the mastering of The Rolling Stones - Grrr! and was told that they were simply using the files supplied by the record company and couldn't answer the question.

Therefore it sounds as if they are simply a middle man and it is the record companies that we have to pressurise but at least Linn had the courtesy to reply to the query. FWIW - Universal never replied to my e-mail. Read into that what you will.

There is no record shop in the country that sits down and analyzes band width and depth. However recordings can be returned as I have been reimbursed a good few times from HDtracks on some of the quality of their 24bit recordings.

However Linn ‘s own recordings are a different matter from the Linn music store. You won’t find a bad Linn recording all will be top notch recordings as they have one of the most advanced recording studios in Europe never mind the UK with a sting of awards.

 

[MajorFubar]

Certainly opened a hornets nest

I've been looking at Steve's Audacity screenshots with interest. I can only assume that Linn has tried to make the MP3 versions sound more at home on an average MP3 player, whose volume output is limited by European law and which are often listened to in noisy environments. If that's the case, Linn should at least be up-front about it on their website and explain that the two files are mastered differently, to appeal to what they perceive are different tastes and needs.

 

[eggontoast]

I can't personally see what all the fuss is about. It's nothing new for studio's to do different mixes depending on where they are used. They will quite often do a cd mix, radio mix etc. As far as this is concerned its simply an mp3 mix which would not be purchased by audiophile's but by someone who wants it for a portable audio device.

 

[CnoEvil]

I can't personally see what all the fuss is about. It's nothing new for studio's to do different mixes depending on where they are used. They will quite often do a cd mix, radio mix etc. As far as this is concerned its simply an mp3 mix which would not be purchased by audiophile's but by someone who wants it for a portable audio device.

I think the issue is this......how much of the difference heard is down to the resolution, and how much is down to the way it was mixed. ie. Does 24 bit stand on it's own two feet, or does it need the "lesser" bit rate alternatives altered to make it sound better.

 

[steve_1979]

All of the different Linn files that I've listened to have sounded exellent. Even the MP3 versions that had the dynamic range compressed still sound very good quality.

When comparing the files visually it's easy to spot any differences between them but when comparing them just by listening it's very difficult to tell them apart. If it wasn't for the apparent difference in the volume levels then I doubt that I'd have ever noticed that they're not the same.

 

[Anonymous]

Linn cannot change in anyway recordings from other Record labels it’s against the law.

 

[steve_1979]

Linn have just replied to oldrics Email:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Linn records generates MP3s of all its titles using a generic MP3
converter
similar to that in Dbpoweramp and other similar programs. We use the same
converter for all the titles available from Linn Records.

However one of the issues with MP3, (despite the fact that the person who
is
asserting we doctored our files is also claiming that that his MP3 is
identical to the CD version) is that whatever MP3 coder you use, they
all
react differently to different programme material. So depending on the
music
you are compressing ( since conversion to MP3 is a form of lossy
compression), some coding algorithms will give better results than others.

This is not generally regarded as contentious, in fact there are now a
number of products such as
http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugins/products/pro-codec.htm which
enables mixing engineers to listen to the effects of different flavours
of
MP3 etc while they are mastering.

Of course there is an easier solution, which is not to apply lossy
compression

Best Regards

Colin
Customer Support
Linn Products Limited
Tel: +44 (0) 141 307 7777
Fax: +44 (0) 141 644 4262
Email: helpline@linn.co.uk
Forums:　　http://forums.linn.co.uk

anyway, what Colin writes does not tally with Steve's experiment. he did create an mp3 conversion with soundwave identical to the 24 bit original :? . back to you guys.

 

[steve_1979]

What Linn are saying there doesn't really make much sense. Why would converting a FLAC file into an MP3 make such a radical difference to the volume and dynamic range as is seen in the Linn MP3 version?

Unless Linn are trying to say that the MP3 encoder that they use is so ineffective at it's job it's not even capable of creating an MP3 that has the same volume and dynamic range as the original file. Considering that Linn promote themselves as offering high quality music files then you'd expect that they'd be using an MP3 encoder that's at least capable of doing its job properly.

To show you what I mean have a look a the pictures below which show three different versions of the track 'Oranges and Apples'.

The top one is the original Linn FLAC file . The middle one is an MP3 which I converted myself using LAME and as you can see it looks identical to the original FLAC version. The bottom one is the downloaded Linn MP3 which as you can see is very different to the FLAC version and there is absolutely no need for these differences to exist.

Linn downloaded 24 bit lossless FLAC

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

My MP3 converted from the original Linn FLAC file

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/MyMP3.jpg

Linn downloaded MP3

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff512/steve__1979/LinnMP3.jpg

 

[Craig M.]

Steve, I know exactly what I think of Linns statement and I'd like some for my roses. It must take quite some effort to find an mp3 encoder that bad. I have no respect for a company that is happy to release mp3s of that quality and follow it up with a statement like that. Very, very, very poor.

 

[steve_1979]

It must take quite some effort to find an mp3 encoder that bad.

I very much doubt that any MP3 encoder is so bad (or even close to being so bad) that it will change the volume and compress the dynamic range of music to the extent that is seen in the Linn MP3 version of the track 'Oranges and Apples'.

Maybe Linn or someone else here could point out to me an MP3 encoder that it will change the volume and compress the dynamic range of music when it converts a FLAC file into an MP3?

 

[MajorFubar]

Very strange! I'd have respected their answer more if they'd said what I expected them to say, ie that their lossless files and their MP3s are aimed at different consumers and are mastered to suit. No Steve, I can't think of any MP3 encoders which change the DR (compression) of a file automatically. I know of software which offers automatic peak-normalisation, but peak normalisation doesn't change the DR of a recording.

I think you've got to be thanked for all the work you've put into this, but now I'm not sure what it's telling us.

 

[CnoEvil]

Very strange! I'd have respected their answer more if they'd said what I expected them to say, ie that their lossless files and their MP3s are aimed at different consumers and are mastered to suit. No Steve, I can't think of any MP3 encoders which change the DR (compression) of a file automatically. I know of software which offers automatic peak-normalisation, but peak normalisation doesn't change the DR of a recording.

I think you've got to be thanked for all the work you've put into this, but now I'm not sure what it's telling us.

My simplistic reasoning tells me that the main difference (between Linn's MP3 and Steve's MP3 version) is mostly volume, as the two are probably indistinguishable from each other, when played at the same level......is there anything fundamentally wrong with this ie. if the quality hasn't suffered as a result?

 

[jcbrum]

I think the issue is this......how much of the difference heard is down to the resolution, and how much is down to the way it was mixed. ie. Does 24 bit stand on it's own two feet, or does it need the "lesser" bit rate alternatives altered to make it sound better.

The important issue is that Linn are selling 24bit files at a premium price on the implication that they are higher audio quality because they are 24bit.

I, for one, am sure that human hearing cannot distinguish any benefit of 24bit, over 16bit in the replay only domain. Creating recordings digitally is a different matter, which does not apply when simply replaying a file.

I doubt that anyone can audibly distinguish lossless digital compression either, and probably not high-rate MP3 or AAC lossy compression also.

But if someone is supplied with an MP3 file which sounds audibly different to a 24bit example of supposedly the same recording, it does suggest, to me, manipulation for marketing purposes.

JC

 

[Overdose]

But why would the mp3 files all exhibit different types of compression 'artifacts'? Would an mp3 encoder not give a consistent signature of artifacts?

If the encoder used is so arbitrary in the results of its operation, would not a better encoder be wise, or do all encoders give random artifacts during compression?

And also, as Steve has said, why when a FLAC file is compressed, do the two seem identical in content and construction, but not when taken as is from the web site?

I wouldn't know. I don't work in a studio, respected or otherwise, but I am familiar with rigorous quality systems and these would seem to fail whatever quality process produced them. That or the quality system allows for wide margins of error.