PDA

View Full Version : Linn Studio Master Recordings



jcbrum
11-05-2008, 23:44
Did you see my thread on pfm today about Linn Studio Master recordings and how to play them? It lasted two pages and Tony L deleted the lot. I had lots of fan mail and messages of thanks and support, for the help and advice I gave.

Steve Toy
12-05-2008, 02:30
Whilst we'd like you to share the information with us, this is not the place to comment on Tony L's decision to delete the thread on pfm.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 07:39
Whilst we'd like you to share the information with us, this is not the place to comment on Tony L's decision to delete the thread on pfm.

Oh No, of course, I agree entirely.

If you, or anyone else would like to see the info it contained, how is it best posted ? please advise ?

Marco
12-05-2008, 08:37
Hi JC,

Just rewrite what you wrote on PFM and post it here - simple. Then we'll judge it on its merit, or otherwise :)

I'm sure we'll have no problem with the content, as long as like Steve says, you're not doing it just to have a dig at Tony (he and PFM must not be mentioned in derogatory terms) or it's not just blatant slagging off of Linn. The subject matter and intent behind the proposed discussion must be of a constructive nature.

I look forward to reading your views in due course.

Marco.

SolidState
12-05-2008, 09:27
JC,

Why worry about itunes trying to play FLAC when there is http://cogx.org/ which plays ALL the lossless formats and more. itunes is overbloated and outdated.

SolidState
12-05-2008, 17:36
JC,

Like you refer to vinyl/valves as legacy, itunes is no different, it is antiquated. Maybe it's time for you to move with the times than to preach to others. just some food for thought.

Marco
12-05-2008, 17:45
Bloody hell, JC. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through all that! I meant for you to provide a condensed version of the thread which centred around your thoughts on the matter.

If you wish me to comment you will have to edit your post and provide some kind of succinct and readable summary of the thread in question.

Also, I sincerely hope (I didn't bother reading your last contribution for reasons specified) that you haven't been referring to valves and vinyl again as "legacy" equipment on here because as you know fine and well that kind of nonsense talk is banned and part of the deal we struck before I allowed you back.

*Edit - I've just quickly scanned through the reams of text and noticed this little 'pearl of wisdom', then quickly switched off and ignored the rest!


For those who are beginning to see the light and move away from legacy hifi and museum grade equipment.


Why do you insist on writing that kind of derogatory and disrespectful nonsense, even on other forums??

{Shakes head in despair and disbelief}

Marco.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 17:47
SS, sorry I don't think you're right, iTunes is in it's seventh major revision, and the sixth update of that ther is no other program that will do what iTunes does, you're not being factual.

I'm not preaching, I'm helping those who want to understand the issues, if you don't like the thread don't read it. I've posted it because several people asked to see it, inc Marco and Steve.

There are several firms now including Linn, Naim, and Reference Recordings, who are saying their very highest quality music can only be played on a computer, because the resolution, dynamic range, and signal to noise ratio, is better than cd or vinyl.

It's them saying it not me SS !

AND who said you couldn't use a valve amp and your favourite speakers ? not me ! you just need a computer to act as the source.

Stop hasseling me needlessly, before you've understood, SS !

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 17:52
Bloody hell, JC. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through all that! I meant for you to provide a condensed version of the thread which centred around your thoughts on the matter.

If you wish me to comment you will have to edit your post and provide some kind of succinct and readable summary of the thread in question.

Also, I sincerely hope (I didn't bother reading your last contribution for reasons specified) that you haven't been referring to valves and vinyl again as "legacy" equipment on here because as you know fine and well that kind of nonsense talk is banned and part of the deal we struck before I allowed you back.

Marco.

It's ok Marco, I only said it was "legacy" stuff on pfm, I just pointed out to SS that it's perfectly ok to use valve kit.

I think the thread is very, very, important and I'm really not trying to shit stir. I think you should carefully read the thread when you've got five mins, with an open mind, and tell me what you think about getting better sound by using higher quality recordings.

SolidState
12-05-2008, 17:55
JC,

Looks like you enjoy twisting and turning issues to your advantage.

Well let me break it down further. You have gone on about sound quality and how itunes is the next best thing to sliced bread. My point is itunes purely on sound quality is antiquated, of course it's feature rich etc, at the cost of sound quality.

You and your sidekick ashley hark on about how great computer based audio is etc, well yes it is, but not via itunes. You want better sound quality then I suggest you and your sidekick look at foobar. Foobar is better than itunes on sound quality, and the nearest thing for a mac good as foobar is cogx.

On final note i'm a mac user too, but i happen to have an open mind about what will give me the best sound quality using a computer, unlike you and your sidekick, who's primary factor is lifestyle marketing.

PS My digital source is a squeezebox.

Marco
12-05-2008, 17:58
I think you need to deal with this first, JC, because it's annoying the hell out of me and no doubt many others. No wonder Tony L acted the way he did!!


*Edit - I've just quickly scanned through the reams of text and noticed this little 'pearl of wisdom' of yours, then quickly switched off and ignored the rest!


For those who are beginning to see the light and move away from legacy hifi and museum grade equipment.


Why do you insist on writing that kind of derogatory and disrespectful nonsense, even on other forums??

{Shakes head in despair and disbelief}

Marco.

Steve Toy
12-05-2008, 18:19
JC,

I've deleted your transcript above because a direct quote of a thread pulled over on another forum is not admissible. I guess we should have made it clearer that it was just your viewpoint on this matter that we were looking for.

anthonyTD
12-05-2008, 18:58
Bloody hell, JC. I don't have the time or the inclination to go through all that! I meant for you to provide a condensed version of the thread which centred around your thoughts on the matter.

If you wish me to comment you will have to edit your post and provide some kind of succinct and readable summary of the thread in question.

Also, I sincerely hope (I didn't bother reading your last contribution for reasons specified) that you haven't been referring to valves and vinyl again as "legacy" equipment on here because as you know fine and well that kind of nonsense talk is banned and part of the deal we struck before I allowed you back.

*Edit - I've just quickly scanned through the reams of text and noticed this little 'pearl of wisdom', then quickly switched off and ignored the rest!



Why do you insist on writing that kind of derogatory and disrespectful nonsense, even on other forums??

{Shakes head in despair and disbelief}

Marco.
i suspect
because he has never heard any decent valve/tube audio or real hi fi full stop,
hence digital must have seemed like a god send after listening to the tripe he must have been used to, sorry guys but he started it "again"
anthony...:steam:

Marco
12-05-2008, 19:10
Hi Anthony,

His comments were written on another forum, and JC has assured me that he'll be mindful of what he's writing here in future and how others may interpret his views. I think the issue that’s important here are the observations which were made about the Linn Studio Master Recordings and how they might impact on how we listen to music :)

Marco.

anthonyTD
12-05-2008, 19:30
Hi Anthony,

His comments were written on another forum, and JC has assured me that he'll be mindful of what he's writing here in future and how others may interpret his views. I think the issue that’s important here are the observations which were made about the Linn Studio Master Recordings and how they might impact on how we listen to music :)

Marco.

marco,
i understand and respect your explanation, but the truth is' the guy will always try to turn everything around to his way of seeing things, he will never stop trying to find ways of rubbishing everyone elses views and findings, the sad thing is, even if you sat him down and proved to him how good some of this "museum fit" kit is, he would not allow himself to believe it!
i acknowledge and agree that we all have to move on as far as new formats of music retrival is concerned, but as with most of us with an open mind on here have found, if you use your own ears, it will allow you to discover equipment and the partnering of equipment that in turn can yield an end result that can perform sonically absolutely astounding!
anthony...:)

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 20:51
Anthony, with respect, and the best of intentions, I think your post is naive and uninformed.

I was making and using valve amps 40 years ago, and am fully familiar with the concepts used in their manufacture and use today.

It is precisely my open mind which has allowed me to see the improvements other types can provide, along with of course, my ears.

But none of that matters since we are not talking about amps in this thread we are talking about sources.

Linn Studio Master Recordings, Naim, and Reference Recordings HRx format are all now available and all say these recordings will outperform CD and Vinyl, when played from a suitable source.

To quote Reference Recordings -

" Advances in the Art:
High-speed data handling and powerful processing are fundamental to contemporary media. Technology is replacing old methods, which had to compromise sound in order to fit the recording to the early release formats. Consumer High Fidelity began in the 1950’s with professional equipment that was state of art for its time. High-resolution systems are emerging from a similar development path."

Their words not mine.

Here are a couple of links for those who wish to learn more.

http://www.referencerecordings.com/HrxKeith.asp

Linn say ........." Studio Master FLAC

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

Again their words not mine.

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-formats.aspx

These very high resolution files are far higher in quality than can be obtained from a turn table or a cd player and the only source which can play them is a computer. Even if it is dressed up as an expensive "media server".

Pay particular to the guidance notes given by Linn and RR as to how to reproduce these recordings.

I hope those of you with an open mind, Anthony, will find this topic interesting.

By employing these techniques it is possible to make big advances in sound quality from home hifi, and at low cost.

Ashley and I are convinced that this level of performance from our own hifi kit is totally unbeatable.

Regards JC.

Iain Sinclair
12-05-2008, 20:56
Ashley and I are convinced that this level of performance from our own hifi kit is totally unbeatable..

Do you have one speaker each?

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:01
JC,

Why worry about itunes trying to play FLAC when there is http://cogx.org/ which plays ALL the lossless formats and more. itunes is overbloated and outdated.

I am afraid you are mistaken and perhaps a bit out of date SS, I tried cog but it was useless as it cannot play high resolution files like these.

In case you accuse me again of incompetence or prejudice or even ignorance here is Linn's comment,

"FLAC Studio Masters play in Play and VLC, but not in Cog or MPlayer. It is however very easy to transcode FLAC to several other lossless formats."

Translation was the subject of the thread which Steve saw fit to delete, and it's absolutely crucial to the use of these very high resolution formats on each persons favourite kit.

You will want to know about this SS.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:03
Do you have one speaker each?

For playing recordings made prior to about 1958, - yes !

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:09
Just in case you all think I'm just winding you up, here's an example of the sort of kind comments I received from the members of another forum which Steve doesn't want me to mention.

"" Your deleted thread
Hi JC

Sorry to see the locking, then deletion, of your recent thread. I hope you stay on, because you have helped me out lots. I welcome your contributions here.

Regards, Andy "

Marco
12-05-2008, 21:10
These very high resolution files are far higher in quality than can be obtained from a turn table or a cd player and the only source which can play them is a computer. Even if it is dressed up as an expensive "media server".


Interesting, JC. I remain open-minded as ever, but the final arbiter (as always) will be what my own ears tell me, not those belonging to anyone else.

The only way to ascertain if your assertions, and those of Linn, etc, are correct would be to conduct a listening test with both the traditional formats and this new technology playing the same music in a familiar system. If it sounds better then it *is* better, if it doesn't, then it *isn't* - simple. This will always be the criterion with which I judge hi-fi equipment, and also existing recording techniques/methods of reproducing recorded music.

I tend not to be overly influenced by what 'experts' say or by 'facts & figures'. The proof of the pudding, as always, is in the listening :)

Marco.

SolidState
12-05-2008, 21:15
"FLAC Studio Masters play in Play and VLC, but not in Cog or MPlayer. It is however very easy to transcode FLAC to several other lossless formats."

.

JC,

Just because linn files don't play in cogx, it makes cogx useless?

This is akin to saying you can only play vinyl on an LP12, because linn says so.

Your's and Ashley's reasoning is nothing short of total bollox.

anthonyTD
12-05-2008, 21:18
Anthony, with respect, and the best of intentions, I think your post is naive and uninformed.

I was making and using valve amps 40 years ago, and am fully familiar with the concepts used in their manufacture and use today.

It is precisely my open mind which has allowed me to see the improvements other types can provide, along with of course, my ears.

But none of that matters since we are not talking about amps in this thread we are talking about sources.

Linn Studio Master Recordings, Naim, and Reference Recordings HRx format are all now available and all say these recordings will outperform CD and Vinyl, when played from a suitable source.

To quote Reference Recordings -

" Advances in the Art:
High-speed data handling and powerful processing are fundamental to contemporary media. Technology is replacing old methods, which had to compromise sound in order to fit the recording to the early release formats. Consumer High Fidelity began in the 1950’s with professional equipment that was state of art for its time. High-resolution systems are emerging from a similar development path."

Their words not mine.

Here are a couple of links for those who wish to learn more.

http://www.referencerecordings.com/HrxKeith.asp

Linn say ........." Studio Master FLAC

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

Again their words not mine.

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-formats.aspx

These very high resolution files are far higher in quality than can be obtained from a turn table or a cd player and the only source which can play them is a computer. Even if it is dressed up as an expensive "media server".

Pay particular to the guidance notes given by Linn and RR as to how to reproduce these recordings.

I hope those of you with an open mind, Anthony, will find this topic interesting.

By employing these techniques it is possible to make big advances in sound quality from home hifi, and at low cost.

Ashley and I are convinced that this level of performance from our own hifi kit is totally unbeatable.

Regards JC.

jc,
i have already acknowledged many times on this forum that i find you very informative and technicaly competent at times, that is not in question, its the way you conduct your research, and the reasons behind it that are very questionable! :(
:)

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:19
It's not bollox, I want to play these Linn files because they are very good indeed ! what's wrong with that ?

Can't I choose to use something other than cog ? especially since cog doesn't work ?

If you don't like this thread, have a go on a different one and be happy.

SolidState
12-05-2008, 21:24
JC,

As it happens I like this thread, otherwise I wouldn't be replying to you.

Why do you keep twisting what I have said so far.

You came on and made claims about legacy equipment, not me, and all I said was itunes is not at the cutting edge of sound quality.

How hard is it for you understand that itunes doesn't play FLAC, in fact you've been told so on another forum. Yet for you and Ashley the sun shines out of itunes rear end.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:25
jc,
i have already acknowledged many times on this forum that i find you very informative and technicaly competent at times, that is not in question, its the way you conduct your research, and the reasons behind it that are! :(
:)

Ha Ha What are you ? the research police ? and my reasons are to get better sound quality. I also enjoy tackling technology which others find difficult to come to terms with.

I'd rather be in the vanguard than the arse-end, but this is no reflection on you. I know you are an excellent designer and manufacturer of valve amps, and I'm sure that when the time comes you will just as easily gain interest and expertise in leading edge digital systems.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:28
JC,

As it happens I like this thread, otherwise I wouldn't be replying to you.

Why do you keep twisting what I have said so far.

You came on and made claims about legacy equipment, not me, and all I said was itunes is not at the cutting edge of sound quality.

How hard is it for you understand that itunes doesn't play FLAC, in fact you've been told so on another forum. Yet for you and Ashley the sun shines out of itunes rear end.

SS, I know perfectly well that iTunes doesn't play FLAC, but it's easy to alter that if you know how !

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:34
I do think it worth briefly defining this term " legacy equipment". It's not derogatory, it just means equipment from an earlier age, which has now been superceded by later preferred designs. It was not invented by me and is in widespread use in the technology sector.

However Marco says that some of you don't understand the "jargon" usage and are offended by it because you see it as some kind of slight, so I will endeavor to convey the meaning in other terms if possible.

I have deleted the use of the term earlier in this thread.

anthonyTD
12-05-2008, 21:34
Ha Ha What are you ? the research police ? and my reasons are to get better sound quality. I also enjoy tackling technology which others find difficult to come to terms with.

I'd rather be in the vanguard than the arse-end, but this is no reflection on you. I know you are an excellent designer and manufacturer of valve amps, and I'm sure that when the time comes you will just as easily gain interest and expertise in leading edge digital systems.
no police jc, just an observation!:lol:

SolidState
12-05-2008, 21:35
JC,

I've been a mac user for over 10 years, and my only gripe with apple is their reluctance to support FLAC natively in itunes and ipod, people shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party plugins for it, afterall FLAC is opensource unlike MP3, so why their relectance?

Also linn and naim have ventured into HD based systems only recently, yet squeezebox was there before them. I never hear you go on about squeezebox, it's always AVI, itunes and now linn for some odd reason.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 21:50
I tend not to be overly influenced by what 'experts' say or by 'facts & figures'.
Marco.

Marco, this cannot be true, .... for if it was you would find it almost impossible to learn anything new !

...... or, perhaps it is true ?

I have met and 'talked' briefly with Stephen Hawking at Imperial college, London. I would have felt very silly if I had said that to him.

;) JC.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 22:05
JC,

I've been a mac user for over 10 years, and my only gripe with apple is their reluctance to support FLAC natively in itunes and ipod, people shouldn't have to rely on 3rd party plugins for it, afterall FLAC is opensource unlike MP3, so why their relectance?

Also linn and naim have ventured into HD based systems only recently, yet squeezebox was there before them. I never hear you go on about squeezebox, it's always AVI, itunes and now linn for some odd reason.

Well to take your points one at a time.

The formats made available by Apple is governed by the music publishers and copyright holders, not Apple. They are simply the re-sellers, and very successful too. They now sell more pre-recorded music than anybody else in the world, on any format.

True that Linn and Naim are recent entrants but RR has been a leading light for many years. I beleive that Linn and Naim have seen the light and realize that unless they get into current technology they might as well pack up now, because they aren't selling enough of the legacy, er, no not that term. er, older technologies to stay in business. When was the last time you bought a brand new system from either of them ?

Squeeze box doesn't hack it either at 24 bit 192 kHz, my mac does !

The Linn bit that interests me is the new very high resolution format of their recordings. I don't need their hardware at all, and anyway it's all bought in from expert sources, - like me, and AVI ! (but not us actually, others instead) ;)

Marco
12-05-2008, 22:07
LOL. I read opinions from 'experts' all the time and am very receptive to new ideas and technology with hi-fi, and also many other things. Ultimately, though, in terms of my hi-fi system, I'm the best judge of what is better or not, and this applies to other people too with their systems.

If we all just automatically believed what the 'experts' told us was right then we would be nothing but mindless sheep. Fortunately I'm experienced and strong-willed enough to form my own opinions about hi-fi and anything else in life. Experience tells me that what we're told is the best is not always necessarily so. I could give numerous examples of this in the past, so forgive me if I remain sceptical about the quality of these new high resolution files and don't simply rush out and buy the necessary software or replay ancillaries solely on the basis of what some 'experts' are saying ;)

Marco.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 22:14
LOL. Fortunately I'm experienced and strong-willed enough to form my own opinions about hi-fi and anything else in life.
Marco.

And, of course, never, ever, get it wrong ;) :lol:

If you're so f...ing clever why aren't you ........ (insert what ever goal you like)

I have got to knock off for a while, as today's job list is as yet un-finished.

see you later, further down. :) JC.

SolidState
12-05-2008, 22:17
Well to take your points one at a time.

The formats made available by Apple is governed by the music publishers and copyright holders, not Apple.



Apple launched itunes long before they started the online music store, and what have publishers and copyright holders got anything to do with a codec on a software that plays music, oh and not forgetting the ipod, which is a hardware music playback device like any other mobile digital player?
There are other online music stores who offer FLAC downloads.

Marco
12-05-2008, 22:35
And, of course, never, ever, get it wrong ;) :lol:

If you're so f...ing clever why aren't you ........ (insert what ever goal you like)


It's not a matter of being clever. Of course I get things wrong the same as anyone else does. But I think it's important that you stay true to your own judgement criteria, and not be unduly influenced by what others think. Your hi-fi system at home is after all for your benefit, no-one else's, so therefore in that respect it's only your opinion that matters.

At the end of the day, there is no 'perfect' hi-fi system or way or enjoying recorded music. Human beings are not robots and so aren't slaves to logic. Other emotions are equally or if not more important when it comes to enjoying music. The fact is people listen differently and so have different priorities with what they want from a hi-fi system, therefore there is no set 'recipe' or one true way to achieve success.

This is why applying solely scientific criteria and reasoning when building one's hi-fi system is a futile exercise, as the end result heard and enjoyed by the only person that matters - the listener and consumer - will always be something which is judged subjectively. It's something which I think Ashley and you should think about carefully.

Marco.

jcbrum
12-05-2008, 22:43
SS, you are confusing iTunes with the iTunes store. They are not governed by the same constraints.

iTunes is simply a database of music files stored on your computer. It provided a facility for legal users to "rip" their CD's and the formats originally created were proprietory for reasons of avoiding license fees, and to achieve high rates of compression for iPods.

iPods are not of much interest to us unless we want to take a large portion of our library away in a pocket, for use on the bus. I never do that !

Compression is of little interest nowadays anyway with available storage costs.

The iTunes online store is a completely different kettle of fish, and the music publishers have complete control over what formats they will allow Apple to sell. Steve Jobs has recently negotiated to provide "DRM Free" music at 256k aac (v close to cd quality) and that is available from many publishers but not all.

The driving force is really that the music publishers want to keep prices as high as possible and the buying customers want it as low cost as possible so "market forces" always apply. In this respect discounted CD's by mail order are a very good deal if you want to buy albums, but not so good if you wish to have only one or two tracks.

I almost never want to buy an album. They were pushed hard by the publishers, in the late sixties and seventies for vinyl, and later eighties and nineties for CD's. This was mostly for increased revenue reasons. At all other periods in the last 120 years, and particularly today, the "single" rules the roost for popularity, and is exactly what I want.

Marco
12-05-2008, 22:59
I almost never want to buy an album. They were pushed hard by the publishers, in the late sixties and seventies for vinyl, and later eighties and nineties for CD's. This was mostly for increased revenue reasons. At all other periods in the last 120 years, and particularly today, the "single" rules the roost for popularity, and is exactly what I want.


Well I'm the exact opposite. I like buying complete albums by my favourite artists and also hearing what new music from artists I've never listened to before is like by assessing their full repertoire. You can't get a true impression of what a particular artist's music is about, or the message they're trying to convey, from just one song. In fact, you could arrive at all the wrong conclusions that way. You seem to treat music in a very superficial, disposible, way which I guess suits the process you use to listen to it. Such a dispassionate attitude to the enjoyment of music is completely alien to me.

Marco.

Chris Frost
13-05-2008, 00:55
Linn say ........." Studio Master FLAC

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

Again their words not mine.

http://www.linnrecords.com/linn-formats.aspx

(JC's words from now on)
These very high resolution files are far higher in quality than can be obtained from a turn table or a cd player and the only source which can play them is a computer. Even if it is dressed up as an expensive "media server".

If you read the article properly (and quote it correctly) then you find that a computer is not the "only" source capable of playing these higher definition recordings.


Studio Master FLAC

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

FLAC files are lossless at various high bit rates, for example, 48KHz, 88.2KHz and 96KHz (check each title for actual details). The quality is identical to that of an SACD (Stereo only).

:smoking:

Prince of Darkness
13-05-2008, 06:41
Yes, and since when was SACD of superior sound quality to Vinyl?:ner:

Chris Frost
13-05-2008, 07:23
Yes, and since when was SACD of superior sound quality to Vinyl?:ner:Yep. So is this really the conclusive slam dunk that JC believes? :confused:

Marco
13-05-2008, 08:24
Well it may or it may not be... As always with me the jury is out until I listen and then judge accordingly. I'm not seduced by measurements and specifications in the way JC appears to be. He judges hi-fi with the head of a typical engineer, which is fine up to a point ;)

SACD? It's never really done it for me. In many instances I prefer the more 'organic' sound of ordinary CDs and standard CD players over the 'squeaky clean and clear', but to me, ultimately more processed and artificial sound of SACD and SACD players. And vinyl is better still. I compared Sony's flagship SACD player recently to my Red Book X-777ES/DAS-R1 transport and DAC and much preferred its way with music to that of the SACD player, yet the SACD player has superior resolution...

The effective and accurate reproduction of music is not solely about resolution. Up-sampling CDPs supposedly give greater resolution to ordinary Red Book CDPs, and that may be the case, but in doing so they impose their own sonic signature on the sound which to my ears sounds unnatural: the sound appears smoothed out in order to make music sound 'nice', even when that's not how a particular piece of music is supposed to sound!

Burr-Brown DAC chips supposedly have superior resolution to older multi-bit chips like the Philips TDA 1541 single crowns used in my Sony, yet to my ears and those of many others, the TDA 1541 sounds more natural and musical. Again, it gives music an 'organic' quality which seems more faithful to the sound of real music than the 'polished hi-fi nicety' of the Burr-Brown's presentation.

However, Linn's high resolution Studio Master Recordings may actually be phenomenally good, but judging on past experiences, as outlined above, of supposedly 'superior' technology, I shall remain healthily sceptical until they pass the ultimate scrutiny of listening through the God-given organs on the side of my head. I trust them and the way my brain interprets musical signals more than the results given by any man-made measurement apparatus.

If I may borrow a quote from Dave of Greenhomeelectronics on another thread which rather neatly fits this one and succinctly sums up my own feelings:


The science does not matter, it's how you feel when you hear your music that counts. Don't let the marketeers compromise your listening enjoyment for the sake of following a fad.


Hear, hear!

Marco.

jcbrum
13-05-2008, 11:15
If you read the article properly (and quote it correctly) then you find that a computer is not the "only" source capable of playing these higher definition recordings.



:smoking:

Oh Yeah, ? then what do you think the other sources are then ? and don't say "streaming devices" or "music servers", because they are computers dressed up as "hifi" to sell to mugs at £10,000 instead of £1000.

Stick to setting up your "installations" Chris, with automatic bog flushers, and electric curtains, and ceiling loudspeakers. You don't understand these things.

jcbrum
13-05-2008, 11:22
PoD, you say I think that SACD is not better than vinyl ?

Then how do you account for the fact that -

1 dynamic range is twice as good

2 signal to noise is twice as good

3 distortion is ten times less at least and thirty times better than the inner tracks.

4 noise floor is hundreds of times better

5 degradation in use and storage is nil.

SEEMS PRETTY CONCLUSIVE TO ME !

jcbrum
13-05-2008, 11:38
Although Linn say their FLAC's are SACD quality, SACD is a dead medium these days, whereas digital download formats are not, and are improving at a rapid rate.

Here is what Linn say about downloads -

"At Linn Records our 'standard' (CD quality) download quality will result in music files on your computer which are identical to those you would have, had you bought the CD and ripped it into your computer. In addition we also provide a moderately compressed MP3 version suitable for easily loading in to any portable music player. Our real interest however is in using download technology to provide music in formats which are many times better than CD (studio master quality)."

Reference Recordings with their HRx format is superior to the aforegoing but I don't think the Linn kit can play them.

You need a correctly configured computer to play them, and btw Coops, if you're listening I now have such a machine.

http://www.referencerecordings.com/HrxKeith.asp

Marco
13-05-2008, 11:43
SEEMS PRETTY CONCLUSIVE TO ME !


LOL. With respect, John, it isn't conclusive at all. They're just 'sound' related terms, not musical priorities.

What you've listed is in fact a set of hi-fi criteria, which simply serves to illustrate how differently you judge hi-fi and listen to music compared to others here and I do.

There's nothing 'wrong' with your method, of course, but it most certainly isn't 'automatically right', or the only 'correct' way, either. And to be fair you haven't said so :)

The fact is none of the above matters one iota to me *if* it doesn't result in a sound which allows me a greater emotional connection with the music I enjoy. This is for me is what owning a quality hi-fi system is all about, not measurements or specifications.

Marco.

DSJR
13-05-2008, 12:35
Anyone ever compared the original master recording (analogue or digital) with the LP and CD made from it?

No - thought not...........

I'm (sort of) with JC on this one.....

Steve Toy
13-05-2008, 12:36
I don't think JC's method will ever result in capturing the essence and emotion in music the way we can.

DSJR
13-05-2008, 12:56
I'll beg to disagree if I may. I'm sick and tired of systems that tell me how to listen or what to listen for, although I'd tinker around in a second system.

I want to hear what the recording engineer/mastering engineer heard, not a sugary or spiced up "version!"

Marco
13-05-2008, 12:59
Anyone ever compared the original master recording (analogue or digital) with the LP and CD made from it?

No - thought not...........

I'm (sort of) with JC on this one.....


David, I know what you're getting at, but since very few of us get access to the original master recording there's no point in using it as benchmark.

I'm afraid that any notions of true 'accuracy' with hi-fi go out the window when your chosen electronics distort the signal in their own individual way. That's why all we can realistically do is choose how we like our music presented, and then buy the equipment which best serves that goal.

It's also why, in terms of the hi-fi consumer/music lover, specifications are largely meaningless. At the end of the day when all is said and done, the appreciation of recorded music, and one's hi-fi system, is entirely a subjective and personal matter. Of course, it's different if you're a manufacturer - you then have to think more objectively, but we're not manufacturers.

Marco.

P.S This also addresses your last post above :)

Steve Toy
13-05-2008, 13:05
I want to hear what the recording engineer/mastering engineer heard, not a sugary or spiced up "version!"


I don't want a sugary or spiced up version either. If you think that's what I am after or even getting, think again!

What I'm after is taking the recording and preserving its integrity through the chain that amounts to my hi-fi system. I want it to be put back together again in its entirety as it emerges from the speakers with all the musical info not just in the right place and time but starting and stopping exactly on cue as well. It's this level of attention to detail that grabs the emotion and leaves you with this marvellous feeling that the music in your room is bigger, stronger and more powerful than you are. This is certainly not achieved by shoving the music through some kind of rose-tinted or turmeric-stained filter.

OTOH, whilst maximum resolution is a Very Good Thing, it isn't the panacea you might expect; properly implemented red book 16 bit still tells you more about the music and the recording than poorly implemented SACD.

griffo104
13-05-2008, 13:10
Anyone ever compared the original master recording (analogue or digital) with the LP and CD made from it?

No - thought not...........

I'm (sort of) with JC on this one.....

So am I - a little.

I was chatting with a fellow vinyl lover who is about to go ahead and download some of the Linn Studio Masters, one of which is also going to be availalble on HQ180g vinyl. It would be very good to perform a comparison between the two.

In theory what JC is saying correct. I've been working in IT for 20 years and there's no doubt that a computer and suitable high definition DAC of serious quality will see off a cdp. To begin with the Linn software has everything on it, all the detail and all the data as it would be and hasn't been compromised to fit on silver disk restricted to sample rate - even with upsampling dacs I still remain unconvinced about them.

this is where I'm in agreement with Marco. Most upsampling cdps sound a little too processed to me, like SACD and I've got about 50 of those and a player at home. The beauty of the Linn software is that there is no need to restrict the data, fiddle with it, remaster it or compress it. It's all there and as long as the DAC is of good enough quality to handle it then it should surpass CD, after all cdps arenothing more than mini computers with the DAC being the processor. The cdp is doing nothing different to what a computer will do with the data.

I've yet to be convinced by downloads but that's as much to do with the fact I still don't trust computers to have my beloved album collection on there, even if I'm no fan of the little silver coasters. I trust the solidity of owning something.

Vinyl will always be my preferred option, I love everything about it too much, but one day, and I do think it's sooner rather than later then the download generation will overtake cd.

As for JC's comments about 'legacy systems' well all I'll say is this, I'd rather have a Brinkmann LaGrange TT sat in my front room than any laptop

purite audio
13-05-2008, 14:03
Although Linn say their FLAC's are SACD quality, SACD is a dead medium these days, whereas digital download formats are not, and are improving at a rapid rate.

Here is what Linn say about downloads -

"At Linn Records our 'standard' (CD quality) download quality will result in music files on your computer which are identical to those you would have, had you bought the CD and ripped it into your computer. In addition we also provide a moderately compressed MP3 version suitable for easily loading in to any portable music player. Our real interest however is in using download technology to provide music in formats which are many times better than CD (studio master quality)."

Reference Recordings with their HRx format is superior to the aforegoing but I don't think the Linn kit can play them.

You need a correctly configured computer to play them, and btw Coops, if you're listening I now have such a machine.

http://www.referencerecordings.com/HrxKeith.asp

JC Hi, just searching for Hrx and saw your quote, tell me about your machine,btw Hi everyone I am a filthy dealer type.

pure sound
13-05-2008, 14:32
I want to hear what the recording engineer/mastering engineer heard, not a sugary or spiced up "version!"

I went to a recording of several Malcom Arnold pieces which Technics/Conifer were doing at Watford town hall. I have the CD made from that occasion. The man himself was there, a feisty old bugger!

I definitely wouldn't want what the engineers were hearing on their godawful monitoring system, B&W speakers & all. It sounded terrible & sounds much better at home.

What makes you suggest that what recording engineers hear through their often woeful monitors is what's in the recording?

Marco
13-05-2008, 15:07
JC Hi, just searching for Hrx and saw your quote, tell me about your machine,btw Hi everyone I am a filthy dealer type.

Hi Coops,

Welcome to the forum :)

Are you a distributor as well as a dealer? I thought you might be, hence why I've altered your account to show this. If you would like just an ordinary dealer title then let me know.

Have fun and don't be shy in contributing to any discussions!

Marco.

purite audio
13-05-2008, 15:19
Hi marco, thaks for the warm welcome, not sure what I am really, went to hear some horns ( Guy Sargeants fault ) ended up representing them in the UK, when the horns arrived I realised that the solid state amps just sounded so dead, so I have been listening to a lot of valve amps recently.
I only import stuff that I really believe in, also interested in trying to get a really good sound from digital, hence the interest in 'Reference Recordings' Hrx discs that JC mentioned.
This is me, www.puriteaudio.co.uk ( smarter website is planned )!
Wish you all the best for the forum, you have some lively contributors!

jcbrum
13-05-2008, 15:36
Keith/Coops, my kit as you might expect is a modded mac.

Have you got any HRx discs yet ? how long did they take to arrive ?

I've ordered some new ones and had an acknowledgment, but they've not arrived yet. I don't know whether they're coming airmail or slowboat, or whether the customs guys have nicked 'em.

jcbrum
13-05-2008, 15:38
Oh I forgot to say I've had all the gen on how RR play HRx, and am up to speed on replicating their PC based systems to give the same sound as was dem'ed at CES.

DSJR
13-05-2008, 20:41
David, I know what you're getting at, but since very few of us get access to the original master recording there's no point in using it as benchmark.

I'm afraid that any notions of true 'accuracy' with hi-fi go out the window when your chosen electronics distort the signal in their own individual way. That's why all we can realistically do is choose how we like our music presented, and then buy the equipment which best serves that goal.

It's also why, in terms of the hi-fi consumer/music lover, specifications are largely meaningless. At the end of the day when all is said and done, the appreciation of recorded music, and one's hi-fi system, is entirely a subjective and personal matter. Of course, it's different if you're a manufacturer - you then have to think more objectively, but we're not manufacturers.

Marco.

P.S This also addresses your last post above :)

Marco, you and I are going to remain respectfully poles apart I'm afraid. I went through the "music first" bull the first time round and have come full circle in many ways now.

I HAVE had first hand experience of analogue 1/2" 30IPS master (no noise reduction) with the LP, the first time at Linn, through their amps (which noone liked at the time and through passive 'Briks too (hardly high resolution as systems go). The acetate they cut sounded very good but the 12" single and especially the LP was truly, truly dire - all spongy and lacking in emotion. Yes, an LP12/Ittok and karma lacking in emotion and musicality!

It wasn't until I heard (and bought) a Notts Analogue Mentor with Decca Microscanner a couple of years later that I finally had a vinyl player with a bit of drama and through a valve phono stage it had proper space and depth too, as the phono stage didn't clip (a big problem with carts like the Decca with high output and a little ringing here and there).

Using different tracks, I've compared master tapes and files with the CD product and the difference on a big monitoring system isn't worth fussing about, really.

Some of you with big pro speakers (even vintage Tannoys/JBL's/NS1000's etc) will know what I'm w@nking on about and I suspect Marco you're getting a good bit through your SP100's. It's just that your "enjoyable" may well be my "too much to bear."

Good job we're all different...... Makes life and audio systems much more interesting..

purite audio
13-05-2008, 22:02
Oh I forgot to say I've had all the gen on how RR play HRx, and am up to speed on replicating their PC based systems to give the same sound as was dem'ed at CES.

JC Hi,I haven't ordered any of the HRx disc yet, I signed up for information from RR but haven't as yet received anything from them, what does the modded mac consist of are you using the Lnyx soundcard, does the lynx card have a built in dac?
I just would like something simple to play at shows, home dems etc , very best,Keith.

Chris Frost
13-05-2008, 22:26
Oh Yeah, ? then what do you think the other sources are then ?I thought that was pretty obvious from the big bold red writing - according to the Linn article SACD players can play these highest resolution/master quality Linn files. It wasn't really that difficult for you to understand, was it?

jcbrum
14-05-2008, 00:07
I thought that was pretty obvious from the big bold red writing - according to the Linn article SACD players can play these highest resolution/master quality Linn files. It wasn't really that difficult for you to understand, was it?

I'm afraid you're mistaken Chris, the format is different, SACD players will play cd's and sacd's nothing else, SACD's will only play on a sacd player. SACD is an obsolete format.

Linn's new Studio Master recordings are downloads, not discs of any type. Linn say they are of sacd quality, because they have used the same master track to create both formats, but other than that there is no commonality at all. The reality is that the download format employed is capable of exceeding sacd quality, but Linn don't have any better original recordings available yet, other than those which they used to make sacd's.

Incidentally, all SACD discs are hybrids, containing two "layers" with one being cd quality and the other sacd quality. Therefore all sacd discs will play in an ordinary cd player, but the sound quality will be ordinary cd quality, not sacd quality.

I hope you understand a bit better now. Linn's phrasing is not very clear because they wish to disguise, to some extent, the fact that they don't have any new original recordings available yet. They are a bit late coming to this party.

jcbrum
14-05-2008, 00:24
Just in case anyone else is still confused, here is the relevant wording from Linn's guidance notes -

"FLAC files are lossless at various high bit rates, for example, 48KHz, 88.2KHz and 96KHz (check each title for actual details). The quality is identical to that of an SACD (Stereo only). The format will be dependent on the actual recording method we used originally. No DSD files are offered as it is not possible to play them back on a PC so an equivalent PCM format is offered. These files offer true "studio quality" "

Well you can see that Linn quote three different quality levels for flacs, and sacd is equivalent to the bottom one. Linn are sort of implying that they all sound the same which isn't true, but they will all comfortably out-perform cd or vinyl if replayed appropriately.

Another key issue is sacd is made with DSD technology, and downloads are made starting with PCM technology. There is no compatability, only equivalency. Incidentally it is my view that DSD will require conversion from the original recording, but PCM will not.

jcbrum
14-05-2008, 00:42
For the pedants amongst us, who might wish to do their own research, this link will give you a start, and a pointer to the AES papers on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital



Marco, this post doesn't apply to you, because you only use your ears, not the stuff in between. (only kidding) ;) :ner:

Chris Frost
14-05-2008, 08:27
SACD is an obsolete format.Well that's going to be shocking news to classical music buyers. I'm told SACD is the high quality format of choice for the classical music aficionado.

Filterlab
14-05-2008, 08:30
Well that's going to be shocking news to classical music buyers. I'm told SACD is the high quality format of choice for the classical music aficionado.

And I believe it's going from strength to strength as a format too.

jcbrum
14-05-2008, 08:59
Here's a comment by Alan Sircom, almost a year ago,

" Alan Sircom
Posted: 12/06/07 13:30:26 26
Yes, I feel SACD has won the high-resolution battle. But it is a Pyhrric victory. SACD has the high ground, but the war is elsewhere these days. What we have to worry about now is not when SACD is laid to rest, but when CD will follow it.

By having the hi-fi industry turn in on itself, obsessing over relatively unattainable formats like SACD, we have made hi-fi a clique within a clique. In the process, we have managed to seemingly dismiss the one disc format that had a chance of having a sustained life - CD.

An 'audiophile's format' has for the longest time struck me as a bad idea for that reason. It is a flawed position to take because too many people respond with "Well, I'm not an audiophile" and reject the format out of hand. ... "

All disc formats, including BluRay are obsolescent, SACD has had it's short day and is going nowhere. There were only about 2000 items released on it anyway, and half of those were only conversions from ordinary CD. Whilst it might be possible to find NOS players, I doubt that there are any new ones being designed and manufactured.

Steve Toy
14-05-2008, 09:17
JC, you are full of bad news today.

griffo104
14-05-2008, 09:32
Well that's going to be shocking news to classical music buyers. I'm told SACD is the high quality format of choice for the classical music aficionado.

Well being a classical fan about 90% of my sacds are classical music but it's the independant labels like Channel, Hyperion, Bis, etc.. who hve moved the format towards it's popularity in this format.

The big boys were only releasing sacds with slightly better than pcm quality.

As a serious classical music listener, the BEST format for me is still vinyl, even with the background noise from the stylus and groove and the pop and click it still has better dynamic and more natural tone, timbre and flow to the music that sacd. I haven't bought and sacd in 2 years now and to all intents and purposes, outside of a handful of claissical labels and audiophile labels, it is a dead format.

I've been there and tried it.

Chris Frost
14-05-2008, 09:47
outside of a handful of claissical labels and audiophile labels, it is a dead format.Yep, have to agree that as far as ordinary "none Hi-Fi" folk are concerned CD is more than good enough for their needs; and MP3 at horrific compression rates gives them the the ability to boast "Look how many tracks I've got on my iPod/phone/novelty keyring!" :lol:

snapper
14-05-2008, 10:02
Well that's going to be shocking news to classical music buyers. I'm told SACD is the high quality format of choice for the classical music aficionado.


Not just classical lovers,Jazz as well.

Interesting thread here,

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=146611

and interesting quote (9) from SH.

griffo104
14-05-2008, 10:25
Not just classical lovers,Jazz as well.

Interesting thread here,

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=146611

and interesting quote (9) from SH.

Some of us are already collecting the Music Matters Blue Note 45rpm vinyl, also remastered by the great Steve Hoffman while he's doing the Acoustic Sounds ones as well.

They are quite simply stunning and I the beauty of having the Music Matters ones on vinyl is the lovely gatefold sleeves with Francis Wolff photos from the sessions in them. Pure Jazz porn.

this is another reason why I prefer sticking with a legacy system.

purite audio
14-05-2008, 10:37
Griffo Hi I have to thank you for alerting me to the 'Music Matters' series, really superb vinyl, cheers Keith.

griffo104
14-05-2008, 10:56
Griffo Hi I have to thank you for alerting me to the 'Music Matters' series, really superb vinyl, cheers Keith.

No problems Keith, they are very special and I've been enjoying them immensely. Can't wait for the next batch :)

I suppose with things like the Linn series we may get recordings of this quality available but they will still lack the packaging which helps make it a complete package.

purite audio
14-05-2008, 12:07
As you say the whole package is superb, is there anything else coming out that I should be aware of? Keith.

griffo104
14-05-2008, 13:27
As you say the whole package is superb, is there anything else coming out that I should be aware of? Keith.

Keith, the complete list s here

https://www.musicmattersjazz.com/titles2.html

Personally I'm looking forward to the Hank Mobley, Freddie Hubbard, Lou Donaldson, Lee Morgan and, most importantly, the release of Out To Lunch by Eric Dolphy.

purite audio
14-05-2008, 13:34
Crikey have you dared work out the total spend? A friend of mine who makes these likes 'out to lunch' very much, www.thomas-labusga.com

griffo104
14-05-2008, 13:39
Crikey have you dared work out the total spend? A friend of mine who makes these likes 'out to lunch' very much, www.thomas-labusga.com

Out To Lunch is one of my all time favourite jazz albums so to have this on perfect vinyl cut at 45rpm excites me greatly.

I've subscribed to it and have all 6 releases to date. It's working out at £70 a month with the current exchange rate which is less than I normally spend on records and cds, so I'm happy doing this. Yes, it's going to prove expensive but for me it's the best type of hifi upgrade.

Sorry for taking this thread off track but I'm sure JCBrum would appreciate the quality of these legacy items ;)

purite audio
14-05-2008, 13:57
'Out to lunch' is completely apposite for JC!

pure sound
14-05-2008, 15:01
Have you got 'Other Aspects' Griffo?

Incidentally, how much are these 45 rpm versions?

Are they these $50 items?
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=41675

griffo104
14-05-2008, 15:15
Have you got 'Other Aspects' Griffo?

Incidentally, how much are these 45 rpm versions?

Are they these $50 items?
http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_detail.cfm?Title_ID=41675

No haven't got Other Aspects, want it though, got most of Dolphy's earlier stuff and all on vinyl but not this one. I seriously enjoy Dolphy's music even though so many think it's difficult, I've never found that to be the case.

The records are $50 and are different from the Acoustic Sounds set.

Essentially there are two Blue Note 45rpm releases going on at the moment, 64 releases from Music Matters and 25 from Acoustic Sounds, both sets are being pressed at RTI and both have Steve Hoffman's involvements.

The other difference is that Music Matters have gone with gatefolds and the extra Wolff photos in the gatefolds. After some initial problems with the packaging the last batch were superb, good thick outer sleeves and excellent inner sleeves. Of course going with gatefolds removes the authenticity of the original but I'll forgive due to the Wolff photos inside, there is no text just the photos.

I chose the Music Matters range of releases because it has more albums that I'm interested in even though I have a fair few of them.

Hank Mobley's wonderful Soul Station was in the last batch and it totally shreds my previous audiophile reissue of the same album.

I'd also add that the service I recieved from Music Matters after a slight cock up on my first batch was totally superb, their response and service to getting a second set out was truly excellent, fast and very friendly and made the fact these are coming from the US not a problem at all, a big thumbs up from me.

Marco
16-05-2008, 17:31
Hi Dave,

Sorry I've taken so long to reply but I've been quite busy recently :)


Marco, you and I are going to remain respectfully poles apart I'm afraid. I went through the "music first" bull the first time round and have come full circle in many ways now.


Yes we obviously are poles apart in that respect as I don't think prioritising the enjoyment of music first with hi-fi is "bull".


I HAVE had first hand experience of analogue 1/2" 30IPS master (no noise reduction) with the LP, the first time at Linn, through their amps (which noone liked at the time and through passive 'Briks too (hardly high resolution as systems go). The acetate they cut sounded very good but the 12" single and especially the LP was truly, truly dire - all spongy and lacking in emotion. Yes, an LP12/Ittok and karma lacking in emotion and musicality!


I'm sure that was an interesting experience. I would like to have been there. However it has no bearing whatsoever on what I hear from my vinyl set-up. The presentation of my modified SL-1210/DL-103 Pro is very different to an LP12/Ittok/Karma! The best analogue recordings I own sound superior to the best digital ones - it's as simple as that, and it's not because I enjoy some sort of 'rose-tinted' euphonic reproduction of my music. It's because analogue recordings for me are more accurate and faithful to the sound of real voices and instruments; hence why to my ears they sound more 'musical' - that's 'musical' in an objective rather than a subjective sense.


It wasn't until I heard (and bought) a Notts Analogue Mentor with Decca Microscanner a couple of years later that I finally had a vinyl player with a bit of drama and through a valve phono stage it had proper space and depth too, as the phono stage didn't clip (a big problem with carts like the Decca with high output and a little ringing here and there).


I like Deccas because they bring out the emotion in recordings and make music sound like music, not like some false notion of 'pristine perfection' like many of today's moving coils do. It's no coincidence I feel that Deccas also measure terribly in comparison. It's also why I prefer the 'dinosaur era' spherical stylus on my 103 Pro, and its way of making music, to that of a technically 'superior' line contact stylus in, say, an Ortofon or a Lyra.

Why is it I wonder that so often in hi-fi it's the things that measure worst which often sound the most musical (valves, vinyl, electrostatic speakers, etc)? There's definitely something in this, I feel, and it's that whenever 'natural' distortion is removed either in the recording process or in the voicing of hi-fi equipment it results in a less musical sound. This is of course a somewhat simplistic statement, but based on my experience I'm convinced it has some merit.


Using different tracks, I've compared master tapes and files with the CD product and the difference on a big monitoring system isn't worth fussing about, really.


I'm in no position to dispute that assertion, but it's meaningless in the context of my own comparisons which I've carried out between analogue and digital recordings. I have a Nakamichi CR-7, and the recordings I make of the same music from vinyl via my SL-1210 and from CD via my Sony always results in the recordings from the same album on vinyl sounding more real and lifelike, and as such more musically enjoyable. As an aside, the CR-7 with a good quality chrome tape spanks any modern CD player I've heard and gets very close to good vinyl on the SL-1210 ;)

My preference for analogue recordings is obvious whether I compare the recordings through the CR-7 in my main system or if I make the comparisons through the tape deck in my car. Yes I still use a (Sony) tape deck and not a CD player in the car for reasons of superior sound quality! I'd rather suffer a bit of tape hiss to hear better sound. Most car CD players sound absolutely dire.


Some of you with big pro speakers (even vintage Tannoys/JBL's/NS1000's etc) will know what I'm w@nking on about and I suspect Marco you're getting a good bit through your SP100's. It's just that your "enjoyable" may well be my "too much to bear."


One of the reasons I use the Spendors is because of their neutrality, particularly through the midrange, so I know exactly what you're getting at, but I don't consider that my source components are as coloured as you're making out - indeed quite the opposite. I just like instruments and voices to have the requisite natural tone and body, and much of the hi-fi I hear today from sources to speakers fails to deliver in that area. The voicing of hi-fi equipment and ancillaries seems to have moved away from accurate tonality to a sound which majors on detail retrieval and 'impressiveness', resulting in a thinner, brighter, more forward presentation from equipment than before which I feel has gone too far in the one direction and is alien to both how real music sounds and my purist principles. You're entitled to your opinion and to differ, of course, but I think you may change how you feel, certainly with regards to my system, if you should ever come and visit... :smoking:


Good job we're all different...... Makes life and audio systems much more interesting..


Too bloody right!

Marco.

SteveW
16-05-2008, 19:27
Well..if I might add my two penny worth, and especially as the post is about Linn Studio Master recordings, and initiated by JC

Firstly, well done for allowing him to post again. Biased and deluded he might be, but he does add valuable contributions to the way we are all going to end up in our listening habits.

Second..I've heard Linn Studio Masters in the format and system that Linn would like them to be heard. Mind you the Komri system that I first heard them was dire...so much disco like bass was terribly uncomfortable.
However, even, there the musicality of the files was so much more enjoyable than the fully analogue versions as played through a 'keeled' LP12. The detail and subliminal information that becomes available through these files is bloody amazing. You just simple hear detail on recordings that you had no idea was there. So musical.

Thing is...I want to have that kind of reproduction without having to pay £10,000 for the Klimax DS that was streaming the files.

I happen to believe its possible, and that the key to all of this is the original file..be it the Linn studio files, or the error correction- jitter free- ripped CD's, can be so awesome.

And people like JC are pointing the way. Not very well, in my opinion. But hey, lets hear it...if there is the potential to make listening to music even better.

Chris Frost
16-05-2008, 19:35
Some very valid points there, Steve. :clap:

Having access to master quality recordings opens up new horizons. It's an exciting development and one that I'd like to see happen more often. :)

Marco
16-05-2008, 19:53
Hi Steve,

Nice to hear from you again :smoking:


Firstly, well done for allowing him to post again. Biased and deluded he might be, but he does add valuable contributions to the way we are all going to end up in our listening habits.


Whilst I fully acknowledge the potential benefits of computer audio, and indeed have heard them for myself and also intend to obtain a suitable set-up, I will not abandon vinyl or CD, particularly when I have large physical collections to play on both formats and I can't be arsed spending time ripping CDs to a hard drive. So I don't know if it's the way I'm going to end up in my listening habits. My computer audio set-up will simply be a third source and just another way to enjoy music to a very high standard.


Second..I've heard Linn Studio Masters in the format and system that Linn would like them to be heard. Mind you the Komri system that I first heard them was dire...so much disco like bass was terribly uncomfortable.
However, even, there the musicality of the files was so much more enjoyable than the fully analogue versions as played through a 'keeled' LP12. The detail and subliminal information that becomes available through these files is bloody amazing. You just simple hear detail on recordings that you had no idea was there. So musical.


I don't doubt it, Steve. Having access to master quality recordings is potentally very exciting, but until I hear the results myself the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. Based on my own experience I'm 100% convinced that streaming lossless files via a computer, when the quality of the original download is excellent, gives better results than are capable from any CD player *providing* a top-notch DAC is used. I'm not convinced though on the sonic performance of some of the DACs currently being used in computer set-ups.

I've also heard the Komris and your description of "disco bass" is spot on. They're simply dreadful and a total joke at the asking price.


I happen to believe its possible, and that the key to all of this is the original file..be it the Linn studio files, or the error correction- jitter free- ripped CD's, can be so awesome.


I agree. The only problem for me is that it's such a soulless way of accessing one's music. Call me a daft traditionalist but nothing beats the ritual of playing a record, and handling the sleeves and everything else that goes with it. It's so much more of a 'human' and tactile experience than using a computer; such things are important to me.

Marco.

DSJR
16-05-2008, 20:41
Thanks guys for some thought provoking posts (Marco, I've owned many Nakamichis, highlights being the 700ZXE, 682ZX, DRAGON, CR4 and CR7, which I sold for financial reasons)

I've been enjoying LP's 12" singles AND CD's the last couple of days, even though my stuff is a long way from top end these days. Highlights were "Spacebird" 12" (System 7) and the Depeche Mode Singles 86-98 on CD, an excellent sounding compilation IMO...

SteveW
16-05-2008, 21:12
Cheers Chaps.

Marco...I refer back to what I said somewhere else, and quoting someone I trust, about the software to rip CD's. The key to it all seems to be in the amount of information thst is actually on a CD, and is capable of being replayed.
I guess this is only the same as the arguement always put forward for playing vinyl...the information is there..it just needs extracting.
I reckon the Funk Firm through Arthur K is still proving to be the case...vinyl replay can still be improved upon.
Digital information on a CD can still be improved upon. I know...I've heard it. And yes, maybe the CD replay version I heard was not the best it can be.
Digital information from Studio Masters has the potential to out perform the analogue (vinyl) version. I think so..

Marco...like you, I've got a load invested in vinyl and CD 'libraries' that I love, enjoy and am not going to give up...but I can see a time coming when they can be improved upon.

If thats the case, then, bring it on...because I'd love it.

But I want to be persuaded about it, not bullied or bullshited by Ashley, JC or anyone else. However, I am prepared to listen.

SteveW
16-05-2008, 21:27
Oh..yes.
I couldn't agree with you more about the 'tactile' experience of havving something to touch, read,and see. Christ, even smell if it comes to it. We all know the damp smell of an old album bought from the 2nd hand shop, or wherever.
Nowadays I seem to need reading glasses for every function (oooerrr matron)
so, the thing of having a big ol album sleeve to look at cannot be underestimated these days to me !!!
Not only that...but its a bugger to read some of the stuff printed on CD's as well :(

At this stage in computer music...and lets face it, its in its infancy...the interface you use is still not a patch on something solid. I love the itunes coverflow...perhaps combining this with the company that Peter Gabriel is promoting using 'The Filter' software will help...where you have the album information, combined with artist info, combined with other recommendations.

DSJR
17-05-2008, 11:04
I'm worried that some of you are having trouble with CD's sounding spatially dead or "flat" with no "oommpphh" begind the sound.

Please bare with me on what follows...

For various reasons, I ended up with a preamp that despite a twenty year warranty (needed when our lad was toddling) and this preamp if not left on 24/7 makes everything sound a bit samey, especially on cymbals and percussion.

I was able to return to my 1991 era and re-acquire a Croft pre amp with a push-pull line buffer built in. This preamp feeds the line signals straight out through the tape record sockets with only a couple of inline resistors in the way and my CD player fed via these sockets to the power amp (with gain controls) sounds incredibly dynamic and "vital." Feeding the power amp (gain controls at max) with the proper preamp outputs caused a slight softening and "valving up" of the sound, nothing like the flatness of the previous preamp, but a colouration nonetheless, which is far less than that of many ARC preamps I should add.

A bit of tube rolling on the line stage (long plate Mullards) has improved things and Glenn Croft suggested a couple more tweaks (including removing the resistors across all the line input sockets thereby raising the gain of the line stage and replacing the supply caps with smaller value ones (???!!)) which has lifted the performance further and now, apart from a slight softening, the line stage does very little and barely alters dynamics at all.

What I'm attempting to suggest, is that some preamp line and buffer stages may remove some of the dynamics given out by the CD player and make it sound bland and ordinary. I don't know the layout of your much later Croft Marco, but I love the way Glenn handles people like me, respecting and understanding my requests and coming up with genuine and useful suggestions (he wishes to re-do the "PP" line stage in my preamp and modify the phono stage so I can use lower impedance good quality Alps pots...). Good job he'll be back in business very soon.

www.croftacoustics.co.uk

Just thought the above comments may have some interest.