Thread: Linn downloads - SACD quality?

Posts: 46
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by seriousfun March 12, 2007 (11 of 46)
Linn said:

Hi there,

I work for Linn and want to be very open about this from the start.

The files we offer are the actual files we made when recording the albums, we even say this on the site. We do not convert anything as it never improves when you fiddle with it. Therefore the files we offer are the same as the files we use to make the physical discs we release, we make no attempt to confuse here.

In answer to the questions asked by Castor;

1. Yes many people do download these files, they tend to have independent audio convertors or stand alone media players. The feedback from them has been fantastic. Check out the FAQs on our site re media players etc.

2. We have burned DVDA discs and played them back on a Unidisk player with very impresive results. The suggestions made by seriousfun are correct and yes, the high bit rate files burned on a DVDA disc do sound considerably better than a red book CD. You can of course re sample the high bit rate files down to CD quality and burn a red book disc yourself to check this.

3. The files are identical to the original recordings and tests we have done reveal identical bit patterns through our system from upload to download to burn, this is why we make the claims we do.

We decided to do it this way as we were not at all happy with the sound quality offered by other download sites. We are in a very fortunate position in that we serve a different type of customer who wants the best. We may consider other download sites as they serve other customers, then the choice re higher quality and higher price vs lower quality and lower price can be made by customers.

We have tried to get rights to use Apple lossless but no luck so far.

The files are there for all to try, you can even download single tracks so it is worth experimenting rather than speculating. Let us know what you think but we think you will be impressed.

Linn.

Hi, Linn!

Thanks for the service and your participation here.

I bought these:

Waterloo Sunset (Barb Jungr) - 46.8 MB
La Valse - The Complete Works of Ravel Vol. 1 (Artur Pizarro) - 193.5 MB
Mean To Me - Nice Work (Carol Kidd) 67.6 MB

Total cost US$14.50. Anyone who blames lower CD sales on high CD prices won't be moved to download these!

I have 10/1 cable internet service, so download didn't take very long at all (I didn't document the actual transfer speed). I had just downloaded a 100 MB software update and your download speed was a little slower than theirs - I guess it was all that extra pipe from Scotland! I remember downloading MP3s on dialup, ten years ago (I've had broadband for a long time) and they probably took longer.

No one will have any problem with the sound quality of these tracks - this lossless delivery is as stunning as the recordings themselves. Have you considered FLAC? Lossless and a little bit more cross-platform. I didn't bother burning them to any disc, although I could author a 24/48 DVD-A. I haven't compared the sound of these files in different players yet.

I understand the marketing forces that cause you to charge what you do, but the pricing, selection, and file size will certainly be a natural limiting factor. I've long said that major labels should put everything in their catalog available for download, US$0.50 for each song, US$1.00 hi-rez, no DRM and let 'er fly. Do you have plans to sell compressed files at a lower cost? 5.1 files (WMA supports this, as does Quicktime and other formats) at a higher cost?

Post by Linn March 13, 2007 (12 of 46)
Hi there,

Our connection to the internet is pretty fast but you are correct, we are in Scotland and there are many speed bumps in the way between you and us. I get around 250kbs downlaod at home from our site for reference.

Flac is being investigated as Mac users are not able to use the Studio WMA files. Keep an eye on the site for updates.

5.1 files are an option but we wanted to start with easily understood options. Not all users are expert and half the battle is making sure that the site remains clean and simple to use by both novice and expert users.

The pricing issue is always under review. Most music download sites have the advantage of selling relatively small files. We, conversely, have some huge files, so the storage requirement is large and the actual cost of download is significantly higher than, say iTunes, would pay. We will keep this under review and if our sales grow then we may be able to negotiate some better hosting costs which could affect final pricing.
Thanks for the opportunity to answer some of your questions, if you have more or any suggestions please let us know.

Linn

Post by Jay-dub July 2, 2007 (13 of 46)
I see that Linn has added flac to its download options. Kudos!

I am only equipped to play back high-res PCM files by converting them to 16/44.1, but I am very interested in the idea of audio downloads at a quality better than CD. There shouldn't be any reason that they aren't common: most new recordings are already made at 24-bit, and it neither costs much to put files on the Web nor causes inventory hassles. Yet besides Linn, practically nobody is trying high-quality downloads. I know of one site that trades 24-bit recordings of concerts, and I just learned about the site that transfers commercial reel-to-reel tapes of recordings in the public domain.

As soon as a substantial number of titles are available in high-res downloads (I mean, quality titles not available on SACD), I will be in the market for a suitable digital player.

As I see it, the size of lossless 24/96 downloads (4608 kbps stereo uncompressed, 2425 kbps at a compression ratio of 1.9) is going to be prohibitive for some time. On the other hand, lossy compression can maintain the extended frequency response and dynamic range of the format, and I would expect better-than-CD sound for a 24/96 master encoded to ogg vorbis or WMA at around 450 kbps stereo (slightly more for mp3 or AAC).

I prefer a physical disk over a lossless download of the same quality, unless the download costs less than half as much as the disk; but if I had a selection of 88.2kHz or 96kHz files compressed to 500kbps or higher, I would want them instead of a CD. Now, most audiophile discussion that I have seen takes lossless compression as a given, which is appropriate when you start with a RBCD, since the bitrate needed for transparency is extremely close to that of lossless. But with high-res sources, we can reasonably hope to get high-quality downloads right away if we accept lossy compression -- whereas if we insist on no-compromise, lossless encoding, there will not be many better-than-CD downloads any time soon.

So I pose this question: if the same new recording were available in these four stereo formats, which would you choose:

RBCD ($18)
16/44.1 lossless download -- 600 kbps ($14)
24/96 lossy download -- 600 kbps ($14)
24/96 lossless download -- 2500 kbps ($25)

Post by Claude July 3, 2007 (14 of 46)
I don't think hi-rez lossy files (your option 3) would make sense. When going the audiophile route (only audiophiles are interested in hi-rez), why compromise the files with lossy compression?

As far as lossless hi-rez downloads being prohibitively large, there are already pay-per-view sites offering movies downloads (Windows Media or DivX) which are also quite big. Even if it takes an entire day to download, it can be done.

Post by Polly Nomial July 3, 2007 (15 of 46)
Jay-dub said:

So I pose this question: if the same new recording were available in these four stereo formats, which would you choose:

RBCD ($18)
16/44.1 lossless download -- 600 kbps ($14)
24/96 lossy download -- 600 kbps ($14)
24/96 lossless download -- 2500 kbps ($25)

You miss the obvious 5th option: SACD ($14-18) on Amazon.com

Clearly this is by far the best value for money because you also have the potential MCH experience if you decide to go down that road later.

Post by Peter July 3, 2007 (16 of 46)
I'd far rather go down the SACD route.

Post by Jay-dub July 3, 2007 (17 of 46)
There's a perfectly good reason to compromise while going the audiophile route: I am not willing to tie up my own internet connection for several hours in order to download an album, time that I will spend worrying whether the download is going to be successful, and spend more money than I normally budget for a recording, when I don't know if I'm going to like the album. I will never choose to do that when for less money I could order some other disk in a couple minutes and stop worrying about it until it comes in the mail. A half-hour download for less money than the CD, and with sound better than the CD and close to the studio master, would tip the balance in the other direction.

Polly Nomial: maybe I didn't make clear the hypotheses of my question. I was imagining choices that could be offered by a company that makes their recordings in 24/96 but without a multichannel mix. If you make a multichannel mix, then of course it makes sense to offer an SACD, and of course I'll buy that. (Thus the puzzlement expressed by several posters on this thread as to why Linn is offering high-res downloads.) Most new recordings, however, are made at 24-bit, but only in 2-channel; they don't get released on SACD, and I don't honestly think they should. So imagine: there's a new recording, it only exists in a stereo mix, the RBCD is going to be the only physical format, but the record company cares about sound quality and wants to follow Linn's lead in offering better-than-CD downloads; there are several possible download formats. Would you choose CD or a download?

Post by Claude July 3, 2007 (18 of 46)
Concerning your worries about downloads: Hi-rez being a small market (especially when a CD version exists in parallel), the labels could burn a DVD-R on demand for those who don't want to download. Either a DVD-V with 24/96 sound to be played on a DVD-player (or a PC), or a data DVD with hi-rez files (lossless or no compression) to be played on the PC or a media set top box like the Squeezebox.

Post by Julien July 3, 2007 (19 of 46)
I think those downloads are great for those who listen on portable players sometimes.

By the way Linn, could you explain to me how hi-rez lossy could sound better than 16-bit lossless? What kind of audible difference is there?

Post by Jay-dub July 3, 2007 (20 of 46)
Claude said:

Concerning your worries about downloads: Hi-rez being a small market (especially when a CD version exists in parallel), the labels could burn a DVD-R on demand for those who don't want to download. Either a DVD-V with 24/96 sound to be played on a DVD-player (or a PC), or a data DVD with hi-rez files (lossless or no compression) to be played on the PC or a media set top box like the Squeezebox.

Yes, as a consumer I would be happy with those formats, but I would hesitate before ordering. What would the handling costs add to the unit price? Many of the arkivmusic.com CD-R's on demand are full-price reissues of CD's that were originally budget price, so I'm assuming the handling costs would be substantial. What would be the turnaround time if I requested a DVD-R from an overseas source? How permanent would the disk be?

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed