• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

High-res audio comparison: Linn Records Free High Res Samples

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
45,716
Likes
254,122
Location
Seattle Area
This is the last video I had stashed form back in 2017 when I did these high-resolution audio comparisons against standard one using the same master:


After this, I will be producing new ones.
 
So far all these videos demonstrate various shortcomings with HD recordings. Are there examples of well made, pristine HD recordings with music content above 22 KHz?
 
And they were right, when they hit the market, CDs were actually the lowest quality music format - even 8-track tape was capable of holding much more information than this optical media. The dynamic range - the highs and lows in volume and subtleties of the music - as well as the underlying 'noisiness' of the recordings suffered, but to the average listener this didn't really matter, and they were just so convenient that most people didn't seem to care. In fact for a majority it was probably an improvement on worn out cassette tapes! But there were still those that remained firm that vinyl and the original analogue formats just sounded better.

From this page:
https://www.linnrecords.com/downloads

Linn obviously has no shame. They have a whole series of lies on this page. I'm not sure there is anything true on it actually. Even 8 track exceeded CD in sound quality. Utterly ridiculous.

They do make some very nice recordings. At least some use Sennheiser MKH800's which have response to around 50 khz.
 
Linn obviously has no shame.
No. And they deliver the next most common idiocy:
And what happens to all the information in the gaps?
They cannot but have people that know this is total BS. The whole thing reads like the sort of ignorant idiocy one heard pedalled back in the 80's by people with no mathematics. Back then Linn were happy to push all manner of woo, mostly revolving around the magical properties of their turntable. It seems they haven't changed.
 
So to conclude, is it the best way is to perform high resolution capture only during initial mastering from original analog sources and then down sample to CD for distribution purposes?
In my theory, this could ensure that maximum samples are captured in audible (i.e. the most important) band and any ultrasonic noise is successfully cut.
 
Thanks for the demonstration. Worse than I thought, but yes maybe spurious signals from lighting or so.

While I won't even start talking about "music" in >20 kHz frequency ranges (as there is no instrument to speak of), there is a physiological aspect to it as well. A 10 year old might be able to hear, maybe, 22-23 kHz, a 20 year old 19-20 kHz, a 50 year old 16 kHz if he's lucky. And then at proper levels and not at -100dB. Yes I know there will be people who think they can hear an ant coughing at 100m, or the length of a power cord, but generally, this highres stuff is in large parts a waste of bandwidth and, well, snake oil IMHO.

That said, for the average listener it may sound just as good as any other, if recorded, mixed and mastered properly (save for the forgotten low pass) :p because most tweeters will "convert to heat" any signal above 25-30 kHz. So probably a non-issue, apart from annoying one's cat etc.
 
So to conclude, is it the best way is to perform high resolution capture only during initial mastering from original analog sources and then down sample to CD for distribution purposes?
In my theory, this could ensure that maximum samples are captured in audible (i.e. the most important) band and any ultrasonic noise is successfully cut.
I suppose this is exactly what is (and must be) done for CD releases. But even for "HD files" cutting off the garbage above 20-25 kHz would make sense, to make the file smaller without sacrificing anything (unless the listener is a bat) :D
 
Well, it seems the upcoming Audirvana Studio will bring the ability to analyse HD audio quality and detect if it is any better than RBCD. I would not be surprised if Roon pick that feature up as well in the next year or so.
 
No. And they deliver the next most common idiocy:

They cannot but have people that know this is total BS. The whole thing reads like the sort of ignorant idiocy one heard pedalled back in the 80's by people with no mathematics. Back then Linn were happy to push all manner of woo, mostly revolving around the magical properties of their turntable. It seems they haven't changed.
Because BS sells, and people will believe anything. Prior art by kings, preachers and politicians over the centuries...
 
And they were right, when they hit the market, CDs were actually the lowest quality music format - even 8-track tape was capable of holding much more information than this optical media. The dynamic range - the highs and lows in volume and subtleties of the music - as well as the underlying 'noisiness' of the recordings suffered, but to the average listener this didn't really matter, and they were just so convenient that most people didn't seem to care. In fact for a majority it was probably an improvement on worn out cassette tapes! But there were still those that remained firm that vinyl and the original analogue formats just sounded better.

From this page:
https://www.linnrecords.com/downloads

Linn obviously has no shame. They have a whole series of lies on this page. I'm not sure there is anything true on it actually. Even 8 track exceeded CD in sound quality. Utterly ridiculous.

They do make some very nice recordings. At least some use Sennheiser MKH800's which have response to around 50 khz.

Linn need to be called out for that utter garbage.

What a way to lose any credibility they might have had.
 
So to conclude, is it the best way is to perform high resolution capture only during initial mastering from original analog sources and then down sample to CD for distribution purposes?
Pretty much. Do what is now industry standard. Sample at 24/96 and distribute at 16/44.1 or 16/48. The only reason for 24/96 is to give the mixing and production system enough room to operate without introducing numerical artefacts. It makes implementation of a DAW and plugins vastly easier.
In a way all that distributing these useless formats does is push the final implementation of the low pass filter down to be implemented by your tweeter. Which is about the worst place to do it. Oh, and make more money.
Tweeter response is the never mentioned elephant in the room for all these formats. Every argument about the additional music content above 20kHz conveniently ignores the tweeter response, and the unfortunate reality that very few tweeters have any useful response above 20kHz, many are already diving down, and many have quite nasty resonances above 20kHz.

There is the Linn style argument about "information in the gaps between the samples." Which is demonstrably and fundamentally ignorant. From the most basic underpinnings of information theory - there is exactly no information in the gaps to be lost.
 
So far all these videos demonstrate various shortcomings with HD recordings. Are there examples of well made, pristine HD recordings with music content above 22 KHz?
Which instrument would you produce this "music content" with? You might make a synth to play at these frequencies, but at any sane level, no one would know if it's on or off. ;)
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-ranges-of-several-musical-instruments-30.png
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150783
 
Linn need to be called out for that utter garbage.

What a way to lose any credibility they might have had.
And they don't even need it... Price aside, they make really decent gear. I think it might be a case of believing their own, erm, ideology, at least some people there.

I could think of an interesting listening experiment here:
  • crank up the music volume as loud as you can bear
  • cut off all signal below 20 kHz
  • try to listen to what's remaining, at the previously set volume level - "as you can hear, you can't hear a sh!t" :cool:
I think it would be "a cold shower" for many "believers"...
 
Last edited:
So to conclude, is it the best way is to perform high resolution capture only during initial mastering from original analog sources and then down sample to CD for distribution purposes?

No. The best way to perform high-resolution capture is not to have to master from original analog sources. Record direct to PCM digital from mic feed or electrical instrument feed or digital instrument feed. Mix digitally. Then master from that original non-analog source.
 
Linn need to be called out for that utter garbage.

We would all be hoarse if we had to do that for the last 40 years.... maybe that explains the tickle in my throat.
 
No. The best way to perform high-resolution capture is not to have to master from original analog sources. Record direct to PCM digital from mic feed or electrical instrument feed or digital instrument feed. Mix digitally. Then master from that original non-analog source.
I guess the "analog sources" he's speaking of are the instruments / vocalists, they won't become digital ;)
 
So to conclude, is it the best way is to perform high resolution capture only during initial mastering from original analog sources and then down sample to CD for distribution purposes?
In my theory, this could ensure that maximum samples are captured in audible (i.e. the most important) band and any ultrasonic noise is successfully cut.
My opinion, is I'd like the format in which something was originally recorded. If someone uses 24/96 I'd like to have it in 24/96. While much is made of possible ill effects of ultrasonic garbage it rarely is at a level to cause issues. Super careful recordings don't need to have that stuff anyway. I've done recordings and even young musicians have failed to find any advantage to 96 or 192 khz vs 48 khz I normally use. I might at most use 96 khz, and would see to it the ultrasonics are clean.

There are so many things an order of magnitude more important to the quality you hear upon playback than sample rate however. Maybe, maybe for some of the very finest young listeners 96 khz might be just the tiniest bit better like maybe, maybe 1%. If you recorded well at 48 or 44 khz it is 99% of the best possible for any listener which anyone would judge good, and 100% of what is possible for the overwhelming majority of all listeners.
 
So to conclude, is it the best way is to perform high resolution capture only during initial mastering from original analog sources and then down sample to CD for distribution purposes?
Actually, I'll modify my reply, as I wasn't really addressing the question properly earlier.
If you are going back to the master tape (and just exactly what constitutes a master tape is a whole other conversation) there is a very specific reason to capture at a very high sample rate. You need to be able to capture the bias signal. This is going to be of the order of 150 kHz odd, and depends on the machine and sometimes even choice of tape. The reason for capturing the bias is to allow you to correct for speed variations, and critically, scrape flutter. When the tape passes the heads it scrapes, and just like a finger rubbing the rim of a wineglass you can get very fast changing modulation of the speed of the tape past the head. This leads to a form of intermodulation distortion that is welded into the tape at the moment of recording. If you can see the bias signal you have what amounts to a local clock embedded in the tape that you can use to deconvolve the flutter. If you have the luxury of finding the original tracking tapes you can recover real audio that nobody has ever heard since the day the track was laid down. Even if you only have access to the master tapes, you still have a chance to remove the last generation of scrape flutter.

So this is another issue with these high res releases from old tapes. It would appear that most have not taken advantage of this possibility, and thus have actually lost a real opportunity to crete a better quality release, and have simply been lazy and depended upon woo to justify what they are doing. Proper forensic analysis of the tapes and modern processing would have yielded a conventional 16/48 result that exceeds the real musical information available in the silly lazy money grubbing stuff they are actually pedalling.
 
Back
Top Bottom