Linn Studio Masters download for free

[thx911]

don't forget to download the high quality sleeve art along with the tracks - quite useful album art.

 

[IndianEars]

Yes, Both ( Music + Sleeve ) download together.... atleast when I use the Linn Download manager

 

[dillihifi]

Can anybody upload the first day's tracks to dropbox (public). I seemed to have missed the same. By the way i have all the tracks from the last year along with the album art.

 

[technobhatt]

Can anybody upload the first day's tracks to dropbox (public). I seemed to have missed the same. By the way i have all the tracks from the last year along with the album art.

I also missed the first 3 days' tracks.
Please share if possible.

 

[musicbee]

I would also appreciate the 1st day recordings and also the album art for all 3 days.

I did get the 1st day recordings but opted for the "CD Quality" and not the "Studio Master". Have since then gotten the high res versions but would love the same for the 1st day too.

 

[dillihifi]

@technobhatt - I will post the 2nd and the 3rd days tracks on public drop box links tmrw.

 

[Naturelover]

The taster and day 3.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wd5vil82azl8vbu/KYmvHbwLmB
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5sxjwy1h88u6pzd/JY2kxoIJBS

Days 1 & 2 coming up. I've got a slow connection!

 

[Naturelover]

Days 1 & 2
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6lyb9fb48j1dkjt/vA8Ggjq64N
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lpev1f1r2ohdhww/1VgN6PAf3N

 

[technobhatt]

Thank you so much @Naturelover for sharing the tracks

@dillihifi: Thanks, however no need for you to share as of now, as 'Naturelover' already shared track for day 1-3, I got all of them now

Linn recordings are new kind of music experience for me and I'm liking it a lot Peaceful and beautiful compositions... Oxygen IV and Cristmas EP were awesome.
These recordings are tempting me to have a dedicated music set-up now!!

 

[technobhatt]

Here is the link for hassle-free downloading of Day-4 track

Day 4 - Electric Counterpoint Version for Percussions - Movement III Fast (KUNIKO)
https://mega.co.nz/#F!fElRXRLY!DrovxQVq6hp4MURKXFiEcQ

 

[Shylo]

i buy flac from HD tracks.. they are damn cool, use of coupons to get amazing deal too.

Hi Netant .. Curious to understand how you download from HD Tracks .. I was given to understand by them that one can only download if one is based out of the US due to some copyright issues

 

[Naturelover]

They have a Paypal option.

 

[thx911]

Can anybody upload the first day's tracks to dropbox (public). I seemed to have missed the same. By the way i have all the tracks from the last year along with the album art.

think if you install the Linn download manager you get access to previous tracks + sleeves - no?

 

[Staxxx]

I listened to two of the pieces last night --- well, one and bit because I gave up.

Mahler 1: there is a lot of noise. It is the same kind of noise that I was listening to on sample files from one of the hi-res-contraversy papers. I believe my software/hardware chain plays a part in this, but it is a pain. I have to do the research. But... should I have to research just to listen to music?

Mahler 2: Harsh and fatiguing. Just like listening to low-bit MP3. I turned to my CD version just to soothe my ears --- and could have listened happily to the whole >1-hour contentedly if bed time had not intervened. Not a comparison, they are different recordings of different performances

Mahler 9: not listened yet. Actually, it was an accidental purchase: I clicked on the wrong thing. Wouldn't mind if it was good, though.

Not too worried about the $30+, but I'm glad it didn't cost more than that.

Thad
When you have some time and are in the area, lets meet up to listen to some tracks in high-rez etc. I think the debate is very interesting.
I have bought tens of classical tracks in high-rez and have come to the following conclusion. A well mastered and recorded cd rez track will sound better than a poorly mastered and recorded high-rez track. i.e. I feel honestly the rez does not matter as much as it is made out to be. This is only my opinion.....and I do buy high-rez for a few Euros more when the option is on offer.
I suppose I am saying it does not turn a mediocre recording into a good one. And my system is revealing enough to hear any differences.
A good recording in high-rez though has an amazing immediacy and presence.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I agree entirely. It's the recording that counts --- not the media or the digital sample/bit rate. A good recording on cassette would beat a 24/192 bad one. Heck... even a good 78RPM :lol:

I think that a lot of people are getting "high-res" (I don't like that: it is a marketing term) recordings and saying, "Wow, High-res is wonderful," when they have not also got the 16/44 ("low-res," but what's low about it? Another marketing term!) and made any sort of comparison at all, let alone a blind one. This is, as an assessment of the media, absolutely invalid whether positive or negative.

Arising from another thread, last night, I found myself on this Linn webpage: What is a Studio Master?

It is a piece of pure marketing drivel. Actually, drivel is the wrong word, because it is carefully calculated by those skilled in the mental manipulation techniques known as marketing. It makes no real technical point, but is full of FUD and reinforcement of prejudices based on assumptions which suit them. Very disappointed to read such bullshit from a respected hifi name.

There is a very real question as to whether or not >48k PCM is an advancement or not. The recent thread on vinyl/digital got into an interesting (and open-minded ) discussion about it, but it seems to have petered out.

Yes, I'd love to meet with you. Sadly, even though our cities are probably the closest of the Indian metros, we are still just too far apart.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Big Necessary Post Script to that!

I am not calling the whole high-sampling-rate thing "bullshit." Sure, I have my suspicions, but the jury, for me, is still out on the topic, and I hope to be chewing it over a lot more, as well as listening to some.

My rant is aimed entirely at the marketing thing. It's just marketing and manipulation, no substance. Jury still out on the product.

Really wanted to clarify that, but, then my UPS battery gave up and I had to go out before the power returned.

 

[Nikhil]

Big Necessary Post Script to that!

I am not calling the whole high-sampling-rate thing "bullshit." Sure, I have my suspicions, but the jury, for me, is still out on the topic, and I hope to be chewing it over a lot more, as well as listening to some.

My rant is aimed entirely at the marketing thing. It's just marketing and manipulation, no substance. Jury still out on the product.

Thad, I've been on this for the past few months and it's taken me some time as well to understand digital media.
You are right about the source material etc however all things being equal, high res files offers Dynamic Range.

A lot of lesser recordings by run of the mill studios are "hot" - in short they are louder and hence grab your attention. This is at the cost of dynamic range and loss of detail. Transients, low level detail, etc are sacrificed. The Linn recordings are some of the best I have heard. However, the material you get at other places are debatable. You also have to look at your DAC and how it processes the signal. My DAC has the S/PDIF inputs limited to 24/96 whereas input via USB goes upto 24/192. Big difference in sound quality when I use the USB input.

If you get some of the things not quite right - you will not hear the difference. In that case it would be better to stick with the resolution at which you get the best VFM. No point springing for the extra cash if you can't hear the difference.

 

[Santy]

@Thad
You are so dead against hi-res...

This site does support you in your crusade and it nicely concludes that there are no major benefits of 24 vs 16 except that
1. It helps in recording by giving enough headroom and help reduce quantization errors in ADC process.
2. It helps in digital volume attenuation since more bit depth= less % loss of bits
3. Dynamic range improves so we hear sound close to the noise floor more clearly in 24 than that of 16, subject to the limitation of the DAC (SNR).
4. Decay of instruments are better heard in case of 24 bit subject to DAC performance.

I tend to agree with the inferences.

And I like this statement

The big debate
You can find many debates on the internet about 16 vs. 24
In the pro world this debate has been settled, almost everybody is recording with 24 bits today.
They have some very good reasons to do so.

I like this statement even more. :lol:

The debate continues
Audiophiles will probably never reach consensus on any subject:

 

[arj]

It is a piece of pure marketing drivel. Actually, drivel is the wrong word, because it is carefully calculated by those skilled in the mental manipulation techniques known as marketing. It makes no real technical point, but is full of FUD and reinforcement of prejudices based on assumptions which suit them. Very disappointed to read such bullshit from a respected hifi name.

Big Necessary Post Script to that!
..
My rant is aimed entirely at the marketing thing. It's just marketing and manipulation, no substance. Jury still out on the product.

Really wanted to clarify that, but, then my UPS battery gave up and I had to go out before the power returned.

Thad, i do hear you..not just this post but in the past as well. Unfortunately we humans are Suckers for the power of suggestion and everyone and everything from God to fizzy drinks are hyped/lied about and oversold via Marketing ! and if it is Not, the product, though superior, just dies.

music relatively is perhaps in the lower end of the scale as it is the disposable income which is impacted hyeah: . think about Overhyped Apartments , TV technologies, Phone, and finally food ( especially those healthy oils) which literally takes life...and even the recent Onion Hype for profiteering !!

Funny fact is that we as parents start it all up by Hyping it up to our kids and then we turn victim to the abovehyeah:

Technically i am all for Hi rez as it has a higher bit rate. My Dac is Not hi rez so i will need to downsample it anyway...and better downsample than upsample being the hoarder that I am the extra bits give me comfort.

In my setup due it being 16/44.1 High rez does not really sound better.. but i have heard the same recording in a setup where High rez was noticeably smoother for the same remastered recording.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

@Thad
You are so dead against hi-res...

I'm dead against marketing bull (but aware that, of course, I fall for it too!) and ...I have those, err, ranting days. Seems yesterday was a day for a good rant hyeah:. Which isn't to say I don't still believe it today!

As for how against "high-res" I am, well, as I mentioned earlier, I bought some the other day with high-res dollars . Apart from that, I'm just like everybody else, reading the viewpoints, trying to understand the theory, weighing it up ...and yes, in so far as my equipment goes, listening to it as well. Did I say "everybody?" OK, I meant everybody who is not simply taken in by some marketing gumph with bigger numbers in it. OK, not everybody; not even close .

This site does support you in your crusade and it nicely concludes that there are no major benefits of 24 vs 16...

Probably the most crusading (and largely unpopular) reference is the xiph stuff.

... except that
1. It helps in recording by giving enough headroom and help reduce quantization errors in ADC process.

True.

In the pro world this debate has been settled, almost everybody is recording with 24 bits today.
They have some very good reasons to do so.

And headroom is the real reason why recording engineers work at higher bit rates. It has nothing to do with there being any advantage in them to the end listener. To claim or imply otherwise is simply misunderstanding the process.

2. It helps in digital volume attenuation since more bit depth= less % loss of bits

True. But audiophiles hate digital volume control! Theoretically, they have good reason, and I think most of us try to avoid it, even though, in practice, it is actually quite usable.

3. Dynamic range improves so we hear sound close to the noise floor more clearly in 24 than that of 16, subject to the limitation of the DAC (SNR).

People write stuff like, "I did xyz and the noise floor got lower," but... the noise floor is waaaay below our hearing, so I wonder at it, just as I wonder at that claim. To be fair, I also wonder how much stuff that we can't hear affects stuff that we can.

4. Decay of instruments are better heard in case of 24 bit subject to DAC performance.

If 16 bits is sufficient, it is sufficient. I can't argue with this one, but if it is true, then surely something is wrong!

If it is true that, with 16/44 pcm, the wave form you get out is the wave for that was put in, then all the claims for higher rates are wrong, or, at least talking about stuff that is unnecessary.

Maybe, for stuff to get really better, we have to wait for something completely different. DSD? Is that hype too? I have no idea: for me, it is, as yet, a vague dot on the horizon.