[slwiser]

If you are interested in the discount offer click here:

January promotion

 

[hempcamp]

What makes it a promotion? I don't see any savings over the regular prices!

Thanks for the notice regardless -- I've been meaning to check out the Linn offerings.

--Chris

PS - I thought the idea of offering digital recordings was that they would be *cheaper* than the recording industry offerings!

$15 for a downgraded album, $30 for the high res? Even an Apple fan can't be satisfied with that kind of markup. No thanks, I'll stick with Magnatune and physical CDs!

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

Yeah I dont see how this a promotion in any way. All I see are regular prices which as mentioned above are ridiculously high. FLAC for 30 bucks????

One closer observation there seems to be a sampler cd on discount. I still dont see how the FLAC rip is costlier than the physical disc itself. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Besides if this is supposedly a surround sound sampler , won't the FLAC files be just stereo?

 

[milkpowder]

FLACs will still be stereo. If you're willing to pay $30+ for XRCD or K2HD, there's no reason why you wouldn't pay that much for stuff that is actually high resolution. It costs us UK people $36 for a FLAC/WMA studio master, so XRCD and K2HD is actually more affordable (but not by much

)

eg 3 K2HD/XRCD from elusivedisc.com costs approx $105 delivered to UK. Three Studio Master downloads cost $108.


The reason why the Studio Master FLACs cost more than the actual CD is simple: bandwidth. It actually takes more effort to down-convert high resolution studio master files to PCM, cut the master disc then from that cut CDs, and last but not least case them. I guess that process is so streamlined that bandwidth costs more?

 

[Zanth]

When the SACD can be had for the same or less...charging anywhere near the cost of the physical product for some bits and bytes is heinous.

Why should the three studio masters cost $108? Unless along with that cost they end up sending you a stamped disc to burn the tracks to AND liner notes...no thanks.

 

[milkpowder]

A bit off-topic, but what if they were to offer the high res. masters on disc, like Reference Recordings is doing via HRx WAV files @ an impressive 24-bit/176.4 kHz, for the same price? I too think Linn charges a bit too much, but I have taken the bait more than a couple of times and have been more than satisfied with the quality.

 

[Zanth]

I'd pay that cost for a disc. I pay 2x that for choice vinyl selections. So long as the music is appealing to me and the recording is worthy of the quality and price I'd go for it.

I'm all about garbage in and garbage out.

One can have the best playback system in the world but if the music is recorded horribly, the system will simply reproduce that horrid sound perfectly

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd pay that cost for a disc. I pay 2x that for choice vinyl selections. So long as the music is appealing to me and the recording is worthy of the quality and price I'd go for it. I'm all about garbage in and garbage out. One can have the best playback system in the world but if the music is recorded horribly, the system will simply reproduce that horrid sound perfectly

x2! And some of Linn's Studio Master recordings aren't that great either (performance-wise) so I wouldn't even think about getting those.

 

[Zanth]

This is often the case, audiophile labels have AWESOME sound but mediocre performances. This is usually because the big name performers (often the virtuosos of the genres) are signed to other labels. This is one reason why I respect Steve Hoffman's remastering efforts. He gets the license to remaster a wonderful album for a short period of time (sometimes as short as 6 months to a year) and he brings to life from the master tapes AWESOME performances and giving us the best sound possible.

As a gift this Christmas I got Hoffman's remaster of the famed soundtrack to Charlie Brown's Christmas. Limited to 1000 units on 45 rpm 180 g vinyl, it is sublime stuff and a reworking of one of the best jazz recordings ever. The cost? $50. Pretty steap for music I can hear on CD for $10 but worth every penny to me because it is my favourite Christmas album.

 

[slwiser]

I got the promotion disk tracks for half the regular price for FLAC hi rez. Can't see the issue here. That is 13.50$ instead of the regular 27$ for hi rez FLAC.

 

[Zanth]

I'm discussing the overall cost itself of the tracks not the promotional price. Though even at $13.50 I want a real physical object in hand.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

I still dont see the whole point of downloading Stereo FLAC files at however High a resolution, of an album titled "Surround Sound Sampler". Am I missing something here?

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason why the Studio Master FLACs cost more than the actual CD is simple: bandwidth. It actually takes more effort to down-convert high resolution studio master files to PCM, cut the master disc then from that cut CDs, and last but not least case them. I guess that process is so streamlined that bandwidth costs more?

I'm OK with charging more for high-res because of higher bandwidth (I defended Apple for higher-priced iTunes+ even though now they are the same price). But twice the price is ridiculous! I'd rather buy an SACD and own the physical disc at that price point.

--Chris