[Sonoton] - Claude Larson - Remastered Releases

[kosmiksoul]

Hello Librarians!

Sonoton remastered some releases in 2022, so it would be awesome to get the ones by Claude Larson.

These are the ones I'm looking for but any other will be welcome:

SONV 146 - Scenic Sequences
SONV 169 - Scenes and Images vol. 1
SONV 170 - Scenes and Images vol. 2
SONV 192 - Plantlife
SONV 227 - Soundscapes vol. 1
SONV 247 - Soundscapes vol. 2

h--ps://www.sonoton.com/en/search/?search=claude%20larson

Peace & Love

:·)

[ChunYinZi]

I can help you. Downloading these albums is a snap of my fingers.

The difficulty is Uploading them to the web is rather lengthy.


SONV  146    htXXs://mega.nz/file/dLdFTJYR#XrI5sNPqW7sSC_in-cGjZESrnyM_uRfsKR0I7E1ZyQ4
 

SONV  169    htXXs://mega.nz/file/EHchhDxA#1dgumB28Ko3ynpYXJUQ4dgFMV-BCUQIu87krm7nLuK0


SONV  170    htXXs://mega.nz/file/VS90jbDC#5-IUn0pbD7CcUw4YlE3Wi9JnKz7vXP3RO4Zy4p695QE


SONV  192    htXXs://mega.nz/file/ZDFXyYSQ#73B7qAded780rxf6WUo9YU7i_XIRfXpTEKjV-GTApWI


SONV  227    htXXs://mega.nz/file/kSsViTTY#cyGFuR2knxUHyPnz3yFBkAmowOuFII0i1RZEptfR7k0


SONV  247    htXXs://mega.nz/file/JKs1jabR#dYIlBuWq49l-VepPtZXLQUS9p-JLMyrmb8znJ0LKD-g

[John_Fred]

I can help you. Downloading these albums is a snap of my fingers.

The difficulty is Uploading them to the web is rather lengthy.

I concur wholeheartedly.  Uploading files, (particularly those over 500Mb), takes quite a while to do.  The servers on the file-sharing sites have to cope with a lot.  Which is why I don't expect immediate responses to requests.  It's nice when it happens, (of course), but I don't expect/demand it.  You're doing us all proud, matey!   

[Dyo]

Thanks for the upgrade!
greetings
Dyo
Aussieland

[nidostar]

I can help you. Downloading these albums is a snap of my fingers.

The difficulty is Uploading them to the web is rather lengthy.

I concur wholeheartedly.  Uploading files, (particularly those over 500Mb), takes quite a while to do.  The servers on the file-sharing sites have to cope with a lot.  Which is why I don't expect immediate responses to requests.  It's nice when it happens, (of course), but I don't expect/demand it.  You're doing us all proud, matey!   

Agreed. Thanks for your generous shares, ChunYinZi.

[Greta]

Only by converting those wavs to flacs would make those 800MB files a lot smaller => 400MB. Which means half of the time for uploading and downloading.

But that, for the sharer, would mean to unzip APM's files, convert them to flac, and re-zip them.

Too much work??

[ChunYinZi]

Only by converting those wavs to flacs would make those 800MB files a lot smaller => 400MB. Which means half of the time for uploading and downloading.

But that, for the sharer, would mean to unzip APM's files, convert them to flac, and re-zip them.

Too much work??

About this issue

I have two answers


1 I am a firm WAVist and I always think that WAV is the best sound quality in lossless


2 convert WAV to FLAC will make its sound quality loss because I do not have a special software, strictly speaking, you need to adjust the parameters of the output FLAC to be better


To sum up, I always share WAV

[Greta]

Ok. Your choice Chun.

[nidostar]

About this issue

I have two answers

1 I am a firm WAVist and I always think that WAV is the best sound quality in lossless

2 convert WAV to FLAC will make its sound quality loss because I do not have a special software, strictly speaking, you need to adjust the parameters of the output FLAC to be better

To sum up, I always share WAV

This raises an interesting point for me. WAV files are undoubtedly lossless. But I have read elsewhere on the web that sound quality is reduced when a file is converted to FLAC or Apple Lossless (M4A). But is that right? Both of these formats are also designated lossless and my understanding is that one could convert between these formats over and over without loss of sound quality. As I have an iMac I convert all the FLAC shares to ALAC (Apple Lossless) using XLD before adding them to my Apple Music app (formerly iTunes). My interpretation of Spek output suggests that there is no loss of quality after conversion. Or have I got this wrong?

[Greta]

This has been discussed so many times in the past.
And it's been proved that there is no loss of a single bit of informations in converting WAV (or AIFF) to FLAC (or ALAC, APE ecc.). And back, over and over.

[ChunYinZi]

This has been discussed so many times in the past.
And it's been proved that there is no loss of a single bit of informations in converting WAV (or AIFF) to FLAC (or ALAC, APE ecc.). And back, over and over.

I'll finish by saying what I think about this matter

Change is definitely there, but very small 

Ordinary people can not hear the difference

Unless you use very good equipment and a good pair of ears


But both are also lossless music, certainly better than MP3   

All the music I'm sharing is WAV, and forum friends can convert it themselves if you like.

Thank you!

[John_Fred]

I think a lot of it depends on the bitrate by which the WAV files are saved in.  Generally, they're 48000Hz with a format of 16 bits.  However, this can vary with some being 44100Hz and some being 24 bits.  When converting to FLAC, it's always better to match the bitrate and format to the original files, if not there's a danger of losing some information, no matter how small, as a result.  I've converted many to FLAC and have never noticed any drop in sound quality.  But then, that's just my ears!   

[Greta]

When converting to FLAC, it's always better to match the bitrate and format to the original files, if not there's a danger of losing some information, no matter how small, as a result.

Exactly.
That's why many softwares don't let you choose bitrate and format, but just keep the same ones when converting to flac.

Converting 16/44.1 wav to 16/44.1 flac doesn't make you lose anything.
Or 16/48 to 16/48, or 24/48 to 24/48 and so on.

The differences audible through the listening experience Chun is referring to, is real, but it is caused by the player.
Many players do not have the chance to reproduce the flacs, and others do but just converting on-the-go to wav, obtaining non-optimal results.
That's why for the listening (or editing) it is always advisable to use uncompressed formats as WAV or AIFF directly.
This doesn't mean that by converting WAV to FLAC or viceversa you get loss of data, but only that reproducing compressed formats (even if lossless) is not as good as reproducing uncompressed formats.

Lossless compression is useful for storage or sharing matters, and less for listening.

Even burning audio CD's (not data) using FLACs, makes your burning software to convert the FLACs to WAVs before burning.

[Greta]

Quoting myself cause going back to read the thread I realized my expression might have looked aggressive, but my intentions weren't belligerent..
I was just meaning it's not a great sacrifice, if one considers the benefits.

Too much work??

[John_Fred]

Quoting myself cause going back to read the thread I realized my expression might have looked aggressive, but my intentions weren't belligerent..
I was just meaning it's not a great sacrifice, if one considers the benefits.

Too much work??

i think it's more the amount of time it takes to upload files to file sharing sites that becomes laborious.  It's amazing how time can fly by when uploading files.