Why the HIFI Blues Blog
I have written this blog because I have loved listening to
good music including the blues for all my life. I first started getting
interested in record players ever since I first heard a wind up mechanical
player in a neighbour’s house when I was a boy.
Just like every teenager I loved to listen to the pop stars
of my youth especially, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Shadows and Buddy
Holly. Must of the equipment that I listened on was primitive by today’s
standards. There was no FM or Internet radio. Music equipment was valve or tube
based in my youth. We had to learn how to change a valve without electrocuting
ourselves.
Digital music was almost the realm of science fiction. It
was limited to research laboratories. MP3 type devices were part of a fantasy.
The thought that you could stream music to every part of your home via a
Wireless connection was also in the realm of fantasy. Now we have all this and
at HIFI quality we have come a long way. HIFI now offers something for
everyone. It is great fun.
I am aiming this blog at people who are thinking of
upgrading their systems to try to improve the quality and convenience of the
music that they hear in their home. I am
not aiming at people who are already audiophiles. I am hoping that we can start
a debate about the so called improvements claimed for “HIRES” digital music.
If you are thinking of going down this path then please
critically examine all the claims before you shell out your hard earned cash.
There needs to be proof that “HIRES” does actually provide real improvement at
your ears despite the exceptional numbers and specifications.
I am not going to advocate that you throw away your LP’s
or Cassette tapes but I am asking you to have an open mind about new
developments in computerised music reproduction and its flexibility.
I want you to help you find value for money by critically
examining the claims of HIFI magazines, HIFI forums, Advertisers and HIFI
dealers.
Above all, I want you to enjoy and the exceptional pleasure
that HIFI from all sources can provide.
What is HIFI anyway?
No one is really able to fully define what HIFI is. There
have been attempts to standardise the definition especially by German HIFI
manufacturers but there has never been a universal standard applied.
If High Fidelity is
to mean anything; all of the equipment and means of transmission to get the
music to your ears must be of high quality. It must be able to faithfully
reproduce the original music.
In other words the microphones, tape recorders and master
tapes need to be of a high standard. The sound engineers must then produce a
master tape of equal quality. An LP, Cassette tape or CD must then be produced
which maintains that standard. Your playback equipment must now perform the
task of converting and amplifying the recording into the HIFI sound that you
hear from your speakers.
Dynamic Range and Musical Variety
One of the best ways to test how good your HIFI is will be
to go and listen to lots of orchestral music. The orchestra produces a wide
variety of sounds acoustically without amplification. Most orchestras position
the strings, woodwind, brass and percussion instruments in a set place to
produce a familiar soundstage. You can then compare the performance of your
equipment at home to an orchestra.
The orchestra can produce music with a very wide dynamic
range from the very softest sound of a flute to the loudest sound of a bass
drum or a concert organ. The dynamic range of orchestral music is much wider
than a pop group which is playing with amplified music. It should be noted that
an orchestra can go loud enough to damage the hearing of some of the players
over long periods of time.
Better still go to the Opera even if you cannot stand it.
Here you will hear the human voice demonstrating its full range of tone and
volume. This is accompanied by the
dynamic range of the orchestra. You will be amazed at how powerful the human
voice can be.
Fidelity
If your HIFI equipment can reproduce the sound of an
orchestra in your living room or headphones such that you can hear the loudest and
softest sound without distortion then you are doing well. If you can hear where
the instruments are placed you are doing even better.
If the London Symphony Orchestra actually sounds like it is a live
performance you are doing even better. If you can hear the opera singers’ voices
moving around the stage on a live recording then you have got true HIFI.
You may not like the music that you are hearing but that is
not the point. Is the sound being reproduced as faithfully and closely to the
original performance as recorded on the master tape? There really is no other
reference or standard.
It does not made good sense to compare one piece of
equipment with another as they will always sound marginally different. How true
to the original piece of music or master tape do they sound? That is the only
real test. This should be true despite the cost of the equipment.
Different sets of
HIFI equipment should sound very close to one another. The differences should
be minimal if both sets of equipment are truly HIFI. If there is a big difference
in sound then it is possible that one or both sets of equipment are not truly
HIFI.
HIFI magazines
usually forget to consider most of the foregoing in their deliberations and I
shall critically examine their performance later.
You do not need to just listen to orchestras; you can test matters for yourself with other
forms of music. One of my CD’s makes John Renbourn, a folk and jazz guitarist
and singer, sound as if he is in my living room. How do I know that? I have
been to hear him live. That means that my HIFI is good enough for me and does
not need replacing.
It is not just CDs that can deliver HIFI performance. LPs and FM radio can deliver it too and even high
bit rate internet radio can deliver similar performance. The much loved Cassette tape does not do so badly either.
Testing and proof
We really cannot examine the history of HIFI and the modern
developments without examining the principles behind the testing of the
equipment. We also need to distinguish
between false claims for the performance of equipment. Manufacturers should
prove that their equipment works as advertised. Without this proof HIFI will be
unable to progress much further.
Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extra
ordinary evidence. You can see a clip from one of his Cosmos series here.
This explains how the scientific mind explores an extraordinary
claim. There was no danger of Carl Sagan making the facts fit the theory.
If I say that I cannot hear a 20KHZ tone then it is
believable especially as I am a middle aged adult. This is not an extraordinary
claim. However, if I say that I can hear
a 38 KHZ tone then it is, because no-one has ever been proven to be
able to do this. You are entitled to say where is the proof? Where is the
evidence so we can test this claim?
To prove such claims you need to do a double blind test. You
could repeatedly and randomly play two short film clips to a test subject. One clip contains a 38 kHz sound and the other
does not have any sound tones at all. If the subject can identify the clip with
the 38 kHz sound much more than just by chance, say 60% of the time, we could
be on to something.
In a double blind test neither the tester nor the subject
will know the identity of the test data. This eliminates unintentional bias. If
the tester knows what the result should be he could unconsciously convey the
correct result to the subject being tested.
I have never read any
HIFI magazine review that involves a double blind test based on the scientific
method. So what is the validity of their pronouncements when they examine the
performance of equipment or types of media? The adverts of manufacturers are
also sadly lacking in real scientific proof.
On HIFI forums you can read lots of claims by participants
that one type of equipment is far better than another at reproducing HIFI. Some
participants claim that their hearing is better than others. To all of this, I
say where is the proof? If you cannot
prove it objectively then your claim or assertion is no better than an
opinion. And, your opinion is just as
valid or invalid as anyone else’s.
Some History
Here is some history about my experience of when I was young
in the 50’s and 60’s.
The record players of my youth
When I was young in the 1950’s our neighbours had a pre- war
wind up gramophone or record player. It was not exactly the same as the one
seen on the HMV logo but it had a large horn built into a wooden cabinet. The
record player had no electronic components; the turn table was driven by
clockwork and the sound was amplified by the large horn in the cabinet.
The
record arm had a steel needle which needed to be sharpened before use. Our
neighbours had a large collection of ballads and orchestral works on shellac
records. Whilst the frequency response was very limited it was possible to
enjoy the music and singers. From the
first time I heard this very old record player I have been fascinated by
artificially reproduced music. It never ceases to amaze me how it can sound so
good even on a primitive player.
This record player suffered from all the faults inherent in
reproducing sound and music from a mechanical device. Even when fully wound up,
there was plenty of “wow” because the clockwork motor was unable to maintain a
constant speed. “Wow” or pitch variation
was also caused by warped records and a poorly aligned or worn central hole.
When the clockwork
mechanism really started to wind down the frequency response really
deteriorated. Sound reproduction also suffered from the actual noise of the
steel needle on the shellac record and of course the snap, crackle and pop of
dust and static electricity on the shellac surface and unavoidable
scratches.
The gramophone also produced enormous amounts of rumble from
the clockwork motor. Despite all the
mechanical flaws every one seemed to enjoy the music.
During the late 1940’s and 1950’s electrical record players
became popular but most households could still not afford one. 78 rpm vinyl
records also became popular as did the 33 1/3 rpm LP. The 7 inch 45 rpm single
really made popular music come of age.
A different stylus
had to be used for playing 78’s but the sound of the music was enormously improved
by the use of electrically driven turntables and valve or tube amplifiers.
During the 1950’s enormous advances were made in sound
reproduction to reduce turntable rumble and wow and to improve the range of
frequencies which could be reproduced. The modern era of sound reproduction had
started and it was not that much different to the sound of modern equipment.
In the UK the popular music industry really took off in the
late 1950’s and early 1960’s with the advent of the Dansette portable record
player which could play a stack of 7inch 45 rpm records. The record player had
a sapphire stylus and a ceramic cartridge. The amplification was driven by
valves the sound was noticeably “warmer” than modern equipment using
transistors.
By the early 1960’s nearly every house had a Dansette type
record player and jiving in the home became very popular and so did scratches
on records and the damage from the constant replay and the motion of the stack
changers. No-one ever replaced a sapphire needle and despite the static and the
deterioration of the sound quality every one had great fun dancing to Elvis
Presley or the Beatles.
Not everyone could afford to buy records so it was common to
lend them to your friends and this guaranteed that the record would be returned
scratched or unplayable. As you can
imagine none of this sound reproduction was HIFI and not even the most
expensive equipment was able to produce the full frequency response which is
easily available today.
Pop Music on the Radio
In the UK during the 1950’s and early 60’s popular
music broadcasting was very limited. The BBC had three radio channels: the Light Programme which broadcast “light”
rather than “Pop” such as band shows and ballad singers; the Home service was
similar to today’s Radio 4; and the Third programme which broadcast classical
music.
No commercial Radio
was allowed. To listen to pop music we had to pester our parents to allow us to
tune in to Radio Luxembourg or Pick of
the Pops on the BBC Light programme using the our home’s one and only Radio – a
valve one. Radio Luxembourg was broadcast on the Medium Wave or AM nowadays and
was only receivable after dark.
By 1964 transistor radios had become genuinely portable and
affordable and I used one to listen to Radio Caroline. It was illegal to listen
to Radio Caroline but no-one was bothered. Radio Caroline was Britain’s first
pirate Radio station. It broadcast non-stop popular music from international
waters near Felixstowe and it was financed by adverts.
Radio Caroline was
very much influenced by American commercial radio. “Wonderful” Radio London
closely followed Radio Caroline and I can clearly remember listening to John
Peel on Radio London after dark.
Jukeboxes
Jukeboxes were semi -automated machines which played 45 rpm
records in coffee bars and pubs. They were around from the early twentieth
century but came to the fore in the 50’s when 45rpm discs and pop music culture
came together.
My friends and I spent hours in coffee bars and latterly in pubs
scraping together coins to feed the machine. Quite often new releases were
first made available for the Jukebox which was an ideal way to attract
customers to the coffee bar or pub and make lots of money.
The quality of the sound reproduction
One thing is certain the quality of the sound reproduction
from 1960’s “Dansette type” Record Players, the Radio and the Jukebox was not
up to High Fidelity standard. To get high quality sound reproduction you had to
a pay a lot of money.
Record players suffered from rumble and wow and even flutter
where the high frequencies altered pitch. Valve amplifiers produced harmonic
distortion which made the music sound warmer and thicker. The records
themselves produced more harmonic distortion and the “Dansette” speakers added
to it especially at high volumes.
Perhaps the worst
aspect of playing records was the static hissing and popping and the dreaded
scratch which could make the record stick and become un-playable. Never the
less all young people really enjoyed their music and jived in the coffee bar
and at home for as long as their parents allowed them to.
AM Radio was really
no better, if you lived a long way from the transmitter you had to wait until
after dark when the radio waves were able to propagate themselves by reflecting
off the ionosphere over long distances.
There was a lot of interference from
transmissions on nearby frequencies or distant stations on the same frequency
or from unsuppressed household appliances and mains hum.
The stations would
often fade away completely especially when the Radio Caroline DJ put your
favourite record on as if the ionosphere knew your musical tastes. The dynamic range of AM was limited
not that that made much difference to a pop record.
The radio stations only had a separation of 10 KHZ so the frequency
response was limited compared to modern HIFI equipment and modern FM
broadcasting. The limited dynamic range spoilt the musical experience for
classical music enthusiasts. You really had to love your music to want to
listen to it on AM radio but that was the only way you could get to hear the
latest release without paying for the pleasure. Your mother and father paid for
the Radio licence.
Jukebox music fared better; the automation and enclosed
cabinet protected the 45’s from dust and scratches but not static electricity
and the records often went out of fashion before the needles wore out.
The Jukebox did not
protect records from producers artificially compressing the volume of the music.
The softer parts of the music where amplified on the master tapes to make the
whole record sound louder. This reduced the dynamic range of the music in a
sound war between the record labels to make their records more noticeable on
the Jukebox. This is why lots of Pop
music sounded awful. Compression of the music is not a modern phenomenon.
Stereophonic Music and HIFI
In the mid 1950’s full frequency stereophonic sound
recordings were made of orchestral works. They were taken up by classical
record enthusiasts and were produced in vinyl LP 33 1/3 rpm format. The type of HIFI equipment needed to play
these recordings was very expensive and most homes did not have a stereo HIFI
record player.
These recordings had a very wide dynamic range of around 70 db and
a frequency response of around 80 Hz to 15,000 kHz which is not too far short
of today’s standards.
Stereo recordings of
popular music did not appear much before the mid-60’s as most records were played
on a single speaker “Dansette type” equipment so there was no need for stereo
or high fidelity. The first Beatles album to appear in Stereo only was Abbey
Road in 1969. It was not until the mid 60’s that my family acquired a
stereophonic HIFI.
The amplifier was
designed and hand made with transistors by a friend who was an electronic
engineer and music enthusiast. It was at this time that most families and
teenagers could afford to get their hands on a real HIFI.
Throughout the Seventies most people could afford to buy
genuine HIFI equipment and use the likes of Pioneer Decks, Leak Amplifiers and
Wharfdale speakers. Classical, Jazz and Popular music had never had it so good.
The trouble was you really had to look after your records
carefully. Even if you did they were still prone to scratches, static discharges
and the popping sound of dust in the grooves.
The mere act of flipping a record over was fraught with danger; you
could easily drop it on the deck or the floor.
If you lent a favourite LP to a friend it either came back damaged or not at all. Parties could prove to be a disaster; someone would
find your favourite unblemished LP and put it on the deck and scratch it whilst
you weren’t looking.
The improvements to amplifier and speaker design showed up
the weaknesses of turntables and cartridges; wow and flutter, tracking noises,
rumble and inconsistent turning speed. Extra light tone arms and cartridges
could be easily vibrated or subject to feed back from the ever more powerful
sound systems.
Some cartridges were
also prone to picking up VHF signals from powerful TV masts and you could hear
Radio 4 blasting out of your speakers.
I heard all of these problems and more from the sound
systems of both myself and my friends.
The cure for all these problems meant buying more and more
expensive turn table equipment. HIFI was becoming the preserve of the
enthusiast and the Tweaker. But no amount of money could cure the problem of
scratches, static and dust and their annoying noise. LP’s could also get worn
out and tired or even warped over time. There was no cure for that either.
Despite all this and even though I eventually replaced all
my LP’s with CD’s I still play records occasionally. It reminds me of the good
old days. A new LP which is looked after
well can still give years of HIFI enjoyment.
Cassette Tapes
In the mid 1970’s Cassette tapes started to become popular. Although
Cassette tape recorders were being sold from the mid sixties they were mainly
used as dictating machines for the spoken voice. There was too much tape hiss for
them to be used for music reproduction.
All this changed when Dolby noise reduction made them a
“HIFI” item. Pre-recorded music on an audio cassette started to take off. They
sounded very good and helped to solve some of the problems of gramophone
records.
Some of my friends bought recorders to “rip” their LP’s onto
a tape. This helped to protect the LP
from the ravages of use. I could not see the point of this as there was a
noticeable deterioration in sound quality if you used a cheap recorder.
However, your LP could be hidden away and you could lend them
the tape to copy. But HIFI was in danger of going out of the window.
Some of my friends made compilation tapes for parties and to
ensure that their records would not get scratched. Tape compilation became a hobby for
some people and disc jockeys often used it too.
The cassette tape became more and more popular. I resisted
buying a tape cassette player and recorder until the early 1980’as I still
loved the sound of an LP. When I finally succumbed, I found that they sounded
almost as good. The sound quality was improving all the time.
More and more pre-recorded cassettes were being sold and
their sales started to overtake LP’s during the mid 1980’s. Blank cassettes
were also selling more and more with the advent of double cassette players and
recorders and tape machines in cars.
I still have two cassette players and one of them is a
swanky Sony which still plays very well after 25 years. I have even used it to “digitise” some
important recordings which I do not want to lose.
There are some big drawbacks with cassette tapes: they
break, get tangled up or they stretch. These flaws render them unplayable. Why
it happens to some tapes but not others I cannot explain but it is best not to
keep rewinding them. Just let them play all
the way through even if the track is boring. Some tapes suffer from friction and do not run so easily
causing wow and flutter. In the main, however, the system worked quite well.
I have still got some tapes that are twenty years old and
sound great in the car. I ripped a CD to tape the other day and it sounds
almost like HIFI in the car or on my Sony.
Of course with invention of MP3 players the tape has almost bitten
the dust.
For some reason I still prefer to play a tape in the car
rather than use an MP3 and a tape head adapter. All my MP3 music is now 256 kbps
and sounds just as good as a Cassette but there is something very convenient
and nostalgic about using the tapes that have survived.
FM Radio
Although FM broadcasting started in America during World War
2 it did not overtake AM broadcasting until the late 1970’s. In Europe we were
behind. Its improved bandwidth and frequency modulation offered the opportunity
to make HIFI broadcasts. Broadcasters had, however, learnt the old trick of
compressing pop music to make it sound louder in the car.
The BBC and other broadcasters did not adopt this practice
for their classical music broadcasts. If
you had a good aerial you could receive HIFI quality broadcasts. When I
listened to live broadcasts from the Royal Albert Hall I often felt that I was
actually there.
Some classical music broadcasters compress their music for
listening in the car. They have to do this because of the noise level. The
music loses its presence and vitality. If you listen to such broadcasts at home
they can quickly become tiresome.
FM radio still survives despite attempts to squash it. Long,
may it survive: I still enjoy listening to BBC Radio Three on FM. Internet radio and DAB broadcasting are still
not available to a whole nation so FM is assured its existence for many years
to come. Three cheers for common sense.
CD and modernity
Then along came the CD which was to resolve all the problems
related to HIFI sound reproduction. The first CD players were released onto the
consumer market in 1982 by Sony and Philips.
A laser beam read pulse-code modulated 16 bit digital “signals” which
were sampled at 44,100 times per second or 44.1 kHz. A hertz is one cycle per second.
The format was specified in the red book standard. CD’s were launched with much fanfare and it
was claimed that CD would be the ultimate in sound reproduction. The original CD
players were very expensive and only enthusiasts or the rich bought them.
Initially, there were very few titles available and these were mostly of
classical music.
The sampling of the music on a CD is based on the Nyquist
–Shannon theorem which simply put allows music up to a frequency of 22.5 KHz to
be recorded and reproduced almost
perfectly by a sampling rate of 44,100 times per second. This is why CD’s have
a frequency response of at least 20 Hz to 20 KHz. The accuracy of the sampling
theorem is confirmed by both calculation and observation.
LP records and cassette tapes store an analogue
representation of the original waveform. CDs store a digital representation. CD
technology requires an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC) to record the music. The music reproduction
requires a Digital to Analogue Converter (DAC). The quality of both the ADC and
the DAC used in HIFI reproduction dictates the quality of the music produced.
When CD technology is
effectively implemented there is indiscernible noise and harmonic distortion.
Because the CD player is electronically timed there is no “Wow” and “Flutter”.
CD files are digital files which store sufficient
information about the music to reproduce it almost perfectly. The music is not
physically contained in the file. This is a concept which some people do not
understand. The music does not exist until it is processed by a DAC. There is
no such thing as digital music: music can only exist as an analogue wave.
The same concept applies to music score. The music does not
exist until an artist reads it and plays the music on an instrument. A music
score is of course subject to artistic interpretation.
A 16 bit word is used
to specify the dynamic range of the sound recording. At around 6 decibels per bit the CD can
produce a dynamic range of 96 decibels. Most popular music can only manage a
dynamic range of around 20 decibels whilst the full dynamic range of an
orchestra can, but rarely, reach 80 decibels.
CD is genuine high fidelity.
Converting to CD
I was a latecomer to CD and the digital storage of music
files. I did not believe all the initial hype surrounding its launch. I needed
proof that it was better at producing HIFI quality sound. I was not certain
that the red book standard could represent music wave forms accurately. I
should have known better after all I worked in the computer industry. CD
players are computers but more of that later.
In the late 1980’s I succumbed to the charms of CD. The
reasons for this were many. CD players were improving in quality. I heard how
good they were at my friends’ houses. My records were becoming tired and worn
out especially the LP’s of my favourite bands.
My cassette tapes were also
suffering the ravages of time. Despite careful use some of my cassettes were
stretched or tangled up and were unplayable.
Most of all, the noise and distortion free sound
reproduction was appealing. I cannot stand the snap crackle and pop from LP’s
at all especially when listening to classical, folk or jazz music. Any sort of
popping noise, no matter how infrequent, gets on my nerves. If a record is
scratched you can tell when the pop is coming and that is even worse.
The decision was made for me but it was costly. I had to
replace all my LP records and Cassette tapes I have still not achieved this and
for some reason some recording were not replaced. I have not gone digital
completely even after 25 years.
As for the sound quality, CD is obviously better than
cassette tape as far as HIFI is concerned but FM radio rivals it. So do LP’s.
But all forms of sound media need to be implemented properly. I do not believe
that LP’s can be made to sound better or closer to HIFI than CD’s from a
theoretical or practical point of view. Well implemented LP music can sound
just as good though.
Some musical notes sound harsh and piercing in real life.
The highest pitch on a steel string acoustic guitar is a typical example.
Sometimes the highest note of a soprano is also piercing and can also be
unattractive. CD’s produce these sounds perfectly there is no discernible
harmonic distortion. We hear the music almost exactly as it is in real life
“warts and all”. This is what HIFI is all about.
I prefer CD not just because of its accurate reproduction
but also because of its convenience. I can make tapes for the car or copy the
CD perfectly. I can also load the digitalised representation of the music to a
computer hard drive. Most of all I am glad that the pops and other flaws in LP
sound reproduction have been banished for ever.
Sound Quality LP
versus Cassette versus CD
No screed about HIFI could ever be complete without making a
comparison between Tapes, LPs and CDs. I shall try not to be subjective or too
judgemental. I am certainly not going to be condemnatory. First, we should look at some of the factors
which affect the quality of the music. I am a natural sceptic so this blog by a
well known sound engineer appeals to me. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/.
Basically there are four factors which affect the quality of
sound generated by the whole chain of equipment which transmits the music from the
microphone to your speakers. These are: Frequency response, Dynamic range or
Noise, Distortion and Timing. Another factor affects the transmission of the
music from the speakers to your ears; namely Room Acoustics.
Frequency
Response
It is important that a HIFI is able to reproduce all the
frequencies of the music and sound that we are able to hear. It should therefore
be able to reproduce bass, midrange and high pitched notes accurately and
uniformly. The human voice can be regarded as a musical instrument.
The highest note on a concert grand piano produces a
frequency of around 4.1 kHz. This would hardly move a HIFI tweeter. This is the
frequency of the fundamental note. The top note on a piano produces harmonics
or secondary notes which have both higher and lower frequencies. The same principle applies to the human
voice. The lowest note on a concert grand piano is around 28 Hz.
The human voice does not have very wide frequency range but
it is needless to say that our ears are at their most sensitive listening to
the human voice and the fundamental frequencies of musical instruments. Try this site: http://www.listenhear.co.uk/general_acoustics.htm
Our ears operate within the range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Only
very young people are able to hear sounds as high as 20 kHz. This is a fact. It
is also a fact that the top limit of hearing for most adults is below 18 kHz. If
you do not believe me look at this website but do not turn up the volume too
high. http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/faq/.
If sound reproduction equipment is able to produce uniformly
all frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz then it more than meets one the
requirements for HIFI. More of this
later will come later.
Dynamic Range and Noise
Noise is any distracting and unwanted sound which has
somehow imposed itself somewhere along the chain of sound reproduction. The
original cassette tapes had a constant hissing noise in abundance. Until
“Dolby” noise reduction came along, that is. Even so, I can still hear a slight
hiss during the quieter parts of a recording. I never hear tape hiss in the car
because it is not as loud as the background noise.
Other forms of noise include the familiar rumble of record
decks, static and dust clicks and scratches on vinyl records. Mains hum used to
be particularly annoying but I have not heard this for years even though no-one
I know uses “mains conditioners”. I no longer play records loud enough to hear
acoustic feedback.
I once had a HIFI system which, on odd occasions, would pick
up VHF radio and TV broadcasts from a nearby transmitter. This was a random and
luckily very rare phenomenon and I could never trace the problem. Maybe, it was
the diamond in the cartridge acting as diode just like the crystal radio set I
built when I was a boy. Oh well that is my theory; it could have been something
else.
Crystal sets were great but limited to AM broadcasts so no
HIFI there. At least you didn’t need a battery or power supply so there was no
mains hum. Modern HIFI equipment seems to have solved the problem of
picking up and amplifying unwanted TV and Radio stations.
With regard to noise when I turn up my amplifier to full
volume, when there is no music playing, I hear nothing. I hear nothing despite
the CD player and laptop being turned on and connected. Also, like every other
household we have got a WIFI system, Mobile ‘phones, TV’s etc. all switched on
most of the time.
Dynamic Range is akin to Noise. It is measured in decibels
and is related to the range between the softest and loudest sounds which
musical instruments produce. When you go to a classical performance the
orchestra can produce a wide dynamic range. A single flute can be played very
softly and be barely audible.
When, however, the orchestra is going “full blast”
it can sometimes almost hurt your ears.
The full dynamic range of an orchestra can get to around 80
decibels. But the orchestra only plays at
full volume rarely and for short periods.
For a soft flute to be heard it
must play louder than the ambient noise of the concert hall say 30 decibels. It is therefore possible for the audience to
be exposed to a total sound level of 110 decibels when the orchestra starts to
play at full volume.
Some orchestra musicians suffer ear damage especially if
they regularly sit in front of bass drums or brass instruments.
The same principles apply to your HIFI. The average ambient noise in the average
living room is around 50 decibels. To hear the softest flute being played on a classical
record the HIFI music must overcome this noise level. However, an orchestra can
achieve a dynamic range of 80 decibels. It is therefore possible that your HIFI
could reproduce its loudest sound at 130 decibels.
This is above the pain threshold and it could easily damage
your hearing. You would probably turn the volume down to a more comfortable
level but then a sudden change to the softest notes would be inaudible. This is
why audio engineers slightly compress the sound and dynamic range of classical
music. This will enable you to hear the whole piece at an acceptable volume
level throughout the performance whilst sitting in your living room.
A similar situation applies to other sorts of music such as
folk and jazz. Sound engineers will compress the sound slightly. Too much
compression of the dynamic range of the sound, however, squeezes the life out
of the music rendering it lifeless and boring. Unfortunately, too much popular
music has been extremely compressed. The dynamic range of some popular music is
around 12 decibels.
The loudness war to grab the attention of listeners has got
worse since the 1960’s. What is the point of having a HIFI system which has a
huge dynamic range if you are not going to exploit its facilities? You might as
well save your money and buy a boom box.
A good record player
working with a good LP has a dynamic range of about 70 decibels. A CD has more, about 96 decibels. Both of these
media have sufficient practical dynamic range to reproduce all music at HIFI
quality. In the case of a CD, the red book standard is well over specified for
the task in hand.
Try this website http://www.hei.org/education/soundpartners/nihl.html
Distortion
There are two types of Distortion:
Harmonic Distortion; where the
original fundamental musical notes have new frequencies added to them to change
the sound of the music.
Inter-modulation Distortion;
where a completely new frequency is created which is not related to the
original musical note.
Some forms of Harmonic distortion sound pleasant such as the
tones of an electric guitar which sound richer than the tones of an acoustic
instrument.
Human hearing tends to tolerate Harmonic distortion much
more than Inter-modulation. Inter-modulation distortion is nearly always
unpleasant as it is not derived from an original musical note.
If you turn up the volume too loud you will hear lots of
distortion. Modern CD equipment and solid state amplifiers do not produce
audible distortion unless they are faulty or played too loud. Record decks and
some valve amplifiers do. This is why the latter sound different to CDs and
solid state equipment.
Some people find the mild distortion pleasant including me
and this is probably why some music enthusiasts swear that LP records are much
better than CDs. They may sound more pleasant but I doubt if they sound closer
to the original performance or the original master tapes.
Timing Errors
Older record players even ones from the sixties suffered
from timing errors. The players were driven by the friction of rubber wheels
against the metal turntable. These were prone to slippage. The speed controls
of the motors were not so good either and this contributed to problem. These
combined effects created “wow” which was a change of pitch to the lower
frequencies.
The decks were slowing down and speeding up uncontrollably,
“wow” was most certainly audible. Mechanical clockwork driven decks were even
worse.
Even if you managed to completely control the speed of the
deck a warped record would produce “wow”. Also, a record where the hole in the
middle was misshaped or miss-located would produce a “wow” effect. Whatever the
cause the sound of “wow” was disconcerting.
Record deck manufacturers used to produce statistics about
how good their decks were at controlling “wow” and “flutter”. “Flutter” was a
higher frequency fluttering noise - what else could it be? I never heard it
from a record deck. But I did hear it from cassette decks and “wow” as well.
When the tapes got stretched or the drive capstans got slightly stuck you heard
all sorts of awful sounds. I still do.
HIFI magazines seem to concentrate a lot on “jitter”, which
are timing errors caused by CD players, Streamers and Computers. “Jitter” can
cause CD, Hard drive or even Solid State stored music to be played back with
“clicks” and other odd noises. I have never heard these noises and modern
computer and CD player technology has all but eliminated the problems of
“jitter”.
“Jitter” is measured in nanoseconds or even picoseconds. A nanosecond
is one billionth of a second. A picosecond is one thousandth of a nanosecond. Even
modest computers and HIFI equipment can easily handle nanoseconds, so it does
not take much thought to conclude that they can control “jitter”. HIFI
magazines please take note.
Room Acoustics
Room Acoustics do not have an effect on your HIFI. But, just
like a concert hall, room acoustics do affect the quality of the music that you
hear. Sound waves are absorbed by soft
surfaces and are reflected by hard ones. Reflected sound waves can interfere
with one another to subtly alter the tone, volume and dynamic range of the
music. Ethan Winer calls this comb filtering effects.
There is some debate about this but even changing your
position in a room can alter the “comb filtering” effect. You then hear a slight
variation in the sound of the music. Some sound engineers use this to explain
why HIFI magazine reporters can hear the difference between a £1,000 pound per
metre cable and a £50 one. When they return to their seats after changing the
cables, during testing, they sit in a different position and hear a different
sound.
This is a better explanation, perhaps, than that they are
just imagining that there is a difference. Perhaps they should wear headphones.
Better still they should use double blind testing and the scientific method to
test cables and other equipment. I doubt
that this will ever happen though.
Back to CD versus LP
versus Cassette Tape
I have always thought that the sound reproduction from my
advanced Sony Walkman is great through headphones or a line connexion to my
HIFI. The quality of sound reproduction is better than the 45 rpm records I
played on a “Dansette”. I think that most people will agree that well
implemented LP or CD sound reproduction produces better HIFI quality sound than
cassettes. I shall say no more about this.
Why is there such heated debate between the merits and
demerits of CD and LP then?
I spend most of my time listening to music which is stored
on digital files extracted from a CD or the CD itself as it makes no difference.
Mostly, I listen to music stored on computer hard drives or on solid state
devices. I also stream music to my HIFI systems using internet radio or
Spotify. This leads onto other contentious issues which I will write about
later.
CD technology made a significant contribution to HIFI sound
reproduction and its distribution and transmission it has brought high quality
music to our living room. So has the LP.
Neither sound medium deserves to be traduced. I really enjoyed the music of my
youth played on gramophone records.
As I write this I am listening to the Beatles' singles
playing on a CD. When I heard “Love Me Do”, the first Beatles single released in
1962 , I really experienced a wave of nostalgia and pleasure. I was taken back to
my youth.” Love Me Do” has been digitally re-mastered from a collector’s 45 rpm
record. The other tracks have been re-mastered from the original tapes which
were not lost.
The “Love Me Do” track makes me more nostalgic than the
others. Perhaps it is because it is derived from a real 45 rpm vinyl record.
The re-mastering has re-captured the pleasant warmth of the harmonic distortion
produced by the gramophone record and its reproduction by a record player. Perhaps,
I am imagining things.
I went to see the Beatles in the Astoria Theatre in Finsbury
Park in the early sixties. Their VOX amplifiers could not play louder than the
screaming crowd for most of their performance. I had a great time but I could hear the music
better on a record player at home. Why should I have worried about that?
The excitement still lives with me.
Enough of this emotion and lets get back to some reality. Despite the fact that LPs and CDs musically
sound just as pleasant to me, LPs have some drawbacks:
Technically they cannot reproduce music to the same level of
High Fidelity as CD,
They are easily damaged,
They are not as convenient and they are more difficult to
back up digitally or as analogue files,
The dust and un-avoidable static get on my nerves.
The last point was
really what convinced me to convert to CD and I now only play records on
special occasions.
I know that there will be some LP lovers who will disagree
with me by saying that a vinyl gramophone record exactly duplicates the
original wave form. But this is not possible owing transcription and pressing
errors.
The music on an LP is also equalised during the mastering
process according to RIAA standards. This equalisation reduces the prominence
of the bass notes. This ensures that the grooves in a record do not become
damaged or cause the needle to jump. RIAA equalisation also ensures a
consistent frequency response. The equalisation also boosts the high
frequencies.
The attenuation of
the bass notes and boost to the higher frequencies is reversed on playback by a
pre-amplifier. The wave form on a gramophone record is not therefore
un-adulterated.
It is not my intention to denigrate the LP record which has
given me lots of listening pleasure over the years whether it was HIFI or not.
The other day I compared the musical sound of Ry Cooder’s Bop Till you Drop LP
with that of the CD. Bop till you Drop was one of the first Albums to be recorded
digitally in 1979.
This album has been criticised as being a little thin.
This
comes across in both the LP and CD versions. The music sounds almost the same
to me from both sources. I find the lightness of the music quite pleasant even
though it may not have been recorded accurately. Please note that this review
compares the studio recorded version to a live version.
Without a doubt there is one advantage to an LP and that is
the album art. Some of this is great but it does not translate to well to a CD
format. With other forms of “digital”
music the album art is sparse and you often need to look up a website to get
more information. This is one up for the
good old album.
Another added benefit for some LP lovers is the actual ritual
of pulling the record out of its sleeve , cleaning it and cueing it and then
sitting back to hear the music whilst admiring the album art. Even the chore of
turning the record over is appealing. Good luck to anyone who feels this way.
The ritual never cut any ice with me. However, when I play an album from a digital
file I still play it all the way through and in the same order as the LP. If I do get round to playing the vinyl, I
still get out of my armchair to flip it over. Old habits die hard.
In conclusion, the marginal difference in sound quality
between analogue and digital recordings does not merit getting hot under the
collar or too emotional. Why not sit back and just enjoy the music whatever the
source as long as it is of HIFI quality.
It is time to stop the arguments but if you really must
deliberate further see Appendix 1.
“HIRES” Music
“HIRES” or High Resolution music is meant to be the new
sonic heaven. But what is it and where did it come from and is it so much
better than CD “Low Res” sound reproduction?
During the 1990’s CD conquered the music world and sales were rising
steadily. LP sales almost became restricted to enthusiasts.
Then in the early 2000’s, DVD-A (Digital Versatile
Disk-Audio) and SACD (Super Audio Compact Disc) came along. These were supposedly “HIRES” digital music
files. DVD-A operates on similar principles to CD. The only technical
difference is that a DVD-A is recorded at 24 bit/ 96 kHz and CD at 16 bit/44.1
KHZ. Remember what I said about the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem? But see this first:
A sound recorded at 98 kHz can
reproduce frequencies of 48 kHz. In theory, a “HIRES” DVD-A has a much wider
frequency response than CD. How does this translate to your ears? No older adult can
hear sound at above a frequency of 20 kHz. If you claim that you can then please
prove it and volunteer for scientific tests. So, the extra theoretical
frequency range is redundant.
24 bit recordings can manage a dynamic range of around 144
decibels. This is 6 decibels for every bit. This means that a 16 bit CD can
produce a dynamic range of 96 decibels.
A CD player with a powerful amplifier is already able to play music loud
enough to permanently damage your ears. You would have to turn the volume
down. The same thing applies to a DVD-A,
the extra dynamic range is redundant.
SACD is another variation of “HIRES” but it operates on a
different principle to CD. Instead of 16 bit Pulse-Code Modulation, SACD uses 1
bit Direct Stream Digital technology. An SACD samples the music at 2.8224 Mega Hertz.
SACD has a dynamic range of around 120 decibels and a frequency response of 20
HZ to 50 kHz. Once again the extra specification is entirely redundant.
Both of the formats have been a commercial flop compared to
CD and LP. I wonder why? Could it be that all other things being equal no one
can tell the difference between a “HIRES” DVD-A, an SACD and an ordinary CD.
Yes you have guessed it no one can.
As far I can see the only scientific listening tests, that
have been done, that deploy the double blind method, have been by the Audio
Engineering Society. 60 test subjects
were given double blind tests to distinguish between SACD and DVD-A “High Res”
music and CD. For testing purposes the SACD and DVD-A music files were
converted to CD quality. All other
parameters stayed equal. Their results were peer reviewed.
Even trained professionals could not distinguish between
“HIRES” and CD quality music better than by chance for 554 tests. If any one can refute this, let us see another
peer reviewed scientific test to provide the evidence. That is when I will
truly believe that humans can hear the difference. Is a HIFI magazine going to
step up to the frame and agree to do such a test?
We need some objectivity to enter into the testing equation
rather than listening to subjective opinions and unproven claims and
assertions.
SACD and DVD-A have been a commercial flop. There are still
advocates of “HIRES”, though, who say that they can really hear a difference in
quality. Perhaps, it is because the “HIRES” music has been mastered
differently. So, all other things are
not equal.
When I have converted
24/96 files to CD format at home I could not tell the difference. May be it is
my ears but perhaps these three web sites have got a better explanation.
It seems that 24bit/96 KHZ recording machines in a studio
provide the extra band width to make mixing tapes etc. more efficient. But, for
consumer purposes the good old CD provides more than enough resolution for HIFI
playback in the home.
Of course, a CD is only as good as the mastering and the
production techniques. Some modern CDs have had too much compression applied,
especially popular music ones, in a renewed loudness war. That is why they
sound lifeless. Some SACD and DVD-A
music releases are produced from improved masters; so they sound better because
of this rather than the claimed higher resolution.
“HIRES” and the power
of Suggestion
A couple of years ago I decided to convert all my CD music
files to 16 bit /44.1 kHz WAV files stored on a computer hard disk. The spare laptop
which I was using to play back the files was not so good so I bought a shiny
new 24 bit/192 kHz up- sampling digital to analogue converter to improve the
sound quality.
And guess what? It did.
I used an optical cable to link the laptop to the DAC and I used an RCA
cable to link my CD player to the DAC as well.
My CD player was relegated to become a mere CD transport. The new DAC
was playing the music.
The new DAC gave me the opportunity to try out “HIRES “music
for myself rather than read about it. I downloaded some 24 bit/96 kHz test
tracks adjusted the sound card and played away. The first track I played was Rimsky
Korsakov’s “The Dance of the Tumblers” streaming in full 24bit/96 kHz High
Resolution. This was sounding great. “HIRES” sound from a laptop this was a
winner.
I could hear the treble notes loud and clear especially the
cymbals and the triangle. This is great I thought High Resolution is making
everything clearer. But, wait a minute I could hear the triangle coming out of
both the left and right sides of the orchestra as I face it.
Usually you only hear
cymbals, tambourines and triangle from the upper left side. This is where all the
percussion instruments are normally located. Is there something wrong I asked
myself? I converted the 24/96 file into a 16/44.1 wav file using DBPoweramp
software. Then, I burnt a CD. I played the CD through my Laptop drive and got
the same result.
Then I tried the CD in my Blu Ray player which is directly
connected to my amplifier but the result was different. The music sounded as if
it was coming from a normal orchestra set up tambourines, cymbals and triangles
coming from the top left where they should be. There was something wrong with
HIRES, The Laptop or the new fancy DAC.
I played the CD in my old player which was connected to the
DAC and once again normal orchestra operation was restored. Either the “HIRES”
is not working properly or the laptop is bust. I checked the sound settings on
my laptop. I had inadvertently switched on surround sound when I was “tweaking”
the settings for “HIRES”. Normal operation was now restored.
I learnt two things from this:
The
power of suggestion is very strong. I had convinced myself that “HIRES” was
something wonderful, albeit
briefly. HIFI reality was soon restored,
however, when I saw the error of my
ways. I had tested things objectively and soon found out the truth.
It was
only because I had listened to orchestras live that I realised something was
wrong. Without this experience
I could have remained convinced that “HIRES”, falsely, was taking HIFI to a new level. The orchestra was
my true standard reference point.
After this experience I tried comparing other “HIRES” music
to the same music that I had “downgraded” to CD quality. I could hear no
difference. I also bought a new portable DAC for a sixth of the price of my
fancy one.
When I compared them the music did not sound noticeably different.
Why should it unless I was fooling myself?
Both of the DACS were of HIFI quality.
From now on I shall always be sceptical about any claim that
is made in the HIFI arena. This is the best way to protect myself from false
claims and a numbers game.
Music and Computers
I decided to start storing my music on computer hard drives
not because it would improve performance but for the sake of convenience. I
have got hundreds of CD’s and it was getting difficult to find my favourites.
My wife use to tidy them up and classify them. I soon messed all that up.
I “ripped” all my CDs into WAV files. “Ripping” software extracts the digital files
and converts them to another format. This seemed to be an endless task but it
was worth it in the end. I also scanned all the album art. The album files are
still not classified but they are all held in the same Windows folder.
Everything is backed up twice: once on another hard drive and once on the CD
itself.
Each album music file is easy to find either by using the
find functions in Windows Explorer or just quickly running down a list. I
either use VLC or Media Monkey for playback on my main computer or my Laptop
which is connected to my main HIFI system via the external DAC. “Ripping”
software converts the digital file on the CD to a computer or streamer playable
file.
If you pay for your “ripping” software it will allow
automatic access to a database which will identify or tag the track you are
playing. Sometimes it gets this horribly wrong and you have to fill in the
track names manually. The “tagging” software seems to number the tracks out of
sequence and this annoys me. I always like to play an album all the way through
in the sequence as originally intended.
Some media players decide to organise the files for you and
play them back in an unwanted sequence. This annoys me as well, so I do not
use playback software that does not allow me full control.
I convert the music to 16bit/44.1 kHz wav files which are
almost exactly the same as a CD music file. It is possible to “rip” the files
to MP3 compressed files or to FLAC uncompressed files. The Wav files have lots
of redundant bits so they can be converted to FLAC files without any loss of
musical information.
Storing your music on a hard drive gives you the opportunity
to stream music all over your house via a WIFI or a network cable. You can do
this by using PC equipment or a dedicated streamer.
Despite what HIFI magazines say, dedicated streamers and CD players are computers. They input from a digital file, process the
information using a DAC and output the result to your speakers. This is exactly
what a computer does.
A PC or a Laptop
computer is, however, a much more flexible and versatile machine. A laptop allows you to access internet radio and other music
sources such as Spotify.
I have a streamer which is able to stream music files
and internet radio over a WIFI network. However, it cannot access Spotify. A
laptop can do this and more. A laptop or PC also enables you to download
“HIRES” and other music files. I have bought lots of music form Amazon and
Spotify for playback.
The flexibility afforded by using a PC computer is nothing
short of amazing. I can download music
and then cut a CD for playing in the car in minutes. I have been able to
“digitise” very important cassettes tapes for archive purposes.
I have even digitised a “bootleg” LP which I have not been
able to obtain on CD. Luckily it was not damaged in anyway and did not have too
many static pops or dust. Digitising an LP or Cassette tape is a tedious and boring process as you have to
play the media all the way through.
One thing I have noticed is that the play
back is very similar to the original source. An LP still sounds like a LP and a Cassette tape still sounds the same, hiss and all.
The laptop has given me access to open source music which is
available from websites such as www.archive.com.
The other day my wife wanted to listen to Holst’s “The Planet Suite” but we had
lost the CD, LP and Cassette versions. It took me ten minutes to find it on HD Tracks,
pay for it and download it. Even though it was not “HIRES” it sounded really
good; genuine HIFI.
Despite some of the difficulties of setting up a laptop as a
music player you have a flexible tool which provides facilities completely unthought-of
in the sixties, when HIFI was just getting going. Contrary to much criticism,
it is able to provide sound reproduction which is equal to a CD player. Just
like any other equipment, however, it must be set up and maintained properly.
Try these websites they seem to be talking some commonsense.
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/forum/audio-and-video-equipment/linking-a-laptop-to-hi-fi
I recommend that you take time to set up a laptop to play
digital files for all sources including internet radio and Spotify and Last FM
etc. You will not be disappointed if you use an external DAC to make the
connection to your main HIFI.
Try this Czech
Classical station http://radio.cesnet.cz:8000/cro-d-dur.flac in your player or http://www.rozhlas.cz/d-dur/english/ in your browser. This is classical music at
CD quality but over the internet.
“Ripping improves the
sound”
Some people claim that “ripping” a CD improves the sound.
This may sound unlikely but there could be some truth in it. I have not it
noticed myself. CD recorded files, however, use Reed –Solomon algorithms to
correct the information when it is being transcribed. It is therefore possible
to correct faulty data.
Some of my CDs had unplayable tracks when I used a
conventional CD player. When they were transcribed by a computer Reed-Solomon
rendered them playable again. I was then able to cut another CD for use in a
conventional CD player. Oh, the power of computers, you cannot do this with an
LP or Cassette tape once a track is destroyed it is gone forever.
MP3 music
No article about HIFI could be complete without talking
about the much maligned MP3 player and MP3 music in general.
In 2002 my wife bought me a little Archos media player it
was great when I was working abroad. She must have taken pity on me lugging a
Sony Walkman around for all those years. This player was small and could hold
loads and loads of albums ripped at 192 Kilobits per second (KBPS). I could use
it on a plane and plug it into the HIFI in my flat.
I used it for years but accidentally threw it out buried in
some newspapers it was literally that small. The sound was fantastic through a
good pair of headphones.
MP3 works by compressing the music but not in the sense of
just compressing the dynamic range but by removing some music content. In
certain instances we cannot hear one instrument when it is masked by another
one. A “psycho acoustic” algorithm helps to reduce the size of digital music
files.
If you record the sound at a low bit rate such as 128 KBPS
there is a noticeable reduction in the quality of the playback. When you reach 192 KBPS you are starting to
get to the quality of a CD. At 256 KBPS or 320KBPS it is very difficult to tell
the difference between MP3 and CD but you need to have more space to store the
recording.
I have bought 256 KBPS albums from Amazon and converted them
to CD for the car. No one I know can tell that the Crosby, Stills, Nash and
Young or Van Morrison albums are anything but HIFI when I play them through my
main system with the fancy DAC.
I also stream Spotify at 320 KBPS and most people cannot
tell any difference from a CD even over a WIFI system. I bought an Errol Garner
album from Spotify at 320KBPS. When I played this album to a friend, who has
HIFI equipment coming out his ears, I had a job convincing him that he was not
listening to a CD. I could listen to this album all day; the sound quality is
as good as the LP version.
Highly compressed MP3 music being streamed from an internet
radio site at 64 KBPS sounds awful. But,
the BBC streams Radio Three at 320 KBPS AAC. This is of HIFI quality. AAC is a
similar compression algorithm to MP3.
Lots of Audiophiles are very critical of MP3 and its allies
but music played back at high bit rates is generally very good. Why not improve
the sound of your MP3 music by downloading higher bit rate files or “ripping”
at a higher bit rate.
I shall let you decide whether the following is objective or
not but remember the Meyer and Moran study.
Noise Wars and the
Compression of Dynamic Range
The act of making the soft parts of the music sound as loud
as the loud parts has been going on for years. Lots of 45 rpm pop records were
produced to make the average sound of the music louder to compete with other 45
rpm vinyl hits over the radio or on the Jukebox.
FM pop music radio stations did the same thing. Some
classical music radio stations compress the music so that you can hear the soft
bits as you are speeding down the motorway. The result is the same as heavily
compressed music sounds lifeless and you quickly tire of it.
Digital techniques allow CDs to be mastered with an even
greater degree of compression and this is probably why modern pop records sound
so awful. There is a noise war going on. I might even like some of this music
if it had a fuller dynamic range.
All of my classical, jazz, folk and popular music recordings
have a good dynamic range. Popular music does not have to be mastered so badly.
I recently bought a CD by the Canadian singer Susie Arioli featuring Jordan
Officer on the guitar. Jordan Officer also produced the recording whose dynamic
range brought out the best of the singer and her accompaniment.
Please, please read this website http://www.georgegraham.com/compress.html
The HIFI enthusiast
and Tweaking
Over the years I have known a number of HIFI enthusiasts who
are just interested in sound reproduction equipment for its own sake. Often
they spend hours and hours “tweaking “to make the equipment sound better. In
some ways they are like car enthusiasts tuning the cars up to run faster. I am
not a Tweaker.
All of my efforts to tweak have failed. And long ago I
learnt not to interfere with something that is working properly already. The
last time I invested a lot of my hard earned cash in HIFI I was persuaded to
buy extra special cables by the salesman. Somehow he convinced me that I needed
to spend twice as much on a CD player interconnect cable as an FM receiver one.
The CD frequency response is better.
Oh well, I set everything up and left everything alone; the
CD player and the FM receiver sounded fantastic. But shock horror I had got the
colour coding wrong. The FM cable was connected to the CD, so I swapped them
round. I put on my favourite CD expecting to hear even more wonderful sound.
But, of course, I didn’t as the music sounded exactly the same. I won’t get
caught on that one anymore.
Some of my friends cannot resist tweaking. I once had a work
colleague who got himself into serious debt to obtain sonic satisfaction. One
night he tried to convince me that LP records sound substantially different and
better to CD. Both sets of equipment cost him tens of thousands. He even had them connected to different
amplifiers.
After lots of time of him tweaking the stroboscope, tone arm
and cartridge we sat down to listen to the music to compare the differences. I
could hardly notice much difference as both sets of CD and LP equipment were of
reference quality. My wife and his wife could hardly notice any difference too.
The one thing I did notice though was that the record player
was able to reproduce static and dust noises better than I have heard them
before. That spoilt the music for me.
What was both disturbing and re-assuring was that my more humble
and affordable equipment sounded nearly as good. It was able to reproduce accurately
all the musical sounds of an orchestra in exactly the right place. His kit cost
20 times as much but the difference in sound quality was marginal and hardly
discernible to my ears. And this was
despite all the tweaking.
The amount of money that you could spend to hear only a
marginal or nil difference disturbs me and makes me sit and think about value
for money and the power of suggestion in advertising. If I had one hundred
thousand pounds in my back pocket, would I spend lots of it on HIFI equipment
just because it looks good or it would make me feel better? I hope that I would be under no illusions.
HIFI Magazines
I love reading HIFI magazines if only to find out about the
latest equipment on the market place and some of them have really good album
reviews. But this is almost as far as it goes apart from the letter columns. I
find it really difficult to suspend disbelief and restrain my scepticism. Most
of what is written in HIFI magazines is opinion asserted as fact.
There is little if any scientific thought or method applied
to the testing of equipment. Mostly there is no proof to back up claims that
one piece of equipment is better than another.
“HIRES” has really become the new buzz word even though
there is very little objective evidence that “HIRES” is better. But, if it is
“HIRES” it must be good. The the shiny new 24 bit/ 192 kHz "HIRES" system must be able to play the ultrasonic
echo location sounds created by a greater horseshoe bat even though neither you
nor your dog can hear them. Where is the objectivity and common sense?
When they do stick to the facts their articles are sometimes
quite illuminating especially when they write about how to set up networks and
computer based HIFI or streamers.
The most galling thing is when they write about ancillary
equipment. How can a £60 kangaroo skin platter mat substantially improve the
sound of a £5,000 record deck? How does it do this? I think I would feel mightily
cheated if the deck manufacturer could not supply a perfectly good platter mat
as part of the original specification.
How can specialised cleaning fluids substantially improve
the sound of a CD? Is this some form of magic? If a CD gets dirty it usually
suffices to clean it with a dry cloth. What can a £60 liquid do that washing up
liquid and water cannot do? If you do put fluids on a CD it probably pays to rinse
and dry them well before you play them again, so where is the benefit of a
special cleaner?
Objectivity has gone out of the window. Need I say anymore?
HIFI dealers
When visiting HIFI dealers you must always trust your own ears.
If you cannot tell the difference between a “HIRES” music file and a CD it is
probably because there is no difference if they were both derived form the same
master recording.
It is quite possible that a more humble HIFI system can
perform as well if not better than equipment costing tens of thousands of
pounds; HIFI has to perform to an acceptable standard. So, if there are really noticeable
differences between different types of equipment it is possible that some of
that equipment is not operating to standard.
Beware of the law of diminishing returns because once you
reach a certain quality standard it becomes increasing more difficult and
expensive to achieve improvements.
Beware of the power of suggestion as the HIFI industry is no
more immune to hype than the cosmetics industry.
This dealer‘s web site seems to give an object opinion and
advice http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/. It also
gives a realistic opinion of the merits and de merits of LP, CD and “HIRES”
music.
The future
It is my view that HIFI stereo sound reproduction is now so
good from both LP and CD that it will be difficult to make substantial improvement.
It will also be very expensive. Sound
engineers could investigate improving recording technology and the placement of
microphones for live performances.
It will always be extremely difficult to exactly record and
reproduce a live performance and this will always be the weakest link in the
chain. Perhaps, surround sound will be the answer. The sound quality, however,
is very much dependent on speaker placement by the listener.
For pop music listeners, perhaps the best improvement would
be to make as much use as possible of the dynamic range of the CD and the LP.
Producers should declare an end to the noise wars and give music lovers the
exciting and lively performances that the recording deserves.
In Conclusion
HIFI is all about hearing your favourite music at the
highest possible quality within the bounds of your equipment and your pocket.
We also have to bear in mind the claims that are made about types of music
files and their performance. There needs to be hard evidence that so called
“HIRES” music is more than a numbers game.
Not all of us have unlimited budgets to spend money on dubious
improvements. We need value for money as far as reproduction is concerned. We
also deserve to have well mastered recordings which full exploit the dynamic
range available from both digital and analogue recordings.
The history of “HIFI” over the last fifty years has been one
of continuous improvement to sound quality from both Analogue and Digital
sources. There can be no doubt that digital music has improved the convenience
and flexibility of delivery.
Why not sit back and enjoy the pleasure of hearing a good
HIFI recording because that is what listening to good music at home is all
about. But, please do not forget about going to see a live acoustic performance
every now and then. Then make the comparison and judge for yourself with your
own ears.
Appendix 1 Further
Comparison of LP versus CD
It is not possible to exactly replicate sound waves by
cutting a master record and then pressing the waveform into vinyl. Think about
it, even if you are operating at maximum efficiency there are bound to be errors.
The Nyquist-Shannon theorem guarantees almost perfect
reproduction of music on a CD between the frequencies of 20 Hz and 20 KHz. This
is a fact supported by calculation, measurement and observation.
The whole process of recording and transcribing LP music is
slightly flawed. That is why record playing produces audible harmonic
distortion. This distortion sounds pleasant to most people including me. But in
terms of HIFI it makes records slightly inferior to CDs provided the “digital
music” is reproduced by a good quality DAC, amplifier and speakers.
LP records start wearing out from the moment you start
playing them. After repeated playing over the years they become worn out even
if they have been looked after properly.
Eventually you have to bite the bullet and buy another copy.
The information contained in digital files in theory could
last for ever provided that the physical storage media remain intact. As long
as you back up your CD files you are in little danger of losing your music
completely or suffering a deterioration of quality.
No matter how well you look after your LP records you have
difficulty in preventing dust from spoiling replay. Static electricity is even
more difficult stop and it can occur randomly and spoil your musical enjoyment
in the same way.
It is easier to scratch a record than a CD. Some scratches
make records unplayable.
If you scratch a CD you can usually play it. A CD can take
all sorts of rough treatment. You can back up a CD and restore the original
file.
If you lend an LP record to a friend there is a fair chance
that it will never be returned or it will come back with a scratch. Some people are too embarrassed to return an
unplayable LP and too mean to buy you another one.
If you lend a CD to friend it will usually be returned in
good condition. They can copy it easily without damaging it.
For me, the whole rigmarole of carefully pulling a record
out of its sleeve and placing it on the turntable and then cueing up the tone
arm and cartridge is a bore. Some people love this and it is part of the
pleasure of playing the records for them. They should not be denied this
pleasure and this is good reason alone to continue the production of LPs.
With a CD you just open the tray and drop it in and press a
button.
Cueing a favourite track on an LP is fraught with difficulty.
You risk scratching the record. You also risk damaging the needle or cartridge
even if you use a lever. It is easy to make a slip up. I have done this many
times. I have never damaged a cartridge or needle but I have damaged lots of
records cueing tracks in the middle of the disc.
There are no such problems with a CD; you can press a button
to re-cue a track without causing any damage.
Modern record players, even modestly priced ones, have
largely eliminated the problems of rumble and “wow” or “flutter”. Remember
though that warped records or damaged holes can cause timing difficulties.
CD players do not suffer from “Wow” and “Flutter”.
You are tempted to mess around with the set up of a record
player even though it is working perfectly.
Ok, if you like tweaking, but technology that is already working well
should be left alone.
In theory vinyl records can reproduce music at frequencies
above 20 KHz but you cannot hear ultrasonic sound. Most studio microphones do
not pick up frequencies higher than 20 KHz. Your speakers at home are unlikely
to be able reproduce music above 20 KHz. This defeats most of the arguments
that LP is technically better than CD.
Some album art is great but does not look so good on the
back of a CD or on a website. For this reason alone LP albums should be
encouraged to prosper.
I repeat the marginal difference in sound quality between
analogue and digital recordings does not merit getting hot under the collar
about. Why not sit back and just enjoy the music whatever the source as long as
it is HIFI quality.
