HIFI myths and bunkum

I am in the process of replacing my 1990s CD player and my 1990s amplifier and a recent addition an external DAC. I have bought a combined CD player and DAC and I am going to pick up a new amplifier tomorrow.

I am not going to say the brand names of the equipment because there is always someone who will say I should have gone for something else.

Even though it is tempting to remortgage the house and spend tens of thousands of pounds on HIFI equipment I am not going to do so. My house is a modest size and my listening conditions do not merit have an amplifier which is more than about 50 watts per channel into my 8 ohm speakers.

I have visited some HIFI retailers to listen to equipment and quite frankly HIFI sets costing tens of thousands of pounds do not sound much better, if at all, to my ears than my existing kit . I also have friends who have invested tens of thousands of pounds in HIFI equipment which does not sound much better either.

My ears are as good as anyone's for my age. I am still able to go to the opera or a performance of Verdi's Requiem and hear all the main performers singing against the back drop of the orchestra going full blast along with the choir. I can still pick out the singer in the choir  who is out of tune. There is nothing great in this as many other people can do this too.

The fact of the matter is that all of my existing kit is of HIFI quality and if I buy something newer or more expensive the sonic improvements are going to be marginal this can only stand to reason. If I want to I can fool myself into to believing that because I have paid three times the amount for new kit then it must perform substantially better. The real world does not work like that but the placebo effect does.

The new CD and DAC that I have bought does not sound much better than my existing kit. I was not expecting it to. My wife believes it sounds clearer and I believe I can hear an improvement but if I was to subject myself to a double blind test then I am not so certain I could hear the difference. Why is this? The ultra modern DAC which is being replaced is of very high quality as well. I was replacing the CD player because it has broken down. And, I now have a simpler arrangement.

I am confident that my new amplifier is better with CDs, LPs and streamed music and that I could tell the difference in a double blind test. The improvement in quality is however marginal.

Myth 1: Paying ten of thousands of dollars or pounds for "High End" HIFI equipment will see you getting substantial improvement over more humble equipment.  

The law of diminishing returns kicks in at around $1,000. You could be paying over the odds for equipment costing tens of thousands which sounds no better or even worse than something cheaper. If you do not believe me read this.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/

The electronic chips in a DAC are all made in a factory and they are mass produced; the chips cost next to nothing to buy if you make a bulk purchase. One manufacture let the audio cat out of the bag by stating that 80% or more of the cost of the "High  End"  equipment that he and others were selling was cosmetic to make the products look better.

Myth 2 : HIFI magazines know what they are talking about.

 The amplifier that I am about to buy has been described as not very musical by more than one HIFI magazine. What are they talking about? They are talking bunkum. HIFI equipment is meant to reproduce the sound of the original recording as accurately as possible. Every now and again a performer strikes a bad note: is the HIFI equipment supposed to correct an error?

Quite often the high notes sung by an opera singer sound very piercing. At times a steel stringed guitar can sound a little harsh especially when the high notes are played or when the finger nails or the plectrum do not connect correctly. I want to hear this as it is part of the performance and I do not want to hear the notes "warmed up".

Many writers claim that LPs sound much better than CDs and refuse to acknowledge the benefits of CD. A well mastered and produced LP can sound better than a poorly mastered CD from a technical point of view but not often.

An LP can sound nicer than a CD and some of my 1960s Beatles LPs sound nicer to my ears than the equivalent CD, but Why?  There is sometimes pleasant and noticeable harmonic distortion on the LP especially for acoustic instruments. This takes me back to yesterday, but when I am in the mood for better sound quality without surface noise I choose CD every time.

Many HIFI writers are forgiving of the faults of the LP system and are prepared to put up with surface noise and clicking and ticking noises. However, any amplifier or CD player which made even the slightest noise would be traduced.


HIFI magazines never critically examine the exaggerated  or even bogus claims made by equipment manufactures. I wonder why?

The magazines never test equipment against a standard so most of their listening tests are invalid.

The magazines never interpret measurements into a listening context. Thus they claim that 24/96 or 24/192 "HIRES" sound reproduction is better than CD quality.  They assert that a "HIRES" player is better than CD player because it can reproduce frequencies higher than 20 kHz. This is nonsense as no one can hear above 20 kHz. Think about it.

The magazines also claim that "HIRES" sound reproduction is better than CD because of the "improved " dynamic range - up to 144 db or even a theoretical 192 db for 32 bit music files. Again this is misinterpreted as far as practicality and listening are concerned. Only an orchestra can achieve a dynamic range of 80 db and usually it plays at around a dynamic range of 40 db. Most pop music only ever achieves 20 db at the most. An LP can easily encompass the usual dynamic range of an orchestra  and a CD its complete range.

You can damage your ears listening to an LP or a CD too loudly. A 24 bit "HIRES" music file could theoretically produce a sound of 144 db if its full dynamic range could be exploited by amplifiers and loudspeakers strong enough. A 144 db sound would make you deaf instantly and could possible kill you. HIFI magazines are reluctant to point out that "HIRES" is all about trying to persuade naive consumers that this form of redundant technology is both needed and useful.

HIFI magazines use lurid language to exaggerate  differences between the sound of equipment when making comparisons. If the equipment is of HIFI quality than any difference should be marginal or else something is radically wrong.

Magazines love to jump on bandwagons like HIRES and I expect to next bandwagon to be Ultra HIFI they love to be in the know. The best bandwagon for them to jump on would be exposing bogus claims for equipment and insist that manufactures publish independent and  peer reviewed double blind listening tests when they make claims.

HIFI reviewers claim that they have got better ears than the rest of us mortals - not so but they can be trained to hear faults but so can you.

I do like to read HIFI mags because of the readers' opinions and the review of new equipment even if it does make me laugh. Overall the magazines are very entertaining.



Myth 3: LP is better both technically and sound wise than a CD

Subjectively, LP can sound nicer than digital sourced music especially for pop music; even to my ears. For classical music a CD cannot be beaten. The dynamic range is wider, the sound stage is better because of the improve channel separation inherent in CD. Pitch is better controlled on a CD and there is minimal harmonic distortion. You can imagine something different if you like but a good CD and  player beats even the best LP and turntable from a technical and listening point of view.

Do not get me wrong, I really like to listen to LPs and the quality differences can be marginal but consider the following however:

A CD has a dynamic range of 96 db compared to an LP at about 70 db. The CD can encompass the full dynamic range of an orchestra which is about 80 db but an LP cannot achieve this.

A well mastered CD has a linear response across the full frequency range of human hearing but an LP does not.

A CD has a better signal to noise ratio. A CD usually has minimal harmonic distortion which cannot be perceived by a listener. An LP can have perceivable harmonic distortion.

A CD has none of the snap, crackle and pop which is so annoying on an LP.

A CD does not have the pitch variation and wow and flutter which is intrinsic to both records and turntables.

You can repair a CD which is scratched by "ripping it" and allowing error correction software to correct the track to make it playable . Because of this, not one of my hundreds of CDs has ever had to be returned to the shop.

I have had to return new LPs to the shop many times because of excessive surface noise and many of my LPs have been so damaged by intensive use that they are  now unplayable. CDs are much more durable.

Listeners who are new to LP should consider all of the above before investing hundreds or thousands of pounds or dollars in turntable and "phonostage" gear. Cheaper equipment can do the job almost as well when you consider the limitations of an LP itself. No HIFI equipment, no matter how costly, can correct some of the flaws listed above.

Myth 4 : Cables, little isolation feet etc.

Whilst installing my new HIFI equipment I swapped some cables around to see if I could hear the difference. I could not. As long as you are using reasonable quality and priced cables you will hear good quality music. I am afraid that my Maplins interconnects perform just as well as interconnection cables costing 10 times the price so more fool me for believing the salesman all those years ago.

The same applies to USB cables and HDMI cables; you do not need to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds to achieve good performance; just do not buy something which looks cheap and nasty.

How can an equipment rack really affect the performance of a CD player etc. unless it is about to fall apart?

I grant you that a record deck must be placed on a solid and level platform but whether a shelf is made of walnut, oak or ebony, will it make much difference? It just needs to be solid.

You have just paid 2000 pounds or dollars for a new deck, so do you really think that you need to buy new isolation feet? The manufactures would have thought of that one so their feet will be very good. Do they want the deck returned because you can hear a slight vibration?

You have just bought a 1,000 dollar amplifier do you think that the manufacturer will have omitted a mains hum filter. If you heard mains hum you would send the kit back would you not so why do you need to buy a mains conditioner? 

The first thing I did when I bought my new amplifier was to turn on all the equipment that could be connected to it including a PC and then listen to the amplifier at 1/4 volume setting and listen for noise with my ear against the speakers. I could hear nothing and I could only hear some white noise creeping in at 3/4 volume. So is there a need for little devices that filter out radio frequency interference?  I do not think so. I have not heard mains hum or the local TV transmitter coming across my kit for many a year.

The list of exaggerated or bogus claims for the performance of ancillary equipment is very long so buyer beware.

Myth 5 : HIFI forums and  blogs are informative 

Many lovely people contribute to forums and blogs and they are fun to read  but do the contributors take into account confirmation bias and the placebo effect? Most of them don't. If you have paid 2000 dollars for a cable you will be very disappointed if it does not work. Are you sure you are not convincing yourself that the cable is really better than the Maplins one it is replacing?

The same principle applies to all HIFI equipment and even cosmetics, wine, food supplements, washing powder and HD televisions for that matter so buyer beware.

Read this: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html

With regard to your ears: no one has ever been proven to be able to hear ultrasonic sound so can we really hear the difference between CD and "HIRES" music? Please read this: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/.


 Myth 6: Science, testing and  common sense are wrong

You can chose to believe that science and double blind tests are wrong if you want to and imagine that some equipment has properties that do not exist. You can believe in ghosts if you want to as well.  But I do not have to believe in Tarot cards to predict that you could be seriously ripped off if you ignore the science and testing and fail to appreciate common sense.

So please think before you part with thousands and pounds or dollars especially if you do not have ready cash freely available .

This is common sense and I have no reason to doubt it:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


This also looks genuine:

http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/

Buyer beware.

LP frustrations - first time vinyl users beware

I went into my local record shop the other day and bought a brand new LP at a bargain price. It was David Wiffin Live at the Bunkhouse Coffee House 1965. He sings  folk and blues and I like this style of music very much. The LP was attractively packaged in a clear plastic sleeve. The record was produced by BB records on yellow 140gm vinyl. It was supposed to be one of a limited edition of 500 records. All this for £6, not even ten bucks; it seemed like a real winner.

http://www.maplemusic.com/artists/dav/bio.asp

http://www.discogs.com/David-Wiffen-At-The-Bunkhouse-Coffeehouse/release/3345643

I examined the record, as best as I could, in the artificial light of the record store. I was aware that I was taking a bit of a risk.

When I got the record home, I found that it was not protected by an inner sleeve. There was a square plastic insert on which was printed the record information. Getting the record out of the sleeve was a bit of  task as the vinyl was stuck to all the plastic. I had to delve into the cover to prise the record out. I could feel the static electricity raising the hairs on my arms. It did not augur too well for playing the record even though I earthed myself whilst cleaning the record with a carbon brush.

When I played the record it was full of clicks which spoilt most of the music. It was not just the static as both sides of the record were badly scuffed and scratched. It was a good job I hadn't paid a lot of money for this rubbish. For the moment I decided not to take the record back: why waste petrol and time just for £6? I "digitise" all of my small collection of old LPs using a USB interface and Audacity software.

The software did the trick and was able to remove most of the clicks and noise without seriously affecting the sound of the music. The recording now sounds quite good played back via a computer and an external DAC. However, whilst monitoring the "digitisation" through headphones, I noticed some distortion during the louder parts of the music.

I am giving the record producers the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the distortion comes from the tape machines used to record the performance in a coffee house in 1965.

Digital technology rescued the situation to a certain extent but Audacity could not handle the distortion. I shall let the record store know my feelings about this. How was the record damaged? Was it during the production stage or when it was subsequently handled by the record shop? Surely, the store would have examined a record that was returned by a customer just because they did not like the music?

My bad experience was compensated by a better one from the same shop: I bought a copy of Miles Davis Blue Haze for £6. When I played it, it only had one pop sound and the surface noise was minimal. The music was great and it was reproduced very well. This is entirely acceptable. I have never bought an LP without at least one pop. The Miles Davis LP was light and wobbly 120 gm vinyl but it did its business quite well.

During the 1960s and 1970s, I was an avid collector of LPs. I have still got some Beatles  LPs and 45s that have stood the test of 50 years of playing. But, I have given away most of my vinyl to charity shops etc. and replaced them with CDs. I have not got any intention to build up a collection of new LPs after this experience.

I shall only play LPs and 45s for old time's sake. However,  I shall still search second hand shops for interesting music that is not easily available on CD. I can clean up the noise by using digital technology.

Most  of the flaws of LPs cannot be cured by tweaking anti-skate devices, vertical tracking angles, azimuth adjustments and counterbalance adjustment of the tone arm. There is always surface noise and eventually the diamond stylus wears out your records. It stands to reason that it is a flawed medium. Even so, clicks and surface noise are usually drowned out by the sound of  the music on most records. But, not so with classical music as the scratches and dust usually ruin the performance.

What is particularly irksome is the wow and change of pitch . This can still happen even if you have a stroboscope and perfect running speed. If the record's spindle hole is misaligned, by even half a millimetre,  then you will hear wow. A warped record can also generate wow. To mitigate against this you have to pay a lot of money to buy a deck with a special platter.

Try looking at this Nakamichi turntable:

http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html.

I fail to see how anyone who is serious about listening to classical music would want to play a vinyl record as opposed to a CD which reproduces music pitch perfectly. A CD does not create the same amount of harmonic distortion that an LP does and the separation of channels is superior, so you can hear a better sound stage. A well mastered CD beats LP for sound quality for most forms of music and a CD really comes into its own for classical music and piano performances.

The LP is the limiting factor for the quality of the sound reproduction. For this reason, you could be wasting lots of money on expensive kit that hardly improves the performance of a flawed disc of PVC.

I have bought CDs which were severely scratched and some of the tracks where unplayable on a conventional player. I have always remedied the situation by "ripping" the CD and allowing the error correction software on the computer to do its job and restore the files to bit perfect harmony. It is then possible to play all the tracks and create a duplicate copy for playing in the car.

At one point, I seriously thought of buying the Beatles and Pink Floyd remastered LP collections. But if I did this I would have to invest in a new deck costing £2,000 or more in the vain hope of doing the records justice. Even so, if the LPs are warped or if the central hole is misplaced I then have to go to the trouble of obtaining a replacement record. £30 an album is too much money to waste.

I have got the re-mastered CDs of the Beatles and Pink Floyd and a good CD player with a good DAC which I can also use for computer stored music. I can invest the the money, saved on vinyl and the kit, in new music on CD and still have plenty left over to buy a case of good wine.  For me it's a " no-brainer".

Three of the most important factors which govern HiFi performance

Modern electronics have improved so much that consumer CD players, Amplifiers and  Digital to Analogue Converters (DACS) have got music reproduction almost "nailed". You can even get a really good turntable, cartridge and analogue "phonostage"  for a reasonable price.

So what are the three most important factors which no govern HiFi reproduction? They are source, speakers and your listening room and a fourth but more later.

1) The source of the music

This is the most important factor. If the source is garbage the rest of the sound reproduction in the HiFi chain will be garbage. No matter how good your equipment is, it cannot improve on the source.

1a) The master tapes: there is no reason why the original music should be badly recorded no matter whether the recording is a digital or an analogue one. Digital tape sources must be converted to analogue before an LP is made. Modern analogue to digital converters can replicate the music almost perfectly for the production of an LP pressing.

1b) Sound Engineering of the master tape:  this is where things can go radically wrong, especially in the production of pop music. Compression of the dynamics of the music to make the soft parts of the music as loud as the loud parts can squeeze all the life out of the music. The loudness wars are killing music. Digital processing allows for more severe compression of the music than an LP.

Digital recording and sound reproduction  caters for a much wider dynamic range than LPs. Jazz CDs and Classical Music CDs are not subjected to the compression of the music which is why they often sound better than their LP equivalents.

A compressed pop record can sound tiresome and boring. Compression of music is not a new phenomenon 45 rpm pop records were compressed to make them sound louder in the 1960s.

Some classical record radio stations also compress the music to make the soft orchestral parts louder to overcome the noise of the car when driving. This is why the music often sounds lifeless and tedious and boring.

1c) LP records and 45 rpm records: have to be pressed from a metal master which is cut on a lathe. Despite what some "audiophiles" and LP enthusiasts say, it is impossible to exactly duplicate the analogue wave form so there is always an error. This is a fact of science; the distortion of the waveform causes harmonic distortion when listening.

LP pressings usually have at least one flaw which will cause an unavoidable pop on play back.

The mere fact of pressing a diamond needle against a plastic  record generates friction and noise and further harmonic distortion.

Your turntable, no matter how good it is, creates vibrations from the motor which cause rumble this is transmitted to the needle. This is unavoidable but if you use a good deck you may not be able to hear it.

A record wears out even if you use the highest quality equipment; a well worn record will sound distorted.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot avoid dust getting on a record to cause a popping noise. Likewise, static electricity is almost unavoidable and it attracts dust. Static electricity itself can cause a popping noise. The mere act of withdrawing the record from its sleeve generates static on the record.

A record can get scratched easily causing popping noises or preventing the record from playing altogether.

You can get acoustic feedback from you speakers if you site the turntable too close to a speaker and this causes the music to sound too loud and distorted.

If you do not use a solid rack, footfall can generate  vibrations within  the turntable or make the needle jump especially if you have floorboards. No turntable is immune to this.

It is not possible to completely separate the two channels on a stereo record . The left and right channels leak into one another; this adversely affects the "sound stage" of recordings - especially classical music. This cannot be mitigated by any equipment no matter how expensive.

I have just played a brand new record. Although I could hear very little surface noise, which
was drowned out by the music anyway, I heard one pop. Close examination of the record showed that it also had a slight scratch across the whole of the surface on one side. The record was shrink wrapped so I guess the scratch happened at the production stage. I paid a lot of money for this.

You may think why bother playing and buying LPs? Well, most of the faults can be mitigated except a scratch or dust and static. Harmonic distortion is inherent in the system but this may not spoil your musical enjoyment of pop records and jazz. But it can spoil your enjoyment of classical music. Some people actually enjoy hearing the slight harmonic distortion of the music played on a turntable and prefer the sound of an LP compared to the of a CD for this reason.

From a strictly pedantic point of view an LP cannot be high fidelity as the medium introduces harmonic distortion and popping noises from dust and static. This is distortion and noise which was not part of the original recording. Will LP "audiophiles" ever admit that LP sound reproduction is flawed? I doubt it.

The LP itself is the limiting factor for analogue sound reproduction.

Despite many of its failings , I still love playing LPs; most of mine are second hand or very old. Most of the flaws, surface noise , pops and crackles are masked by the music itself especially when playing pop or jazz.

It is classical music which really exposes the flaws; you can often hear the harmonic distortion. Cheaper decks also cause wow and flutter because they cannot control the speed of the platter's rotation accurately. The quieter bits of music expose any surface noise, scratch or pop. For classical music you need to listen to a near perfect record on very high quality equipment.

If two LPs and turntables are of HiFi quality then logic dictates that they must sound very similar. The same reasoning applies to digital music. Good quality HiFi components should sound very similar whether the source is analogue or digital. My experience bears out this conclusion.

However, logic and rationality has often gone out of the window when you read HiFi magazines and forums and blogs by "experts" and worse still advertising material.


1d) CD and other Digital recordings (including HiRes): digital recordings and their media have none of the faults of the LP listed above. They are capable of reproducing pure sound which is almost an exact duplicate of the original master tape.

A CD can be ripped to a computer WAV file which has the same quality as a CD. You can playback these files from a computer and if you use a really good DAC to connect the computer or laptop to your HiFi then the results are indistinguishable to the original CD.

A CD can reproduce musical frequencies between 20 Hz and 22 KHz. A so called HiRes digital musical file can reproduce musical frequencies between 20 Hz and 48Khz. Some digital files can reproduce music between 20 Hz and  96Khz.

No human being can hear above 22 KHz and the higher frequency range can only be heard by children. Most adults have an upper frequency limit of 15 KHz  or even  lower.

Most microphones only record sounds between 20 Hz and 20 kHz and most loudspeakers are limited to a similar frequency range.

Double blind scientific tests have been conducted and no-one has been proven to hear the difference between CD quality music and HiRes  -  with all other things being equal. HiFi magazines please take note.

Hi Res reproduction cannot provide better quality music. Any difference between CD and Hi Res is probably down to the original mastering, therefore all things are not equal when making comparisons.

I recently bought some HiRes music over the internet and downloaded it. I then converted the music to a "lower mathematical resolution" to make a CD. I could not hear the difference - all other things being equal- neither could my wife or my friends. Why is this? Our ears and perception cannot distinguish between the two. No one in a peer reviewed double blind test has been proven to hear any difference.

Anyone who can claim to hear the difference should prove this by subjecting themselves to scientific testing.

24bit/ 96 KHz files have their uses in the recording studio but for playback CD quality is good enough so enough said about this.

Technically a CD  has the potential to produce higher quality music that an LP. This stands to reason and you can read all about sampling theory and practise here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem.


A CD musical waveform reproduces music almost exactly. An LP does not reproduce the same waveform as accurately as it is subjected to transcription errors.

This does not mean that LPs cannot sound as satisfactory to the human ear and  there are only marginal differences between high quality CD reproduction when compared to high quality LP sound reproduction.

Because the music from a CD has none of the flaws of an LP , I prefer this medium. The CD is capable of almost perfectly reproducing the music recorded on the master tape. This is especially apparent when listening to an orchestra, solo acoustic guitar, a piano performance or an opera singer. I listen to all sorts of music and prefer the CD for jazz, pop and folk music as well - especially in the soft bits.

I avoid pop music which has been dynamically compressed at the mastering stage.

There is no need for HiRes music but sometimes this music has been mastered better and has a improved dynamic range but there is no reason, for playback purposes, that CD quality cannot suffice. But of course manufacturers want to sell you equipment that has a better technical specification even though the human ear cannot perceive the so called "improved performance" of 24 bit 192 kHz music files and DACs.

You can choose to be fooled by this if you want to. But, if you have not got the money in your back pocket, I would advise that you think carefully about getting into debt to buy equipment that does not provide noticeable improvement at your ears.

CD quality is my preferred digital medium and I prefer its convenience to analogue music this is why all of my music is on CD and on hard disc drive. All the analogue music which I cannot source easily from CD has been ripped to a CD quality digital file for archive purposes and convenient playback.

As far as I am concerned there is no need for HiRes music files. The record companies should sell perfect master copies on CD for all of us to enjoy. I doubt if this will happen as I suspect that some record companies will encourage us to spend much more money on HiRes recording which is not needed.

1e) MP3 Digital Music

This is compressed music in the sense that the digital files are made smaller by removing music which you normally cannot hear.  An mathematical algorithm does this. For instance when an orchestra is going at full volume you may not be able to hear a harp playing quietly.

Sometimes, a loud noise such as a drum striking causes momentary deafness to a soft piccolo playing until your ears recover. The calculation algorithms remove this soft music to make storage files smaller.

Frequencies above 15KHz can be removed as adults cannot hear them.

The modern algorithms are very good at compressing music but the quality of the sound deteriorates at lower bit rates - below 192 kbps ( kilo bits per second) - so that you can hear that the music is not CD quality which streams at 1,411 bits per second.

At 256 kbps most people cannot tell the difference between MP3 and a CD.

None of my friends can tell the difference between  MP3 at 320 kbps and CD quality and neither can I even when I use a high quality DAC.

HiFi journalists are very ambivalent about MP3; normally they disparage this medium until they test Spotify on the latest wonderful DAC, when all of a sudden the music starts to sound great. You cannot have it both ways.

MP3 has its place especially on a portable player or a tablet computer and it can give HiFi quality results. Need I say more.

1f) Audio Cassettes

These are making a comeback. They have similar drawbacks to LPs. They have inherent noise hence the need for Dolby processing.

There is slight harmonic distortion inherent in their design. In fact some recording engineers and producers make use of the this to make digital recordings sound softer. But, if you copy from cassette to cassette several times the harmonic distortion becomes more readily apparent.

The tapes can stretch upon playback and distort the music further. Poorly engineered tape drives are subject to wow and flutter just like records.

Worse still the tapes can snap or unwind themselves from the cassette housing and thereby they are rendered useless. If you want to concentrate on audio cassette sound reproduction you must take back ups but if you copy a tape too many times you run into distortion problems as described before.

All my audio cassettes, which I still play in the car are backed up, to digital files so |I can make a new tape when needed. The digital copies sound exactly the same as the original. You can do this for LPs  too and even with humble equipment the copy will sound almost exactly the same as the original recording. This is surely a tribute to digital technology.

I still have a high quality Sony Walkman which works really well and it can play a well recorded audio cassette at almost the same quality as an LP or a CD. The music is very satisfying to listen to.

The conversion software that I use, Audacity, can remove tape hiss and other noise - another good reason for computers and digital technology.

Many of my friends, in the 1970's, before laptops and MP3 players and CDs were heard of, copied their LPs to audio cassette so they did not have to play the vinyl so often. The audio cassettes sounded almost the same as the LP when good equipment and tapes were used for recording and playback. I never did this and that is why some of my favourite records are either heavily scratched or worn out. For this reason I converted to digital when CD was launched.

1g) Reel to Reel Analogue tapes

Most of the same reasoning applies to reel to reel tapes but in general the music reproduction is of higher quality than audio cassette.  Before the advent of digital technology, analogue reel to reel tapes were used as master copies. Your original Pink Floyd, Doors, Beach Boys (1960s and 1970s) and  Beatles albums would have been recorded on analogue tapes. Digital re-mastering cannot of course improve on their quality but they can be used to clean up the sound and remove noises etc.

1h) FM radio

FM radio is of HiFi quality but the frequencies cut off at 15khz. No one ever complains about this. Even though it is primarily analogue in character, somewhere along the transmission chain digital files are used to broadcast the music. So the people who rave about FM analogue sounding so much better than CD can eat their words as they are in fact listening to digital files at a lower bit rate than CD. 

If you do not believe me read this:

http://www.bbceng.info/Technical%20Reviews/pcm-nicam/digits-fm.html

1j)  Internet Radio, DAB and Spotify etc.

These sources can be very good provided you use very good equipment. You must  listen to radio stations that broadcast at higher bit rates such as BBC Radio 3 Hi Res.

If you pay for Spotify you will receive music at almost CD quality. If you listen over a WiFi in your home then it must be set up properly.


In summary, from my experience and in my opinion CD provides the best quality sound followed very closely by: Reel to Reel tape, LP and audio cassette. I still find LPs and audio cassettes very satisfying to listen to. FM radio is very satisfying too, provided that you choose the right channel which does not compress the music.  Internet radio and Spotify can be very good to listen to as well.

2) Your speakers

In my living room I have got some high quality transmission line speakers which sound great . They have an even response from the bass frequencies to the highest frequencies which are beyond my ability and most other adults to hear. The speakers top out at 20 kHz but most music produces tones at much lower frequencies.

These floor standing speakers can shift lots of air and fill the room with sound.

The bookshelf speakers that I use in the dining room are technically just as good but they do not produce bass anywhere near as well and they cannot shift as much air. So, they cannot fill the dining room with sound in the same way.

If you want the best sound reproduction you really should consider nice large speakers even if they are intrusive upon the decor of your living room.

3) Speaker position and the room

Where you position your speakers and the room that you use are one of the most important factors. The sound bounces around and sound from bare walls and floors can produce an echo sound. This is why speaker designers assume that you are using your speakers in a room with soft furniture carpets and wall coverings. Where you sit can also affect the quality of the sound and the music that you hear.

Comb filtering effects can cause interference patterns to the sound waves. Where you position yourself is important. If you change position by even a few inches the quality of the sound is affected. This is probably why foolish people hear changes to the sound when they get up to adjust the "wizzo" wooden isolation cones used to prop up a CD player or  when they changed from one"wizzo" overly expensive cable to another. They have moved position and hear slight differences. At least I am trying to be charitable.

If you do not believe me read this:

http://ethanwiner.com/believe.html

Summary: where you position your speakers and yourself and the condition of your listening room has a major effect on the quality of the sound that you hear. You may not need to change your equipment fro a better listening experience, just your room and furniture and your own listening position. Yippee, you can save some money!

4) Last but not least your ears, perception,  expectation and persuasion.

The Swifts flying around your roof late at night are calling to one another at 6 KHz and it is not a very pleasant sound for me. The skylark is calling at a much lower frequency and sounds much more mellifluous. Higher frequencies still sound even more piercing.  So why would you want to buy musical equipment or recorded music that can reproduce the sound of a bat calling at 48 KHz. Number one  you cannot hear it at all and number two it would sound awful.

Audiophiles and HiFi magazines will tell you that a moving coil cartridge can reproduce ultrasonic sounds so you must buy one. This is complete nonsense. Equipment manufactures will gladly sell you expensive equipment to reproduce sounds that you cannot hear.

Equally it is claimed that HiRes digital files sound better than CD quality when all other things are equal. They do not. The controlling features of the mathematics dictate only the frequency range of the sound and its dynamics or loudness. A 24 bit file can produce a dynamic range of 144 decibels. No sound equipment can handle this dynamic range as it would be damaged. A sound at 144 decibel of loudness would crush your  ears and would likely kill you. It is simply stupid to use 24 bit music files for playback in the home.

A 96khz Hi Res file can reproduce sound frequencies up 48 KHz. This is pointless; no one can hear it and no speakers can handle these frequencies. My super duper CD and DAC uses filters to cut off frequencies above the 22.5 KHz to prevent inter modulation harmonic distortion entering into the transmission chain. In other words although my super duper DAC can process 24bit/ 96 KHz "High Resolution"  files the equipment can only reproduce frequencies that a CD can handle. HiRes files are redundant as far as I am concerned.

You may well ask, why buy a new DAC that has redundant facilities? Well every new DAC has got this form of  redundancy and you cannot go back to the past.

Be careful that you do not fool yourself by expecting that something that costs a lot more money will perform a lot better.  A £10,000 record deck will not perform ten times better than a £1,000 one and it may sound worse if you do not set it up properly. Also, if you take into account the technical quality of an LP this could be a limiting factor. You are, after all, playing a cheap piece of plastic on a very expensive machine. The quality of the machine could be much better than the quality of the record and you may not perceive any benefit.

This same reasoning applies to CD s , Audio Cassettes and FM radio.


Your perception can also be fooled and  this is what an MP3 file does; for the calculation algorithm can easily fool you into thinking that your are hearing CD quality music.

You can be fooled into thinking that, all other things being equal, you can hear a difference between HiRes music files and CD quality. But this form of foolery is caused by "audiophiles", HiFi magazines and advertising material making unjustified claims about performance so use your head and remain sceptical.

The harsh reality is that your perception can easily be fooled by auto-suggestion and by the suggestion of others.

The moon illusion is a classic example. When the moon is on the horizon it appears a lot bigger than the moon high in the sky but it is the same size and can be covered by a coin or a pea at arms length. Try it.
Every person on the planet sees this moon illusion despite their culture or up bringing. You cannot overcome the illusion even though it has been explained to you.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/moon/

So there you have it the prime factor in the perception of sound quality of music is the source material. The speakers and their position and your position in the room also greatly affect the quality.

But, please be aware that overriding all of this is your expectation, perception and the quality of your hearing. Please be aware also of the power of persuasion.

CD Sales Statistics - So what is wrong with the CD and other myths

The poor old CD is going to disappear soon; so we are told. They are going to be replaced by "digital" sales. But CDs store digital representations of music they are "digital" so are they going to replace themselves?

A CD is really only a means to store a digital file. A digital file can be held on a hard drive or a flash drive as well.  The digital music held on a CD is in CD Audio red book format; these files can easily be converted to WAV files with almost exactly the same format but stored on a Hard Drive, a Flash Drive, a DVD, an SD card or even a BluRay Disk.

The press perpetrates so many myths  and exaggerations about recorded music that I wonder if any form rationality remains.

The so called great vinyl revival has not really happened and LPs represent an almost insignificant proportion of the market. None of my friends who possess a record deck ever use it or buy records. I limit myself to buying LPs in second hand shops and all the music has been converted to digital files and ends up on a CD for playing in a car.


Our little silver friend is very versatile and a prerecorded CD maintains an almost indestructible copy of the music under every day conditions. This is more than can be said for LPs, audio cassettes and hard drives.

I have bought lots of albums from "download sites" in WAV, FLAC and MP3 format. All of this music has been backed up to CD. MP3 albums can be converted to CD audio for playing in the car.

I can envisage a time when the CD as a form of backup storage will disappear, especially when flash and cloud storage becomes cheaper. I rather like the idea of the CD, however, as I can read the sleeve notes.

I am surprised that music is not being sold in read only SD card format. It is light and easy to post or carry and could come along with a nicely prepared booklet for album information.

There are now claims that audio cassettes will make a big comeback. For me they never disappeared as I still play them in the car. I have digitised all of my audio cassettes which cannot be easily replaced by  pre-recorded CD for archive purposes.

Digital music will not disappear and the CD is just as much a member of the digital family as the download - journalists please take note.



http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/bpi-2012-figures-album-sales-fall-11-2-as-singles-hit-record-high/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18278037

The HI FI Numbers game

Have you ever considered what a numbers game the HI FI industry has become? Sound engineering has come on in leaps and bounds in the last 50 years. We now have consumer products which are far in advance of the record players we were using in the 1960s. We have now hit the point where improvements to stereo sound are really coming under the law of diminishing returns.

Take the turn table, cartridge and stylus industry for an example. During the 1970s belt driven turn tables became popular; they replaced rim or idler drive record players as a consumer product. They almost eliminated deck rumble.

Moving Magnet cartridges and their Moving Coil cousins replaced ceramic cartridges to completely improve frequency response.

Diamond styluses replaced sapphire ones to improve the longevity and frequency performance of the turntable cartridge.

Electronic speed control almost eliminated wow and flutter speed variations.

Even the most humble deck has all these features nowadays. So where do improvements come from? They are difficult to come by.

The human ear when perfect  and under ideal conditions can hear frequencies from about 20 hz to 20 khz. But from the age of about 8 or 9 the ability to hear higher frequencies declines, so that many men above the age of 70 can no longer hear frequencies above 8 khz. Women's hearing fails more slowly.  Most adult men cannot hear frequencies above 15khz.

Stylus manufactures are now making elliptical styluses which can reproduce sound frequencies up to 55 khz. You may ask why bother to make them and why bother to buy them when most adults cannot hear sounds above about 15 or 16 khz? It is part of a numbers game.


The top C note on a grand piano is 4.186khz and middle C is 261.6 hz. Top C is rarely played but when it is there are harmonics which are of a higher frequency but you may want to consider why there is a need to reproduce sounds above 16 khz when most people cannot hear them.


The maximum frequency which can be played on FM radio in the UK is 15 khz. No-one ever complains about this.

A soprano uses primary frequencies in the range of 250 to 1500 hz but can produce harmonics in the range of 3,000 to 4000 hz.  You may be wondering again why we need to reproduce frequencies far higher than the human voice can sing. We don't, but of course it is desirable to have some redundancy built into the system.

This is why when sound engineers designed the CD audio system they did it to cater for a frequency response of 20 hz to 22khz. This is far beyond the range of most musical instruments and the ability of our ears to hear or perceive such high or low frequencies.

They also designed the CD to have a dynamic range of about 96 decibels, which is far beyond the range of an orchestra from its softest sound to its loudest sound. Pop records rarely exceed a dynamic range of 20 decibels which is far narrower than the dynamic range of an orchestra which can be up to 80 decibels.

LPs can reproduce a similar frequency range as CDs  but their dynamic range is nowhere near as wide but even so an LP is good enough for most peoples ears. So they can easily compete in the numbers game.


HIRES music is completely redundant and unnecessary. A 24 bit 192 khz digital resolution file can provide a dynamic range of about 144 decibels, and if you add this to the noise floor in your living room which is about 40 decibels you would be able to reproduce the sound of the space shuttle taking off in your living room, but only if your sound equipment was strong enough. This is ridiculous.

192 khz digital files can reproduce frequencies up to 96 khz; not even your cat can hear this high  but of course a bat can. So your 24 bit 192 khz HIRES file can knock bats out of the sky 20 miles away if your amp and speakers were powerful enough - but they never will be. This is  a preposterous musical proposition and a preposterous and absurd numbers game.

At normal and safe listening levels no one has been proven by scientific testing to hear the difference between CD quality and HIRES listening quality when all other parameters are equal. HIRES is completely redundant technology.

Technology has brought us to the point where the potential performance of the equipment is much greater than the actual performance of our ears and our hearing perception. We have been at this point since the invention of the CD.

Do not  be fooled by so called sonic improvements as part of a numbers game unless you want to waste prodigious sums of money.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=expert-opera-singer

Audio Cassette Revival

Audio cassettes never bit the dust for me. I have used them for a long long time. I have learnt German and French from them and a little Japanese, Russian, Serbo-Croat , Spanish and Italian.I have still got Tony Hancock and Goon show tapes. One of my Australian friends sent me Kevin "Bloody" Wilson comedy tapes - very risque and they would probably be banned nowadays.

I was never one for recording my LPs onto tape but I did a lot of help recording party tapes in the 1970s. I can remember lots of discussion about what should be recorded on a tape and in what order.

In the last thirty years or so I have travelled widely with my job. The cassette tape kept me sane on long plane journeys and long stays in hotel rooms. I could take the, classical, folk, jazz and rock music of my choice with me. This was mainly during the 1980s and 1990s.

I had a really snazzy Sony Walkman DC2 it sounded great as good as an LP record deck without the clicks and pops and static hiss and it still works. In 2000 my wife bought me an Archos MP3 player and all of a sudden I had much more room in my brief case.

But, I have put equal use to playing cassettes in the car and taping CDs was the best thing since sliced bread for me. The tape of a CD always sounded better than the tape of an LP record and often it sounded so much better than the same music on a manufactured cassette.

This is the advantage of digital music when the tape got bust or stretched you could easily make another one.

I still make tapes for my rather aging car which has got a tape player but no CD. I cannot bring myself to use my adapter and source the music from a Tablet computer or MP3 player; somehow it does not seem right.

All of my LPs and tapes have been digitised to WAV and MP3 files for convenience and for archiving. When the car is pensioned off I will probably never use an audio cassette player again. But wait a minute I have still got a record player and even though the digitised versions sound exactly like the original LP I still like to spin some vinyl. So maybe some life will remain for the audio cassette player yet.

The audio cassette was one of the most practical inventions regarding music reproduction; it paved the way for MP3 players and private music on the go. It gave me hours and hours of musical enjoyment, education and entertainment. It was a superb invention from Philips who also were prominent in the development of the CD. I can remember when the first recorder and player came onto the market in 1963 but they were only used widely by music fans from the 1970s when they slowly started to replace the LP.

Beatles - Re-mastered Mono LP set

The new Beatles Mono LP set is due for release in November this year.

No doubt some people will be agonising whether to buy them or not. All I can say is if you have got the money and vinyl is your preferred choice of playing recordings then go ahead with a clear conscience. I shall not be buying this new set, even though I have got the money, because my preferred choice of listening to music is digital from a laptop, streamer or CD player. I still enjoy vinyl and still play some of my old Beatles records on a turntable for fun.

There is a lot of rubbish written about mono versus stereo and which is the best way to get back to the original sound. You cannot get back to the 1960's sound with any of the re-mastered releases but more of that later.

There is so much rubbish written about LP versus CD  and now the various digital formats and this is beyond my comprehension. Soon the internet airwaves will be full of the old arguments about which is the better format and which take of the Beatles sounds better the mono one or the stereo one.


When I was a youngster back in the sixties I listened to the Beatles so much that I can remember most of their songs exactly word for word and chord for chord. So can most of my contemporaries unless they hated the Beatles and preferred the Rolling Stones; people were just as partisan in those days.

To all intents and purposes we only ever heard the Beatles and all our other favourite groups in Mono.

These were the combinations:

Mono LPs played on a mono record player with a ceramic cartridge and with valve or tube amplifier all in one box. These were played so loud that the distortion was really noticeable but no-one cared.

Mono LPs played on a mono record player with a ceramic cartridge and with transistor amplifier and all in one box. Once again the music was played so loud that there was noticeable distortion but no-one cared.

Stereo LPs were sometimes played on Mono record players but too loud again and of course you heard them in Mono.

Listening to a mono LP on a  mono valve radio in AM; the transmissions were often distorted by interference.

Listening to a stereo LP  on a mono transistor radio in AM; and once again the transmissions were often distorted by interference.

Listening to a mono or stereo track played on a VHF black and white telly. The sound reproduction was slightly better unless you had the volume turned up to full. The telly only had one speaker so you always heard mono. There was less interference and a better frequency response than AM radio.

Listening in mono on a jukebox played in a coffee bar or pub.

Playing a mono LP on your parents stereo if they could afford one. The end result was mono.

Playing a stereo record on your parents stereo if you were lucky and of course it sounded better and different. I bought Sgt Pepper in 1967 in stereo in anticipation of my parents getting a HIFI.

Listening to FM radio in the latter part of the 1960s but mostly on a radio with a single speaker  - so in mono. Stereo FM did not become widely popular until the early 1970s when people could afford the latest equipment. FM stereo was a big improvement to listening to a mono record player.

The technical choice was as wide as we have today, excepting that digital did not exist and tape recorders were very expensive and audio cassette recording was trash until the 1970s came along.

The sound reproduction was awful compared to what we have today. There was no real discussion about the differences in mastering techniques and the small differences in how the mono and stereo versions of the Beatles albums were put together. No-one could care less, as all we were concerned about was listening to the best pop music even though it was usually distorted.

My sister and I had musical ears so we could tell that She's Leaving Home was playing in a different key on the stereo and mono versions of Sgt Pepper.

Of course, I never got annoyed by the vocals on the stereo version of Eleanor Rigby which now seem to be disembodied and jumping from one speaker to another because I was always listening in mono.


If you think for one minute that buying the boxed version of the Mono Beatles LP will get you back to the magic days of the 1960s then you are mistaken. You will be buying these versions for the excellent sound that they will give you even if they are played on a humble turntable. If you are paying £30 or so for each LP then insist upon getting undamaged vinyl and  sleeve covers. Why should your music appreciation be marred by a warped record or one that has in built crackles because of bad manufacturing  and quality control?

I can suggest two ways to get back to the so called golden days of the 1960s even though we did not have much cash to buy the LP when it first came out or listen to it through decent equipment.

1) Buy a second hand Beatles record mono or stereo from the 1960s. A cheap one will have plenty of scratches and it will also be damaged by excessive playing on what would now be termed as primitive equipment - a worn out sapphire stylus with a very heavy ceramic cartridge.

Buy a refurbished 1960s record player complete with sapphire stylus and ceramic cartridge.

Place the record player on a rickety sideboard or on the floor. Clean the record if it has a lot of gunge on it or otherwise leave it. Play the record with the volume turned up full and jive. You are almost back to how we listened and danced to the Beatles in 1964.

2) Tune in a single speaker transistor radio which has the AM medium wave band, you will probably have one in the house, to a distant radio station hundreds of miles away and during the day time; this will mean that the station will probably fade. If you have got the patience, hope that the station plays a record from the 1960s; the Beatles even.

No-one ever used headphones in those days but sometimes we used a ghastly single white ear bud type earphone if we did not want our parents to know we were listening to Radio Luxembourg rather than sleeping.

3) Instead of buying the record  player with a credit card, pay with cash that you have saved in a jar or piggy bank from the spare change that you have got in your purse or pocket until you have got the right money. This will give you some of the air of anticipation that we had back then when we bought our first record players - or records for that matter as we had to save hard for them too.

Do not be tempted to play your brand new Beatles albums on the sort of equipment I have just described as you will ruin them on the first play.

Sit back and enjoy your re-mastered LPs first with the music coming from between the two speakers. And then secondly from only one speaker using the balance control.

If you are lucky enough to afford the stereo re-masters as well, then you can afford to buy a mono active speaker and rig it up. You will then be able to hear the stereo versions condensed into mono so that you can compare both formats.  I am willing to guess that the music will sound just as good which ever way you listen. Enjoy.

PS
Some of you are probably thinking about buying a turntable for the first time to go with your new records so please be aware of the next paragraphs.

Here are facts that you cannot escape from. If you scratch your pristine new 180 vinyl you will hear a popping noise. The mere act of pulling the record from a sleeve will generate some static electricity noise and you will quite probably hear this on replay. If you allow dust to build up on the stylus or the record itself you will hear a noise. Too much dust and fluff could cause the record to jump track or sound muffled or both.

All of this type of noise can affect the playing of LPs whether you have paid £300 or £3000 for your turntable. One  fool on a forum suggested that a £3000 turntable and cartridge can filter out scratches, static noise or the effects of dust and fluff. It cannot and it will sound just as ghastly as on a cheap deck. Make sure you protect your records.

An expensive deck will help to eliminate wow and  flutter and rumble noise and should  reduce harmonic distortion to a minimum. But, you must set up the deck correctly and level it and protect it from vibrations and acoustic feedback.

Sit back and enjoy the music.

HIFI Cable Humbug and Snake oil etc.

There is too much emphasis placed on spending huge sums of money on HIFI cables. Most of what is written about this subject is complete tripe. HIFI magazines promote myths about the benefits of all sorts of equipment.

Before magazines pay any credence to the performance claims of manufactures they should test the cables using the scientific method and use double blind ABX listening tests and then subject the result for peer review by independent sound engineers and statisticians.

When I have swapped interconnect cables around on my system I have not noticed any difference in performance. In fact I have found that reasonable quality and priced interconnect cables from Maplins do not sound any different to much more expensive ones. The same applies to speaker cable; you can buy excellent quality speaker cable for £1.50 per metre and I am not certain that this performs much better than bell wire.

Good quality copper cable does the job nicely.

http://gizmodo.com/315250/pear-cable-chickens-out-of-1000000-challenge-we-search-for-answers

With the increasing use of USB DACs also beware of an claims regarding USB connectors as no scientific tests seem to have been conducted on these. The performance claims could be equally as bogus.


Like most houses we have umpteen sets of music and computer equipment plugged into the mains with WIFI connexions producing all sorts of radio frequency transmissions. You could be led into believing that you need power conditioners and all sorts of other equipment to "clean things up". Some power conditioners cost hundreds of pounds.

I have performed this simple test. I switched on every piece of equipment that we have in the house including set top boxes to receive terrestrial and satellite television. I switched on the BluRay player, the CD player and the DAC and Laptop which are connected to my amplifier.  I  then turned up the amplifier to half volume and three quarters volume. I could hear absolutely nothing even with my ears pressed up to the speakers. I then  turned up the volume to full and then heard a slight hiss with my ears pressed up to the speakers. None of the electrical equipment in my house or the power supply was interfering with the performance of my HIFI equipment. The slight white noise was coming from the amplifier which is only to be expected at full volume. The equipment is obviously well shielded and filtered.

I suggest that you do this test before investing in fancy cables or expensive power conditioners. In some houses there may be a case for shielding the gear from interference from the power supply. But test this first before buying; the interference could be caused by faulty equipment or poor connexions.

I am amazed that so called audiophiles and HIFI journalists can be fooled into thinking that  very expensive speaker cables etc. improve performance. These are the very same people who find the snap, crackle and pop noise and the surface noise acceptable when they are playing LP records  on exceptionally expensive turntables.

Don't get me wrong I love listening to LPs but I have to accept their limitations and no amount of money spent will cure the LP of the in built flaws of static build up, surface noise and dust. I also accept that a Maplin's interconnect cable performs just as well as a cable costing hundreds or even thousands of pounds more.

I spend the money saved on the music which is all that really matters.

The Beatles At the Hollywood Bowl ( Live)

I picked up a second hand version of The Beatles At The Hollywood Bowl LP for £3 pounds at a steam fair over the weekend. The record was in tip top condition. My brother-in-law played it on his turntable and there was hardly a scratch or noise even though he didn't clean it or dust it off before spinning it.

The record was released in 1977 by EMI and years after the Beatles had broken up. The actual recordings were made at the venue on 3 track tape recorders. They were re-mastered by George Martin and Geoff Emerick to multi-track masters for the LP issue.

The LP contains a medley of  Beatles songs from early in their career such as Long Tall Sally, A Hard Day's Night and Twist and Shout. The live recordings were made in 1964 and 1965 at the Hollywood Bowl venue.

There was a lot of controversy about whether the album should have been released at all but eventually all parties concerned agreed. I can understand why. The live performance is marred by intensive and continuous screaming generated by hysterical teenagers. The screaming was so loud that the Beatles themselves could not hear what they were playing and it is a tribute to the band that they were able to perform in tune.


When I went to see the Beatles in London in the early sixties I could hardly hear them for the screaming. I could not believe that the audience were simply not interested in the music and were content to show their feelings by hysterical wailing. No wonder the Beatles stopped performing live.


You were better off listening to them on  45 singles played on a Dansette. The persistent  screaming led to another form of noise war. Groups had to amplify their music to make the noise of a caterwauling audience irrelevant. It is no wonder so many young people,including the artists themselves, got ear damage from listening to concerts  from the late sixties onward.

When I got the record  home I cleaned it and dusted it off. There was hardly a scratch or any damage or static for that matter. I could see why. It had hardly been played. I got as far as the third track and stopped playing it; the screaming had got the better of me. The music had been spoilt despite the best efforts of the Beatles and the original sound engineers - Hugh Davies and Pete Abbott. Geoff Emerick's valiant efforts to bring out the best on the re-master tapes had almost failed.

It looks like this is the only recording of a live Beatles performance which has been released as an official LP. It is not available on an official CD and it sounds like a bootleg album. If you want to hear what going to a live Beatles concert was like, then I recommend that you obtain a copy of this album. But going to the real thing meant that you heard almost nothing of the live performance.

My brother-in-law used to go and see the Beatles and the Swinging Blue Jeans and other Mersey beat artists live at the Cavern club. There was no screaming there and then as the audience just wanted to hear the best rock and roll. I wish I could have gone there. I was too young and too far away.

Hi-Res Music humbug

There is already too much "horse manure"  written about vinyl LP versus CD  and which sounds better so why do we have to suffer an equal dose of "ordure" about the quality of so called High Resolution (Hi-Res) digital downloads.

Some people claim that Hi-Res music files are of higher quality than the poor old CD. 24 bit 96 khz or 24 bit 192 khz recordings sound so much better than CD - well they don't. No one has been proven to hear the difference between HiRes and CD quality sound reproduction when all other listening parameters remain the same. Before you buy Hi-Res music, or the equipment that plays it, please read the following as it could save you a lot of money.

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

It is possible that some Hi-Res music has been mastered more diligently and that a higher quality master has been produced than for the CD equivalent. But if you convert this Hi-Res master to 16 bit 44.1khz or CD quality files you will hear no or very little difference at normal playing volumes.

If you do not have digital equipment that will play Hi-Res files you can easily convert the music to 16 bit 44.1 khz using dBpoweramp or Audacity (Audacity is free). I have done this with some Hi-Res music bought from the web. When I have played back the "Hi-Res" and CD quality versions to my friends they could hear no difference but of course this was not a scientific test.

You can download samples of  open source Hi-Res  music  from www.archive.org for free. Just put 24/96 in the search box.

You should also consider this,  a lot of pop music has been poorly mastered on CD since the around 2000. Sound engineers have compressed the music to make the softer parts of the music as loud as the loud parts. This has been part of the loudness wars to make the music stand out more on a "juke box" or on the radio and TV. 45 Single records in the sixties were mastered in a similar way. The music loses its dynamism and sounds tiresome.

A lot of jazz, classical and folk music CDs have been produced without being compressed and in fact they have been mastered very well. You may not be able to hear much difference between a HiRes master and an ordinary CD. Save yourself some money and ignore all the hype and humbug. A well mastered CD should sound as good as a well mastered Hi-Res music file and of course as good as our old friend the vinyl LP.

Sit back relax and enjoy the music no matter what the source is.


There is so much humbug and hype written about Hi-Res music that all I can say is buyer beware - so caveat emptor.

Is there room for Venus in hi-fi heaven?

Is there room for Venus in hi-fi heaven?

                        

Why are most women not interested in hi-fi?  Or, more pertinently, why are they not interested in the technicalities involved in buying and setting up the equipment? I do not see much involvement from women in the hi-fi world. Is the male dominated hi-fi industry missing a trick here? Half the population seems to be ignored.

The other day I was at my local street market and spent a lot of time thumbing through the second-hand records on a stand. The friendly and talkative proprietor was playing his records through a smart-looking bright red record player; the music did not sound too bad considering that the device only cost £99.

 An older lady was thumbing through the records too and then asked the salesman if the player could go louder - maybe it was for her grandson. “Yes” he said. “You can connect it up to your main hi-fi with a line connexion and then it will sound like a CD” - a slight exaggeration, I thought. She might as well have been talking to an audiophile Martian. She probably did not believe him and walked away without buying anything.

A younger woman arrived at the stand and asked the record man if the player had a line output. “Yes”, he said enthusiastically. He then tried to engage her in conversation about hi-fi amplifiers but she drifted away apparently embarrassed to have asked such a simple question. Maybe, she was only attracted by the bright colours.

The record man talked to me instead. He knew all about old record players and turntables with idler drives and such like. I bought a Jefferson Starship LP and took it home. My wife thought it sounded great and said, “Let’s play records more often”; but I had to flip the disc over to the second side.

My wife loves jazz, the Pink Floyd and the Beatles. When I was courting her, she had bought a really good separates system with a Pioneer deck which she had set up for herself. She is no technophobe and can fix up a WI-FI system and change a computer’s sound card with ease. But, she only does any of this when I am on a business trip; when I return I have to do all things technical concerning the hi-fi and the PC. I get the feeling that she is bored by the button pressing and would just rather leave it all to me. She, like most of her gender, is more interested in the human aspects of playing music rather than just being attracted to the equipment for its own sake.

We have an easy relationship when it comes to hi-fi as my wife knows that I have got the good sense not to spend an unaffordable fortune on kit. The wife of a former colleague did not have such luck. Her “other half”  invited us  to their apartment one evening to listen to thousands of pounds worth of “high-end” turntables, CD transports, amplifiers and their ancillaries.

We were treated to an evening of audio nirvana during which he was tweaking the equipment with filters and stroboscopic adjustments. He asked us to decide which sounded better - CD or LP? His wife could hardly tell the difference nor could mine and neither could I; such was the quality of the sound from both sources. He was convinced that LPs sounded so much better and would not accept our views.  I could not resist jibing, devilishly, that the turntable gave the best quality sound reproduction of a static discharge that I had ever heard.

My colleague’s wife averred that it would be better for their family budget if he plumped for just one format, CD, rather than duplicate the cost of different sources. And, anyway, the awful looking equipment was cluttering up their living room. I later found out that he had got himself into hundreds of thousands of pounds of debt to finance his enthusiasm. His wife’s ideas of how to listen to good music were much more realistic and took home economics and sociability into account.

Possibly, this extreme example points out the differences between most women and men and their approach to hi-fi. I find that women take a much more practical attitude, as they are much more interested in what the music sounds like rather than the technicalities of high resolution filters or advanced anti-skate devices.

I can see why women seem to have been excluded from the hi-fi market; it is because they are not interested in listening to or reading about techno-babble or tweaking equipment.  The sales of hi-fi separates are continuing to fall because young people in general are not interested either - the market is now in a crisis. The purchase of high fidelity equipment could soon be limited to rich, or highly indebted, male enthusiasts.

When it comes to hi-fi women are no fools; they want high quality music at a fair price. They want to hear music that makes them feel good by playing attractive and user friendly equipment. Perhaps, it is time for the manufacturers to appeal to both sexes before the market place is completely flooded by cheap headphones, MP3 players and docking stations.

Women could be the driving force that pushes a healthier and more profitable industry into a new era of practicality which appeals to the social nature of listening to good music through good equipment.  There is still time to avert a crisis by giving hi-fi heaven the sex appeal to attract Venus.

Getting into LPs and vinyl? Here are some tips

So you want to play LPs and 45s

Sales of turntables are starting to grow again and interest in playing LPs and 45s is growing. I was at a second record stall the other and there was a young man with his mother asking the salesman about vinyl records and how to play them, so below I have included some history and a few tips.

History

Like many people of my age I started listening to records in the 1960s. I have used a complete variety of turntables and some of the turntables from the 1960s had a really distinctive sound. You can hear this on Youtube.

I grew up with LPs and during my youth the records of the day and the equipment we played it on was not HiFi. It was not until the early 1970s that really good quality turntables and cartridges were produced that young people could afford. We were then able to appreciate high quality music reproduction.

The old turntables used sapphire needles and ceramic cartridges and the earlier ones were set up for mono reproduction only. Stereo turntables did not start to become popular or affordable until the later years of the 1960s. When I went to university in 1969 not many of the students had stereo record players.

In the early 60s most popular records were issued in mono and there was a gradual conversion to stereo which was completed in the latter part of the the decade. When you converted to stereo you had to change the needles in your ceramic cartridge or else you would damage the record immediately.


The sound coming from the records from a technical point of view was pretty awful. The portable record players that we used as teenagers had some bad faults. There was mains hum because the electronics were poorly filtered. There was wow and flutter from the speed variations of the motors. The platters were driven by idler wheels which transmitted a lot of rumble from the motor drive to the cartridge. All these faults were easily audible.

The cartridges were not very responsive and added to the harmonic distortion inherent in the vinyl records themselves. The cartridges were heavy and wore out the records quickly.

The vinyl itself was quite tough and better quality than the vinyl products of the  1970s and 1980s. Nevertheless LPs were still prone to scratching and attracted dust and static. If you lent an LP to a fellow teenager then there was a fair chance that it would come back scratched.

The amplifiers in the record players were poor by today's standards. Some of the early 60's ones were valve amplifiers which added to the harmonic distortion.

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbU71k1LF2Y

All in all it was a HiFi disaster area; the record players sounded tinny and had to be played at full blast to give any sort of presence but of course turning up the volume to full added to the distortion. It was also useful to have some spare valves or tubes around and know how to change them. You also had to wait for your valves to warm up before you could start to play anything.

All the same and despite all the difficulties we enjoyed our music and shared the experience with our friends. There was lots of dancing and jiving to the Beatles and the Stones.

People who had stereo separates systems, usually adults, fared a little better but not much. You had to be really rich to buy top quality kit.

In the early 1970s matters improved. Young people at last had enough money to buy some have decent gear. Turntables were improved enormously and belt driven tables almost eliminated the sound of rumble and the stroboscope and improved motors helped to almost eliminate wow and flutter  as well. Moving Magnet and Moving Coil cartridges with diamond needles also helped to improve frequency response  and reduce harmonic distortion.

The problems of scratched records, static from dust and dirt and distortion from over playing remained and these problems remain today.


Usually someone scratched the record when they paid a visit. I was never a control freak and I never prevented anyone either playing a record or turning it over or changing track in the middle of a record. All of this was guaranteed to cause damage.

Records could also attract static at any time and the simply act of pulling them out of the sleeve created pops especially in dry weather.


To get round the problem of damaged records many of my friends made audio cassette copies of their favourite LPs and rarely played their vinyl on a turntable. They also "lent" records to friends by making a cassette copy. The audio cassette allowed party tapes to be produced so that the best rock tracks could be played continuously.

Everyone had a turntable or record player and we were all "tweakers". I was never ever able to tell much difference when I played around with tracking forces and anti-skate devices so I gave up messing around with these controls. Some people love "tweaking" and enjoy trying to perfect the sound. My hearing was almost perfect when I was young and I can still pick out the person singing out-of-tune in a choir.

What is HiFi?

But, what is HiFi? This is a difficult question to answer but it means that the record and its sound reproduction must sound life like and as close as possible to the original live performance or the master tape. A good LP record and a good HiFi system can achieve this and you do not need to spend a fortune to get this especially if you do not listen to classical music.

So what do you do if you are new to vinyl? Well first of all decide what sort of music you want to play as it will dictate what sort of equipment you will need to buy and its cost. You also need to decide whether you are going to become a complete enthusiast and only play vinyl. Are you only going to play older records like me? How often and for how long are you going to listen to LP music? Are you going to play 78 rpm records as well as 45s and 331/3 LPs? How much can you afford to pay? Are you interested in vintage equipment and records?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fidelity

Consumer decks

Do not let the cheap cost put you off ; you can can get a good consumer turntable in the lower price range. Just be aware that you will not get high quality mechanics or a high quality cartridge. It will  not have many adjustments and it will not be "upgradeable". It will have lots of plastic used in its construction and some even have plastic turntables!

Such a deck will not reproduce classical music very well or jazz with a wide dynamic range. Otherwise a cheap player will be fine for pop, rock and folk music. Just, make sure it has a moving magnet cartridge and a diamond needle. Most of them have a built in phono-stage so you can connect them to the  auxiliary line inputs of your amplifier. You will be able to avoid the cost of a special phono-stage or buying a new amplifier with a built in one.

I use one of these turntables myself and it is connected to a "high end" amplifier and speakers. You may ask why? I only play older and well used records from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. These records are well worn in and a high quality turntable will hardly improve their performance. I do not play classical music or opera via a turntable:  I use CDs for this or listen to BBC Radio 3 on FM or HD internet radio. I love classical music but of course nothing can beat a live performance.

I can afford to pay for a top notch turntable but I only have about 40 playable albums and I do not not intend   to build up a collection of new 180 gm LPs. The few albums that are not replaceable have been archived to CD and Audio Cassette tape. I do not play LPs and 45s often; about a couple of hours a week maximum but I love it when I do. The turntable suits me fine and it gives HiFi quality sound but for how long? If it fails within couple of years or so then I can buy a new one.

Such a player should not be sneered at and if it is the only way you afford to find out about vinyl it will give you a taste of what it is all about until you can afford to buy something more substantial. Some of my old LPs have survived OK, about 8 of them, from the 1960s. Do not worry so much about tracking weights a modern consumer player won't damage your records as much as a 1960s model with a ceramic cartridge.

A consumer turntable will have some or all of the faults listed above but to a much lesser extent than a 1960s player and despite what it says on many vinyl forums these faults cannot be completely eliminated from any LP or turntable no matter how cheap or expensive it is. Harmonic distortion is an example.

These players are simple to set up and use and this can be a bonus. Most of them are belt driven but some are direct drive.

Some consumer players can play 78s, so this is an advantage if you are interested. I bought mine over the internet and I was delighted with the "retro" sound and I figured that I could easily get my money back if I was disappointed or it arrived damaged or faulty. Do not do this if you are buying a better player but go to a dealer  and audition the product.

An example of a consumer deck but it is not a recommendation:

http://www.richersounds.com/product/turntables/marantz/tt5005/mara-tt5005

So called Budget Audiophile Turntables

These players can set you on the road to being a vinyl enthusiast. They should be better made than a consumer table but they might still have lots of acrylic, mdf  and plastic etc.

Their performance should be better than a consumer table especially for wow and flutter and pitch control.

You can upgrade the cartridge or fit your own. They will have controls for tracking weight and anti-skate. They will allow you to adjust the tone arm for height  and vertical tracking etc. They should have an improved frequency response for bass, mid range and treble. They should be well damped and  resist vibrations better than a consumer model.

They should be of sufficient HiFi quality to reproduce classical and all other forms of music very well.

The lower tracking weights will not damage your LPs as much as a consumer player. The players themselves should be built to last years.

Many of these players cannot play 78 rpm records.

All in all, they produce good performance for the money. Some of them can be difficult to set up with little dangling weights for anti-skate devices. On some you might have to move the belt to another capstan when you change from 45 to 331\3 replay. These decks are a "tweakers" delight.

These players will be the next stage on an upgrade path to where the sky is the limit. If you buy this type of player you should audition it at a dealer with a record that you know well and which has a wide dynamic and musical range such as Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.

Once again an example but not a recommendation

http://www.royjowetthomecinema.co.uk/pro-ject-debut-mk3-turntable.html?gclid=CNPrxPe-rLcCFXMctAod6FQAcg

So called Audiophile Turntables

If I were ever to become an enthusiast for vinyl and classical music I would get of of these but I would severely limit my budget and resist the temptation to keep upgrading to find  a sonic utopia which does not exist. They are the next stage up and should provide almost electronic and mechanical perfection for playing the best quality records with hardly anything added or taken away. They are very expensive and you could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on improved tone arms and cartridges etc.

But, always remember the law of diminishing returns. A £20,000 pound set up will not sound 20 times better than a £1,000 budget player. Any technical improvement might be inaudible. It could even sound worse if you do not get the set up right. The quality jump from consumer, to budget and audiophile player is not as great as some commentators, advertisements and salesmen would have you believe.

Unless you are very rich, you might be better off saving exorbitant amounts money on equipment to go to live performances or buy more records. If you can afford it and like the look, sound and feel of really well engineered equipment then why not spoil yourself.

Remember that your ears cannot hear frequencies above about 20 khz and most adults cannot hear above 15 khz. The top note on a violin is around 4.5khz and this is hardly enough to move a tweeter. OK, the harmonics are higher but you cannot hear a harmonic above about 15 khz if you are an adult.

Remember that an orchestra can have a dynamic range of 80 decibels but an LP has a range of about 70. An LP has harmonic distortion built in and this cannot be eliminated by any turntable and cartridge combination no matter the price. A classical performance on LP may therefore disappoint you compared to a live one.

An audiophile turntable is also a "tweakers" delight and needs careful set up and maintenance. You need to adjust the tonearm, the tracking force, anti-skate force, cartridge and speed control etc. and use instruments to measure them. Doing all this could give you a real buzz but I find it frustrating.

An audiophile turntable should give you the best quality sound reproduction and should be made of the best quality materials including metal and wood. They should be exceptionally well damped to reduce vibrations to a minimum. All in all the engineering should be great.

But, remember that a sensitive deck of this quality will really reveal any noise generated by the LP from dust, static electricity, scratches and warps. You need to look after your records with great care.

What better way to listen to Miles Davies, Tchaikovsky and Beethoven or the Pink Floyd, Ella Fitzgerald and the Beatles?

Once again, you must go to a reputable dealer to buy this sort of equipment and audition it with your best records.

This is reputed to be top notch equipment but not necessarily a recommendation from me:

http://www.houseoflinn.com/mall/departmentpage.cfm/houseoflinn/_214345/1/Linn%2520Turntables


The Second Hand Market

There are some bargains to be had in the second hand market but do your research well and, of course, buyer beware. You could find a high end audiophile turntable for a reasonable price. This approach is useful if you are good at do-it-yourself maintenance. Some HiFi magazines have a second hand advertising section.

Buyer beware but you could find a really good bargain!

http://www.gumtree.com/for-sale/uk/turntable


What Else Do You Need

You will need a decent amplifier and speakers and if you go for a better quality turntable you will need a "high end" equipment but remember the law of diminishing returns. Many people settle for an amplifier with a built in pre-amplifier others swear by a separate pre-amplifier which increases the costs again.

You will need a really strong  and steady equipment rack to place your turntable. The rack is needed to reduce vibrations and the effects of footfalls etc. This applies to all turntables.

HiFi Magazines

HiFi magazines are not prone to critically examining either their own claims or the claims of advertisers. Sometimes this can be a hindrance to making the correct decision on what to buy. Be careful of the reviews of ancillary equipment and interconnect cables. Good quality cables should not cost a lot of money and most of the claims that cables costing thousands of pounds perform better are preposterous. Usually there is no science to back up the claims with peer reviewed double blind tests. The powers of suggestion are very strong.

HiFi forums and blogs

The opinions on blogs and forums are sometimes outrageous and sometimes I think common sense has gone out of the window. Remember that your ears and perception are limiting factors and the sound reproduction performance of lots of equipment in both the analog and digital domains exceeds that of your ears and perception. No-one has been proven to hear a tone above 22.5khz so there is not much sense in providing equipment which can exceed this limit. It is a waste of money.



Trust your own ears 

Why not audition equipment at an honest dealer and visit your friends to hear their equipment? If the first set of equipment does not sound better, to your ears,  than the second then why be convinced otherwise by a dealer, a forum or a blog. You could save yourself a a lot of money by using your ears and perception wisely and trusting your own judgement.

Frustration

Vinyl is fun but setting up all the kit can be tiresome. Scratches and dust spoil the vinyl experience for me when I play classical records. So decide what kind of music lover you are. Are you prepared to put up with all the set  up and maintenance and the cost of buying top class vinyl. And, also note that I have never heard a record that has not produced a popping sound at some time when it is being played - not even a brand new one.

Have fun.






















So where do you start?

Unless you are absolutely convinced that you are going to be exclusively a vinyl enthusiast then I suggest that you start with a budget turntable until you are certain that you can live with playing records. Some things to consider are the following: