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:

How to clean LPs and other vinyl etc.

I bought a second hand record from the 1950s the other day. It was riddled with snap, crackle and pop. So much so that I guessed that it was really dirty. I made up a solution of about 90 ml of de-ionised water, you could use distilled water, and about 10 ml of surgical spirit which in Britain is usually a mixture or ethyl and methyl alcohol. I mixed the water and spirit together thoroughly.

I used a sponge to thoroughly soak and wipe both sides of the LP. I dried the LP off with a tea towel and allowed it to dry. It worked amazingly well and most of the snap crackle and pop was removed. I could have used isopropyl alcohol in the mixture instead but I didn't have any. The alcohol helps to reduce the boiling point of the water so it evaporates more easily. No, I did not use boiling water but water at room temperature.

The record was still scratched and was damaged not just by the dirt but from excessive playing so some distortion remained. However, the record did not have too many pops from the scratches and played well all the way through and sounded pretty good.

I digitized the record using my PC and Audacity and got rid of more snap crackle and pop and clicks with the removal tools. Audacity could not fix the slight distortion caused by over-playing. However, the digital version still sounded very good.

It is a pity that it is not easy to generate a new LP from the digitized version so that you can repeat the LP listening "experience" without the pops.

The  amount of cleaning fluid that I prepared was probably good to clean four or five records but if you want to clean lots more you can use special baths to speed up the process; these can be bought from Amazon.


Sometimes a CD might get a finger print on it or collect a little dirt and not play properly. To clean it I wipe the CD on my shirt sleeve and that does the trick. I have never allowed a CD to get so dirty that I needed to wash it but probably a little de-ionised water with a little bit of washing up liquid will clean a really dirty one. Then rinse it afterwards in de-ionised water. Probably, ordinary tap water will work provided you wipe the CD really clean. Buying specialised cleaners is probably a complete waste of money.

I have bought brand new and second hand CDs that had scratches and which were initially unplayable. I have ripped them using a PC and created a new CD which was then rendered playable. Digital technology has got wonderful error correcting technology: by doing this I have never ended up with an unplayable CD.

My second hand CD only cost a quid and for the brand new CDs I saved the cost of the time and effort to get a replacement. I also saved the record company some money.  Everyone was a winner.

I once bought a CD lens cleaner. It was a waste of money and did not improve the performance of any of my laser reading equipment.

I use a special cassette tape to clean the heads of my car player and it works a treat. For other types of player, where you can get to the recording and playback heads, a little alcohol on a ball of cotton wool works a treat too.

Caveat Emptor - all you enthusiasts

Let the buyer beware. Before you spend your hard earned cash on expensive new equipment I beseech you to try out the kit first using a well recorded CD or vinyl LP and trust the judgement of your own ears. Select a recording of  music which you know has a wide dynamic range and does not have any harmonic distortion; one that is bright an clear. Select music that you know well.

Economics and the laws of diminishing returns.

For some reason "high end" audio equipment is not selling very well, so a completely new turntable, amplifier, loudspeaker or DAC will cost a lot of money even if it is no good. The unit costs of design, engineering, testing and manufacturing are very high. There is also the cost of marketing and selling the product and convincing you that the new piece of equipment is worth buying even if it is no good at all or little better than a much cheaper competitor.

If an equipment producer can only sell his equipment to hundreds of people then the unit cost or price of the equipment must be far greater than  if he can sell the equipment to thousands or even millions of people.

This is a law of economics which is not just limited to HIFI, the same applies to cars, wine, cosmetics and washing powder. A product which is very expensive is not necessarily better than a cheaper one. I have studied wine and I have tasted some of the top brand names and I can assure you that a £300 bottle of Bordeaux does not taste substantially better than a lesser known cousin costing £20, provided that the £20 bottle comes from a good producer.

The economics of selling any product are dependent upon supply and demand and also the psychology of the participants in the market. Mercedes cars are prestigious and they would probably not sell as well if they were priced in the same range as a Ford. People expect the Mercedes marque to be expensive and they are wary if the price is reduced.

All suppliers of equipment need to convince the potential buyer that their product is superior. They do this in a number of ways such as by becoming a very well know brand name which is associated with quality. Some times they are selling a dream but often the dream becomes an expensive reality when you finally wake up.

They also use fear or concern. The use of fear or concern is clearly demonstrated in the sale of inter-connect cables. The enthusiast is concerned that he gets the best quality signal. There is really not much difference between a good quality cable at £30 pounds and one costing many £100's. There is no real proof that oxygenated copper performs better than non-oxygenated copper. The supplier just wants you to believe it.The same reasoning applies to USB cables etc.

The same applies to special stands, different types of isolation devices or turntable mats. If you are buying a £2,000 turntable you should expect the producer to have tested the isolation feet and the turntable mat and to provide you with equipment which is up to scratch.

There is also the factor of pride of ownership. My grandfather used to be a miner and on a shelf at home I have got a real miner's lamp which has been used down the mines. You cannot read a book for long from the light it produces but the lamp brings back nostalgic memories and pride of ownership. It looks so good and it is so well made and tough.

I have alluded to the law of diminishing returns. Good standard consumer equipment can produce a really good sound and modern manufacturing techniques are improving all the time. It is now difficult to achieve really noticeable improvements at your ears without spending enormous sums of money. This is probably one of the reasons why "high end" equipment sales are falling. The buyers are finding it increasing difficult to notice differences between very expensive kit and good consumer level equipment.

The following forum shows how much some buyers agonise over this. What starts of as a sensible thread soon gets round to enthusiasts agonising more and more about the merits and demerits of equipment. Why not let your own ears be the judge?

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/law-of-diminishing-returns-upgrading-from-budget-level-to-high-end-hi-fi-components-syte

Or try this.

I shall leave you to decide who is in the real world. So buyer beware!

http://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/for-audiophiles/zen-and-the-art-of-hifi-maintenance/



Digital Music

Since the CD was introduced, in the early 80s, there have been enormous strides in the quality of sound reproduction.

A CD holds the information to reproduce music in digital format because it does not store a sound wave. It is analogous to a music manuscript. The information on a CD needs a computer to process the information into a sound wave. This processor is called a digital to analog converter or DAC.

When music is recorded by a digital tape recorder an analog to digital the converter is used or ADC. The quality of the ADC and the DAC dictate the quality of the sound of the music that you hear at your ears.

CD digital format files hold the information as 16 bit and 44.1 khz files.

The bit depth determines the dynamic range of the music in decibels at a rate of 6 decibels per bit, so a CD has a dynamic range of  96 decibels.

44.1khz is the sample rate of 44,100 cycles per second and by mathematical formulation 44.1 khz files can reproduce music up to a frequency of 22.05 khz. It does this almost perfectly and this is a fact proven both mathematically and with hearing tests.

An orchestra can, but rarely does, produce a dynamic range of 80 decibels from the quietest note of a triangle to every instrument being played at full volume. A pop group rarely manages a dynamic range of  24 decibels.

Human ears cannot hear a sound above 20 khz. As you get older the frequency response of your ears diminishes considerably.

The top note on a piano has a frequency below 5 khz. The human voice rarely gets above 2 khz. Granted that there are harmonics which are higher but any harmonic above 15 khz is rarely heard by an adult.

A CD  system is capable of reproducing all the sounds of music without harmonic distortion and within the frequencies that you can hear. It can also reproduce the full dynamic range that you can hear.

A CD is therefore an exceptionally good medium for reproducing stereo HIFI sound.

But bits and bytes and mathematical formulas can lead to confusion and even falsehood. So called "HIRES"
digital files record and store the music as 24 bit 96khz (24/96) files or even 24 bit 192 khz (24/192) files.

This is OK for the recording studio but really has no use for sound reproduction in the home. A 24/192 system is capable of playing the sounds of a greater horseshoe bat at the same volume levels as a jumbo jet taking off in your living room. This is a  preposterous notion so there is no place for 24/192 in the living room.

The only peer reviewed scientific tests that have have been performed have shown that with all other things being equal human beings cannot tell the difference between "HIRES" music sound reproduction and CD quality.

My own tests confirm this in a non-scientific way. I have converted 24/96 music files to CD quality. I cannot tell the difference on playback and neither can my wife or friends.

It is possible that a 24/192 or  a 24/96 music file could have been mastered better than a CD quality file and therefore could sound better to your ears. Equally, a CD quality file could have been mastered better than a "HIRES" file and sound better. The file structure makes no difference. 16/44.1 files are of good enough quality for sound reproduction in the home.

So buyer beware, when you are offered a super duper network streamer that can play 24/192 music files or even 32/384 files for what appears to be an exorbitant price; you are paying a lot of money for extra capability which is in fact redundant.

I am sticking to a well mastered CD that can bring John Fahey or a full orchestra into my living room.

This site explains it all and it is factually correct. Make sure you are not taken for a digital ride.

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

Analog Music - Audio Cassettes

I listen to audio cassettes a lot in the car. If you use a high quality tape they sound great and the tape hiss is hardly noticeable. They do not reproduce the music as good as a CD but the sound is perfectly acceptable for me. When the tapes stretch and become unplayable you can make a new one from a CD.

I have still got a very high quality cassette player from the 1980's which sounds great.

You can still buy cassette tape players and recorders which sound very good.  They are not so much in demand and because there is very little "hype" written about them they are good value for money.

Why not try it, some of my friends used to archive their LPs on cassette tape to preserve the vinyl and these cassettes sounded almost as good as the LPs themselves.

Analog Music - Vinyl LPs and Singles

I still like to listen to LPs and Singles every now and then but albeit on a humble turntable. Virtually all of my music is from a digital source or a CD and I have converted all of my remaining LPs and audio cassettes to digital. I hardly notice any deterioration in sound quality when I digitise the music and I can remove tape hiss and snap crackle and pop in Audacity.

It is fun to spin a record and an LP sounds fantastic in its own way. Why is this?
The LP is a recording medium which is more flawed than CD and this is a fact. For me, the slight flaws and harmonic distortion render a pleasing sound to the music; especially if it is a 1960s pop record .

It is not possible to transcribe the sound wave onto a metal master exactly. The act of pressing the record also introduces errors. Play back of the record introduces artifacts from dust,scratches and static electricity. Records are easy to damage and a heavily scratched record or a warped one might be unplayable.

There is also rumble from the motor which can sometimes be heard . The mere act of using a needle in a groove creates friction and this energy is converted into sound.

Records also wear out and each time you play them they deteriorate. At the moment I am listening to a 1950s LP that has become worn out and the music is being distorted slightly. Costly equipment cannot correct or improve the performance of this record.

An LP record cannot equal the dynamic range of a CD or the full frequency range of a  CD without harmonic distortion. Then there is also wow and flutter to contend with on cheaper turntables.

With all these problems, I am amazed at how good records can sound sometimes.

However, it is no wonder that many classical music lovers prefer CD. I include myself in this category.

But, I love listening to LPs for pop music and some types of jazz such as Billy Eckstine and Sarah Vaughan. I like the actual act of putting a record on a deck and watching it spin but this has got nothing to do with sonic performance.

Consider this: it is very expensive to eliminate all the errors . You require a heavy deck to reduce vibration, some decks are equipped with stroboscopes to ensure that the discs spin at the correct speed. You can use special tone arms to improve tracking. You can also control the tracking weight of the cartridge and use anti-skating devices to improve needle performance.

In the seventies everyone had a turntable and most of the improvements to turntable performance originated in this decade. The belt drive almost eliminated the rumble caused by idler wheels and the cartridges improved enormously. Every enthusiast could compare the performance of a deck. During this time we were all "tweakers" but I cannot remember noticing much difference when adjusting tracking weights or anti-skate devices. Quartz controlled electronics have helped improve turntable speed performance during recent years.

There is so much emotion generated surrounding the performance of LPs and vinyl. Enthusiasts seem unable to accept that CD quality digital has had the potential to improve performance. Many vinyl enthusiasts are therefore prepared to spend enormous sums of money to achieve a technical perfection which is not possible because of the inbuilt limitations of the format.

A £3,000 tone arm looks great but will it perform 30 times better than a £100 pound one? I doubt this very much; the performance improvement could be almost inaudible or it could even be worse and audible. If you have got £3,000 to spare and lying around in your back pocket then go ahead especially if it makes you feel better. But do you want to save up all your hard earned cash for a dubious improvement?

Also, consider this: some turntable manufacturers are returning to idler or rim driven platters. This technology was used for 1960s decks and it was fundamentally flawed. It introduced rumble into the equation and this is why belt driven and direct drive turntables sound so much better. Why spend thousands for this sort of technology?

Even a humble consumer turntable performs so much better than than 1960s model and consumer technology is rapidly catching up with "High End " performance.

Consider this too: the newly remastered Beatles LPs have been produced from 24/192 digital sources which are only really of CD quality. If LP technology could somehow be made perfect then the best sound reproduction would only give you the sound quality of a digital source. Do you really want to spend a fortune to hear a Beatles CD reproduced on an LP?

Of course, LP sound reproduction is not perfect so listeners will be hearing the music with a slight harmonic distortion which sounds pleasant.

I am sticking to the CD versions which sound just as good if not better than any LP of the Beatles that I have ever heard including my own.

There is increasing interest in turntables for the sake of nostalgia and making digital archives, so buyer beware and trust your own ears. Even a more humble turntable can sound good and make acceptable digital copies of your old records. Remember the limitations of the LP format itself; some of which cannot be corrected no matter what the quality or the cost of equipment that you are using.

An LP is a piece of plastic costing pence to make and it is a very low cost source of music. So is CD, audio cassette and digital download for that matter. So why does the replay equipment have to be so expensive?

It is really worth reading this below; they sound like honest traders to me.

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

HIFI Magazines

HIFI magazines have very limited circulation and most of the British ones are not even read by 30,000 people. They need advertising revenue just as much as any other publication. They also have to write something interesting about the products that they feature. HIFI magazines are part of selling the dream.

It would be very boring if they always said that one form of expensive equipment sounded the same as another. But if we are talking about exceptional quality kit then the sound reproduction should sound almost exactly the same as the original. This is what HIFI is all about, surely? If two forms of equipment sound substantially different then there must be something wrong with one or both of them.

The magazines do not seem to have recognised that 24/192 digital  performance is no better than 16/44.1 with all  other things being equal. The claims for "HIRES" performance should be critically examined rather than assuming that it must be better.


Enough said, so read these articles which are two of the best articles about HIFI that I have read.

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

http://ethanwiner.com/myths.html

Also watch this and see and hear how your ears and judgement can be fooled by the power of suggestion. This is why double blind peer reviewed scientific tests are so important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

So caveat emptor , buyer beware! Happy listening and spend wisely.

Getting back to the sixties sound

There is a lot of talk in the music and Hi-Fi press about getting back to the sixties sound. This is probably due to the interest surrounding the release of the newly remastered Beatles LPs. Well it is difficult to get back there. The best way would be to buy yourself a refurbished mono record player of the era and to play some records which you have kept from the sixties. This is of course impractical. To play a new LP on such a device with its ceramic cartridge and sapphire needle would damage the recording immediately so this is impractical too - and expensive.

There are lots of youtube sites where the contributors play a refurbished Dansette or other type of mono record player. They give a good flavour of what it all sounded like. You had mains hum, poor frequency response with plenty of wow and flutter, harmonic distortion and deck rumble. Of course, there would also be plenty of snap crackle and pop from the damage caused by excessive playing with a poor heavyweight cartridge. And, there would be scratches caused by your friends when they decided to have a party with the record they had borrowed from you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq2gZhZenY

The  sixties record player sounded as if it was playing in another room. Even the most humble turntable, amplifier and speaker set up from modern times outperforms sixties type equipment by a long way.

I discovered a way of getting back to former times the other day when I made an audio-cassette of the Beatles Past Masters CD for use in my aging car. I used a blank tape that had been hanging around in a cupboard for at least 20 years. This tape had degraded considerably. The result was a recording that had plenty of harmonic distortion and a poor frequency response. I really had to turn the volume up to listen to it in the car and the tape sounded as if it was coming from the next vehicle in the traffic jam.

I could not replicate the the mains hum or the snap crackle and pop. But, if I had taped one of my LPs surviving from the sixties it would probably have had plenty of scratches and damage showing up on the recording. All this degradation of sound took me back on a sentimental journey - fantastic. For most of my listening, however, I prefer good old CD.