The other day I read an article in a Hi-Fi magazine about using an atomic clock to improve the performance of a very expensive combined CD player and DAC costing £7,000. The rubidium based atomic clock costs around £5,000 and is supposedly accurate to 1 second in 1000 years.
The performance improvement was subjectively described as stunning. But, hold on a second where were the performance measurements? There were none. There were no peer reviewed double blind tests which measured the performance of the CD player with or without the connexion of the atomic clock. No double blind and peer reviewed listening tests where performed either. We had to take the word of the reviewer that using an atomic clock provided a stunning improvement to the performance of a Hi-Fi system.
Let us look a little bit deeper into his claims. Most Hi-Fi enthusiasts agree that you cannot improve upon the performance of the original master recording according to the principle of Garbage In then Garbage Out or GIGO. Most enthusiasts agree that a Hi-Fi system can only be as good as the best performing unit of the system.
The reviewer claimed that there was a dramatic improvement to the sound stage of a 1959 Classical Music recording when the atomic clock was added to the system. This statement implies that a 1959 recording could perform with the timing accuracy of an atomic clock. This is is nonsense; in the 1950s all recordings were made using analogue tape recorders or were recorded direct to vinyl. Whichever method was used the analogue recording machines of the time produced significant timing errors which were both measurable and in some cases audible as wow and flutter.
An atomic clock cannot improve upon the performance of the original tape recorder. In this described case all it can really do is improve the standard of a deficient CD player. Even if it could improve the performance of the CD player to a level beyond that of a 1959 tape recorder then it would make no difference to the overall sound. According to the laws of physics the music coming out of the speakers can perform no better than the performance of the original master recording - GIGO.
If an atomic clock could substantially improve the performance of the CD player then it implies that the player is somehow deficient. The reviewer should be more careful of his words. The original player was already equipped with a very fine quality non-atomic clock which is capable of reducing timing errors or "jitter" to an inaudible level.
Perhaps the reviewer's perceived stunning performance improvement could be attributed to "confirmation bias" or even hubris rather than the atomic clock. Extraordinary claims should be verified by double blind ABX listening tests to eliminate subjective impressions which do not have a firm foundation in reality.
Atomic clocks have their uses in the recording and mastering studio and can be used to reduce the accumulative and detrimental effects of jitter when recording from multiple sources. For domestic playback they are simply not needed. Some Hi-Fi enthusiasts are simply unable or unwilling to accept this reality.
An atomic clock looks mighty fine and would be a wonderful talking point. If you truly believe that it can improve the sound of a CD player without scientific proof then who am I to criticise you.
Hi-Fi magazines produce reams of test results for amplifiers, DACs, speakers, turntables and ordinary CD players to help consumers make a buying judgement. They are, however, very reluctant to produce test results for exotic and expensive accessories such as cables, powers supplies and Hi-Fi stands etc. It maybe worth asking yourself the question: why? What is wrong with a little bit of science and some objectivity to prove whether the accessories work or not ?
My advice to young and perhaps impecunious Hi-Fi enthusiasts would be to audition any piece of expensive equipment and honestly ask yourself if it does really improve performance. It is best to obtain proof by looking at the measurements and seeing the results of peer reviewed double blind listening tests. If the data is not available then you will have to perform the listening tests yourself. You could then easily be deceived by "confirmation bias" or the suggestion of Hi-Fi sales men and internet sales sites. It is easy to waste money if you are not prepared to be objective.
Monday 27 October 2014
Friday 3 October 2014
Beatles Mono LPs - "With The Beatles"
Mostly I play music from a digital source but I could not resist buying a copy of the latest LP re-master of "With The Beatles". I already have a 1963 mono version of the LP which is in excellent condition and I played one after the other.
The new re-master sounded remarkably "quiet" and I could hear almost no surface noise at the volume which I use but between two of the tracks I could hear some crackling but this did not affect the music.
The 2014 version and the 1963 version sounded remarkably similar, to my ears anyway, for frequency response etc. The 1963 version sounded distinctly louder, perhaps it was mastered louder to cover up for the deficiencies of early sixties record players which suffered from amplifier hum, mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter. All of these problems have largely been eliminated by modern kit.
The AM radios of the day also suffered from fading and sometimes a soft recording would fade away completely to become almost inaudible. This problem still exists if you tune in to a distant AM radio station.
The older record also showed some signs of (pleasant) harmonic distortion because it had been played so often. Had the 1963 record not been played at all it would probably have sounded exactly the same as 2014 version, apart from the difference in volume.
Remember that repeated playing of the newly re-mastered version will still wear out the groove - even though newer MM cartridges use tracking weights which are a lot lighter than the ceramic cartridges that we used in the sixties.
Both records had been very well pressed and were made from "virgin" vinyl but the 1963 record is 160 gms as opposed to 180 gms in weight; not that that makes much difference.
Many of the reviews of the new re-master, on forums and in magazines, have gone overboard with hyperbole and superlatives. Of course the record has been mastered and pressed perfectly; but it only sounded substantially better than the original would have done, in the sixties, because I was playing it on better equipment.
When I first played a new Beatles record, in 1963, it sounded almost as good as today but from then on it was downhill as the equipment damaged the record or your friends returned it scratched after borrowing it. The record also had to survive many parties.
What you are now getting is a record which has been perfectly mastered and produced and the packaging is almost a replica of the original. The inner sleeve does not have an advert for "Emitex" printed on it but the outer sleeve is almost exactly the same.
To obtain an original record with the same playback quality will cost you a lot of money even if anyone is prepared to sell it to you. I doubt that a mint copy of the newly re-mastered version will command a similar price to the original in 50 years time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/youve-never-heard-the-beatles-sound-like-this-before/
The sound of the 2014 LP will not take you back to the sixties because you have to play it on modern equipment to avoid damaging it.
It is almost impossible to do a like for like comparison and most commentators fail to recognise this hence all the superlatives and hyperbole. If you replay the mono record through one speaker you will get some idea of what it was like to hear music from a single source but the mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter will be missing. You can just as easily hear scratches and crackle now as you could have done in the sixties if you do not take considerable care of your LP.
If you are a fan of The Beatles and can only bear to play analogue sourced music then I recommend this new re-mastered LP of "With The Beatles"; but please be aware that you will not be taken back to sixties "sonic heaven".
The new re-master sounded remarkably "quiet" and I could hear almost no surface noise at the volume which I use but between two of the tracks I could hear some crackling but this did not affect the music.
The 2014 version and the 1963 version sounded remarkably similar, to my ears anyway, for frequency response etc. The 1963 version sounded distinctly louder, perhaps it was mastered louder to cover up for the deficiencies of early sixties record players which suffered from amplifier hum, mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter. All of these problems have largely been eliminated by modern kit.
The AM radios of the day also suffered from fading and sometimes a soft recording would fade away completely to become almost inaudible. This problem still exists if you tune in to a distant AM radio station.
The older record also showed some signs of (pleasant) harmonic distortion because it had been played so often. Had the 1963 record not been played at all it would probably have sounded exactly the same as 2014 version, apart from the difference in volume.
Remember that repeated playing of the newly re-mastered version will still wear out the groove - even though newer MM cartridges use tracking weights which are a lot lighter than the ceramic cartridges that we used in the sixties.
Both records had been very well pressed and were made from "virgin" vinyl but the 1963 record is 160 gms as opposed to 180 gms in weight; not that that makes much difference.
Many of the reviews of the new re-master, on forums and in magazines, have gone overboard with hyperbole and superlatives. Of course the record has been mastered and pressed perfectly; but it only sounded substantially better than the original would have done, in the sixties, because I was playing it on better equipment.
When I first played a new Beatles record, in 1963, it sounded almost as good as today but from then on it was downhill as the equipment damaged the record or your friends returned it scratched after borrowing it. The record also had to survive many parties.
What you are now getting is a record which has been perfectly mastered and produced and the packaging is almost a replica of the original. The inner sleeve does not have an advert for "Emitex" printed on it but the outer sleeve is almost exactly the same.
To obtain an original record with the same playback quality will cost you a lot of money even if anyone is prepared to sell it to you. I doubt that a mint copy of the newly re-mastered version will command a similar price to the original in 50 years time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/youve-never-heard-the-beatles-sound-like-this-before/
The sound of the 2014 LP will not take you back to the sixties because you have to play it on modern equipment to avoid damaging it.
It is almost impossible to do a like for like comparison and most commentators fail to recognise this hence all the superlatives and hyperbole. If you replay the mono record through one speaker you will get some idea of what it was like to hear music from a single source but the mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter will be missing. You can just as easily hear scratches and crackle now as you could have done in the sixties if you do not take considerable care of your LP.
If you are a fan of The Beatles and can only bear to play analogue sourced music then I recommend this new re-mastered LP of "With The Beatles"; but please be aware that you will not be taken back to sixties "sonic heaven".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)