I suppose that it had to happen The Beatles are now available on Spotify and other streaming services. I sometimes use Spotify and at one time I subscribed to their full service which you can receive without adverts. Millions of tracks are available and Spotify caters for all musical tastes. Similar services are also available on-line.
The sound reproduction is very good if you feed the stream from your computer to an external DAC and use a decent amplifier and speakers. Listening through headphones on a tablet computer or a portable phone is not such a good experience. Amplifying the headphone output of a phone or tablet is also not perfect.
If you want really good sound reproduction you are better off listening to a decent hi-fi in a quiet room through speakers without the sound of traffic whooshing past or the "clickety clack" of a railway carriage.
With streaming services you don't need a hard drive or vinyl LPs and most of your favourite music is instantly at your disposal; and you are the DJ to play whatever music you like in any order that you like. The music is de-materialised and this is part of a hi-fi future that CDs and LPs will not be able to compete with. Of course, some people will hang onto their beloved hard copies and will sit down and enjoy their music in the living room without other distractions.
Wednesday 23 December 2015
Wednesday 21 October 2015
Listening to Hi-Fi through headphones
You can buy a decent pair of headphones for about £100. You do not need to to spend a fortune on a famous branded name which is marketed using the names of pop stars or rugby players; as you will be paying for the publicity rather than the quality of the sound reproduction.
Not so long ago I bought a cheap pair of Sennheiser 'phones for about £25 for use with Skype etc. when I plugged them into a combined DAC and headphone amplifier and listened to some CD quality music I was astonished at how good they sounded. I could hardly hear any difference between them and a pair of Audio Technica 'phones costing many times more.
The frequency response of the Sennheissers was limited to 15 KHz and those of the Audio Technica up to 45 KHz. Why could I hear very little difference in the upper range of the frequencies?
Here are some good reasons why.
My middle aged ears can no longer hear a 15 KHz tone.
There is very little music happening at 15 KHz. The primary harmonics of most musical instruments rarely climb above 4 KHz.
LPs are usually limited to a highest frequency of 15 KHz for production reasons.
CDs perform better as far as frequency response go but only some children can hear tones above 15KHz.
"HIRES" music files can reproduce tones much higher than a CD but nobody, not even the fittest 4 year old, can hear a tone above the CD limit of 22 KHz.
The £25 Sennheiser 'phones are able to reproduce all the musical frequencies that most people can hear without noticeable distortion. They are almost perfect at reproducing Hi-Fi sound with a linear response. The Audio Technica 'phones are almost perfect too and cannot be criticised in terms of value for money.
If you are prepared to put up with the plastic construction and feel of the £25 Sennheiser 'phones and their lack of street credibility then you have got yourself a very good buy.
Headphones have advantages over listening through speakers:
You have to pay a lot more for Speakers giving a similar sonic performance,
You hear the music unhindered by the echoes and sound absorption from your room and its furniture,
The music is closer to your ears and year can hear sonic imperfections better when you are making comparisons.
You do not disturb your neighbours when playing the music loud.
They also have disadvantages:
You could be tempted to play the music too loud and damage your ears,
They can be uncomfortable,
You never hear sounds in a natural environment so close to your ears so 'phones can feel unnatural. For this reason I rarely listen through 'phones.
Headphones can block out the sound of your surroundings and in certain situations this could be dangerous especially when crossing the road or driving - you have to be more visually aware of what is happening around you.
It is anti-social to listen to music with 'phones when you are surrounded by your family and friends.
Headphones are great for making musical comparisons , however.
The other day I was listening to some 180 and 200 gm brand new LPs and I thought it would be a great idea to make comparisons to their CD equivalents.
I heard these faults on the LPs through the headphones which I could not hear on the CD equivalent:
Noticeable rumble for the LP surface in the quiet bits of the album and in between tracks,
Noticeable hiss from the LP service on the quiet bits and between the tracks,
At elevated and uncomfortable listening levels I could hear the rumble of the turntable motor,
Clicks, pops and crackles in the quiet bits of the records,
On one of The Beatles tracks I could hear noticeable harmonic distortion possibly created by the original disc cutting or from an uneven pressing at the factory or both.
Listening through headphones demonstrates that LP sound reproduction has fundamental flaws which cannot be eliminated even with the highest quality turntables and cartridges.
All in all listening to CD was a more pleasant experience even though the LPs still sounded quite good. It really is not a good idea to listen to LPs through headphones especially when classical music is playing. I can't for the life of me appreciate some of Audiophile claims that LP sound quality is better than CD.
When I listen to an LP through speakers, the speakers themselves and the room acoustics seem to soften the sound of LP faults. However, even though I cannot hear the rumble and hiss at normal listening volumes, I can still hear the clicks, crackles and pops on the softer parts of the music and this is with a brand new LP.
If I ignore the faults of an LP then the music on a brand new album does not sound substantially different to its CD equivalent. However, if I were to be pedantic then I would opine that LP reproduction cannot claim to be of genuine Hi-Fi quality.
Comparing the sound quality of HIRES and CD quality music using headphones.
I have bought some 24/96 music from the internet and then down sampled it using DbPoweramp to CD quality. When I listen through headphones I cannot hear any difference no matter how hard I try.
When I have inverted the 16/44.1 using Audacity and then played this file back at the same time with its HIRES equivalent using a null test then I hear nothing; which proves to me that there is no audible difference between a HIRES file and a CD file - to my ears anyway.
hhttp://sdk.bongiovidps.com/2013/09/26/audio-null-test/
Headphones can be very useful tools and can expose many Hi-Fi myths.
Not so long ago I bought a cheap pair of Sennheiser 'phones for about £25 for use with Skype etc. when I plugged them into a combined DAC and headphone amplifier and listened to some CD quality music I was astonished at how good they sounded. I could hardly hear any difference between them and a pair of Audio Technica 'phones costing many times more.
The frequency response of the Sennheissers was limited to 15 KHz and those of the Audio Technica up to 45 KHz. Why could I hear very little difference in the upper range of the frequencies?
Here are some good reasons why.
My middle aged ears can no longer hear a 15 KHz tone.
There is very little music happening at 15 KHz. The primary harmonics of most musical instruments rarely climb above 4 KHz.
LPs are usually limited to a highest frequency of 15 KHz for production reasons.
CDs perform better as far as frequency response go but only some children can hear tones above 15KHz.
"HIRES" music files can reproduce tones much higher than a CD but nobody, not even the fittest 4 year old, can hear a tone above the CD limit of 22 KHz.
The £25 Sennheiser 'phones are able to reproduce all the musical frequencies that most people can hear without noticeable distortion. They are almost perfect at reproducing Hi-Fi sound with a linear response. The Audio Technica 'phones are almost perfect too and cannot be criticised in terms of value for money.
If you are prepared to put up with the plastic construction and feel of the £25 Sennheiser 'phones and their lack of street credibility then you have got yourself a very good buy.
Headphones have advantages over listening through speakers:
You have to pay a lot more for Speakers giving a similar sonic performance,
You hear the music unhindered by the echoes and sound absorption from your room and its furniture,
The music is closer to your ears and year can hear sonic imperfections better when you are making comparisons.
You do not disturb your neighbours when playing the music loud.
They also have disadvantages:
You could be tempted to play the music too loud and damage your ears,
They can be uncomfortable,
You never hear sounds in a natural environment so close to your ears so 'phones can feel unnatural. For this reason I rarely listen through 'phones.
Headphones can block out the sound of your surroundings and in certain situations this could be dangerous especially when crossing the road or driving - you have to be more visually aware of what is happening around you.
It is anti-social to listen to music with 'phones when you are surrounded by your family and friends.
Headphones are great for making musical comparisons , however.
The other day I was listening to some 180 and 200 gm brand new LPs and I thought it would be a great idea to make comparisons to their CD equivalents.
I heard these faults on the LPs through the headphones which I could not hear on the CD equivalent:
Noticeable rumble for the LP surface in the quiet bits of the album and in between tracks,
Noticeable hiss from the LP service on the quiet bits and between the tracks,
At elevated and uncomfortable listening levels I could hear the rumble of the turntable motor,
Clicks, pops and crackles in the quiet bits of the records,
On one of The Beatles tracks I could hear noticeable harmonic distortion possibly created by the original disc cutting or from an uneven pressing at the factory or both.
Listening through headphones demonstrates that LP sound reproduction has fundamental flaws which cannot be eliminated even with the highest quality turntables and cartridges.
All in all listening to CD was a more pleasant experience even though the LPs still sounded quite good. It really is not a good idea to listen to LPs through headphones especially when classical music is playing. I can't for the life of me appreciate some of Audiophile claims that LP sound quality is better than CD.
When I listen to an LP through speakers, the speakers themselves and the room acoustics seem to soften the sound of LP faults. However, even though I cannot hear the rumble and hiss at normal listening volumes, I can still hear the clicks, crackles and pops on the softer parts of the music and this is with a brand new LP.
If I ignore the faults of an LP then the music on a brand new album does not sound substantially different to its CD equivalent. However, if I were to be pedantic then I would opine that LP reproduction cannot claim to be of genuine Hi-Fi quality.
Comparing the sound quality of HIRES and CD quality music using headphones.
I have bought some 24/96 music from the internet and then down sampled it using DbPoweramp to CD quality. When I listen through headphones I cannot hear any difference no matter how hard I try.
When I have inverted the 16/44.1 using Audacity and then played this file back at the same time with its HIRES equivalent using a null test then I hear nothing; which proves to me that there is no audible difference between a HIRES file and a CD file - to my ears anyway.
hhttp://sdk.bongiovidps.com/2013/09/26/audio-null-test/
Headphones can be very useful tools and can expose many Hi-Fi myths.
Monday 12 October 2015
Hi-Fi Forums and bunkum
I always find it amusing to read most of the Hi-Fi forums. Most of what you read is unmitigated tripe. One forum has even banned comment from a famous audio engineer who dares to challenge the opinions with reason and science.
It is my opinion that most Hi-Fi equipment should, in the modern era, sound very good if you play a well mastered CD or a well kept LP which is undamaged and not worn out.
In the analogue arena real improvements were made to consumer grade equipment in the early 1970s - from then on any improvement has been marginal. In my time, I have listened to dozens of turntable, amplifier and loudspeaker combinations. It was not often that I could hear a clear difference in the equipment no matter what the costs were. This, of course, has to be the case with analogue Hi-Fi equipment; once it reaches an acceptable standard each piece in the audio chain should sound similar. Any difference should be so marginal that either the listener hears a very subtle change or no change at all when making comparisons. All this stands to reason. If you claim to hear "a night and day difference" between two pieces of Hi-Fi quality equipment then you are either lying, fooling yourself or just trying to wind up your audience. Most of the participants in Hi-Fi forums never substantiate their exaggerated claims with the results of a double blind test.
The same reasoning applies to digital sound reproduction equipment. There are are now substantial discussions going on, on some of the forums, about which is better DSD or PCM digital musical files. Once again any difference is marginal - it has to be.
Time and time again double blind tests have been made to ascertain whether individuals can discern any difference between a CD file, DSD quality file at a 24/96 or 24/192 quality file when all other parameters are equal. So far no-one has been identified who can reliably tell the difference. All of this stands to reason because a CD can accurately reproduce all music which a human being can hear. Even though, in theory, a DSD music file can reproduce a greater frequency range than a CD, humans cannot perceive that extra range. A CD can reproduce the full dynamic range of all music and more. Any extra dynamic range which a DSD music file or a "HiRes" file can provide is simply redundant.
Here is one forum that is refreshingly objective and bucks the trend:
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2505-The-last-words-on-audio-amplifiers-Jan-2015[/URL
It is my opinion that most Hi-Fi equipment should, in the modern era, sound very good if you play a well mastered CD or a well kept LP which is undamaged and not worn out.
In the analogue arena real improvements were made to consumer grade equipment in the early 1970s - from then on any improvement has been marginal. In my time, I have listened to dozens of turntable, amplifier and loudspeaker combinations. It was not often that I could hear a clear difference in the equipment no matter what the costs were. This, of course, has to be the case with analogue Hi-Fi equipment; once it reaches an acceptable standard each piece in the audio chain should sound similar. Any difference should be so marginal that either the listener hears a very subtle change or no change at all when making comparisons. All this stands to reason. If you claim to hear "a night and day difference" between two pieces of Hi-Fi quality equipment then you are either lying, fooling yourself or just trying to wind up your audience. Most of the participants in Hi-Fi forums never substantiate their exaggerated claims with the results of a double blind test.
The same reasoning applies to digital sound reproduction equipment. There are are now substantial discussions going on, on some of the forums, about which is better DSD or PCM digital musical files. Once again any difference is marginal - it has to be.
Time and time again double blind tests have been made to ascertain whether individuals can discern any difference between a CD file, DSD quality file at a 24/96 or 24/192 quality file when all other parameters are equal. So far no-one has been identified who can reliably tell the difference. All of this stands to reason because a CD can accurately reproduce all music which a human being can hear. Even though, in theory, a DSD music file can reproduce a greater frequency range than a CD, humans cannot perceive that extra range. A CD can reproduce the full dynamic range of all music and more. Any extra dynamic range which a DSD music file or a "HiRes" file can provide is simply redundant.
Here is one forum that is refreshingly objective and bucks the trend:
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2505-The-last-words-on-audio-amplifiers-Jan-2015[/URL
Wednesday 30 September 2015
You can't have your vinyl cake and eat it - new buyers be warned
I love playing LPs but I am under no illusions that they perform better sonically than a CD. Measurements prove that CDs have greater potential to perform better than LPs, However it is possible for a sound engineer to ruin the performance of a CD so that it sounds worse than an LP.
It is my opinion that a well recorded CD always sounds better than a well recorded LP no matter what type of music is being played. But, pop and rock music LPs sound almost as good their CD equivalents, because the continuous loud sound masks any rumble and low level noise from scratches and the crackle and pop of dust and static.
The LP has to be brand new when making comparisons and it must be dust free.
The other day I put on a brand new remastered version of Errol Garner's " Concert By The Sea". Half way through one of the tracks I heard a tremendous popping noise and I thought the record had been scratched. When the record was finished I examined it. There were no scratches or marks on the record which could have produced a popping noise. The record was covered in more dust than usual and the needle was also covered with dust. Static electricity was the culprit.
Before I play any LP record I always clean it with a carbon brush and I always clean the stylus. Normally, I do not hear any popping noise caused by static electricity or dust and when the record finishes there is usually very little dust sticking to the surface of the record.
On this particular day the atmospheric pressure was high and the air was very dry, this meant that the conditions were perfect for static electricity to be generated on the surface of the LP, some of which was discharging and creating a popping noise which was picked up by the stylus. The dust which was unavoidably collecting on the record and stylus was also causing a slight hissing noise.
Advocates of vinyl records who claim that LPs sound better than CD are allowing emotion to get the better of them. Any noise which should not be there degrades the performance and prevents the reproduction being genuinely of high fidelity.
No matter how much money you spend, and how well designed and built the play back equipment is, static and dust will always be a problem. If you drag a diamond stylus across a plastic disc on a day with a very dry atmosphere then you will generate static electricity.
The more sensitive the equipment is then the more clearly you will hear the noise. You cannot have your vinyl cake and eat it.
This is why I prefer to listen to CD as a matter of preference and only listen to LPs when I am in the mood. I never listen to classical music on an LP as I simply cannot stand the crackles and pops.
If you are contemplating "getting into vinyl" and spending thousands on a turntable then be warned. Do not take too much notice of the forums and HI-FI magazines which say vinyl is wonderful and it is the only way to listen to music. Listen before you buy and decide for yourself. Try out a pristine new 200 gm vinyl classical album with headphones and compare it to the same album recorded on CD: and then you will see what I mean.
It is my opinion that a well recorded CD always sounds better than a well recorded LP no matter what type of music is being played. But, pop and rock music LPs sound almost as good their CD equivalents, because the continuous loud sound masks any rumble and low level noise from scratches and the crackle and pop of dust and static.
The LP has to be brand new when making comparisons and it must be dust free.
The other day I put on a brand new remastered version of Errol Garner's " Concert By The Sea". Half way through one of the tracks I heard a tremendous popping noise and I thought the record had been scratched. When the record was finished I examined it. There were no scratches or marks on the record which could have produced a popping noise. The record was covered in more dust than usual and the needle was also covered with dust. Static electricity was the culprit.
Before I play any LP record I always clean it with a carbon brush and I always clean the stylus. Normally, I do not hear any popping noise caused by static electricity or dust and when the record finishes there is usually very little dust sticking to the surface of the record.
On this particular day the atmospheric pressure was high and the air was very dry, this meant that the conditions were perfect for static electricity to be generated on the surface of the LP, some of which was discharging and creating a popping noise which was picked up by the stylus. The dust which was unavoidably collecting on the record and stylus was also causing a slight hissing noise.
Advocates of vinyl records who claim that LPs sound better than CD are allowing emotion to get the better of them. Any noise which should not be there degrades the performance and prevents the reproduction being genuinely of high fidelity.
No matter how much money you spend, and how well designed and built the play back equipment is, static and dust will always be a problem. If you drag a diamond stylus across a plastic disc on a day with a very dry atmosphere then you will generate static electricity.
The more sensitive the equipment is then the more clearly you will hear the noise. You cannot have your vinyl cake and eat it.
This is why I prefer to listen to CD as a matter of preference and only listen to LPs when I am in the mood. I never listen to classical music on an LP as I simply cannot stand the crackles and pops.
If you are contemplating "getting into vinyl" and spending thousands on a turntable then be warned. Do not take too much notice of the forums and HI-FI magazines which say vinyl is wonderful and it is the only way to listen to music. Listen before you buy and decide for yourself. Try out a pristine new 200 gm vinyl classical album with headphones and compare it to the same album recorded on CD: and then you will see what I mean.
Tuesday 25 August 2015
Record players
I sometimes wonder whether the desire for younger people to buy turntables and record players could be the desire to go back to a simpler life. High technology music solutions are not fulfilling their promise of improved sound quality over CDs and the marketing hype for High Definition music might be falling on unresponsive ears.
Many young people do not have the time to research the different forms of music files which we are now being treated to. Who cares about music files over and above Standard CD ones - viz. DSD, 24/96, 24/192? None of the High Resolution files sound any better.
When I go into a Hi-Fi shop I find that most of the time I know more about the performance of the the different file types than the sales people who are probably suffering from information overload. The sales staff do not have the time to research everything as they are not semi-retired like me.
I have got a 1970's Supertramp album which sounds almost as good as a 24/96 HiRes file. The album is just as easy to play but, of course, the frequency response is not the same and there is a little extra harmonic distortion. Also there are a couple of clicks and pops but the LP sounds almost as good. And there is no need to boot up a computer or streamer for playback. Some youngsters are looking for an easier audio life and who can blame them?
Many young people do not have the time to research the different forms of music files which we are now being treated to. Who cares about music files over and above Standard CD ones - viz. DSD, 24/96, 24/192? None of the High Resolution files sound any better.
When I go into a Hi-Fi shop I find that most of the time I know more about the performance of the the different file types than the sales people who are probably suffering from information overload. The sales staff do not have the time to research everything as they are not semi-retired like me.
I have got a 1970's Supertramp album which sounds almost as good as a 24/96 HiRes file. The album is just as easy to play but, of course, the frequency response is not the same and there is a little extra harmonic distortion. Also there are a couple of clicks and pops but the LP sounds almost as good. And there is no need to boot up a computer or streamer for playback. Some youngsters are looking for an easier audio life and who can blame them?
Tuesday 28 July 2015
Hi-Fi Fashion
I wonder when Audio Cassettes will come back into fashion. I still use them in one of my older cars. I can't be bothered to plug in a MP3 adapter. The cassettes sound perfectly all right in the car. I no longer play original pre-recorded cassettes because they have all deteriorated so much that they they are unplayable. All of my music is in digital format, except for a small number of 45 rpm records, so I have converted everything on LP, Audio Cassette and CD to a WAV file on a hard disk. It is then easy to make cassettes for the car.
In their hey day every one used cassettes to create party tape mixes especially during the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a way of making sure that your LPs did not get scratched at a party. An Audio Cassette can sound very good if you use good equipment but from a technical point of view it cannot compete with a CD. The Audio Cassette is a very convenient method of play back and ,of course, the Walkman was the forerunner of the MP3 player.
The other day I was rummaging through some old cassettes which I had stored in the garage and found an 80s recording of Van Morrison with the Chieftains; it still played almost perfectly so I digitised it straight away. How did it survive all that time? This is the wonder of cassettes sometimes they last for years and sometimes they break the second time you play them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Heartbeat
Some people love them but when I retire my older car I shall ditch all of them; they hold no sentimental value for me. However it is quite likely that like vinyl LPs Audio Cassettes will make a comeback when the fashion for turntables fades. There will be people who prefer the sound of a cassette and I must admit it is rather easy to distinguish between they sound of a cassette from the sound of its CD or LP equivalent. When they do come back into fashion some people will claim that their analogue sound will be of higher technical quality than a CD. The forums will be full of discussions about all this.
My advice to young person who is tempted is to buy a good quality cassette deck is to digitise any cassette that you buy immediately. You can buy cheap USB converters that will do this for you. Just connect the USB stage to the line outputs of your cassette deck (or at a push you can use the headphone output- but not too loud). Audacity is reasonable software to use on your laptop or PC to convert the USB input into a WAV file. Audacity can also be used to remove noise and hiss from the tape. Audacity cannot correct distortion caused by a stretched tape, some second hand tapes may suffer from this so buyer beware. Some tapes also get tangled up when you play them and you may have to re-wind them manually by using a pencil inserted into the sprockets. If you digitise your tapes the music will be preserved almost for ever and it is easy to make a tape from music stored on a hard drive. You can use the line outputs from your PC or Laptop to make a tape recording.
The fashion for LPs and turntables is still growing even though it never went out of fashion for me. The convenience of Audio Cassettes is missing and it is difficult to run around from place to place with your album collection and a portable record player. The one advantage of listening to LPs is that you have to sit down to listen and must get physically involved in changing the music. LPs can also sound almost as good as their CD equivalent unless you are listening to classical music recordings. Perhaps, they have become more fashionable with people that want to slow down a little bit and appreciate being in one place to enjoy their music. You can do all of this with a CD or other forms of digital music files provided you sit down and relax. When I listen to an album I like to play the whole of the work in the sequence that the producers intended. The LP system more or less forces you to do this; but if you chop and change tracks a lot then you risk damaging your LP from excess handling. My advice to choppers and changers is to digitise your LP as soon as you buy it, then you can chop and change as much as you like. With a digital version and you can easily carry your music around so you get the both of both worlds.
Even though I do most of my listening from digital sources I shall not get rid of my LPs in a hurry. I like the art work and putting on an LP on a special occasion even though an LP sounds slightly inferior - even with a pristine copy.
I can see a day coming when the CD player will become obsolete, as most of us will be listening via computers, solid state drives and such like. Some people, exclusively, will use Spotify and other forms of streaming service. A CD is after all just a means of storing a digital media file; there is nothing special about this compared to a hard drive or thumb drive.
A decade or so after the demise of the CD player this old form of technology will come back into fashion. Some people will start buying players again. There will be some who believe that a CD will sound better than a 24/96 music file even when all other factors are equal. They will be wrong of course, as it is not possible for a CD to sound better even if it does not sound worse. Mathematics, physics and biology mitigate against this. But not psychology: some people will believe that a CD sounds better and therefore it will sound better - to them. Rationality will not convince them: so good luck to them for it is their prerogative not to believe the evidence.
Digital music is not going to go away unless someone can invent a completely analogue system which offers the flexibility and quality of digital media. To achieve this an economic system of using analogue computers will need to be invented and deployed. In the near future this will not happen. We will have to be content to use turntables and cassette decks - modern music recording equipment is digital based, however.
In their hey day every one used cassettes to create party tape mixes especially during the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a way of making sure that your LPs did not get scratched at a party. An Audio Cassette can sound very good if you use good equipment but from a technical point of view it cannot compete with a CD. The Audio Cassette is a very convenient method of play back and ,of course, the Walkman was the forerunner of the MP3 player.
The other day I was rummaging through some old cassettes which I had stored in the garage and found an 80s recording of Van Morrison with the Chieftains; it still played almost perfectly so I digitised it straight away. How did it survive all that time? This is the wonder of cassettes sometimes they last for years and sometimes they break the second time you play them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Heartbeat
Some people love them but when I retire my older car I shall ditch all of them; they hold no sentimental value for me. However it is quite likely that like vinyl LPs Audio Cassettes will make a comeback when the fashion for turntables fades. There will be people who prefer the sound of a cassette and I must admit it is rather easy to distinguish between they sound of a cassette from the sound of its CD or LP equivalent. When they do come back into fashion some people will claim that their analogue sound will be of higher technical quality than a CD. The forums will be full of discussions about all this.
My advice to young person who is tempted is to buy a good quality cassette deck is to digitise any cassette that you buy immediately. You can buy cheap USB converters that will do this for you. Just connect the USB stage to the line outputs of your cassette deck (or at a push you can use the headphone output- but not too loud). Audacity is reasonable software to use on your laptop or PC to convert the USB input into a WAV file. Audacity can also be used to remove noise and hiss from the tape. Audacity cannot correct distortion caused by a stretched tape, some second hand tapes may suffer from this so buyer beware. Some tapes also get tangled up when you play them and you may have to re-wind them manually by using a pencil inserted into the sprockets. If you digitise your tapes the music will be preserved almost for ever and it is easy to make a tape from music stored on a hard drive. You can use the line outputs from your PC or Laptop to make a tape recording.
The fashion for LPs and turntables is still growing even though it never went out of fashion for me. The convenience of Audio Cassettes is missing and it is difficult to run around from place to place with your album collection and a portable record player. The one advantage of listening to LPs is that you have to sit down to listen and must get physically involved in changing the music. LPs can also sound almost as good as their CD equivalent unless you are listening to classical music recordings. Perhaps, they have become more fashionable with people that want to slow down a little bit and appreciate being in one place to enjoy their music. You can do all of this with a CD or other forms of digital music files provided you sit down and relax. When I listen to an album I like to play the whole of the work in the sequence that the producers intended. The LP system more or less forces you to do this; but if you chop and change tracks a lot then you risk damaging your LP from excess handling. My advice to choppers and changers is to digitise your LP as soon as you buy it, then you can chop and change as much as you like. With a digital version and you can easily carry your music around so you get the both of both worlds.
Even though I do most of my listening from digital sources I shall not get rid of my LPs in a hurry. I like the art work and putting on an LP on a special occasion even though an LP sounds slightly inferior - even with a pristine copy.
I can see a day coming when the CD player will become obsolete, as most of us will be listening via computers, solid state drives and such like. Some people, exclusively, will use Spotify and other forms of streaming service. A CD is after all just a means of storing a digital media file; there is nothing special about this compared to a hard drive or thumb drive.
A decade or so after the demise of the CD player this old form of technology will come back into fashion. Some people will start buying players again. There will be some who believe that a CD will sound better than a 24/96 music file even when all other factors are equal. They will be wrong of course, as it is not possible for a CD to sound better even if it does not sound worse. Mathematics, physics and biology mitigate against this. But not psychology: some people will believe that a CD sounds better and therefore it will sound better - to them. Rationality will not convince them: so good luck to them for it is their prerogative not to believe the evidence.
Digital music is not going to go away unless someone can invent a completely analogue system which offers the flexibility and quality of digital media. To achieve this an economic system of using analogue computers will need to be invented and deployed. In the near future this will not happen. We will have to be content to use turntables and cassette decks - modern music recording equipment is digital based, however.
Tuesday 21 July 2015
Running in or breaking in new cables etc
I recently read an article in a Hi-Fi magazine advocating that enthusiasts should run in or break in their new cables for hours using pink noise or such like. This idea is implausible. The magazine offered no "before and after " measurements to help prove their assertion. Also they did not publish the results of double blind listening tests probably because they did not do any. Not only do they suggest that an audio enthusiast should spend hundreds of pounds per metre for cables that do not perform any better than standard cables costing tens of pounds, they also try to fool you that running the cable in will improve the sound when it will not.
I have never heard a difference in any Hi-Fi equipment after playing it for many hours not even in electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and speakers.
I can only think that the idea of running in Hi-Fi equipment came from the era of valve amplifiers. When you first switched on a 1950s radio or amplifier you heard nothing because you had to wait for the valves to warm up before they worked. After they had warmed up no improvement in audio efficiency was discernible.
Running in cables is just another myth and a case of the "Kings New Clothes".
I have never heard a difference in any Hi-Fi equipment after playing it for many hours not even in electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and speakers.
I can only think that the idea of running in Hi-Fi equipment came from the era of valve amplifiers. When you first switched on a 1950s radio or amplifier you heard nothing because you had to wait for the valves to warm up before they worked. After they had warmed up no improvement in audio efficiency was discernible.
Running in cables is just another myth and a case of the "Kings New Clothes".
Wednesday 1 July 2015
Technical Developments and New Technology in Hi-Fi
Someone reading these pages might get the impression that I am opposed to new developments in technology and that I do not believe that we will be able to improve sound quality. This is not so. I am all in favour of new recording and sound reproduction techniques which will enable us to achieve improved Hi-Fi performance.
It is obvious that current Hi-Fi recording techniques and sound reproduction are unable to exactly duplicate the original performance whether that is in the studio or live. This is especially apparent when related to classical music. For many reasons including microphone placement, transducer performance and listening room acoustics a sound recording cannot exactly duplicate the original music. We are able to reproduce a flat frequency response. We are able to reproduce musical frequencies well beyond the bounds of human hearing. Likewise we can record and playback music which has a very wide dynamic range beyond even the loudest and softest notes that a full orchestra can manage. We can playback music at loudness levels which can easily damage human hearing.
We can do most of this with a humble LP and a CD can achieve this easily. There is no need for "High Resolution" digital music files which can push the parameters further than CD. It is absolutely pointless to reproduce frequencies above the ability of any human to hear i.e. above 20 KHz. It is equally pointless to enable the playback of music files which allow for a dynamic range of 140 db or more. To exploit this would damage reproduction equipment and worse of all would permanently damage the hearing of the listener in short order.
Manufacturers are leading us up a stereo dead end and playing a numbers game. They have the right to claim that their equipment is better but they have a moral duty not to mislead the public.
Manufacturers are being supported in this numbers game by Hi-Fi magazines whose reporters claim that they can hear sounds and quality differences which science says they cannot. I believe that they are being disingenuous. Add to this the comments and exaggerated claims which are made on some Hi-Fi forums for turntables, cables, "Hi-Res" versus Cd etc. and we are in a sorry mess.
There is room for improvement in sound technology but based on scientific and engineering research which can identify genuine improvements which can be made to inter alia:
microphones and their placement,
loudspeakers,
room acoustics
and computer generated surround sound systems.
We will never progress while false and unverifiable claims are made for 24/192, DSD sound reproduction. No improvement will be made whilst some "audiophiles" believe that electrons somehow follow the arrows printed on expensive cables - they do not. Electrons flow from negative to positive polarity.
How can we progress when people believe that hanging little rocks from line input connexions can improve sonic performance.
The time has come to stop all the myths and apply some genuine science and sound engineering to solve Hi-Fi problems.
It is a pity that Hi-Fi magazines feel that they cannot support science and that most reporters are only interested in playing the numbers game.
It is obvious that current Hi-Fi recording techniques and sound reproduction are unable to exactly duplicate the original performance whether that is in the studio or live. This is especially apparent when related to classical music. For many reasons including microphone placement, transducer performance and listening room acoustics a sound recording cannot exactly duplicate the original music. We are able to reproduce a flat frequency response. We are able to reproduce musical frequencies well beyond the bounds of human hearing. Likewise we can record and playback music which has a very wide dynamic range beyond even the loudest and softest notes that a full orchestra can manage. We can playback music at loudness levels which can easily damage human hearing.
We can do most of this with a humble LP and a CD can achieve this easily. There is no need for "High Resolution" digital music files which can push the parameters further than CD. It is absolutely pointless to reproduce frequencies above the ability of any human to hear i.e. above 20 KHz. It is equally pointless to enable the playback of music files which allow for a dynamic range of 140 db or more. To exploit this would damage reproduction equipment and worse of all would permanently damage the hearing of the listener in short order.
Manufacturers are leading us up a stereo dead end and playing a numbers game. They have the right to claim that their equipment is better but they have a moral duty not to mislead the public.
Manufacturers are being supported in this numbers game by Hi-Fi magazines whose reporters claim that they can hear sounds and quality differences which science says they cannot. I believe that they are being disingenuous. Add to this the comments and exaggerated claims which are made on some Hi-Fi forums for turntables, cables, "Hi-Res" versus Cd etc. and we are in a sorry mess.
There is room for improvement in sound technology but based on scientific and engineering research which can identify genuine improvements which can be made to inter alia:
microphones and their placement,
loudspeakers,
room acoustics
and computer generated surround sound systems.
We will never progress while false and unverifiable claims are made for 24/192, DSD sound reproduction. No improvement will be made whilst some "audiophiles" believe that electrons somehow follow the arrows printed on expensive cables - they do not. Electrons flow from negative to positive polarity.
How can we progress when people believe that hanging little rocks from line input connexions can improve sonic performance.
The time has come to stop all the myths and apply some genuine science and sound engineering to solve Hi-Fi problems.
It is a pity that Hi-Fi magazines feel that they cannot support science and that most reporters are only interested in playing the numbers game.
Thursday 25 June 2015
Don't be fooled by the new fashion to buy a turntable because the sound of LP's are so wonderful
I have been listening to LPs since the mid 1960s and I think that they can sound great and they can also sound awful. Nearly everyone is getting onto the turntable band wagon. Hi-Fi magazines and forums are full of praise for the new rise of analogue music. Most of the comments that you will read are exaggerated or untrue.
The first mistruth is that technically LPs are more proficient at Hi-Fi sound reproduction than CDs or "HiRes" digital files. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny; the whole system of LP sound reproduction (and 45s and 78s) is flawed from start to finish and introduces excessive harmonic distortion and clicks and pops and timing errors and that is before you slide the LP out of its cover and play it. Vinyl pedants claim that analogue sound reproduction can be perfect - no it cannot - clicks and pops are unavoidable. And, from a pedantic point of view if you hear one pop which should not be there then you are not listening to Hi-Fi.
I love listening to LPs on occasion but when I do it is for fun and for the different sound from "digital" music. For serious musical appreciation I choose digital sources.
Deciding what equipment to buy can be a nightmare for the uninitiated. There is so much exaggeration and hyperbole written about the subject of turntables and LPs that it is difficult to find sound advice.
Most of the budget turntables are perfectly capable of giving good sound reproduction. The likes of Pioneer, Project, Marantz, Sony, Music Hall etc. all have reputations to maintain and they are not going to sell you a product which does not sound good. Some of these turntables are made of plastic and are a bit flimsy but if you place them on a solid rack or shelf they will perform well. The cheap turntables will suffer from quality control issues so that the odd one will suffer from wow or flutter or speed variations; in which case you return it to the supplier. To get reasonable sound reproduction ensure that your turntable has a moving magnet cartridge rather than a ceramic one.
Most of the criticism on forums relates to the fact that the cheap budget turntables are made of plastic. Well consider this, vinyl is plastic and many expensive decks have acrylic plinths or platters and what is acrylic if it is not plastic? The solidity and weightiness of a good deck helps to reduce vibration but if you site your budget deck on a solid platform its flimsiness is mitigated.
On many forums budget turntables are dismissed as junk or rubbish but a budget turntable maybe all you can afford so do not let this opinion put you off. Try them for yourself and if they are no good return them to the supplier.
When you buy a turntable, you do not want to damage your records because of excessive down force or stylus pressure especially if you have bought an expensive 180gm vinyl record. Many audiophiles get anal about this and constantly tinker with down force and may even reset it every time they play a record. Some set this to the minimum; my cartridge has a down force range of 1.5gms to 2.5gms. I have set mine to 2.2gms and I see no reason to change it. Many budget tables use a pre-set or unchangeable down force of 3.5gms. Such a force would be traduced by an audiophile but I do not think that this will damage your records even after repeated playing.
If you digitise your records properly to a 16/44.1 Wav file using a good USB deck or USB phono-stage then you can reserve playing the LP for special occasions to avoid wear and tear. The digital file will sound almost exactly the same as the LP.
Many contributors to forums and magazines criticise turntables with built in phono-stages. Well I have got two such turntables and they both sound fantastic. When I use an external phono-stage they hardly sound any different. Phono-stages use electronics to amplify the weak signal of a moving magnet cartridge and they also equalise the sound according to RIAA standards. When a record is cut the bass is attenuated and the treble is accentuated this is reversed by the phono-stage. RIAA equalisation has been around since the mid 1950's so there has been plenty of time for Pioneer, Sony, Project, Teac and Denon etc. to get this right. You do not need to spend hundreds of pounds for a simple phono-stage.
There is so much exaggeration and unjustified criticism I could go on forever. Just remember that the commentators on forums and in magazines rarely make comparisons to a standard in fact they almost never do. When they are making their judgements, they never do so on the basis of double blind testing . All the comment is mostly based on asserted hearsay rather than facts established by the scientific method.
If you want to then you can buy a moving coil cartridge that will playback ultra-sonic sound up to 45khz; but the trouble is no-one can hear sound with a higher frequency than 20kHz (reserved for children) and for many adults their highest frequency is much lower. So you may well ask what is the point of a moving coil cartridge? Many audiophiles do not ask this question. Most LPs do not have musical content above 15khz.
When you read a forum that traduces your potential purchase just remember this: when the Beatles and the Rolling Stones first started making records we played their music on Dansette type record players with poorly produced and specified ceramic cartridges with a down force of about 10gms. The music still sounded good enough for the Beatles and the Stones etc. to sell millions of records.
The other day I was at a market where someone was selling second hand records and he was playing them on a real budget job - less than £100 pounds. It sounded better than our Dansettes. Why not try a cheap turntable if you cannot decide if the medium suits you or not but buy some second hand records to play on it? You can always upgrade later.
Also consider this, a £30,000 pound turntable can sound marvellous and I would never criticise someone who bought one. However, the £30,000 record player gives you the ultimate in sound reproduction which includes the music and the clicks and pops and surface noise which cannot be removed no matter how much you spend, because the system is flawed sonically from start to finish. Try listening to a 180gm acoustic music vinyl LP but with headphones and then you will see what I mean.
The first mistruth is that technically LPs are more proficient at Hi-Fi sound reproduction than CDs or "HiRes" digital files. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny; the whole system of LP sound reproduction (and 45s and 78s) is flawed from start to finish and introduces excessive harmonic distortion and clicks and pops and timing errors and that is before you slide the LP out of its cover and play it. Vinyl pedants claim that analogue sound reproduction can be perfect - no it cannot - clicks and pops are unavoidable. And, from a pedantic point of view if you hear one pop which should not be there then you are not listening to Hi-Fi.
I love listening to LPs on occasion but when I do it is for fun and for the different sound from "digital" music. For serious musical appreciation I choose digital sources.
Deciding what equipment to buy can be a nightmare for the uninitiated. There is so much exaggeration and hyperbole written about the subject of turntables and LPs that it is difficult to find sound advice.
Most of the budget turntables are perfectly capable of giving good sound reproduction. The likes of Pioneer, Project, Marantz, Sony, Music Hall etc. all have reputations to maintain and they are not going to sell you a product which does not sound good. Some of these turntables are made of plastic and are a bit flimsy but if you place them on a solid rack or shelf they will perform well. The cheap turntables will suffer from quality control issues so that the odd one will suffer from wow or flutter or speed variations; in which case you return it to the supplier. To get reasonable sound reproduction ensure that your turntable has a moving magnet cartridge rather than a ceramic one.
Most of the criticism on forums relates to the fact that the cheap budget turntables are made of plastic. Well consider this, vinyl is plastic and many expensive decks have acrylic plinths or platters and what is acrylic if it is not plastic? The solidity and weightiness of a good deck helps to reduce vibration but if you site your budget deck on a solid platform its flimsiness is mitigated.
On many forums budget turntables are dismissed as junk or rubbish but a budget turntable maybe all you can afford so do not let this opinion put you off. Try them for yourself and if they are no good return them to the supplier.
When you buy a turntable, you do not want to damage your records because of excessive down force or stylus pressure especially if you have bought an expensive 180gm vinyl record. Many audiophiles get anal about this and constantly tinker with down force and may even reset it every time they play a record. Some set this to the minimum; my cartridge has a down force range of 1.5gms to 2.5gms. I have set mine to 2.2gms and I see no reason to change it. Many budget tables use a pre-set or unchangeable down force of 3.5gms. Such a force would be traduced by an audiophile but I do not think that this will damage your records even after repeated playing.
If you digitise your records properly to a 16/44.1 Wav file using a good USB deck or USB phono-stage then you can reserve playing the LP for special occasions to avoid wear and tear. The digital file will sound almost exactly the same as the LP.
Many contributors to forums and magazines criticise turntables with built in phono-stages. Well I have got two such turntables and they both sound fantastic. When I use an external phono-stage they hardly sound any different. Phono-stages use electronics to amplify the weak signal of a moving magnet cartridge and they also equalise the sound according to RIAA standards. When a record is cut the bass is attenuated and the treble is accentuated this is reversed by the phono-stage. RIAA equalisation has been around since the mid 1950's so there has been plenty of time for Pioneer, Sony, Project, Teac and Denon etc. to get this right. You do not need to spend hundreds of pounds for a simple phono-stage.
There is so much exaggeration and unjustified criticism I could go on forever. Just remember that the commentators on forums and in magazines rarely make comparisons to a standard in fact they almost never do. When they are making their judgements, they never do so on the basis of double blind testing . All the comment is mostly based on asserted hearsay rather than facts established by the scientific method.
If you want to then you can buy a moving coil cartridge that will playback ultra-sonic sound up to 45khz; but the trouble is no-one can hear sound with a higher frequency than 20kHz (reserved for children) and for many adults their highest frequency is much lower. So you may well ask what is the point of a moving coil cartridge? Many audiophiles do not ask this question. Most LPs do not have musical content above 15khz.
When you read a forum that traduces your potential purchase just remember this: when the Beatles and the Rolling Stones first started making records we played their music on Dansette type record players with poorly produced and specified ceramic cartridges with a down force of about 10gms. The music still sounded good enough for the Beatles and the Stones etc. to sell millions of records.
The other day I was at a market where someone was selling second hand records and he was playing them on a real budget job - less than £100 pounds. It sounded better than our Dansettes. Why not try a cheap turntable if you cannot decide if the medium suits you or not but buy some second hand records to play on it? You can always upgrade later.
Also consider this, a £30,000 pound turntable can sound marvellous and I would never criticise someone who bought one. However, the £30,000 record player gives you the ultimate in sound reproduction which includes the music and the clicks and pops and surface noise which cannot be removed no matter how much you spend, because the system is flawed sonically from start to finish. Try listening to a 180gm acoustic music vinyl LP but with headphones and then you will see what I mean.
Tuesday 19 May 2015
HIFI magazines and Forums
As far as I am concerned HIFI magazines have a duty to be objective. Sometimes I doubt their sincerity. All sorts of claims are made about the reviewers' abilities to notice "night and day" differences between reproduction equipment and digital music file formats -24/96 and 16/44.1 etc.
With regard to equipment, amplifiers should sound very similar,all other things being equal, if they are of HIFI quality: this just stands to reason. When the magazines provide measurement data amplifiers show similar characteristics from a measurement point of view. When listening tests are made of amplifiers there is never any attempt to implement double blind testing. The reader is offered no form of evidence as to which is the better amplifier.
The same applies to all other forms of equipment CD players, Turntables, Cartridges, Cables, Mains filters etc. There is never any evidence. It is egregious that before and after measurements are not made in the case of cables or mains filters. The only evidence seems to be that expensive is good and the more expensive the better.
Similarly for digital file formats, the HIFI magazine reviewers always claim that in their listening tests 24/96, 24/192 or DSD files sound better than 16/44.1. There is no evidence that anyone can regularly tell the difference, all other things being equal, between such files. There is not much evidence that anyone can hear the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 digital file and a 24/96 digital file. Still the HIFI magazines persist in making claims that they can hear night and day differences. What makes their hearing so special? If their hearing is so special let them prove it by submitting themselves to scientific testing. I doubt that that they ever will.
HIFI forums have no such duty to be objective but most of them repeat the same errors. They will traduce equipment that they do not like and half the time I suspect that they have not heard the kit they are criticising. Most of the opinions on most of the forums are bunkum.
This one is a notable exception as it makes an attempt to be objective and scientific and I think it succeeds.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
There must be others and it is worth finding them.
How about this?
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1663-Double-Blind-Testing-(DBT)-and-a-refutation-of-the-A-B-listening-experience&p=19876
What is Joe Public to do when buying HIFI? Trust his own ears - that is all but buyer beware.
With regard to equipment, amplifiers should sound very similar,all other things being equal, if they are of HIFI quality: this just stands to reason. When the magazines provide measurement data amplifiers show similar characteristics from a measurement point of view. When listening tests are made of amplifiers there is never any attempt to implement double blind testing. The reader is offered no form of evidence as to which is the better amplifier.
The same applies to all other forms of equipment CD players, Turntables, Cartridges, Cables, Mains filters etc. There is never any evidence. It is egregious that before and after measurements are not made in the case of cables or mains filters. The only evidence seems to be that expensive is good and the more expensive the better.
Similarly for digital file formats, the HIFI magazine reviewers always claim that in their listening tests 24/96, 24/192 or DSD files sound better than 16/44.1. There is no evidence that anyone can regularly tell the difference, all other things being equal, between such files. There is not much evidence that anyone can hear the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 digital file and a 24/96 digital file. Still the HIFI magazines persist in making claims that they can hear night and day differences. What makes their hearing so special? If their hearing is so special let them prove it by submitting themselves to scientific testing. I doubt that that they ever will.
HIFI forums have no such duty to be objective but most of them repeat the same errors. They will traduce equipment that they do not like and half the time I suspect that they have not heard the kit they are criticising. Most of the opinions on most of the forums are bunkum.
This one is a notable exception as it makes an attempt to be objective and scientific and I think it succeeds.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
There must be others and it is worth finding them.
How about this?
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1663-Double-Blind-Testing-(DBT)-and-a-refutation-of-the-A-B-listening-experience&p=19876
What is Joe Public to do when buying HIFI? Trust his own ears - that is all but buyer beware.
Tuesday 21 April 2015
"360" sound on an Erroll Garner LP
I bought a brand new 180 gm virgin vinyl LP the other day featuring Erroll Garner - " Concert By The Sea". It was released by Columbia records who are now part of the Sony Music entertainment group.
The LP was originally recorded in 1956. It sounds fantastic and a far as I am concerned Erroll Garner is a genius of jazz; I could listen to his records all day. He can even play musical jokes that get me smiling.
Columbia records claim that they use quality control methods at every stage of the record producing process to ensure absolute high fidelity sound reproduction. Their record is able to cover the full frequency range of a high fidelity recording from 30Hz to 15khz within a 2 decibel tolerance. I have no reason to doubt this claim as the sound reproduction is wonderful even though the original recording was made with equipment from 1956.
The frequency range encompasses all of the musical frequencies that most adults can hear. The LP itself has very little surface noise and at the volumes that I use I could not hear any surface noise between the tracks. My modest turntable runs so quietly that I could not hear any noise from the equipment itself, and I could hear no wow and flutter from the piano which means that the platter was running at a more or less constant speed and that the spindle hole of the record is accurately positioned. All in all listening was an enjoyable Hi-Fi experience. The record sounded almost as good as a well mastered CD recording.
The frequency response of my moving magnet cartridge is from 20 Hz to 20KHz. A moving coil cartridge is capable of producing a much wider range of frequency response. But I ask myself the question why should I change the cartridge when a moving magnet cartridge already encompasses all the frequencies that the record can produce with a considerable amount of headroom.
I could invest in an improved turntable to reduce noise and distortion but why should I? The record and turntable combination are already so good that they compete with a cd as far as high fidelity is concerned.
I am going to digitise the record. I shall convert the recording to a 16/44.1 WAV file - cd quality. This resolution can easily encompass the dynamic range and frequency response of the record. A cd quality file can manage a dynamic range of 96 decibels which is much more than an LP record can and it can cover a frequency range of 20Hz to 22Khz. This is all the resolution that is needed.
If I am to believe some of the comment on Hi-Fi forums and all of the comment in Hi-Fi magazines then I need to spend a lot more money on cartridges, cables, heavy weight platters, phono-stages, power supplies etc. to achieve Hi-Fi nirvana: I do not.
If I am to believe the same media when I come to digitise the records then I need to use "high resolution" files - 24/96 or even 24/192 to digitise the LP: I do not as "high resolution" files sound no better than 16/44.1.
Most of what is written about Hi-Fi is irrational bunkum without any supporting evidence using measurements which take into account the limits of human hearing. Usually no one provides any evidence from double blind listening tests. Most commentary regarding the quality of sound reproduction is useless. You are better off deciding for yourself.
One form of advice is sensible , however, to ensure the longevity of the LP listening experience it is best to digitise your LPs as soon as you can after buying them. In this way you can protect them from scratches, dust and dirt and static build up. You then only need to play the actual vinyl record on a special occasion or when you are in the mood. A good digital recording will sound exactly like the original.
If you cannot bear the thought of digital then why not copy them to audio-cassette? A well recorded cassette will sound almost as good as the original but it will wear out and you will have to repeat the process after a few years - even so this is a good way to preserve you records and you can still look at the sleeve when you play the facsimile!
The LP was originally recorded in 1956. It sounds fantastic and a far as I am concerned Erroll Garner is a genius of jazz; I could listen to his records all day. He can even play musical jokes that get me smiling.
Columbia records claim that they use quality control methods at every stage of the record producing process to ensure absolute high fidelity sound reproduction. Their record is able to cover the full frequency range of a high fidelity recording from 30Hz to 15khz within a 2 decibel tolerance. I have no reason to doubt this claim as the sound reproduction is wonderful even though the original recording was made with equipment from 1956.
The frequency range encompasses all of the musical frequencies that most adults can hear. The LP itself has very little surface noise and at the volumes that I use I could not hear any surface noise between the tracks. My modest turntable runs so quietly that I could not hear any noise from the equipment itself, and I could hear no wow and flutter from the piano which means that the platter was running at a more or less constant speed and that the spindle hole of the record is accurately positioned. All in all listening was an enjoyable Hi-Fi experience. The record sounded almost as good as a well mastered CD recording.
The frequency response of my moving magnet cartridge is from 20 Hz to 20KHz. A moving coil cartridge is capable of producing a much wider range of frequency response. But I ask myself the question why should I change the cartridge when a moving magnet cartridge already encompasses all the frequencies that the record can produce with a considerable amount of headroom.
I could invest in an improved turntable to reduce noise and distortion but why should I? The record and turntable combination are already so good that they compete with a cd as far as high fidelity is concerned.
I am going to digitise the record. I shall convert the recording to a 16/44.1 WAV file - cd quality. This resolution can easily encompass the dynamic range and frequency response of the record. A cd quality file can manage a dynamic range of 96 decibels which is much more than an LP record can and it can cover a frequency range of 20Hz to 22Khz. This is all the resolution that is needed.
If I am to believe some of the comment on Hi-Fi forums and all of the comment in Hi-Fi magazines then I need to spend a lot more money on cartridges, cables, heavy weight platters, phono-stages, power supplies etc. to achieve Hi-Fi nirvana: I do not.
If I am to believe the same media when I come to digitise the records then I need to use "high resolution" files - 24/96 or even 24/192 to digitise the LP: I do not as "high resolution" files sound no better than 16/44.1.
Most of what is written about Hi-Fi is irrational bunkum without any supporting evidence using measurements which take into account the limits of human hearing. Usually no one provides any evidence from double blind listening tests. Most commentary regarding the quality of sound reproduction is useless. You are better off deciding for yourself.
One form of advice is sensible , however, to ensure the longevity of the LP listening experience it is best to digitise your LPs as soon as you can after buying them. In this way you can protect them from scratches, dust and dirt and static build up. You then only need to play the actual vinyl record on a special occasion or when you are in the mood. A good digital recording will sound exactly like the original.
If you cannot bear the thought of digital then why not copy them to audio-cassette? A well recorded cassette will sound almost as good as the original but it will wear out and you will have to repeat the process after a few years - even so this is a good way to preserve you records and you can still look at the sleeve when you play the facsimile!
Friday 13 March 2015
Beatles LPs and broken promises
I broke a promise that I made to myself about not buying the newly re-mastered Beatles mono LPs . I bought a couple to see what all the furore was about on impulse without listening to my rational brain. Well I am not going to indulge anymore.
I have been listening to LPs for years and I have always been annoyed by any sort of wow and flutter, static hiss, groove noise and crackles.
I recently bought a copy of King Crimson's " In the Court of the Crimson King" in 200 gm virgin vinyl. When I first played it, it sounded perfect. However, it did not sound any better than the CD version.
I have played the record 3 times now and already static crackle and dust clicks are affecting the quiet parts of the album. This accumulation of static and dust cannot be prevented.
The same thing is happening to the couple of The Beatles mono re-masters that I have bought. If I keep playing them they will end up sounding like my 1963 copy of "With The Beatles" which has got plenty of static noise in between the tracks even though it is not damaged or worn out. I will end up thinking why did I bother buying the new records. New vinyl should only really be played on special occasions - you are better off digitising the records to 16/44.1 Wav or Flac music files which reproduce the vinyl sound exactly the same, or buying the CD if it has been mastered at a good quality which the new Beatles CD re-masters have been and so has the King Crimson. With a CD you benefit from an album which is free of surface noise, wow and flutter and crackle - genuine hi-fi.
I have been listening to LPs for years and I have always been annoyed by any sort of wow and flutter, static hiss, groove noise and crackles.
I recently bought a copy of King Crimson's " In the Court of the Crimson King" in 200 gm virgin vinyl. When I first played it, it sounded perfect. However, it did not sound any better than the CD version.
I have played the record 3 times now and already static crackle and dust clicks are affecting the quiet parts of the album. This accumulation of static and dust cannot be prevented.
The same thing is happening to the couple of The Beatles mono re-masters that I have bought. If I keep playing them they will end up sounding like my 1963 copy of "With The Beatles" which has got plenty of static noise in between the tracks even though it is not damaged or worn out. I will end up thinking why did I bother buying the new records. New vinyl should only really be played on special occasions - you are better off digitising the records to 16/44.1 Wav or Flac music files which reproduce the vinyl sound exactly the same, or buying the CD if it has been mastered at a good quality which the new Beatles CD re-masters have been and so has the King Crimson. With a CD you benefit from an album which is free of surface noise, wow and flutter and crackle - genuine hi-fi.
Radio 4 on my Hi-Fi turntable with RFI
I
once lived very near the Crystal Palace transmitter in London, way back in the 1970s, and
I heard lots of Radio Frequency Interference (RFI). It was not in the form
of frame-buzz but I actually heard Radio 4 loud and clear.
Just
imagine my horror when, intermittently, I heard Dan Archer from " The Archers" - an every day story of country folk - prattling along to
the softer parts of a progressive rock album. It took performance art to a new
absurd and surreal level. I never really indentified where the problem lay or
cured it. I guessed that the mains-cabling was acting as an antenna and that my
turntable cartridge was acting as a rectifier.
I moved house and that eliminated the problem.
I
have never experienced any problem with RFI since then. The house is now full
of wireless equipment and portable ‘phones etc. but “The Archers” no longer
spoil the music. I thought that modern technology had banished RFI
intrusion forever but it seems that some people still suffer from it.
Quite often there is a simple solution. Making sure all your connexions are tight. Using screened interconnects, mains cables and speaker cables can also work. Usually the process of elimination can identify where the problem is. Even moving your cables around can work. None of this need expensive. There is no need to spend a fortune on expensive cables which have never been proven to work better than standard quality cables at much lower prices.
RFI can sometimes be alleviated by the use of cheap ferrite rings.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Movable-Offset-UF50B-Diameter-Ferrite/dp/B007Q94DMO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426250880&sr=8-1&keywords=ferrite+rings#customerReviews
Quite often there is a simple solution. Making sure all your connexions are tight. Using screened interconnects, mains cables and speaker cables can also work. Usually the process of elimination can identify where the problem is. Even moving your cables around can work. None of this need expensive. There is no need to spend a fortune on expensive cables which have never been proven to work better than standard quality cables at much lower prices.
RFI can sometimes be alleviated by the use of cheap ferrite rings.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Movable-Offset-UF50B-Diameter-Ferrite/dp/B007Q94DMO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426250880&sr=8-1&keywords=ferrite+rings#customerReviews
Monday 9 March 2015
Hi-Fi Nous - There is a difference between believing something to be true and knowing something to be true
The BBC broadcasts its classical music station Radio3 on FM and many audiophile enthusiasts believe that Radio 3 broadcasts sound better than "CD quality". These enthusiasts believe that they are listening to a fully analogue audio signal.
Well they are not; ever since the 1970s the BBC has built a digital circuit in the transmission chain to improve the propagation of the audio signal through landlines on their way to the transmitter.
As far as practicality is concerned Radio 3 listeners are listening to a digital radio signal which is broadcast using an analogue carrier wave.
Starting from 1972 The BBC used PCM digital circuits to convert their analogue music signals at a 13 bit/32khz sampling rate. This effectively meant that that Radio 3 audio had a theoretical dynamic range of 78 decibels and an upper frequency limit of 16khz for the music. The frequency limit was further restricted to 15khz because of a bandwidth restriction associated with Frequency Modulated radio broadcasting.
Since the 1980s, The BBC has been using 14 bit/32khz Nicam digital processors.
The Radio 3 FM broadcasts of classical music can sound wonderful and at a bit rate of around 720 kbps they sound just as good to my ears as a CD transcribing around 1400 kbps. The BBC has recently started internet broadcasts of Radio 3 using a 320 kbps AAC codec and this sounds wonderful too.
If you still want to believe that you are listening to a wonderful analogue hi-fi experience when you tune in to R3 FM then think again. There is a difference between believing something to be true and knowing it to be true.
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/PCMandNICAM/History.html
Well they are not; ever since the 1970s the BBC has built a digital circuit in the transmission chain to improve the propagation of the audio signal through landlines on their way to the transmitter.
As far as practicality is concerned Radio 3 listeners are listening to a digital radio signal which is broadcast using an analogue carrier wave.
Starting from 1972 The BBC used PCM digital circuits to convert their analogue music signals at a 13 bit/32khz sampling rate. This effectively meant that that Radio 3 audio had a theoretical dynamic range of 78 decibels and an upper frequency limit of 16khz for the music. The frequency limit was further restricted to 15khz because of a bandwidth restriction associated with Frequency Modulated radio broadcasting.
Since the 1980s, The BBC has been using 14 bit/32khz Nicam digital processors.
The Radio 3 FM broadcasts of classical music can sound wonderful and at a bit rate of around 720 kbps they sound just as good to my ears as a CD transcribing around 1400 kbps. The BBC has recently started internet broadcasts of Radio 3 using a 320 kbps AAC codec and this sounds wonderful too.
If you still want to believe that you are listening to a wonderful analogue hi-fi experience when you tune in to R3 FM then think again. There is a difference between believing something to be true and knowing it to be true.
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/PCMandNICAM/History.html
Friday 27 February 2015
The vinyl revival
I was in my record shop the other day and they had a number of " turntables" and portable record players on display. The displays of LPs and 45s are getting larger and larger every week. Most of the people looking at the kit and the records were young.
What is causing the revival? Well fashion is one thing. Youngster these days are too young remember using turntables. It is all very new to them.
I commented to one of the younger sales assistants that I had ruined a copy of Captain Beefheart's Safe as Milk on a Dansette. She looked at me as if I had just stepped off a space ship from Mars. She had no clue about record players and turntables and was not embarrassed to admit it.
An audiophile would sneer at the kit available and would probably regard the players as toys. There is no facility to adjust tracking weights, vertical tracking angles and spin rates etc. There is nothing to play with to make the records sound better. What are the real toys though?
The audiophile vinyl lover is part of a small group and this group will not drive a revival of analogue music. The growth in LP sales will come from young people who couldn't care less about azimuth adjustments and anti-skate springs and a suspended chassis. They just want to hear good music in as easy manner as possible. They will want to transcribe their LPs to digital too - heaven forbid, and have a USB stage built in. They will also want their decks to be equipped with an equaliser stage - whatever next? This is the future, however, and vinyl purists will not be able to stop it.
I often wonder why anyone would want to constantly twiddle with adjustments to try and get a perfect sound from an LP when the limiting factor is the LP itself. Perhaps, it is some kind of "control freakery". If you want to, you can spend tens of thousands of pounds to buy an almost perfect piece of kit that does not sound much or any better than a two hundred pound turntable made of MDF or acrylic plastic. If you have got a couple of grand to spare then good luck to you but lots of young people haven't even got one thousand to spend on a whole system. So this is the £40 solution - http://vinylrecordplayer.co.uk/gpo-stylo-3-speed-stand-alone-vinyl-record-player/
Quite frankly it does not sound too bad and it would not have stopped The Beatles from selling millions of records had it been around at the time. The only problem will be wear and tear on the records but I have still got some LPs and 45s from the 1960s that are playable.
Don't get me wrong I love listening to LPs even though most of my listening is from CD or other digital sources. From a technical point of view CDs and other digital sources give better sound reproduction and they lack the snap, crackle and pop and frequency changes from wow and flutter. A well recorded classical piece on a CD beats an LP any time.
Sometimes, however, I get a bit nostalgic and I put on a record for old time's sake, and I never cease to be amazed that a very small hard rock or diamond which scrapes against a piece of round plastic can make such a good sound. Some of this amazement has rubbed off onto the young; you don't need 24/192 digital nirvana to hear good sound and you do not need a degree in computing. Records are nice and simple so maybe that is what is so appealing.
The modern players are the 1960s and 1970s Dansette equivalent and they will sound good enough to help the revival of the LP and 45 industry. They will also encourage music lovers of all ages to sit around a player together to enjoy some sociability and share their music again, just like we did when we played our first Beach Boys albums and 45s in the good old days. There was no need for anti-skate springs then and there was no sneering at the equipment.
What is causing the revival? Well fashion is one thing. Youngster these days are too young remember using turntables. It is all very new to them.
I commented to one of the younger sales assistants that I had ruined a copy of Captain Beefheart's Safe as Milk on a Dansette. She looked at me as if I had just stepped off a space ship from Mars. She had no clue about record players and turntables and was not embarrassed to admit it.
An audiophile would sneer at the kit available and would probably regard the players as toys. There is no facility to adjust tracking weights, vertical tracking angles and spin rates etc. There is nothing to play with to make the records sound better. What are the real toys though?
The audiophile vinyl lover is part of a small group and this group will not drive a revival of analogue music. The growth in LP sales will come from young people who couldn't care less about azimuth adjustments and anti-skate springs and a suspended chassis. They just want to hear good music in as easy manner as possible. They will want to transcribe their LPs to digital too - heaven forbid, and have a USB stage built in. They will also want their decks to be equipped with an equaliser stage - whatever next? This is the future, however, and vinyl purists will not be able to stop it.
I often wonder why anyone would want to constantly twiddle with adjustments to try and get a perfect sound from an LP when the limiting factor is the LP itself. Perhaps, it is some kind of "control freakery". If you want to, you can spend tens of thousands of pounds to buy an almost perfect piece of kit that does not sound much or any better than a two hundred pound turntable made of MDF or acrylic plastic. If you have got a couple of grand to spare then good luck to you but lots of young people haven't even got one thousand to spend on a whole system. So this is the £40 solution - http://vinylrecordplayer.co.uk/gpo-stylo-3-speed-stand-alone-vinyl-record-player/
Quite frankly it does not sound too bad and it would not have stopped The Beatles from selling millions of records had it been around at the time. The only problem will be wear and tear on the records but I have still got some LPs and 45s from the 1960s that are playable.
Don't get me wrong I love listening to LPs even though most of my listening is from CD or other digital sources. From a technical point of view CDs and other digital sources give better sound reproduction and they lack the snap, crackle and pop and frequency changes from wow and flutter. A well recorded classical piece on a CD beats an LP any time.
Sometimes, however, I get a bit nostalgic and I put on a record for old time's sake, and I never cease to be amazed that a very small hard rock or diamond which scrapes against a piece of round plastic can make such a good sound. Some of this amazement has rubbed off onto the young; you don't need 24/192 digital nirvana to hear good sound and you do not need a degree in computing. Records are nice and simple so maybe that is what is so appealing.
The modern players are the 1960s and 1970s Dansette equivalent and they will sound good enough to help the revival of the LP and 45 industry. They will also encourage music lovers of all ages to sit around a player together to enjoy some sociability and share their music again, just like we did when we played our first Beach Boys albums and 45s in the good old days. There was no need for anti-skate springs then and there was no sneering at the equipment.
Friday 23 January 2015
The Beatles like I've never heard them before
I was in my local hi-fi shop last weekend listening to some speakers costing an awful lot of money. They had ribbon tweeters which can reproduce frequencies above 20khz. They sounded so good that I was tempted to reach for my credit card. I resisted temptation.
I then went to my local record store and bought a couple of CDs. The owner was playing some rather nice jazz and his 1990 vintage speakers sounded just as good as the super expensive ones I had just been listening too. I can't hear frequencies much higher than 13 khz so the ribbon tweeters aren't much use for me. The top note on a violin vibrates at about 4.5 khz and a soprano rarely breaches 1.5khz. I think that I saved myself a lot of money; my 1990s speakers still sound very good and have all the frequency range needed, even for a young blood, so there is no need to change them.
The record shop had just started to sell new vinyl LPs and I thumbed through the selection and to my surprise I had a couple of original versions of the newly released 180gm vinyls on sale.
I was chatting away to the owner about his new LP sales which seem to be doing reasonably well when he said that a customer had 'phoned him about the new Beatles mono LPs on 180gm vinyl. The customer had said " it was like listening to the Beatles as he had never heard them before". I wonder where the customer had been all his life.
At home I have got a near mint condition of "With The Beatles" in mono from 1963 and in 160 gm vinyl. I have also bought the latest 180 gm version for comparison. They sound almost identical to me. And so they should as the whole idea of the new pressings was to make them sound as close as possible to the original LPs. I fail to see, therefore, how anyone could claim that the new LPs "are like listening to The Beatles like I have never heard them before".
To me it seems as if expectation bias and the power of suggestion are having an influence on the judgement of the listener. This is not to say that the newly re-mastered LPs are not worth buying as they genuinely sound very good. They are really worth buying if your old Beatles mono albums are worn out and need replacement. Just don't play them on a 1960s mono player as you will ruin them forever just like most of us did back then in the days of yore.
I then went to my local record store and bought a couple of CDs. The owner was playing some rather nice jazz and his 1990 vintage speakers sounded just as good as the super expensive ones I had just been listening too. I can't hear frequencies much higher than 13 khz so the ribbon tweeters aren't much use for me. The top note on a violin vibrates at about 4.5 khz and a soprano rarely breaches 1.5khz. I think that I saved myself a lot of money; my 1990s speakers still sound very good and have all the frequency range needed, even for a young blood, so there is no need to change them.
The record shop had just started to sell new vinyl LPs and I thumbed through the selection and to my surprise I had a couple of original versions of the newly released 180gm vinyls on sale.
I was chatting away to the owner about his new LP sales which seem to be doing reasonably well when he said that a customer had 'phoned him about the new Beatles mono LPs on 180gm vinyl. The customer had said " it was like listening to the Beatles as he had never heard them before". I wonder where the customer had been all his life.
At home I have got a near mint condition of "With The Beatles" in mono from 1963 and in 160 gm vinyl. I have also bought the latest 180 gm version for comparison. They sound almost identical to me. And so they should as the whole idea of the new pressings was to make them sound as close as possible to the original LPs. I fail to see, therefore, how anyone could claim that the new LPs "are like listening to The Beatles like I have never heard them before".
To me it seems as if expectation bias and the power of suggestion are having an influence on the judgement of the listener. This is not to say that the newly re-mastered LPs are not worth buying as they genuinely sound very good. They are really worth buying if your old Beatles mono albums are worn out and need replacement. Just don't play them on a 1960s mono player as you will ruin them forever just like most of us did back then in the days of yore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)