Turntable table comparison

I have just watched a you tube  where an "audiophile" recorded a comparison between a Technics SL1200G turntable and an Audio Technica LP5X  turntable. The Technics set up cost over £3000 compared to the Audio Technica set up which cost less than £600. Listeners where invited to see if they could hear the difference. I could not hear an appreciable difference when Dire Straits "On Every Street" was playing on on both turntables, alternately.  Of course this is not a scientific comparison and no technical data were supplied.  The you  tube video converted the sound from both turntables to compressed digital music files and this could account for the fact that I and many other listeners could not hear a difference. Had we been listening live to the turntables in a side by side comparison the difference might  have been clear, but I doubt it: any differences in perceived sound quality would be very marginal. You are probably hitting the law of diminishing returns, and Audio Technica make very fine turntables at a reasonable price. 

The Technics SL1200 G is a very high quality turntable and it is as good as turntables can get. Why would anyone want to pay thousands much more when perfection of sound and build quality have been achieved by the SL1200G? Perhaps, pride of ownership and bragging rights come into play. 

over the years turntables have improved to the point where good ones have superior resolution and sound quality than the records they are playing. You could be paying thousands of pounds to play a piece of vinyl which is worth at most £30. It is my opinion that the quality of the vinyl LP is the limiting factor for sound quality and that is why it is often very difficult to discern differences in turntable set ups and pre-amps etc.

I have got a CD copy of the Dire Straits "On Every Street " album, and I could notice the quality difference between the two turntables sound reproduction and the CD; to me the CD sounds much better, even when I use the exact same hardware. Possibly this is because the you tube digital audio is lossy.

For some music I have both the CD and Vinyl versions of the album and always the CD sounds better for me. I only play vinyl records for reasons of nostalgia to remind me of the past. Even though a well recorded vinyl LP album sounds fantastic, I prefer the CD version provided that the digital version has been well produced. Nothing will convince me otherwise. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W-G7AQouLE

Audio Technica AT LP140lXP Turntable

 I recently bought a new turntable, the AT LP140lXP, to replace my worthy AT120 USB, I was not expecting a huge improvement in sound quality and I only heard a marginal improvement. Both these turntables attract both love and hate from commentators on "HIFI" forums. I can't see how anyone could love or hate a turntable. 

I could afford to pay a lot more money for a Technics Direct Drive (DD) turntable which is the progenitor of Audio Technics DD models.  So why didn't I splash out? I do not have a big collection of pristine and completely analogue produced LPs. If I did I might have spent a small fortune on a high quality Technics turntable or even a Linn belt drive. Most of my playing is by digital records. I have a number of modern re-mastered LPs but these have all be remastered using digital methods so I nearly always play the digital version unless I feel in the mood for a little bit of analogue nostalgia. The ATLP140xp serves my purpose well, I can play 78rpm shellac recordings, 45 rpm vinyl records and vinyl LPs both old and modern. The direct drive gives me plenty of torque for 78 rpm records and the pitch sliders are useful to play back "78" records that were not recorded at standard speed.

The ATLP140xp runs silently and I can hear no motor noise either from cupping my ear next the platter or when the record is running through the amplifier. I can hear no appreciable hum from the turntable even when the amplifier is turned up to maximum when I am not playing a record. My amplifier produces white noise at high volumes which masks any noise from from the turntable. I hear plenty of noise from the records themselves if I turn up the volume high enough. I do not hear any wow or flutter and a RPM calculator  on my portable 'phone shows that the turntable performs much better than specified. The tone arm does not skip even though I do not use the anti-skate. I have set up my cartridges to 2 grams down force and they show no signs of mis-tracking. I  use both micro line and conical styluses and they both sound wonderful. All in all the turntable provides a stable platform for my needs and I am amazed at how good it sounds even though it cannot match the performance of a well mastered cd. A piano sounds like a piano and a violin sounds like a violin etc. The turntable performs well with all sorts of music especially jazz.  I saw no need to change the "RCA" provided connector cables as they perform so well. So there is not need to spend  a fortune on the doubtful benefits of different cables.

I run the audio signal through a budget pre-amplifier which performs equally as well as the turntable and my all analogue amplifier.

The turntable is really well built with a metal plinth, it is heavy and all the controls work well, there is nothing to complain about. It also looks impressive. A technics deck is much stronger and it is built to finer tolerances and it is admirable, so I am sure owners are proud of this renowned and famous brand. 

However, I can't justify spending hundreds or even thousands more for a machine that will not be used that often. I have reached my full understanding of the law of diminishing returns, so I am not prepared to pay a fortune for almost minuscule improvements. My turntable cost £389, it performs really well. If it lasts as long as the AT 120 USB then I shall be delighted and will have found a real bargain. The AT120 USB has gone to a good home. The AT LP140xp will be looked after well and I shall show a little bit of admiration for it.

WiiM Pro Streamer

 I  bought a WiiM pro streamer a few months ago and it is a mighty fine device for the money. It replaces a Teufel Raumfeld streamer which bit the dust some time ago. It is not just a streamer but it is also a DAC and it has very good connectivity. It will play music via WIFI from my network, from  local files on my my tablet computer and TV set. It has digital optical, analogue line and  digital co-axial electric connectivity. It will stream music directly to my amplifier or to my DAC which is marginally superior to the WIIM Dac. It will not only stream my digital music files but also internet radio and music services from Amazon and Tidal etc. I can even connect the WIIM to the line output from my phono-stage to stream music from an LP but of course it converts LP music from analogue to digital . It also connects  via Bluetooth. The quality of the streamed music is second to none, and the user interface is superb and it maintains its connectivity, ably. All this for about £150!

If you want to pay £350 quid for the more sophisticated Wiim Ultra you get a built in phono-stage which will convert the phono output from a turntable to line level RIAA  output, so no need to buy a separate phono-stage, but of course the LP music will then be digital rather analogue.  Some purist won't like this. 

 I am so impressed with the little device, even though the case is made of plastic, that I no longer play CDs and I am also less enamoured of playing LPs, but so what - digital music sounds better and cleaner than vinyl anyway. This little device is a bargain which can easily compete with DAC and streamer separates which cost hundreds if not thousands more. It is Chinese music technology at its best,try it if you are not already into streaming; you won't be disappointed.  

What do you expect

 I have just installed new speakers to replace my 30 year old transmission line ones. They do sound a little better but by not much of a margin. I wasn't expecting a big improvement but modern technology has improved matters. But as for night and day differences then no. If there is a night and day difference between the sound of your HIFI equipment then one or the components you are testing is not High Fidelity .It is possible that both components being tested are not HIFI too. You can't have your sound quality cake and eat it.

My new speakers are better able to show up differences between the performance of different cartridges and styluses. For instance I have a cartridge with a conical stylus and another cartridge with a micro-line stylus. If you read HIFI magazines then you will be told that micro-line styluses are so much better than conical ones, they are also much more  expensive. I cannot honestly say that the performance of the micro-line stylus is significantly better, and there is certainly not a night and day difference. My new speakers enabled me to hear more detail coming coming from the micro-line stylus especially when playing classical music but not much more. The speakers also reproduced the tiny clicks, that all LPs are plagued with, better. LPs are fun but I much prefer to play CDs of classical music because there are no physical flaws apparent from the medium. 

When using  an LP record player with my old speakers, compared to the new ones, I can hardly tell the difference between one stylus or another if at all. Classical music can be used to test HIFI performance because of the wider dynamic range and variety of instruments. Also you can compare the recorded performance against a live performance , if a recorded violin sounds exactly like a violin in the flesh then you have a good recording and good HIFI equipment. The same could be said for the human voice when listening to opera.

Modern HIFI has probably become as good as it can get. Therefore you can understand why HIFI magazines and Manufactures use so much hyperbole to manipulate your expectation that your  new piece of expensive equipment is so much better than your old one. Let's be honest it can only be marginally better and you may not be able to tell the difference in a double blind test. The same applies to digital sampling rates, as CD 16/44.1 kHz  streams are more than sufficient to playback all music with complete clarity.

I often ask myself why would you want to pay thousands of pounds to play back an LP record which is made of almost worthless plastic that is full of flaws. I can understand why pride of ownership is important and that we can all appreciate top notch engineering, so good luck to anyone who has ten grand in their back pocket to spare - even if the music won't sound very much better.

I have bought new speakers

 I wasn't going to buy new speakers until I heard a deterioration in my existing TDL RTL 2 transmission lines which are now over 30 years old. I was reluctant to change anything. However, I was listening to some opera about two weeks ago and heard some distortion when Mirella Freni sang an aria from La Boheme.

Her voice is very powerful and has a huge dynamic range when she was at full volume then her voice sounded distorted. My old speakers were tired at high volumes. I invested in a pair of Acoustic Energy AE109 Mk2. I hadn't auditioned them but I knew I could send them back if I was not satisfied.

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/7923506--puccini-la-boheme

The speakers cost £600 for the pair. They offered terrific performance for the money from the outset without being "run in". I am not convinced that speakers need to be "run in" for that matter. Anyway, after playing Mirella Freni again the distortion had disappeared when she hit the high notes at high volume. The speakers sounded  noticeably better across the frequency and dynamic range. My wife also noticed that the the diction of the singers was clearer. The speakers were keepers and I was very pleased with them. The old speakers were almost holding their own especially when comparing pop music and jazz, but it was classical music that revealed the differences. I tested the sound reproduction by playing the BBC proms on Radio Three and I noticed the improved sound quality of the new speakers.

At one point when playing Beethoven's 9th symphony at higher than the usual volumes, I though that at some times the bass sounded a bit booming. However, this was more a function of the recording which was apparent when listening through a decent set of headphones.

I also tested LPs against their digital equivalent; I played Chasing The Dragon's Espana LP  which was recorded directly to vinyl without the intervention of a tape or digital recording machine. Essentially, I was listening to a live recording. Rosie Middleton's voice sounded almost perfect, and at at some points it felt as if two mezzo-sopranos were singing, as her voice was that rich. When I compared the LP to the digital recording which was made at the same time I could hardly notice any difference, which is a tribute to how good vinyl can sound if it is produced and recorded well. It is also a tribute to modern turntables and cartridges. However, the LP record reproduced some clicks perfectly. Clicks and static discharges annoy me intensely which is why I rarely buy classic LPs, I prefer the digital purity.  

https://snvinyl.co.uk/Espana

I also compared a remastered vinyl version of Miles Davis Blue Haze to its CD equivalent. Once again I could hardly notice much difference in sound quality, but the LP sounded more "lush" and "thicker "to my ears, some may call this warmer. Obviously, the CD produces better sound quality, and I prefer the accuracy of a well recorded CD, but I can understand why some people think that LPs sound better, as the inherent sound distortion of LP playback introduces extra harmonic features. 

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

All in all replacing the speakers was a good HIFI experience for me and points out that when making comparisons and judgements there are too many variables to consider. One thing is certain; it is the quality of the recording that really matters. A £10,000 set of speakers will not improve a bad recording and won't stop you hearing the annoying clicks and crackles which are always present on vinyl LPs even brand new ones.

Audio Technica ATLP120 USB turntable

 In 2017 I bought the ATLP120USB turntable to play my old 45 rpm singles and to convert some old records, now deleted, to digital files for archiving. I was rather pleased with its performance. After some time I discovered that the turntable was rather good especially as I found a 180 gm remastered vinyl record of the " Turtles  Greatest Hits". I did  some research on the web and discovered  that the turntable was a big talking point on "audiophile" forums. Some people hated the table and traduced it. Others loved it.

The main criticisms were the following:

The built in phono pre-amp was useless and even affected the sound quality when you switched it off. Some enthusiasts ripped out the phono  pre-amp.

The anti-skate spring did not work.

You could hear cogging and other noises from the motor, which intruded into the sound when playing a record.

The wow and flutter, and signal to noise ratio specifications were not up to standard.

The general build quality was not up to the standard of a technics sl12000 mk2.

The plinth is resonant because it is made of ABS plastic and the body of the turntable is a bit hollow so that if you tap the plinth with your knuckle when a record is playing then you hear a thump.

Audio Technica quality control was not good enough.

I got the feeling that if you got a bad example then the criticism was justified. I also got the feeling that many of the complainers had never actually heard a good example of the turntable, and were basing their criticism on prejudice and comparisons of just the technical specifications with much more expensive turntables.

My experience is completely different I must have got a good specimen.

I accept the criticism of the phono pre-amp which I have replaced with an external one. My new pre-amp and existing amplifier and transmission line speakers are very good and make up for déficiences.

My anti-skate spring is weak but it does work but badly. I never use anti- skate as there is so much mumbo jumbo spoken about it. It is next to impossible to find the right setting on any turntable. Anyway, my tone arm, on the ATLP120, has never mis-tracked or skipped and the sound appears from the dead centre of a pair of headphone when playing a mono record. I don't notice any inner groove distortion.  This is a tribute to my particular turntable.

 I can't hear any noise coming from the motor even when I hold my ear up to the platter with cupped hands to amplify any sound. I can't hear any rumbling noises unless I listen with earphones turned well up; then it could just be surface noise from the recording itself.

I don't hear any wow and flutter so the turntable is up to standard. I find that that the signal to noise ratio is as good as most turntables. Audio Technica are probably being conservative with their stated specifications. 

Admittedly the build of the turntable is nowhere near the quality of a Technics and the plinth does sound a bit hollow. However, who the hell raps the plinth with their knuckle when a record is playing to deliberately to make a thumping sound, are they mad? I have sited my turntable on a heavy metal and tempered glass stand this protects it from any vibration of footfall.

Overall the turntable sounds very good it does not sound as good as a Technics SL1200 Mk2 or a £30,000  rig but it comes very close.

I have compared a a well mastered LP to its well mastered digital equivalent on my set up. It is impossible for an LP to sound better than its well mastered digital equivalent. However, in my opinion, if a CD scores 100 for sound quality then the ATLP120 USB scores 96. A Technics 1200 MK2 probably scores 97. Do I want to spend £30,000 to get to 98 or 99; well no.

The ATLP120 USB cost me £250 in 2017 and represents phenomenal value for money. It now has a more modern and improved brother , which you can exchange if you get a duffer. I find it difficult to justify replacing my ATLP120 USB for cost and  sound quality reasons. It may not last forever but neither will I.

Buying new speakers

 In my last blog I talked about buying new speakers. After auditioning some alternatives, I have decided not to. The candidate speakers did not sound any better than my existing ones. One of my existing speakers shows some  slight peeling at the circumference. It is hardly noticeable by sight. The speaker still performs just a well as its twin. I like the speakers so much that I really don't want to part with them. I shall keep them until there is a noticeable deterioration in sound quality. 

All this goes to show that speaker technology has not progressed too much in the last 30 years, and it is my view that since the advent of CD technology, the quality of sound reproduction has not improved much in general. Most of the hyperbole attached to 'HD' sound reproduction is just hot air.

Buying New Speakers

 Soon I shall have to buy new speakers as my 35year old Transmission transducers are beginning to fade away . One of the speakers is in the process of slowly disintegrating, as the rubber is stating to peel away. I can't notice any deterioration in sound quality but soon the inevitable will happen. When I get my new speakers I am not expecting to hear much improvement in sound quality no matter how much I pay, unless I get something really cheap. One thing I won't be making any judgement for a new transducer on the opinions of hysterical HIFI magazine and Forum writers. Most of what they say is tosh and often it makes me laugh. I shall stick with renowned manufacturers. I shall also audit the speakers myself and if they do not meet my expectations then the speakers will go back to the retailer. I am not interested in reading about the pace, fast or slow of a HIFI product, it won't be sited on a running track or whether the speaker veils the music whatever that means. I am not interested in subjective opinions and marketing hyperbole. I couldn't careless whether or not a speaker can reproduce frequencies above the generally accepted sound limit of about 20 KHZ, which only the young can hear. Sounds, above 20KHZ,  which  my very young    ears could once hear were uncomfortably shrill and not at all musical.

I am not prepared to spend thousands of pounds on speakers that hardly perform better than than transducers that cost much less. The major manufacturers cracked the problem of producing acceptable sound for acceptable cost a long time ago in the 90's

Of course, you can spend a fortune on a pair of speakers from an independent manufacture which will sound glorious, and good luck to if you want the pride of ownership of a wonderful product. Sound engineers also deserve their jobs when the push the boundaries to find improvements for us all. I have a second sound system which uses much more modern speakers; they do sound a little better than my 35 year old transmission lines, but I will regret having to make changes.

More HIFI myths - running in

 I can't for the life of me see how running in electronic HIFI equipment can improve the sound. HIFI magazines often suggest that you should run in speakers etc. for hours or even days before you hear an improvement in sound. What are they talking about? You go to a HIFI shop and listen to some speakers that you want to buy, possibly  these speakers have been used for weeks. You decide to buy a set of new ones and get them home and after initially hearing them they sound different: what do you do, send them back or do you keep them hoping they will sound better after weeks of use? Retailers suggest that you run in HIFI equipment hoping that you will get used to the sound, after a few months, to encourage you to keep the equipment. This saves them money and time and effort. HIFI magazines have fallen for this one.

All this is nonsense, I have never heard an improvement in the sound quality of new HIFI equipment  after several months of use. All this with the exception of a turntable motor, I could swear that my turntable's motor was quieter after several months of use, even though I could scarcely hear it running initially  with my ear to the table. I did not hear an improvement in sound quality  after several months or was I fooling myself?

Other audio myths and annoyances

It  is time to expose some other audio myths , from my point of view.

Digital filters

My CD player, come DAC, is a good one. It has several digital filters: optimum, transient etc. I tried all the filters and could not hear any difference. I wonder what they are there for other than to look good. If you read audio forums about this, then you will see people going on about the pros and cons of digital filters; which to me seems like a waste of time.

Tone controls on the amplifier

My current amplifier does not have tone controls, some audiophiles claim that they create noise and are not necessary. But in some circumstances I miss them. Sometimes I play the audio of film DVDs through my HIFI system. One night I played the film "Gravity", the sound effects were too strong for bass, so much so that I felt uncomfortable and so did my wife. However, without tone controls I had to revert to my TV speakers to reduce the bass. Even, though I have no tone controls on my amplifier, I do not feel the need to buy a graphic equaliser. Do not believe for one minute that tone controls introduce audible electronic noise into  an amplifier circuitry, as I have never heard it on my previous amplifiers that always had tone controls. Modern amplifiers are good a filtering out all all sorts of noise such as mains hum, tone control hum etc. there is no need for HIFI magazines and HIFI  forum enthusiasts to go on about this.

Digital Jitter

Jitter is caused by errors in digital playback and recording, which cause timing errors and distortion of the music. Modern technology  overcomes this. I have never heard this in any of the digital equipment I use, cheap or expensive. I never hear jitter from my television. There is no need to buy super expensive equipment to eliminate jitter which you can't hear.

 The tactic is to suggest that jitter is a real problem for you, but here is an expensive way of fixing it. The cosmetic industry uses this tactic for wrinkles. Make up can cover wrinkles but it cannot eliminate them, everyone gets old eventually including audiophiles.

Anti-skate

Anti-skate is a condition of  vinyl-record playback where the stylus and cartridge have a tendency to skate across  the record towards the turntable spindle. If you look at You tube you will see plenty of demonstrations of this using blank LP records or CDs. There will also be lots of gobbledegook and pseudoscience.

According to some audiophiles anti-skate needs to set up using, little weights or springs attached to  tone arms. The weights etc. counteract the skating effect which drives the stylus towards the inside of the record. Audiophiles claim that skating forces cause mis-tracking, extra distortion, uneven channel sound reproduction, extra wear on the stylus and damage to the vinyl. I don't use anti-skating and I have never heard extra distortion or unbalanced channel separation. All vinyl records have built in distortion. Only once in recent times has my stylus jumped out of the groove, but this was caused by static electricity attracting a lot of fluff from the atmosphere. The record played effectively after the removal of the dust and fluff.

I always thought that to play an LP record the stylus had to freely move towards the spindle of the turntable so why try prevent this from happening with counteracting forces.

If you  have problems with stylus wear and vinyl record wear then there is a solution, and that is to buy a digital version of the music. Most digital records other than pop music do not suffer from the loudness war. You could then reserve your vinyl records for playing on special occasions. The same applies to distortion as  a well recorded CD won't have any. 

I have records from the early 60's and 70's which still play well even though they have been played umpteen times without anti-skating. Anti-skating became a fad in the mid-seventies, but some tone arm  and turntable manufacturers still do not make provision for anti-skating, and their turntables and tone arms work perfectly well.

If you insist  that  vinyl playing is de rigueur then you have to accept that the whole system is flawed. There is no perfect deck set up and no perfect LP. I love playing LP records but I accept their limitations and I would never make the false claim that vinyl record music reproduction is superior to a well recorded CD or lossless digital download.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk6ZMGI3LRA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slgy5UB198Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grahWS5L5rE

Audio Myths and "Audiophoolery"

 Buyer Beware or Caveat Emptor; if you haven't got £30,000 in your back pocket, so as not to worry about how much you pay for HIFI gear, then think carefully before you spend your cash. It always pays to be sceptical , rather than cynical, about anything that anyone says about stereo HIFI, including me. It also pays to not let emotion get in the way of reasoned judgement. It  pays to ask yourself the question; can a claim about HIFI performance be true?  Are the claims, made in HIFI magazines, true about the performance of the HIFI equipment that they review?  Do HIFI magazines do A/B/X listening tests based on randomised  double blind testing procedures? If you are new to HIFI  it is best to consider this.  Many things written in HIFI magazines and forums are based on gobbledegook, false  reasoning, prejudice and mis-represntation and, perhaps lies. It is up to you whether you believe me or not.

 Vinyl records sound better than digitally produced recordings.

Yes, vinyl can sound better if you compare a  well produced vinyl LP record to a poorly produced CD or lossless digital music file. I have a small number of well produced jazz, folk and classical music LP records which sound really good. However, for most of these records, I have also bought a well produced equivalent CD or equivalent digital download. The digital records sound better to my ears.  There a good reasons for  this, because I have never heard an LP or 45 rpm vinyl record which does not have a crackle or a pop. This crackling or popping is ok for popular music and for most jazz records as the music masks the record's faults. For classical music or acoustic folk music the crackles and pops are a no-no for me because I can't stand the noise. As far as I am concerned, if unwanted noise intrudes into the musical performance then I am not listening to HIFI. 

It has been proven over and over again that the method of producing vinyl records introduces un-intentional harmonic distortion which cannot be avoided. A vinyl record cannot produce a completely accurate representation of the frequencies of the original master recording. Forget about "inner grove distortion" the  whole grove is distorted. Some people find the distortion pleasant and, so do I sometimes, but not for classical music.

If you read HIFI forums you will see countless and continuing arguments about which sounds better vinyl LP or CD, some times these arguments get nasty and insulting. If you like listening to vinyl LP records then good for you: I enjoy them too. However, I do not claim that vinyl always sounds better, and it will sound better as long as you have good ears and expensive equipment. All I know is that if I buy a well produced  classical or folk music CD then I am never tempted to buy the LP afterwards. However, I am often disappointed with an LP's  sound, so I buy the equivalent CD. CD sound reproduction is not plagued by inbuilt rumble, inbuilt wow and flutter  and harmonic distortion: enough said.

Equipment Stands

If you have spent £30,000 on a turntable, a CD player and an amplifier, then you are going to want to mount this equipment on a really good looking equipment stand, that stands to reason. You don't need to read gobbledegook about equipment stands in a HIFI magazine. A £15,000 stand will be no better at "attenuating vibrational energy" than a much cheaper one. I use a stand to separate components and  most of all to support my 10 kilogram turntable from footfall and knocks etc. My stand is made of solid glass and metal and protects the turntable very well, and it only cost a couple of hundred pounds. When I was a student with hardly any money I would stack, tuners and amplifiers etc. on top of one another, as did all of my friends, and we never heard vibrational or electrical energy affect the music. Back in those days components were encased in metal which acted as a Faraday cage to eliminate electrical interference.

I would think carefully about what is said about expensive equipment stands on HIFI forums and HIFI magazines.

Very expensive interconnect and speaker cables

I have been caught out by this one; years ago  I replaced all my HIFI equipment with a new CD player , amplifier, analogue tuner and speakers. The salesman suggested  that because digital music had so much higher resolution, that I should use a "higher quality" interconnect cable for the CD player than for the tuner. I fell for it. I connected all my new equipment up at home, and I was mightily satisfied that I was hearing genuine HIFI at a cost effective price. A year later I had to move my HIFI equipment and discovered that I had connected the "high quality " cable to the tuner instead of the CD player. I did some sound tests where I swapped the "high quality " and "lower quality" cables around but I could hear no difference. I had been bamboozled by HIFI gobbledegook and magical thinking: silly me. 

I once read an article in a HIFI magazine which compared two electric interconnect cables from the same specialist company, the "lower quality" one cost about £1500  and the "higher quality" one cost about "£2000".The reviewer  suggested that the £1500 cable had "tighter bass" and improved "transients" etc. whatever that means. The £1500 cable brought the listener to HIFI nirvana, What about the £2000 interconnect, did it bring the listener to nirvana plus 1?  What they were saying was  complete tosh. With regard to expensive cables no HIFI magazine ever presents evidence for such claims  or publishes the results of double blind listening tests. I'd like to think that HIFI journalists are not being disingenuous but are they going to report than exotic cables make no difference, when they need advertising revenue?

Similar reasoning applies to speaker cables, USB, power and HDMI cables etc. Good quality reasonably priced cables do a wonderful job, so there is no need to go overboard.

Below: there is  some truth in what this "audiophile" gent is saying and I feel that he genuinely believes cables make a difference, but he supplies no proof other than his subjective opinion. Buyer beware don't get caught out like I was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzdavoA8c8E

Night and Day Differences in sound quality

I am reading this statement all the time in magazines, HIFI forums and Amazon reviews. What does a "night and day" difference in sound quality mean? It means precious little. Does "night" mean that you hear nothing at all? Does "day" mean that you are hearing sonic perfection?

I have been listening to stereo music from LP records, CD and streaming players and tapes for years and I have never heard a substantial difference in sound quality, unless the equipment was damaged or faulty or a vinyl record was really scratched and badly pressed. When I was young my neighbours had an acoustic 78 rpm record player, there was no electronic amplifier and you wound up a spring which drove the turntable. If you played a well kept classical record you could recognise, the violins, clarinets and cellos etc. Of course modern record players are much better but the difference in sound quality is not a "night and day" difference.

Recently, I bought a new CD player and amplifier, but I could not hear any difference in sound quality to the old ones. The equipment cost much more, but rather than sonic improvement I had bought an improvement in connectivity to use optical connexions etc. I had not wasted  my money.

I have also bought upgraded cartridges to hear better sound from my turntable, I could hear only subtle changes to the sound quality. I could have been fooling myself,  as I had not subjected myself to double blind testing; so I could have wasted my money. The power of suggestion and wanting to believe is so strong that most of us fall for it, and open up our wallets.

A bit of honesty helps

It is worth reading this Audioholics article about how easily some audiophiles and HIFI journalists can get caught out badly.

https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/mobile-fidelity-scandal

Mobile Fidelity, or MoFI, is a highly reputed producer of LP records which were sourced from analogue tapes, and produced using an entirely analogue "one step" simplified process. Many audiophiles and HIFI journalists praised their all analogue approach. Such was their belief in  MoFI vinyl LP records, that they started to traduce digital recording techniques by saying that analogue music reproduction is inherently superior to digital reproduction. This is clearly not true.

Last year it was revealed, by accident, that  60% of MoFI records had a digital production stage which was used to make some of their records or mix them. A lot of audiophiles were unknowingly listening to digital sound reproduction rather wholely analogue sound. Some of these "audio experts" were devastated by these revelations and sued the company for mis-representation.

 Mobile Fidelity defended themselves by saying that some recording companies are unwilling to release their original analogue tapes to companies such as MoFI for fear of them being damaged, because they are now so old. Also, they claim, quite rightly, that digitally archived analogue tapes are transparent and can be used to produce the highest quality LPs. They also claimed that they never specifically stated that there was no digital involvement in their LP production. Nevertheless they had to make  a legal settlement to compensate upset audiophiles. Mobile Fidelity now publish the production techniques used for all their records. 

 I have some sympathy with MoFI, as I have a modern classical-music LP which was obviously recorded digitally. It sounds fantastic and almost as good, to my ears, as its digital equivalent except for the crackles and pops. Virtually all modern LPs are produced from digital recordings because they sound better. Surely, we all want better sound reproduction.

The moral of the story is do not make false claims. Even with golden ears and very sophisticated and  expensive HIFI equipment analogue purists could not  recognise a digital recording when they heard one. They only believed that analogue recordings were better from prejudice rather than evidence.

Conclusion

I suppose this sums it all up. I have a stabiliser weight made of brass and rubber which I use sometimes when I play an old LP record which is slightly warped. It goes over the turntable spindle. I never use it on records that are not warped because I can't hear any difference. Some audiophiles claim that a stabiliser makes a "night and day" difference to the sound quality of all records. My stabiliser  looks and feels great but I am not sure it makes a difference even when playing old warped LPs. It cost £45 but I could have spent £200 for the same thing but I don't have 30 grand in my back pocket.

No Need To Pay Too Much For A Turntable

 In 2017 I stopped writing about HIFI on this Blog, mainly because I had run out of things to say, since then the vinyl revival has started and I have bought a few modern albums some of which were re-masters of 50's and 60's jazz records. I  play them on my modest turntable set up which cost me about £500 complete with a decent cartridge and a half decent phono stage.

It's my view that a vinyl record, that fully exploits the analogue medium, can approach the sound quality of an equivalent cd record, that fully exploits the digital medium; but that it cannot equal or exceed it. All music recording cannot give you 100% High Fidelity, thus all recording techniques degrade the sound if only by a small percentage, but analogue recordings using vinyl technology degrade the sound more than CD digital recording. 

Many re-mastered recordings are produced by digital techniques so, most of the time, when you buy a vinyl record you are not purely hearing an analogue recording that does not have some digital involvement. All modern recorded music is now produced from digital recordings, so really no-one can claim that modern vinyl recordings are technically and sonically better  than CD's or lossless digital recorded files. If the CD music sounds worse than your turntable through the same amplifier and speakers then there is some radically wrong with your digital player, or the CD was originally recorded  badly.   It does not bother me if a modern LP has been produced from a digital recording as long as it sounds good. But, if an LP has been digitally re-mastered , why bother buying it  when the CD will sound better? There is a case for digitally re-mastering significant past recordings which can then be archived for posterity. I have written about this before. 

Recently, I went into a record shop, "The Core of the Poodle" in Haverfordwest which opened as part of the vinyl revival  and met a vinyl enthusiast owner  who had an encyclopaedical knowledge of jazz. He could also sell you a second hand turn table to play the records on . I bought a Blue Note recording of Donald Byrd "Live at The Half Note Café" recorded in 1960 in Manhattan. The vinyl LP is a re-issue which has been mastered from the original tape by analogue methods: it's the real McCoy.  This record sounds fantastic; with very little surface noise, distortion or wow and flutter when played on my equipment. To me it sounds almost as good as the digital file of the same re-issue that I downloaded from the web.

To sound so good a turntable must do the following:

Support the accurate tracking of the cartridge and stylus in the record groove,

Minimize vibrations within the turntable from its mechanics,

Minimize the vibrations from the external  environment from footfall ,knocks to the supporting platform and the turntable itself,

Minimize wow and flutter effects from speed variations of the rotating platter,

Run the platter as close as possible to 33 1/3 rpm for LPs and 45 rpm for single and EP records,

Minimize the electronic influence of  the mains supply and other electronic circuits,

Reduce the sound of the motor running, and heard as rumble,

Protect the cartridge from acoustic feedback,

My turntable does all of this without having to spend thousands of pounds.

If you do not look after your records then then they will eventually sound awful. If you play your record too loud the music could suffer from acoustic feedback.

My record sounded perfect because my turntable is able to perform almost perfectly and I have set it up properly. 

After listening to this record I came to the conclusion that the production of the record is probably the chief limiting factor in the sound reproduction chain, as long as you have good quality amplifiers and speakers. 

Unfortunately many LP records come with built in faults, including wow and flutter, noise from the cutting lathe and in built noise from the cutting lathe. The record maybe warped and even scratched before you get to play it. None of these faults are apparent with digital music files. CDs usually will only sound bad if they have not been recorded properly or they have been subjected to sonic compression too make them sound louder -which reduces their dynamic range: analogue recordings can suffer from this too.

A supersensitive turntable which costs £1000s could actually make a LP sound worse as every click and pop can be amplified to make a less then perfect vinyl LP sound bad. I have actually heard this happening when a work colleague demonstrated his very expensive kit to me.

Over the years I have used all sorts of turntables, some with idler drives in the early 1960s and 1970s and latterly belt drives and direct drives; and I aver that £500 will buy you a turntable, along with a good cartridge and phono stage that can play almost perfect vinyl LPs  to sound fantastic. Believe you me, you do not need to spend £10,000 on a turntable to hear fantastic music.

However, good luck to you if you can afford 15,000 bucks to buy an electromechanical wonder that gets you a very little closer to perceived perfection.

 

Long Playing records of the Lost recordings from Devialet and Fondamenta

There has been a fair bit of conversation, lately, in the HIFI press and on HIFI blogs and forums about the lost recordings. These recordings from the 1960s and 1970s have been restored using sophisticated  analogue and digital techniques. I bought the digital versions of the Sarah Vaughan, Dave Brubeck, Oscar Peterson and Bill Evans Trio albums - all about 17 Eur a piece. The Bill Evans digital recording was only available as a download from Fondamenta.

All of these artists are simply great and the recordings are reproduced at a very high quality. Fondamenta are to be congratulated for tracing these lost recordings and restoring them; but Resonance Records and Pristine Classic are doing a similar job with similar results.

Why did I decide not to buy the limited edition LPs distributed by Devialet? The LPs were transcribed from 24 bit/176.4 KHz digital masters which originated from the restored analogue tapes.  From a technical point of view, the LP format sound quality cannot exceed that of the digital master tapes. Therefore, I am not missing out, as far as high fidelity is concerned, provided that I use a good quality DAC.

More to the point, however, why would I want to open my wallet to spend £80 on the Bill Evans Trio “Live at Hilversum” LP, when I could have bought the Resonance Records LP, “Another Time”, which was mastered from the very same lost recordings, but for just £19? Perhaps, the price difference is accounted for by the cost of promotion which involves Devialet hiring the Royal Albert Hall and other prestigious locations to play and sell the analogue nitrocellulose “acetates” to an admiring audience. By buying digital I am saving lots and lots of money.

So, what about the nitrocellulose lacquer “acetates”? Some of the younger contributors to the audio forums are making accusations that these are the playthings of wealthy middle-aged audiophiles, who have got nothing better to do with their money.  In some sense they are right; the “acetates” are used in the LP making process to produce the vinyl that enthusiasts really want to listen to. Selling the “acetates” is therefore a bit of a gimmick. If I were to go off my head and spend £6,300 on the set of “acetates” of the Sarah Vaughan “Live at the Laren” performance then I would do so for investment purposes only. And, I would not play the record only to destroy it immediately unless a surfeit of Bollinger got the better of me.

The possession of the “acetates” has been likened to an investment in fine wine: but not so. The nitrocellulose starts to deteriorate in quality immediately. The “acetate” can only be played once or twice before the sound medium is destroyed. Forget about it, unless pride of ownership gets the better of you.

Fine wine from Bordeaux will improve with age and its investment value will no doubt increase. £6,300 will buy you a case of 2009 Chateau Gruaud Larose, with some spare change to spend on lots of records. But, if the bottom falls out of the wine market you still have 12 bottles of great wine to drink with a good meal and some good friends, who like listening to an Oscar Peterson lost recording, of course, but from a digital file.

https://www.devialet.com/en-gb/the-lost-recordings 

https://musique.fnac.com/a10446459/Sarah-Vaughan-Live-at-Laren-Jazz-Festival-1975-Digipack-Inclus-un-livret-de-16-pages-CD-album

Hi-Fi is mostly about your ears and perception

Last week I was walking across a field in France with my wife and her sister and cousins. The five of us are all older than 50 and my ears are now 66. As we walked across the field we noticed that it was full of grasshoppers of all sorts of species. I asked my wife if she could hear them, '"just about" she said. My sister-in-law said that she could hear them everywhere. My wife's cousins could not hear the grasshoppers either. Even when I cupped my hands over my ears I could not for the life of me hear a grasshopper.

Grasshoppers stridulate at 10 KHz or above. The older members of our group therefore had problems hearing high frequencies.

Later on we did a very non-scientific test of our hearing by downloading some test frequencies. My wife's sister could easily hear a 12 KHz tone. The rest of us had problems though but my wife's younger nephew could hear above 15 KHz.

When I returned to London I tested myself again in the quite of my office. Through headphones I could easily hear a 8 KHz tone; but I had to turn up the volume to hear 10 KHz and 12 KHz  tones. I could not hear a 14 KHz tone even with the volume turned up full.

You may well ask "what has this got to do with Hi-Fi?". Well the generally accepted range of hearing for frequency in humans is 20 Hz to 20 KHz. This range is for younger people only; for as we get older our ability to hear the higher frequencies diminishes. Luckily, I can still hear the difference between a clarinet and an oboe when listening to an orchestra live. This is because I can still hear the principle harmonics of both the oboe and the clarinet as  they are lower than the 8KHz limit that I am still able to hear clearly. A CD can reproduce sound between 20KHz and 22 KHz . The upper limit is far beyond the hearing capacity of most people even children. An LP record really starts to tail off its frequency response at 15 KHz; but its upper frequency response is still above what most people in their 40s and over can hear easily.

You may ask yourself why older audiophiles are prepared to pay big sums of money for moving coil cartridges that can reproduce frequencies well above the limit for human hearing. You may ask why some older audiophiles insist that they can hear differences between CD quality music files and "HIRES" music files when all other parameters are equal. A 24/96 "HIRES" music file can reproduce a tone of 48 KHz!

Why do we need DACS, speakers and amplifiers that are capable of reproducing frequencies that no-one can hear? We would not produce a television system that could broadcast UV light as it would be a complete waste of resources, so why do it with Hi-Fi? Some Hi-Fi enthusiasts are being confused by a numbers game.

You may well ask why older Hi-Fi journalists have somehow defeated the ravages of time so that they can really distinguish between PCM, DSD and MQA.  And why they don't need to turn up the volume to listen to the grasshoppers just like the rest of us old ones.

Downloading "HIRES" files - what a drag

The other day I bought some jazz music on the internet which was not available on CD. I made the mistake of downloading the 24/176.4 "Hi-Res" file rather than the 16/44.1 version. Once I had realised my mistake, I had already paid 12 EUR.  I knew that my 4 year old main Hi-Fi CD, come external DAC, player could only play up to 24/96 music files. I let the download run on though.

The download was slow enough for me to water a medium sized garden and make a cup of tea with time to spare.

VLC on my computer could play the zipped files but my secondary music player which can play 24/176.4 files would not respond. I therefore had to unzip the files and it was time to make another cup of tea and read the paper.

The unzipped files would now play on my secondary music player but what about the player in the car? It would only play 16/44.1 files. And what about my main Hi-Fi?

I decided to convert the files to 16/44.1. I then compared the CD quality files to the "Hi-Res" originals. I could hear no difference, and no one has come forward to prove that they can hear the difference as part of a peer reviewed double blind test either. It was ,therefore, unnecessary to  down sample the files again, this time to 24/88.2, to play on my main Hi-Fi as 16/44.1 would do the trick.

To keep things simple I have stored this music on my hard drives in 16/44.1 format for all playback.

The  original downloads have now been backed up twice.

My conclusion is that it is better to buy music in 16/44.1 format when downloading. The files are much easier to handle and store and can be played on all music streamers and computers etc. You can make your own CD easily as well.

I have just bought some music from "Pristine Classic" on the internet but on a CD. A company like "Pristine Classic"is unlikely to mess around with loudness equalisation, so that you can be sure that the music will not be compressed like a Meatloaf album. "Pristine Classic" also provide an MP3 download for playing the music on a space restricted smartphone. It is all very simple and you are ready to go straight away.

There really is not much need for "Hi-Res" downloads even for classical music and for most pop music you might as well buy a 256 kbps MP3 download.

Raumfeld Connector Two

It was not my intention to write about Hi-Fi equipment but I could not resist writing about the Raumfeld Connector Two. It was a Christmas present and it replaces the laptop computer which I was using to stream internet radio via my WiFi  router. The laptop also played all my ripped music from a hard drive.

The Raumfeld Connector Two was easy to set up, from an Android app which controls the device, once I figured out that it does not accept a WEP key but rather a WPA2 key. Using  WPA2 meant that I had to reset all the other devices which were using my router, of which there are many.

The box itself is small and can be easily hidden. It is simple to use, it can read digital music files stored on a NAS drive by WiFi or via an ethernet cable. It reads and plays back all the major music file types including WAV, MP3 and FLAC. It also handles "HIRES". It will also read music files from a USB hard drive directly attached to the device. I have all my music stored on a portable 1TB HDD and it catalogues this drive quickly and reads it easily.

The device has its own built in DAC and analogue line outputs; these work very well when linked to my amplifier.

In my case, I use the digital optical output to connect to my external ESS Sabre DAC. The technical quality of the music played from a FLAC or WAV file,in this way, is second to none.

The Connector Two even accepts line analogue inputs and converts them to digital. The Connector Two can be used as part of a multi-room system to broadcast the music via your WiFi to Raumfeld active speakers rather like a Sonos or a Yamaha Multicast  system. Technically, it it would be possible to broadcast an LP around the house via the digital connection. I have  not tried this as I use the Connector Two in a stand alone mode.


The Raumfeld Connector also has built in internet radio and Spotify; all controlled from an Android or  an Iphone app.

I have a Yamaha Music cast system in another room. This system recognises the Raumfeld Connector as a server attached to the WiFi router and will playback music from the attached USB hard drive. The Raumfeld Connector Two is therefore acting like NAS drive.

This is a versatile and brilliant piece of equipment which can replace a laptop for streaming music. All this for about £140 and available directly from Teufel in Germany. I recommend it.

https://www.teufelaudio.co.uk/raumfeld-audio-streaming/raumfeld-connector-p9527.html

Turn the volume up

I recently bought a new whizz bang HD TV and decided to connect it up to my Hi-Fi system to hear the sound better. Also, I had had the Blu-ray player connected up to my amplifier using RCA analogue cables.  I had the idea to simplify matters by using the TV as a communication hub to pass through the digital signals from the various boxes to my CD player using a Toslink cable. The trouble is my Hi-Fi is situated rather a long way from the TV and the Blu-ray player. I could not get a reliable digital signal from my TV to the CD player. In the end, I solved the problem by connecting a short Toslink cable from my TV to a USB DAC/amplifier and running analogue RCA cables directly to my amplifier. In this way I could hear BBC 3 Radio from a terrestrial source being reproduced fairly well. My wife could also hear continental channels from a satellite source in almost Hi-Fi quality as well. Radio over the TV is broadcast in MP3 at 192 kbps.

For my Blu-ray player, I wanted  better performance for playing opera films etc. I ended up connecting up the player directly to my CD DAC using a 5m Toslink cable - this worked perfectly.

I did lots of tests of the sound quality by playing CD quality and 256  Kbps MP3 music files through the various DACs and amplifiers. I concluded that modern DACs and Amplifiers seemed to sound the same - to my ears anyway. I also concluded that if I was to take a double blind test to distinguish between 256 kbps MP3 and CD then I would probably fail to determine which was which other than by chance. To me a big difference between the quality of the sound from various sources could only be perceived when the volume changed. This is a well known phenomenon. I get the feeling that many people including journalists from Hi-Fi magazines can easily get fooled by the Fletcher-Munson curve. The volume of  a sound affects the frequency response of the ears.  You could easily be fooled into believing that one cable sounds better than another  etc. if you do not do your listening tests at equalised volumes.

http://ehomerecordingstudio.com/fletcher-munson-curve/


After all the playing around with digital cables etc. I got a pleasant surprise; a friend of mine gave me some Beatles Mono LPs which were bought soon after they were released in the sixties. We had some friends around for lunch and compared them to the newly re-mastered Beatles mono albums. All of the old records were in very good condition and they sounded almost exactly the same as their modern equivalents. There was no arguing or Hi-Fi hype or snobbishness: we all immediately came to the same conclusion without discussion. I did, however, have to adjust the volume as some of the modern re-masters seemed quieter. The good old Fletcher-Munson curve came into play again, but none of us was fooled that new or old sounded better.

HIFI tripe

There is lots of noise in the HIFI press about the revival of LP records and some extraordinary claims which defy scientific evidence and logic.

For some reason HIFI journalists seem to be going over the top when making subjective assessments of the performance of turntables.

Many journalists make reference to timing issues. If the speed of the turntable varies too much you can often hear changes to the pitch of instruments as a result of wow and flutter. If your turntable's speed varies too much then instruments such as the clarinet and piano can be heard to vary their pitch.

The best turntables maintain their speed with sufficient accuracy to ensure that you cannot hear wow and flutter affecting the pitch of an instrument. A mis-placed spindle hole in the actual LP itself can also cause wow and flutter and a mechanical solution to this problem is difficult and expensive.

HIFI magazines of course measure wow and flutter and make comparisons - all well and good. In general most modern turntables keep wow and flutter under control and generally the more expensive tables do a better job than the cheaper ones. However, if you do not set up your turntable with some precision you can suffer from wow and flutter no matter how much money you have paid. Even using greasy fingers on a turntable belt could cause speed variations.

I don't have too much problem with HIFI journalists making comments on wow and flutter from subjective point of view as long as they are balanced by evidence and objectivity.

I do have a problem when HIFI journalists compare turntables with their ability to reproduce the sequence in which notes are played. The wave form of a piece of music is embedded within the grove of an LP record. The only way that the sequence of notes could be varied would be to cut into the vinyl and make splices just as you could do with a cassette tape. This is really not possible. It would be possible to alter the sequence of notes electronically but this defeats the the point of HIFI reproduction. HIFI journalists are talking tripe with reference to this.

Many HIFI journalists also seem to be looking at LP sound reproduction through rose coloured glasses probably just because it is an analogue system which they claim to have almost infinite resolution. There is no doubt that you could create an analogue recording system with near infinite resolution. But, not with systems using lathe cutters to produce LP masters and stamping machines to produce the final product. The whole system of LP production is riddled with errors. A turntable and cartridge using a diamond stylus cannot improve upon those errors. To achieve error free transcription we are talking about using non-frictional transcription devices which store the wave form on a storage device to be read by a non-frictional means. Such a system would would probably involve lasers. This type of analogue system would be very expensive and would hardly improve upon digital recording methods such as CD or "HiRes" digital files. Would we be able to hear the difference anyway? Once again HIFI journalists are talking tripe when they claim that LP has a greater potential for HIFI reproduction than well implemented digital sound recording and sound reproduction.

It really is time for HIFI journalists to become more objective and professional in their judgements.

Record Store Day

A couple a Saturdays ago I popped down to my local record shop to hear some music and browse through the racks of LPs which were loaded with mainly pop and rock music. There were some blues and jazz records available. I was not tempted to buy anything as I got the impression that the record labels were cashing in.

Yes, it is nice to hold a record cover in your hand and feel the weight of the vinyl and quite often the covert art is spectacular. However, it is the quality of the music that matters both artistically and technically. The music enthusiast has little control over the artistic content except by not buying a disliked artist.

However, from a technical viewpoint the music lover has a really broad choice. Most of the LPs will be available on CD or "on-line" sources. A well mastered CD will always sound better than its LP equivalent. The arguments about dynamic range hardly hold water. Most rock and pop music is recorded and mastered with very little dynamic range compared to orchestral works. Of course there are exceptions such as the Pink Floyd. The Beatles used compressed dynamic range to artistic effect.

You really are better off playing a CD if you you want to hear High Fidelity sound reproduction of any genre of music. The sound reproduction equipment needs to be good however.  A good set up should not cost you an arm and a leg. A thousand pounds should be able to buy a good CD player, Amplifier and Speakers - modern technology works wonders.

CD s are not plagued by pops, clicks, hisses and rumble or wow and flutter. They reproduce the music as it was recorded on the master tape. I never listen to classical music or acoustic folk on an LP.

You may well ask why bother buying and listening to an LP. I do it for a bit of fun playing a Beatles record on a turntable brings me back to my teens. If I want to hear the Beatles in their full glory then I play the modern digitally remastered versions.

Many of the new converts to vinyl agree with me, as 48% of people who buy LPs don't play them. They just look at the cover whilst playing the digital version by you tube or digital downloads. Some people pin the LP to a wall and gaze at it whilst playing the music from digital sources. 7% of LP buyers do not have a a record player at all!

I appeal to all those who love music to actually play their LPs; a turntable is not that difficult to set up and you can buy a decent one for around two hundred and fifty quid. Some turntables have the necessary pre-amp built in. Many modern amplifiers also make provision for pre-amplification. There is nothing to be frightened of when you play an LP. You just have to be careful when dropping the needle and don't play your LPs at a party. There is a slight difference in sound to the CD or MP3 equivalent because the LP itself adds a little harmonic distortion which changes the quality of the sound. If I were to be pedantic then I would consider LPs not to be High Fidelity or " High Definition"- but it is probably best not to continue with this line of reasoning.

Audio cassettes are making a comeback; I have got three players but I only use the one in my older car. I cannot bring myself to use an MP3 player with an adapter. Other than in the car I see audio-cassettes as being a pain in the neck. I have digitised any recordings  that I cannot source on CD. I have often bought audio cassettes that have survived only three or four replays. However I have got one cassette that is nearly thirty years old and it is indestructible - it is all very random. Some artists are releasing new material on this medium.

Amongst all the LPs on Record Store day I saw a young man fingering the one lonely cassette on display. He was probably debating with himself whether to buy it or not. The music was also available on LP. I was tempted to say to him not to bother but that would have been unfair on the record shop. There are no such limitations on this blog.

Will the new desire to buy LPs and audio cassettes be a long term phenomenon? The statistics point to an "analogue" revival that will be just a short term fashion. Only time will tell; but one thing is certain digital music sound is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

MQA new kid on the block

I shall not be rushing to audition Meridian's MQA sytem even though there is now a lot of interest in this new method of encoding digital music files.

https://www.meridian-audio.com/news-events/meridian-audio-launches-mqa-master-quality-authenticated/


We now have "temporal blurring of transients" to deal with in our calculations. MQA is based on some scientific research which suggests that human beings can detect time differences of around 5 micro seconds and use this time difference to locate exactly where sounds are coming from. A time difference of 5 micro seconds is a very short time for an electro-chemical nerve transmission system to deal with, so I am very sceptical of the neuroscience and I would need to see absolute proof of such a claim.

I am not sure that my ears are capable of handling the extra resolution that MQA claims to provide.

I cannot for the life of me recognise any difference between between a CD music file and a "HIRES" one. Neither can any of my friends or family. I have always wanted to believe that "HIRES" improves on CD  but the placebo effect and confirmation bias have failed me. My £24 spent on the HIRES download of "Band On The Run" was a waste of money because when I converted the "HIRES" version to 16/44.1  to make a CD for the car I could hear no difference. The music itself sounds great.

I am not going to try and do a double blind comparison of the 256 kbps MP3 that I made of the same album for fear of failing. The "HIRES" version of the album does not sound better to my ears than the "LORES" versions.

I have got a 24/96 "HIRES" blu-ray version of Supertramp's "Breakfast in America"  this came along  with free a 320 kbps MP3. Once again I am reluctant to do a double blind ABX comparison for fear of failing. I have also got the vinyl LP version which has remained in very good condition with few clicks and pops and not much record hiss etc. The digital versions sound better to my ears, in a technical sense". The LP sounds slightly different but not so much different that I prefer the LP version to the digital one. This music sounds great too.

Before I buy an album digitised to MQA standards I shall need proof from a measurement point of view that this form of digital conversion is superior to CD. I will then need to satisfy myself that it sounds superior to my ears.

Many of us have heard "Time" on Pink Floyd's  "Dark Side of the Moon"  and it sounds very realistic to me either in digital or analogue form. The sound of the mechanical alarm clock always gives me a shock and it sounds exactly like the clock I used to have on my bedside table.  And what is more to the point, why should I pay thousands more for equipment and newly re-mastered recordings that can only sound very marginally better to my compromised ears? If , they sound better at all!