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.
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
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)