I sometimes wonder whether the desire for younger people to buy turntables and record players could be the desire to go back to a simpler life. High technology music solutions are not fulfilling their promise of improved sound quality over CDs and the marketing hype for High Definition music might be falling on unresponsive ears.
Many young people do not have the time to research the different forms of music files which we are now being treated to. Who cares about music files over and above Standard CD ones - viz. DSD, 24/96, 24/192? None of the High Resolution files sound any better.
When I go into a Hi-Fi shop I find that most of the time I know more about the performance of the the different file types than the sales people who are probably suffering from information overload. The sales staff do not have the time to research everything as they are not semi-retired like me.
I have got a 1970's Supertramp album which sounds almost as good as a 24/96 HiRes file. The album is just as easy to play but, of course, the frequency response is not the same and there is a little extra harmonic distortion. Also there are a couple of clicks and pops but the LP sounds almost as good. And there is no need to boot up a computer or streamer for playback. Some youngsters are looking for an easier audio life and who can blame them?
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Hi-Fi Fashion
I wonder when Audio Cassettes will come back into fashion. I still use them in one of my older cars. I can't be bothered to plug in a MP3 adapter. The cassettes sound perfectly all right in the car. I no longer play original pre-recorded cassettes because they have all deteriorated so much that they they are unplayable. All of my music is in digital format, except for a small number of 45 rpm records, so I have converted everything on LP, Audio Cassette and CD to a WAV file on a hard disk. It is then easy to make cassettes for the car.
In their hey day every one used cassettes to create party tape mixes especially during the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a way of making sure that your LPs did not get scratched at a party. An Audio Cassette can sound very good if you use good equipment but from a technical point of view it cannot compete with a CD. The Audio Cassette is a very convenient method of play back and ,of course, the Walkman was the forerunner of the MP3 player.
The other day I was rummaging through some old cassettes which I had stored in the garage and found an 80s recording of Van Morrison with the Chieftains; it still played almost perfectly so I digitised it straight away. How did it survive all that time? This is the wonder of cassettes sometimes they last for years and sometimes they break the second time you play them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Heartbeat
Some people love them but when I retire my older car I shall ditch all of them; they hold no sentimental value for me. However it is quite likely that like vinyl LPs Audio Cassettes will make a comeback when the fashion for turntables fades. There will be people who prefer the sound of a cassette and I must admit it is rather easy to distinguish between they sound of a cassette from the sound of its CD or LP equivalent. When they do come back into fashion some people will claim that their analogue sound will be of higher technical quality than a CD. The forums will be full of discussions about all this.
My advice to young person who is tempted is to buy a good quality cassette deck is to digitise any cassette that you buy immediately. You can buy cheap USB converters that will do this for you. Just connect the USB stage to the line outputs of your cassette deck (or at a push you can use the headphone output- but not too loud). Audacity is reasonable software to use on your laptop or PC to convert the USB input into a WAV file. Audacity can also be used to remove noise and hiss from the tape. Audacity cannot correct distortion caused by a stretched tape, some second hand tapes may suffer from this so buyer beware. Some tapes also get tangled up when you play them and you may have to re-wind them manually by using a pencil inserted into the sprockets. If you digitise your tapes the music will be preserved almost for ever and it is easy to make a tape from music stored on a hard drive. You can use the line outputs from your PC or Laptop to make a tape recording.
The fashion for LPs and turntables is still growing even though it never went out of fashion for me. The convenience of Audio Cassettes is missing and it is difficult to run around from place to place with your album collection and a portable record player. The one advantage of listening to LPs is that you have to sit down to listen and must get physically involved in changing the music. LPs can also sound almost as good as their CD equivalent unless you are listening to classical music recordings. Perhaps, they have become more fashionable with people that want to slow down a little bit and appreciate being in one place to enjoy their music. You can do all of this with a CD or other forms of digital music files provided you sit down and relax. When I listen to an album I like to play the whole of the work in the sequence that the producers intended. The LP system more or less forces you to do this; but if you chop and change tracks a lot then you risk damaging your LP from excess handling. My advice to choppers and changers is to digitise your LP as soon as you buy it, then you can chop and change as much as you like. With a digital version and you can easily carry your music around so you get the both of both worlds.
Even though I do most of my listening from digital sources I shall not get rid of my LPs in a hurry. I like the art work and putting on an LP on a special occasion even though an LP sounds slightly inferior - even with a pristine copy.
I can see a day coming when the CD player will become obsolete, as most of us will be listening via computers, solid state drives and such like. Some people, exclusively, will use Spotify and other forms of streaming service. A CD is after all just a means of storing a digital media file; there is nothing special about this compared to a hard drive or thumb drive.
A decade or so after the demise of the CD player this old form of technology will come back into fashion. Some people will start buying players again. There will be some who believe that a CD will sound better than a 24/96 music file even when all other factors are equal. They will be wrong of course, as it is not possible for a CD to sound better even if it does not sound worse. Mathematics, physics and biology mitigate against this. But not psychology: some people will believe that a CD sounds better and therefore it will sound better - to them. Rationality will not convince them: so good luck to them for it is their prerogative not to believe the evidence.
Digital music is not going to go away unless someone can invent a completely analogue system which offers the flexibility and quality of digital media. To achieve this an economic system of using analogue computers will need to be invented and deployed. In the near future this will not happen. We will have to be content to use turntables and cassette decks - modern music recording equipment is digital based, however.
In their hey day every one used cassettes to create party tape mixes especially during the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a way of making sure that your LPs did not get scratched at a party. An Audio Cassette can sound very good if you use good equipment but from a technical point of view it cannot compete with a CD. The Audio Cassette is a very convenient method of play back and ,of course, the Walkman was the forerunner of the MP3 player.
The other day I was rummaging through some old cassettes which I had stored in the garage and found an 80s recording of Van Morrison with the Chieftains; it still played almost perfectly so I digitised it straight away. How did it survive all that time? This is the wonder of cassettes sometimes they last for years and sometimes they break the second time you play them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Heartbeat
Some people love them but when I retire my older car I shall ditch all of them; they hold no sentimental value for me. However it is quite likely that like vinyl LPs Audio Cassettes will make a comeback when the fashion for turntables fades. There will be people who prefer the sound of a cassette and I must admit it is rather easy to distinguish between they sound of a cassette from the sound of its CD or LP equivalent. When they do come back into fashion some people will claim that their analogue sound will be of higher technical quality than a CD. The forums will be full of discussions about all this.
My advice to young person who is tempted is to buy a good quality cassette deck is to digitise any cassette that you buy immediately. You can buy cheap USB converters that will do this for you. Just connect the USB stage to the line outputs of your cassette deck (or at a push you can use the headphone output- but not too loud). Audacity is reasonable software to use on your laptop or PC to convert the USB input into a WAV file. Audacity can also be used to remove noise and hiss from the tape. Audacity cannot correct distortion caused by a stretched tape, some second hand tapes may suffer from this so buyer beware. Some tapes also get tangled up when you play them and you may have to re-wind them manually by using a pencil inserted into the sprockets. If you digitise your tapes the music will be preserved almost for ever and it is easy to make a tape from music stored on a hard drive. You can use the line outputs from your PC or Laptop to make a tape recording.
The fashion for LPs and turntables is still growing even though it never went out of fashion for me. The convenience of Audio Cassettes is missing and it is difficult to run around from place to place with your album collection and a portable record player. The one advantage of listening to LPs is that you have to sit down to listen and must get physically involved in changing the music. LPs can also sound almost as good as their CD equivalent unless you are listening to classical music recordings. Perhaps, they have become more fashionable with people that want to slow down a little bit and appreciate being in one place to enjoy their music. You can do all of this with a CD or other forms of digital music files provided you sit down and relax. When I listen to an album I like to play the whole of the work in the sequence that the producers intended. The LP system more or less forces you to do this; but if you chop and change tracks a lot then you risk damaging your LP from excess handling. My advice to choppers and changers is to digitise your LP as soon as you buy it, then you can chop and change as much as you like. With a digital version and you can easily carry your music around so you get the both of both worlds.
Even though I do most of my listening from digital sources I shall not get rid of my LPs in a hurry. I like the art work and putting on an LP on a special occasion even though an LP sounds slightly inferior - even with a pristine copy.
I can see a day coming when the CD player will become obsolete, as most of us will be listening via computers, solid state drives and such like. Some people, exclusively, will use Spotify and other forms of streaming service. A CD is after all just a means of storing a digital media file; there is nothing special about this compared to a hard drive or thumb drive.
A decade or so after the demise of the CD player this old form of technology will come back into fashion. Some people will start buying players again. There will be some who believe that a CD will sound better than a 24/96 music file even when all other factors are equal. They will be wrong of course, as it is not possible for a CD to sound better even if it does not sound worse. Mathematics, physics and biology mitigate against this. But not psychology: some people will believe that a CD sounds better and therefore it will sound better - to them. Rationality will not convince them: so good luck to them for it is their prerogative not to believe the evidence.
Digital music is not going to go away unless someone can invent a completely analogue system which offers the flexibility and quality of digital media. To achieve this an economic system of using analogue computers will need to be invented and deployed. In the near future this will not happen. We will have to be content to use turntables and cassette decks - modern music recording equipment is digital based, however.
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Running in or breaking in new cables etc
I recently read an article in a Hi-Fi magazine advocating that enthusiasts should run in or break in their new cables for hours using pink noise or such like. This idea is implausible. The magazine offered no "before and after " measurements to help prove their assertion. Also they did not publish the results of double blind listening tests probably because they did not do any. Not only do they suggest that an audio enthusiast should spend hundreds of pounds per metre for cables that do not perform any better than standard cables costing tens of pounds, they also try to fool you that running the cable in will improve the sound when it will not.
I have never heard a difference in any Hi-Fi equipment after playing it for many hours not even in electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and speakers.
I can only think that the idea of running in Hi-Fi equipment came from the era of valve amplifiers. When you first switched on a 1950s radio or amplifier you heard nothing because you had to wait for the valves to warm up before they worked. After they had warmed up no improvement in audio efficiency was discernible.
Running in cables is just another myth and a case of the "Kings New Clothes".
I have never heard a difference in any Hi-Fi equipment after playing it for many hours not even in electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and speakers.
I can only think that the idea of running in Hi-Fi equipment came from the era of valve amplifiers. When you first switched on a 1950s radio or amplifier you heard nothing because you had to wait for the valves to warm up before they worked. After they had warmed up no improvement in audio efficiency was discernible.
Running in cables is just another myth and a case of the "Kings New Clothes".
Wednesday, 1 July 2015
Technical Developments and New Technology in Hi-Fi
Someone reading these pages might get the impression that I am opposed to new developments in technology and that I do not believe that we will be able to improve sound quality. This is not so. I am all in favour of new recording and sound reproduction techniques which will enable us to achieve improved Hi-Fi performance.
It is obvious that current Hi-Fi recording techniques and sound reproduction are unable to exactly duplicate the original performance whether that is in the studio or live. This is especially apparent when related to classical music. For many reasons including microphone placement, transducer performance and listening room acoustics a sound recording cannot exactly duplicate the original music. We are able to reproduce a flat frequency response. We are able to reproduce musical frequencies well beyond the bounds of human hearing. Likewise we can record and playback music which has a very wide dynamic range beyond even the loudest and softest notes that a full orchestra can manage. We can playback music at loudness levels which can easily damage human hearing.
We can do most of this with a humble LP and a CD can achieve this easily. There is no need for "High Resolution" digital music files which can push the parameters further than CD. It is absolutely pointless to reproduce frequencies above the ability of any human to hear i.e. above 20 KHz. It is equally pointless to enable the playback of music files which allow for a dynamic range of 140 db or more. To exploit this would damage reproduction equipment and worse of all would permanently damage the hearing of the listener in short order.
Manufacturers are leading us up a stereo dead end and playing a numbers game. They have the right to claim that their equipment is better but they have a moral duty not to mislead the public.
Manufacturers are being supported in this numbers game by Hi-Fi magazines whose reporters claim that they can hear sounds and quality differences which science says they cannot. I believe that they are being disingenuous. Add to this the comments and exaggerated claims which are made on some Hi-Fi forums for turntables, cables, "Hi-Res" versus Cd etc. and we are in a sorry mess.
There is room for improvement in sound technology but based on scientific and engineering research which can identify genuine improvements which can be made to inter alia:
microphones and their placement,
loudspeakers,
room acoustics
and computer generated surround sound systems.
We will never progress while false and unverifiable claims are made for 24/192, DSD sound reproduction. No improvement will be made whilst some "audiophiles" believe that electrons somehow follow the arrows printed on expensive cables - they do not. Electrons flow from negative to positive polarity.
How can we progress when people believe that hanging little rocks from line input connexions can improve sonic performance.
The time has come to stop all the myths and apply some genuine science and sound engineering to solve Hi-Fi problems.
It is a pity that Hi-Fi magazines feel that they cannot support science and that most reporters are only interested in playing the numbers game.
It is obvious that current Hi-Fi recording techniques and sound reproduction are unable to exactly duplicate the original performance whether that is in the studio or live. This is especially apparent when related to classical music. For many reasons including microphone placement, transducer performance and listening room acoustics a sound recording cannot exactly duplicate the original music. We are able to reproduce a flat frequency response. We are able to reproduce musical frequencies well beyond the bounds of human hearing. Likewise we can record and playback music which has a very wide dynamic range beyond even the loudest and softest notes that a full orchestra can manage. We can playback music at loudness levels which can easily damage human hearing.
We can do most of this with a humble LP and a CD can achieve this easily. There is no need for "High Resolution" digital music files which can push the parameters further than CD. It is absolutely pointless to reproduce frequencies above the ability of any human to hear i.e. above 20 KHz. It is equally pointless to enable the playback of music files which allow for a dynamic range of 140 db or more. To exploit this would damage reproduction equipment and worse of all would permanently damage the hearing of the listener in short order.
Manufacturers are leading us up a stereo dead end and playing a numbers game. They have the right to claim that their equipment is better but they have a moral duty not to mislead the public.
Manufacturers are being supported in this numbers game by Hi-Fi magazines whose reporters claim that they can hear sounds and quality differences which science says they cannot. I believe that they are being disingenuous. Add to this the comments and exaggerated claims which are made on some Hi-Fi forums for turntables, cables, "Hi-Res" versus Cd etc. and we are in a sorry mess.
There is room for improvement in sound technology but based on scientific and engineering research which can identify genuine improvements which can be made to inter alia:
microphones and their placement,
loudspeakers,
room acoustics
and computer generated surround sound systems.
We will never progress while false and unverifiable claims are made for 24/192, DSD sound reproduction. No improvement will be made whilst some "audiophiles" believe that electrons somehow follow the arrows printed on expensive cables - they do not. Electrons flow from negative to positive polarity.
How can we progress when people believe that hanging little rocks from line input connexions can improve sonic performance.
The time has come to stop all the myths and apply some genuine science and sound engineering to solve Hi-Fi problems.
It is a pity that Hi-Fi magazines feel that they cannot support science and that most reporters are only interested in playing the numbers game.
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Don't be fooled by the new fashion to buy a turntable because the sound of LP's are so wonderful
I have been listening to LPs since the mid 1960s and I think that they can sound great and they can also sound awful. Nearly everyone is getting onto the turntable band wagon. Hi-Fi magazines and forums are full of praise for the new rise of analogue music. Most of the comments that you will read are exaggerated or untrue.
The first mistruth is that technically LPs are more proficient at Hi-Fi sound reproduction than CDs or "HiRes" digital files. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny; the whole system of LP sound reproduction (and 45s and 78s) is flawed from start to finish and introduces excessive harmonic distortion and clicks and pops and timing errors and that is before you slide the LP out of its cover and play it. Vinyl pedants claim that analogue sound reproduction can be perfect - no it cannot - clicks and pops are unavoidable. And, from a pedantic point of view if you hear one pop which should not be there then you are not listening to Hi-Fi.
I love listening to LPs on occasion but when I do it is for fun and for the different sound from "digital" music. For serious musical appreciation I choose digital sources.
Deciding what equipment to buy can be a nightmare for the uninitiated. There is so much exaggeration and hyperbole written about the subject of turntables and LPs that it is difficult to find sound advice.
Most of the budget turntables are perfectly capable of giving good sound reproduction. The likes of Pioneer, Project, Marantz, Sony, Music Hall etc. all have reputations to maintain and they are not going to sell you a product which does not sound good. Some of these turntables are made of plastic and are a bit flimsy but if you place them on a solid rack or shelf they will perform well. The cheap turntables will suffer from quality control issues so that the odd one will suffer from wow or flutter or speed variations; in which case you return it to the supplier. To get reasonable sound reproduction ensure that your turntable has a moving magnet cartridge rather than a ceramic one.
Most of the criticism on forums relates to the fact that the cheap budget turntables are made of plastic. Well consider this, vinyl is plastic and many expensive decks have acrylic plinths or platters and what is acrylic if it is not plastic? The solidity and weightiness of a good deck helps to reduce vibration but if you site your budget deck on a solid platform its flimsiness is mitigated.
On many forums budget turntables are dismissed as junk or rubbish but a budget turntable maybe all you can afford so do not let this opinion put you off. Try them for yourself and if they are no good return them to the supplier.
When you buy a turntable, you do not want to damage your records because of excessive down force or stylus pressure especially if you have bought an expensive 180gm vinyl record. Many audiophiles get anal about this and constantly tinker with down force and may even reset it every time they play a record. Some set this to the minimum; my cartridge has a down force range of 1.5gms to 2.5gms. I have set mine to 2.2gms and I see no reason to change it. Many budget tables use a pre-set or unchangeable down force of 3.5gms. Such a force would be traduced by an audiophile but I do not think that this will damage your records even after repeated playing.
If you digitise your records properly to a 16/44.1 Wav file using a good USB deck or USB phono-stage then you can reserve playing the LP for special occasions to avoid wear and tear. The digital file will sound almost exactly the same as the LP.
Many contributors to forums and magazines criticise turntables with built in phono-stages. Well I have got two such turntables and they both sound fantastic. When I use an external phono-stage they hardly sound any different. Phono-stages use electronics to amplify the weak signal of a moving magnet cartridge and they also equalise the sound according to RIAA standards. When a record is cut the bass is attenuated and the treble is accentuated this is reversed by the phono-stage. RIAA equalisation has been around since the mid 1950's so there has been plenty of time for Pioneer, Sony, Project, Teac and Denon etc. to get this right. You do not need to spend hundreds of pounds for a simple phono-stage.
There is so much exaggeration and unjustified criticism I could go on forever. Just remember that the commentators on forums and in magazines rarely make comparisons to a standard in fact they almost never do. When they are making their judgements, they never do so on the basis of double blind testing . All the comment is mostly based on asserted hearsay rather than facts established by the scientific method.
If you want to then you can buy a moving coil cartridge that will playback ultra-sonic sound up to 45khz; but the trouble is no-one can hear sound with a higher frequency than 20kHz (reserved for children) and for many adults their highest frequency is much lower. So you may well ask what is the point of a moving coil cartridge? Many audiophiles do not ask this question. Most LPs do not have musical content above 15khz.
When you read a forum that traduces your potential purchase just remember this: when the Beatles and the Rolling Stones first started making records we played their music on Dansette type record players with poorly produced and specified ceramic cartridges with a down force of about 10gms. The music still sounded good enough for the Beatles and the Stones etc. to sell millions of records.
The other day I was at a market where someone was selling second hand records and he was playing them on a real budget job - less than £100 pounds. It sounded better than our Dansettes. Why not try a cheap turntable if you cannot decide if the medium suits you or not but buy some second hand records to play on it? You can always upgrade later.
Also consider this, a £30,000 pound turntable can sound marvellous and I would never criticise someone who bought one. However, the £30,000 record player gives you the ultimate in sound reproduction which includes the music and the clicks and pops and surface noise which cannot be removed no matter how much you spend, because the system is flawed sonically from start to finish. Try listening to a 180gm acoustic music vinyl LP but with headphones and then you will see what I mean.
The first mistruth is that technically LPs are more proficient at Hi-Fi sound reproduction than CDs or "HiRes" digital files. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny; the whole system of LP sound reproduction (and 45s and 78s) is flawed from start to finish and introduces excessive harmonic distortion and clicks and pops and timing errors and that is before you slide the LP out of its cover and play it. Vinyl pedants claim that analogue sound reproduction can be perfect - no it cannot - clicks and pops are unavoidable. And, from a pedantic point of view if you hear one pop which should not be there then you are not listening to Hi-Fi.
I love listening to LPs on occasion but when I do it is for fun and for the different sound from "digital" music. For serious musical appreciation I choose digital sources.
Deciding what equipment to buy can be a nightmare for the uninitiated. There is so much exaggeration and hyperbole written about the subject of turntables and LPs that it is difficult to find sound advice.
Most of the budget turntables are perfectly capable of giving good sound reproduction. The likes of Pioneer, Project, Marantz, Sony, Music Hall etc. all have reputations to maintain and they are not going to sell you a product which does not sound good. Some of these turntables are made of plastic and are a bit flimsy but if you place them on a solid rack or shelf they will perform well. The cheap turntables will suffer from quality control issues so that the odd one will suffer from wow or flutter or speed variations; in which case you return it to the supplier. To get reasonable sound reproduction ensure that your turntable has a moving magnet cartridge rather than a ceramic one.
Most of the criticism on forums relates to the fact that the cheap budget turntables are made of plastic. Well consider this, vinyl is plastic and many expensive decks have acrylic plinths or platters and what is acrylic if it is not plastic? The solidity and weightiness of a good deck helps to reduce vibration but if you site your budget deck on a solid platform its flimsiness is mitigated.
On many forums budget turntables are dismissed as junk or rubbish but a budget turntable maybe all you can afford so do not let this opinion put you off. Try them for yourself and if they are no good return them to the supplier.
When you buy a turntable, you do not want to damage your records because of excessive down force or stylus pressure especially if you have bought an expensive 180gm vinyl record. Many audiophiles get anal about this and constantly tinker with down force and may even reset it every time they play a record. Some set this to the minimum; my cartridge has a down force range of 1.5gms to 2.5gms. I have set mine to 2.2gms and I see no reason to change it. Many budget tables use a pre-set or unchangeable down force of 3.5gms. Such a force would be traduced by an audiophile but I do not think that this will damage your records even after repeated playing.
If you digitise your records properly to a 16/44.1 Wav file using a good USB deck or USB phono-stage then you can reserve playing the LP for special occasions to avoid wear and tear. The digital file will sound almost exactly the same as the LP.
Many contributors to forums and magazines criticise turntables with built in phono-stages. Well I have got two such turntables and they both sound fantastic. When I use an external phono-stage they hardly sound any different. Phono-stages use electronics to amplify the weak signal of a moving magnet cartridge and they also equalise the sound according to RIAA standards. When a record is cut the bass is attenuated and the treble is accentuated this is reversed by the phono-stage. RIAA equalisation has been around since the mid 1950's so there has been plenty of time for Pioneer, Sony, Project, Teac and Denon etc. to get this right. You do not need to spend hundreds of pounds for a simple phono-stage.
There is so much exaggeration and unjustified criticism I could go on forever. Just remember that the commentators on forums and in magazines rarely make comparisons to a standard in fact they almost never do. When they are making their judgements, they never do so on the basis of double blind testing . All the comment is mostly based on asserted hearsay rather than facts established by the scientific method.
If you want to then you can buy a moving coil cartridge that will playback ultra-sonic sound up to 45khz; but the trouble is no-one can hear sound with a higher frequency than 20kHz (reserved for children) and for many adults their highest frequency is much lower. So you may well ask what is the point of a moving coil cartridge? Many audiophiles do not ask this question. Most LPs do not have musical content above 15khz.
When you read a forum that traduces your potential purchase just remember this: when the Beatles and the Rolling Stones first started making records we played their music on Dansette type record players with poorly produced and specified ceramic cartridges with a down force of about 10gms. The music still sounded good enough for the Beatles and the Stones etc. to sell millions of records.
The other day I was at a market where someone was selling second hand records and he was playing them on a real budget job - less than £100 pounds. It sounded better than our Dansettes. Why not try a cheap turntable if you cannot decide if the medium suits you or not but buy some second hand records to play on it? You can always upgrade later.
Also consider this, a £30,000 pound turntable can sound marvellous and I would never criticise someone who bought one. However, the £30,000 record player gives you the ultimate in sound reproduction which includes the music and the clicks and pops and surface noise which cannot be removed no matter how much you spend, because the system is flawed sonically from start to finish. Try listening to a 180gm acoustic music vinyl LP but with headphones and then you will see what I mean.
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
HIFI magazines and Forums
As far as I am concerned HIFI magazines have a duty to be objective. Sometimes I doubt their sincerity. All sorts of claims are made about the reviewers' abilities to notice "night and day" differences between reproduction equipment and digital music file formats -24/96 and 16/44.1 etc.
With regard to equipment, amplifiers should sound very similar,all other things being equal, if they are of HIFI quality: this just stands to reason. When the magazines provide measurement data amplifiers show similar characteristics from a measurement point of view. When listening tests are made of amplifiers there is never any attempt to implement double blind testing. The reader is offered no form of evidence as to which is the better amplifier.
The same applies to all other forms of equipment CD players, Turntables, Cartridges, Cables, Mains filters etc. There is never any evidence. It is egregious that before and after measurements are not made in the case of cables or mains filters. The only evidence seems to be that expensive is good and the more expensive the better.
Similarly for digital file formats, the HIFI magazine reviewers always claim that in their listening tests 24/96, 24/192 or DSD files sound better than 16/44.1. There is no evidence that anyone can regularly tell the difference, all other things being equal, between such files. There is not much evidence that anyone can hear the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 digital file and a 24/96 digital file. Still the HIFI magazines persist in making claims that they can hear night and day differences. What makes their hearing so special? If their hearing is so special let them prove it by submitting themselves to scientific testing. I doubt that that they ever will.
HIFI forums have no such duty to be objective but most of them repeat the same errors. They will traduce equipment that they do not like and half the time I suspect that they have not heard the kit they are criticising. Most of the opinions on most of the forums are bunkum.
This one is a notable exception as it makes an attempt to be objective and scientific and I think it succeeds.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
There must be others and it is worth finding them.
How about this?
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1663-Double-Blind-Testing-(DBT)-and-a-refutation-of-the-A-B-listening-experience&p=19876
What is Joe Public to do when buying HIFI? Trust his own ears - that is all but buyer beware.
With regard to equipment, amplifiers should sound very similar,all other things being equal, if they are of HIFI quality: this just stands to reason. When the magazines provide measurement data amplifiers show similar characteristics from a measurement point of view. When listening tests are made of amplifiers there is never any attempt to implement double blind testing. The reader is offered no form of evidence as to which is the better amplifier.
The same applies to all other forms of equipment CD players, Turntables, Cartridges, Cables, Mains filters etc. There is never any evidence. It is egregious that before and after measurements are not made in the case of cables or mains filters. The only evidence seems to be that expensive is good and the more expensive the better.
Similarly for digital file formats, the HIFI magazine reviewers always claim that in their listening tests 24/96, 24/192 or DSD files sound better than 16/44.1. There is no evidence that anyone can regularly tell the difference, all other things being equal, between such files. There is not much evidence that anyone can hear the difference between a 320 kbps MP3 digital file and a 24/96 digital file. Still the HIFI magazines persist in making claims that they can hear night and day differences. What makes their hearing so special? If their hearing is so special let them prove it by submitting themselves to scientific testing. I doubt that that they ever will.
HIFI forums have no such duty to be objective but most of them repeat the same errors. They will traduce equipment that they do not like and half the time I suspect that they have not heard the kit they are criticising. Most of the opinions on most of the forums are bunkum.
This one is a notable exception as it makes an attempt to be objective and scientific and I think it succeeds.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
There must be others and it is worth finding them.
How about this?
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1663-Double-Blind-Testing-(DBT)-and-a-refutation-of-the-A-B-listening-experience&p=19876
What is Joe Public to do when buying HIFI? Trust his own ears - that is all but buyer beware.
Tuesday, 21 April 2015
"360" sound on an Erroll Garner LP
I bought a brand new 180 gm virgin vinyl LP the other day featuring Erroll Garner - " Concert By The Sea". It was released by Columbia records who are now part of the Sony Music entertainment group.
The LP was originally recorded in 1956. It sounds fantastic and a far as I am concerned Erroll Garner is a genius of jazz; I could listen to his records all day. He can even play musical jokes that get me smiling.
Columbia records claim that they use quality control methods at every stage of the record producing process to ensure absolute high fidelity sound reproduction. Their record is able to cover the full frequency range of a high fidelity recording from 30Hz to 15khz within a 2 decibel tolerance. I have no reason to doubt this claim as the sound reproduction is wonderful even though the original recording was made with equipment from 1956.
The frequency range encompasses all of the musical frequencies that most adults can hear. The LP itself has very little surface noise and at the volumes that I use I could not hear any surface noise between the tracks. My modest turntable runs so quietly that I could not hear any noise from the equipment itself, and I could hear no wow and flutter from the piano which means that the platter was running at a more or less constant speed and that the spindle hole of the record is accurately positioned. All in all listening was an enjoyable Hi-Fi experience. The record sounded almost as good as a well mastered CD recording.
The frequency response of my moving magnet cartridge is from 20 Hz to 20KHz. A moving coil cartridge is capable of producing a much wider range of frequency response. But I ask myself the question why should I change the cartridge when a moving magnet cartridge already encompasses all the frequencies that the record can produce with a considerable amount of headroom.
I could invest in an improved turntable to reduce noise and distortion but why should I? The record and turntable combination are already so good that they compete with a cd as far as high fidelity is concerned.
I am going to digitise the record. I shall convert the recording to a 16/44.1 WAV file - cd quality. This resolution can easily encompass the dynamic range and frequency response of the record. A cd quality file can manage a dynamic range of 96 decibels which is much more than an LP record can and it can cover a frequency range of 20Hz to 22Khz. This is all the resolution that is needed.
If I am to believe some of the comment on Hi-Fi forums and all of the comment in Hi-Fi magazines then I need to spend a lot more money on cartridges, cables, heavy weight platters, phono-stages, power supplies etc. to achieve Hi-Fi nirvana: I do not.
If I am to believe the same media when I come to digitise the records then I need to use "high resolution" files - 24/96 or even 24/192 to digitise the LP: I do not as "high resolution" files sound no better than 16/44.1.
Most of what is written about Hi-Fi is irrational bunkum without any supporting evidence using measurements which take into account the limits of human hearing. Usually no one provides any evidence from double blind listening tests. Most commentary regarding the quality of sound reproduction is useless. You are better off deciding for yourself.
One form of advice is sensible , however, to ensure the longevity of the LP listening experience it is best to digitise your LPs as soon as you can after buying them. In this way you can protect them from scratches, dust and dirt and static build up. You then only need to play the actual vinyl record on a special occasion or when you are in the mood. A good digital recording will sound exactly like the original.
If you cannot bear the thought of digital then why not copy them to audio-cassette? A well recorded cassette will sound almost as good as the original but it will wear out and you will have to repeat the process after a few years - even so this is a good way to preserve you records and you can still look at the sleeve when you play the facsimile!
The LP was originally recorded in 1956. It sounds fantastic and a far as I am concerned Erroll Garner is a genius of jazz; I could listen to his records all day. He can even play musical jokes that get me smiling.
Columbia records claim that they use quality control methods at every stage of the record producing process to ensure absolute high fidelity sound reproduction. Their record is able to cover the full frequency range of a high fidelity recording from 30Hz to 15khz within a 2 decibel tolerance. I have no reason to doubt this claim as the sound reproduction is wonderful even though the original recording was made with equipment from 1956.
The frequency range encompasses all of the musical frequencies that most adults can hear. The LP itself has very little surface noise and at the volumes that I use I could not hear any surface noise between the tracks. My modest turntable runs so quietly that I could not hear any noise from the equipment itself, and I could hear no wow and flutter from the piano which means that the platter was running at a more or less constant speed and that the spindle hole of the record is accurately positioned. All in all listening was an enjoyable Hi-Fi experience. The record sounded almost as good as a well mastered CD recording.
The frequency response of my moving magnet cartridge is from 20 Hz to 20KHz. A moving coil cartridge is capable of producing a much wider range of frequency response. But I ask myself the question why should I change the cartridge when a moving magnet cartridge already encompasses all the frequencies that the record can produce with a considerable amount of headroom.
I could invest in an improved turntable to reduce noise and distortion but why should I? The record and turntable combination are already so good that they compete with a cd as far as high fidelity is concerned.
I am going to digitise the record. I shall convert the recording to a 16/44.1 WAV file - cd quality. This resolution can easily encompass the dynamic range and frequency response of the record. A cd quality file can manage a dynamic range of 96 decibels which is much more than an LP record can and it can cover a frequency range of 20Hz to 22Khz. This is all the resolution that is needed.
If I am to believe some of the comment on Hi-Fi forums and all of the comment in Hi-Fi magazines then I need to spend a lot more money on cartridges, cables, heavy weight platters, phono-stages, power supplies etc. to achieve Hi-Fi nirvana: I do not.
If I am to believe the same media when I come to digitise the records then I need to use "high resolution" files - 24/96 or even 24/192 to digitise the LP: I do not as "high resolution" files sound no better than 16/44.1.
Most of what is written about Hi-Fi is irrational bunkum without any supporting evidence using measurements which take into account the limits of human hearing. Usually no one provides any evidence from double blind listening tests. Most commentary regarding the quality of sound reproduction is useless. You are better off deciding for yourself.
One form of advice is sensible , however, to ensure the longevity of the LP listening experience it is best to digitise your LPs as soon as you can after buying them. In this way you can protect them from scratches, dust and dirt and static build up. You then only need to play the actual vinyl record on a special occasion or when you are in the mood. A good digital recording will sound exactly like the original.
If you cannot bear the thought of digital then why not copy them to audio-cassette? A well recorded cassette will sound almost as good as the original but it will wear out and you will have to repeat the process after a few years - even so this is a good way to preserve you records and you can still look at the sleeve when you play the facsimile!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)