I always find it amusing to read most of the Hi-Fi forums. Most of what you read is unmitigated tripe. One forum has even banned comment from a famous audio engineer who dares to challenge the opinions with reason and science.
It is my opinion that most Hi-Fi equipment should, in the modern era, sound very good if you play a well mastered CD or a well kept LP which is undamaged and not worn out.
In the analogue arena real improvements were made to consumer grade equipment in the early 1970s - from then on any improvement has been marginal. In my time, I have listened to dozens of turntable, amplifier and loudspeaker combinations. It was not often that I could hear a clear difference in the equipment no matter what the costs were. This, of course, has to be the case with analogue Hi-Fi equipment; once it reaches an acceptable standard each piece in the audio chain should sound similar. Any difference should be so marginal that either the listener hears a very subtle change or no change at all when making comparisons. All this stands to reason. If you claim to hear "a night and day difference" between two pieces of Hi-Fi quality equipment then you are either lying, fooling yourself or just trying to wind up your audience. Most of the participants in Hi-Fi forums never substantiate their exaggerated claims with the results of a double blind test.
The same reasoning applies to digital sound reproduction equipment. There are are now substantial discussions going on, on some of the forums, about which is better DSD or PCM digital musical files. Once again any difference is marginal - it has to be.
Time and time again double blind tests have been made to ascertain whether individuals can discern any difference between a CD file, DSD quality file at a 24/96 or 24/192 quality file when all other parameters are equal. So far no-one has been identified who can reliably tell the difference. All of this stands to reason because a CD can accurately reproduce all music which a human being can hear. Even though, in theory, a DSD music file can reproduce a greater frequency range than a CD, humans cannot perceive that extra range. A CD can reproduce the full dynamic range of all music and more. Any extra dynamic range which a DSD music file or a "HiRes" file can provide is simply redundant.
Here is one forum that is refreshingly objective and bucks the trend:
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2505-The-last-words-on-audio-amplifiers-Jan-2015[/URL
Monday, 12 October 2015
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
You can't have your vinyl cake and eat it - new buyers be warned
I love playing LPs but I am under no illusions that they perform better sonically than a CD. Measurements prove that CDs have greater potential to perform better than LPs, However it is possible for a sound engineer to ruin the performance of a CD so that it sounds worse than an LP.
It is my opinion that a well recorded CD always sounds better than a well recorded LP no matter what type of music is being played. But, pop and rock music LPs sound almost as good their CD equivalents, because the continuous loud sound masks any rumble and low level noise from scratches and the crackle and pop of dust and static.
The LP has to be brand new when making comparisons and it must be dust free.
The other day I put on a brand new remastered version of Errol Garner's " Concert By The Sea". Half way through one of the tracks I heard a tremendous popping noise and I thought the record had been scratched. When the record was finished I examined it. There were no scratches or marks on the record which could have produced a popping noise. The record was covered in more dust than usual and the needle was also covered with dust. Static electricity was the culprit.
Before I play any LP record I always clean it with a carbon brush and I always clean the stylus. Normally, I do not hear any popping noise caused by static electricity or dust and when the record finishes there is usually very little dust sticking to the surface of the record.
On this particular day the atmospheric pressure was high and the air was very dry, this meant that the conditions were perfect for static electricity to be generated on the surface of the LP, some of which was discharging and creating a popping noise which was picked up by the stylus. The dust which was unavoidably collecting on the record and stylus was also causing a slight hissing noise.
Advocates of vinyl records who claim that LPs sound better than CD are allowing emotion to get the better of them. Any noise which should not be there degrades the performance and prevents the reproduction being genuinely of high fidelity.
No matter how much money you spend, and how well designed and built the play back equipment is, static and dust will always be a problem. If you drag a diamond stylus across a plastic disc on a day with a very dry atmosphere then you will generate static electricity.
The more sensitive the equipment is then the more clearly you will hear the noise. You cannot have your vinyl cake and eat it.
This is why I prefer to listen to CD as a matter of preference and only listen to LPs when I am in the mood. I never listen to classical music on an LP as I simply cannot stand the crackles and pops.
If you are contemplating "getting into vinyl" and spending thousands on a turntable then be warned. Do not take too much notice of the forums and HI-FI magazines which say vinyl is wonderful and it is the only way to listen to music. Listen before you buy and decide for yourself. Try out a pristine new 200 gm vinyl classical album with headphones and compare it to the same album recorded on CD: and then you will see what I mean.
It is my opinion that a well recorded CD always sounds better than a well recorded LP no matter what type of music is being played. But, pop and rock music LPs sound almost as good their CD equivalents, because the continuous loud sound masks any rumble and low level noise from scratches and the crackle and pop of dust and static.
The LP has to be brand new when making comparisons and it must be dust free.
The other day I put on a brand new remastered version of Errol Garner's " Concert By The Sea". Half way through one of the tracks I heard a tremendous popping noise and I thought the record had been scratched. When the record was finished I examined it. There were no scratches or marks on the record which could have produced a popping noise. The record was covered in more dust than usual and the needle was also covered with dust. Static electricity was the culprit.
Before I play any LP record I always clean it with a carbon brush and I always clean the stylus. Normally, I do not hear any popping noise caused by static electricity or dust and when the record finishes there is usually very little dust sticking to the surface of the record.
On this particular day the atmospheric pressure was high and the air was very dry, this meant that the conditions were perfect for static electricity to be generated on the surface of the LP, some of which was discharging and creating a popping noise which was picked up by the stylus. The dust which was unavoidably collecting on the record and stylus was also causing a slight hissing noise.
Advocates of vinyl records who claim that LPs sound better than CD are allowing emotion to get the better of them. Any noise which should not be there degrades the performance and prevents the reproduction being genuinely of high fidelity.
No matter how much money you spend, and how well designed and built the play back equipment is, static and dust will always be a problem. If you drag a diamond stylus across a plastic disc on a day with a very dry atmosphere then you will generate static electricity.
The more sensitive the equipment is then the more clearly you will hear the noise. You cannot have your vinyl cake and eat it.
This is why I prefer to listen to CD as a matter of preference and only listen to LPs when I am in the mood. I never listen to classical music on an LP as I simply cannot stand the crackles and pops.
If you are contemplating "getting into vinyl" and spending thousands on a turntable then be warned. Do not take too much notice of the forums and HI-FI magazines which say vinyl is wonderful and it is the only way to listen to music. Listen before you buy and decide for yourself. Try out a pristine new 200 gm vinyl classical album with headphones and compare it to the same album recorded on CD: and then you will see what I mean.
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
Record players
I sometimes wonder whether the desire for younger people to buy turntables and record players could be the desire to go back to a simpler life. High technology music solutions are not fulfilling their promise of improved sound quality over CDs and the marketing hype for High Definition music might be falling on unresponsive ears.
Many young people do not have the time to research the different forms of music files which we are now being treated to. Who cares about music files over and above Standard CD ones - viz. DSD, 24/96, 24/192? None of the High Resolution files sound any better.
When I go into a Hi-Fi shop I find that most of the time I know more about the performance of the the different file types than the sales people who are probably suffering from information overload. The sales staff do not have the time to research everything as they are not semi-retired like me.
I have got a 1970's Supertramp album which sounds almost as good as a 24/96 HiRes file. The album is just as easy to play but, of course, the frequency response is not the same and there is a little extra harmonic distortion. Also there are a couple of clicks and pops but the LP sounds almost as good. And there is no need to boot up a computer or streamer for playback. Some youngsters are looking for an easier audio life and who can blame them?
Many young people do not have the time to research the different forms of music files which we are now being treated to. Who cares about music files over and above Standard CD ones - viz. DSD, 24/96, 24/192? None of the High Resolution files sound any better.
When I go into a Hi-Fi shop I find that most of the time I know more about the performance of the the different file types than the sales people who are probably suffering from information overload. The sales staff do not have the time to research everything as they are not semi-retired like me.
I have got a 1970's Supertramp album which sounds almost as good as a 24/96 HiRes file. The album is just as easy to play but, of course, the frequency response is not the same and there is a little extra harmonic distortion. Also there are a couple of clicks and pops but the LP sounds almost as good. And there is no need to boot up a computer or streamer for playback. Some youngsters are looking for an easier audio life and who can blame them?
Tuesday, 28 July 2015
Hi-Fi Fashion
I wonder when Audio Cassettes will come back into fashion. I still use them in one of my older cars. I can't be bothered to plug in a MP3 adapter. The cassettes sound perfectly all right in the car. I no longer play original pre-recorded cassettes because they have all deteriorated so much that they they are unplayable. All of my music is in digital format, except for a small number of 45 rpm records, so I have converted everything on LP, Audio Cassette and CD to a WAV file on a hard disk. It is then easy to make cassettes for the car.
In their hey day every one used cassettes to create party tape mixes especially during the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a way of making sure that your LPs did not get scratched at a party. An Audio Cassette can sound very good if you use good equipment but from a technical point of view it cannot compete with a CD. The Audio Cassette is a very convenient method of play back and ,of course, the Walkman was the forerunner of the MP3 player.
The other day I was rummaging through some old cassettes which I had stored in the garage and found an 80s recording of Van Morrison with the Chieftains; it still played almost perfectly so I digitised it straight away. How did it survive all that time? This is the wonder of cassettes sometimes they last for years and sometimes they break the second time you play them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Heartbeat
Some people love them but when I retire my older car I shall ditch all of them; they hold no sentimental value for me. However it is quite likely that like vinyl LPs Audio Cassettes will make a comeback when the fashion for turntables fades. There will be people who prefer the sound of a cassette and I must admit it is rather easy to distinguish between they sound of a cassette from the sound of its CD or LP equivalent. When they do come back into fashion some people will claim that their analogue sound will be of higher technical quality than a CD. The forums will be full of discussions about all this.
My advice to young person who is tempted is to buy a good quality cassette deck is to digitise any cassette that you buy immediately. You can buy cheap USB converters that will do this for you. Just connect the USB stage to the line outputs of your cassette deck (or at a push you can use the headphone output- but not too loud). Audacity is reasonable software to use on your laptop or PC to convert the USB input into a WAV file. Audacity can also be used to remove noise and hiss from the tape. Audacity cannot correct distortion caused by a stretched tape, some second hand tapes may suffer from this so buyer beware. Some tapes also get tangled up when you play them and you may have to re-wind them manually by using a pencil inserted into the sprockets. If you digitise your tapes the music will be preserved almost for ever and it is easy to make a tape from music stored on a hard drive. You can use the line outputs from your PC or Laptop to make a tape recording.
The fashion for LPs and turntables is still growing even though it never went out of fashion for me. The convenience of Audio Cassettes is missing and it is difficult to run around from place to place with your album collection and a portable record player. The one advantage of listening to LPs is that you have to sit down to listen and must get physically involved in changing the music. LPs can also sound almost as good as their CD equivalent unless you are listening to classical music recordings. Perhaps, they have become more fashionable with people that want to slow down a little bit and appreciate being in one place to enjoy their music. You can do all of this with a CD or other forms of digital music files provided you sit down and relax. When I listen to an album I like to play the whole of the work in the sequence that the producers intended. The LP system more or less forces you to do this; but if you chop and change tracks a lot then you risk damaging your LP from excess handling. My advice to choppers and changers is to digitise your LP as soon as you buy it, then you can chop and change as much as you like. With a digital version and you can easily carry your music around so you get the both of both worlds.
Even though I do most of my listening from digital sources I shall not get rid of my LPs in a hurry. I like the art work and putting on an LP on a special occasion even though an LP sounds slightly inferior - even with a pristine copy.
I can see a day coming when the CD player will become obsolete, as most of us will be listening via computers, solid state drives and such like. Some people, exclusively, will use Spotify and other forms of streaming service. A CD is after all just a means of storing a digital media file; there is nothing special about this compared to a hard drive or thumb drive.
A decade or so after the demise of the CD player this old form of technology will come back into fashion. Some people will start buying players again. There will be some who believe that a CD will sound better than a 24/96 music file even when all other factors are equal. They will be wrong of course, as it is not possible for a CD to sound better even if it does not sound worse. Mathematics, physics and biology mitigate against this. But not psychology: some people will believe that a CD sounds better and therefore it will sound better - to them. Rationality will not convince them: so good luck to them for it is their prerogative not to believe the evidence.
Digital music is not going to go away unless someone can invent a completely analogue system which offers the flexibility and quality of digital media. To achieve this an economic system of using analogue computers will need to be invented and deployed. In the near future this will not happen. We will have to be content to use turntables and cassette decks - modern music recording equipment is digital based, however.
In their hey day every one used cassettes to create party tape mixes especially during the 70s, 80s and 90s. It was a way of making sure that your LPs did not get scratched at a party. An Audio Cassette can sound very good if you use good equipment but from a technical point of view it cannot compete with a CD. The Audio Cassette is a very convenient method of play back and ,of course, the Walkman was the forerunner of the MP3 player.
The other day I was rummaging through some old cassettes which I had stored in the garage and found an 80s recording of Van Morrison with the Chieftains; it still played almost perfectly so I digitised it straight away. How did it survive all that time? This is the wonder of cassettes sometimes they last for years and sometimes they break the second time you play them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Heartbeat
Some people love them but when I retire my older car I shall ditch all of them; they hold no sentimental value for me. However it is quite likely that like vinyl LPs Audio Cassettes will make a comeback when the fashion for turntables fades. There will be people who prefer the sound of a cassette and I must admit it is rather easy to distinguish between they sound of a cassette from the sound of its CD or LP equivalent. When they do come back into fashion some people will claim that their analogue sound will be of higher technical quality than a CD. The forums will be full of discussions about all this.
My advice to young person who is tempted is to buy a good quality cassette deck is to digitise any cassette that you buy immediately. You can buy cheap USB converters that will do this for you. Just connect the USB stage to the line outputs of your cassette deck (or at a push you can use the headphone output- but not too loud). Audacity is reasonable software to use on your laptop or PC to convert the USB input into a WAV file. Audacity can also be used to remove noise and hiss from the tape. Audacity cannot correct distortion caused by a stretched tape, some second hand tapes may suffer from this so buyer beware. Some tapes also get tangled up when you play them and you may have to re-wind them manually by using a pencil inserted into the sprockets. If you digitise your tapes the music will be preserved almost for ever and it is easy to make a tape from music stored on a hard drive. You can use the line outputs from your PC or Laptop to make a tape recording.
The fashion for LPs and turntables is still growing even though it never went out of fashion for me. The convenience of Audio Cassettes is missing and it is difficult to run around from place to place with your album collection and a portable record player. The one advantage of listening to LPs is that you have to sit down to listen and must get physically involved in changing the music. LPs can also sound almost as good as their CD equivalent unless you are listening to classical music recordings. Perhaps, they have become more fashionable with people that want to slow down a little bit and appreciate being in one place to enjoy their music. You can do all of this with a CD or other forms of digital music files provided you sit down and relax. When I listen to an album I like to play the whole of the work in the sequence that the producers intended. The LP system more or less forces you to do this; but if you chop and change tracks a lot then you risk damaging your LP from excess handling. My advice to choppers and changers is to digitise your LP as soon as you buy it, then you can chop and change as much as you like. With a digital version and you can easily carry your music around so you get the both of both worlds.
Even though I do most of my listening from digital sources I shall not get rid of my LPs in a hurry. I like the art work and putting on an LP on a special occasion even though an LP sounds slightly inferior - even with a pristine copy.
I can see a day coming when the CD player will become obsolete, as most of us will be listening via computers, solid state drives and such like. Some people, exclusively, will use Spotify and other forms of streaming service. A CD is after all just a means of storing a digital media file; there is nothing special about this compared to a hard drive or thumb drive.
A decade or so after the demise of the CD player this old form of technology will come back into fashion. Some people will start buying players again. There will be some who believe that a CD will sound better than a 24/96 music file even when all other factors are equal. They will be wrong of course, as it is not possible for a CD to sound better even if it does not sound worse. Mathematics, physics and biology mitigate against this. But not psychology: some people will believe that a CD sounds better and therefore it will sound better - to them. Rationality will not convince them: so good luck to them for it is their prerogative not to believe the evidence.
Digital music is not going to go away unless someone can invent a completely analogue system which offers the flexibility and quality of digital media. To achieve this an economic system of using analogue computers will need to be invented and deployed. In the near future this will not happen. We will have to be content to use turntables and cassette decks - modern music recording equipment is digital based, however.
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Running in or breaking in new cables etc
I recently read an article in a Hi-Fi magazine advocating that enthusiasts should run in or break in their new cables for hours using pink noise or such like. This idea is implausible. The magazine offered no "before and after " measurements to help prove their assertion. Also they did not publish the results of double blind listening tests probably because they did not do any. Not only do they suggest that an audio enthusiast should spend hundreds of pounds per metre for cables that do not perform any better than standard cables costing tens of pounds, they also try to fool you that running the cable in will improve the sound when it will not.
I have never heard a difference in any Hi-Fi equipment after playing it for many hours not even in electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and speakers.
I can only think that the idea of running in Hi-Fi equipment came from the era of valve amplifiers. When you first switched on a 1950s radio or amplifier you heard nothing because you had to wait for the valves to warm up before they worked. After they had warmed up no improvement in audio efficiency was discernible.
Running in cables is just another myth and a case of the "Kings New Clothes".
I have never heard a difference in any Hi-Fi equipment after playing it for many hours not even in electro-mechanical devices such as turntables and speakers.
I can only think that the idea of running in Hi-Fi equipment came from the era of valve amplifiers. When you first switched on a 1950s radio or amplifier you heard nothing because you had to wait for the valves to warm up before they worked. After they had warmed up no improvement in audio efficiency was discernible.
Running in cables is just another myth and a case of the "Kings New Clothes".
Wednesday, 1 July 2015
Technical Developments and New Technology in Hi-Fi
Someone reading these pages might get the impression that I am opposed to new developments in technology and that I do not believe that we will be able to improve sound quality. This is not so. I am all in favour of new recording and sound reproduction techniques which will enable us to achieve improved Hi-Fi performance.
It is obvious that current Hi-Fi recording techniques and sound reproduction are unable to exactly duplicate the original performance whether that is in the studio or live. This is especially apparent when related to classical music. For many reasons including microphone placement, transducer performance and listening room acoustics a sound recording cannot exactly duplicate the original music. We are able to reproduce a flat frequency response. We are able to reproduce musical frequencies well beyond the bounds of human hearing. Likewise we can record and playback music which has a very wide dynamic range beyond even the loudest and softest notes that a full orchestra can manage. We can playback music at loudness levels which can easily damage human hearing.
We can do most of this with a humble LP and a CD can achieve this easily. There is no need for "High Resolution" digital music files which can push the parameters further than CD. It is absolutely pointless to reproduce frequencies above the ability of any human to hear i.e. above 20 KHz. It is equally pointless to enable the playback of music files which allow for a dynamic range of 140 db or more. To exploit this would damage reproduction equipment and worse of all would permanently damage the hearing of the listener in short order.
Manufacturers are leading us up a stereo dead end and playing a numbers game. They have the right to claim that their equipment is better but they have a moral duty not to mislead the public.
Manufacturers are being supported in this numbers game by Hi-Fi magazines whose reporters claim that they can hear sounds and quality differences which science says they cannot. I believe that they are being disingenuous. Add to this the comments and exaggerated claims which are made on some Hi-Fi forums for turntables, cables, "Hi-Res" versus Cd etc. and we are in a sorry mess.
There is room for improvement in sound technology but based on scientific and engineering research which can identify genuine improvements which can be made to inter alia:
microphones and their placement,
loudspeakers,
room acoustics
and computer generated surround sound systems.
We will never progress while false and unverifiable claims are made for 24/192, DSD sound reproduction. No improvement will be made whilst some "audiophiles" believe that electrons somehow follow the arrows printed on expensive cables - they do not. Electrons flow from negative to positive polarity.
How can we progress when people believe that hanging little rocks from line input connexions can improve sonic performance.
The time has come to stop all the myths and apply some genuine science and sound engineering to solve Hi-Fi problems.
It is a pity that Hi-Fi magazines feel that they cannot support science and that most reporters are only interested in playing the numbers game.
It is obvious that current Hi-Fi recording techniques and sound reproduction are unable to exactly duplicate the original performance whether that is in the studio or live. This is especially apparent when related to classical music. For many reasons including microphone placement, transducer performance and listening room acoustics a sound recording cannot exactly duplicate the original music. We are able to reproduce a flat frequency response. We are able to reproduce musical frequencies well beyond the bounds of human hearing. Likewise we can record and playback music which has a very wide dynamic range beyond even the loudest and softest notes that a full orchestra can manage. We can playback music at loudness levels which can easily damage human hearing.
We can do most of this with a humble LP and a CD can achieve this easily. There is no need for "High Resolution" digital music files which can push the parameters further than CD. It is absolutely pointless to reproduce frequencies above the ability of any human to hear i.e. above 20 KHz. It is equally pointless to enable the playback of music files which allow for a dynamic range of 140 db or more. To exploit this would damage reproduction equipment and worse of all would permanently damage the hearing of the listener in short order.
Manufacturers are leading us up a stereo dead end and playing a numbers game. They have the right to claim that their equipment is better but they have a moral duty not to mislead the public.
Manufacturers are being supported in this numbers game by Hi-Fi magazines whose reporters claim that they can hear sounds and quality differences which science says they cannot. I believe that they are being disingenuous. Add to this the comments and exaggerated claims which are made on some Hi-Fi forums for turntables, cables, "Hi-Res" versus Cd etc. and we are in a sorry mess.
There is room for improvement in sound technology but based on scientific and engineering research which can identify genuine improvements which can be made to inter alia:
microphones and their placement,
loudspeakers,
room acoustics
and computer generated surround sound systems.
We will never progress while false and unverifiable claims are made for 24/192, DSD sound reproduction. No improvement will be made whilst some "audiophiles" believe that electrons somehow follow the arrows printed on expensive cables - they do not. Electrons flow from negative to positive polarity.
How can we progress when people believe that hanging little rocks from line input connexions can improve sonic performance.
The time has come to stop all the myths and apply some genuine science and sound engineering to solve Hi-Fi problems.
It is a pity that Hi-Fi magazines feel that they cannot support science and that most reporters are only interested in playing the numbers game.
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Don't be fooled by the new fashion to buy a turntable because the sound of LP's are so wonderful
I have been listening to LPs since the mid 1960s and I think that they can sound great and they can also sound awful. Nearly everyone is getting onto the turntable band wagon. Hi-Fi magazines and forums are full of praise for the new rise of analogue music. Most of the comments that you will read are exaggerated or untrue.
The first mistruth is that technically LPs are more proficient at Hi-Fi sound reproduction than CDs or "HiRes" digital files. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny; the whole system of LP sound reproduction (and 45s and 78s) is flawed from start to finish and introduces excessive harmonic distortion and clicks and pops and timing errors and that is before you slide the LP out of its cover and play it. Vinyl pedants claim that analogue sound reproduction can be perfect - no it cannot - clicks and pops are unavoidable. And, from a pedantic point of view if you hear one pop which should not be there then you are not listening to Hi-Fi.
I love listening to LPs on occasion but when I do it is for fun and for the different sound from "digital" music. For serious musical appreciation I choose digital sources.
Deciding what equipment to buy can be a nightmare for the uninitiated. There is so much exaggeration and hyperbole written about the subject of turntables and LPs that it is difficult to find sound advice.
Most of the budget turntables are perfectly capable of giving good sound reproduction. The likes of Pioneer, Project, Marantz, Sony, Music Hall etc. all have reputations to maintain and they are not going to sell you a product which does not sound good. Some of these turntables are made of plastic and are a bit flimsy but if you place them on a solid rack or shelf they will perform well. The cheap turntables will suffer from quality control issues so that the odd one will suffer from wow or flutter or speed variations; in which case you return it to the supplier. To get reasonable sound reproduction ensure that your turntable has a moving magnet cartridge rather than a ceramic one.
Most of the criticism on forums relates to the fact that the cheap budget turntables are made of plastic. Well consider this, vinyl is plastic and many expensive decks have acrylic plinths or platters and what is acrylic if it is not plastic? The solidity and weightiness of a good deck helps to reduce vibration but if you site your budget deck on a solid platform its flimsiness is mitigated.
On many forums budget turntables are dismissed as junk or rubbish but a budget turntable maybe all you can afford so do not let this opinion put you off. Try them for yourself and if they are no good return them to the supplier.
When you buy a turntable, you do not want to damage your records because of excessive down force or stylus pressure especially if you have bought an expensive 180gm vinyl record. Many audiophiles get anal about this and constantly tinker with down force and may even reset it every time they play a record. Some set this to the minimum; my cartridge has a down force range of 1.5gms to 2.5gms. I have set mine to 2.2gms and I see no reason to change it. Many budget tables use a pre-set or unchangeable down force of 3.5gms. Such a force would be traduced by an audiophile but I do not think that this will damage your records even after repeated playing.
If you digitise your records properly to a 16/44.1 Wav file using a good USB deck or USB phono-stage then you can reserve playing the LP for special occasions to avoid wear and tear. The digital file will sound almost exactly the same as the LP.
Many contributors to forums and magazines criticise turntables with built in phono-stages. Well I have got two such turntables and they both sound fantastic. When I use an external phono-stage they hardly sound any different. Phono-stages use electronics to amplify the weak signal of a moving magnet cartridge and they also equalise the sound according to RIAA standards. When a record is cut the bass is attenuated and the treble is accentuated this is reversed by the phono-stage. RIAA equalisation has been around since the mid 1950's so there has been plenty of time for Pioneer, Sony, Project, Teac and Denon etc. to get this right. You do not need to spend hundreds of pounds for a simple phono-stage.
There is so much exaggeration and unjustified criticism I could go on forever. Just remember that the commentators on forums and in magazines rarely make comparisons to a standard in fact they almost never do. When they are making their judgements, they never do so on the basis of double blind testing . All the comment is mostly based on asserted hearsay rather than facts established by the scientific method.
If you want to then you can buy a moving coil cartridge that will playback ultra-sonic sound up to 45khz; but the trouble is no-one can hear sound with a higher frequency than 20kHz (reserved for children) and for many adults their highest frequency is much lower. So you may well ask what is the point of a moving coil cartridge? Many audiophiles do not ask this question. Most LPs do not have musical content above 15khz.
When you read a forum that traduces your potential purchase just remember this: when the Beatles and the Rolling Stones first started making records we played their music on Dansette type record players with poorly produced and specified ceramic cartridges with a down force of about 10gms. The music still sounded good enough for the Beatles and the Stones etc. to sell millions of records.
The other day I was at a market where someone was selling second hand records and he was playing them on a real budget job - less than £100 pounds. It sounded better than our Dansettes. Why not try a cheap turntable if you cannot decide if the medium suits you or not but buy some second hand records to play on it? You can always upgrade later.
Also consider this, a £30,000 pound turntable can sound marvellous and I would never criticise someone who bought one. However, the £30,000 record player gives you the ultimate in sound reproduction which includes the music and the clicks and pops and surface noise which cannot be removed no matter how much you spend, because the system is flawed sonically from start to finish. Try listening to a 180gm acoustic music vinyl LP but with headphones and then you will see what I mean.
The first mistruth is that technically LPs are more proficient at Hi-Fi sound reproduction than CDs or "HiRes" digital files. This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny; the whole system of LP sound reproduction (and 45s and 78s) is flawed from start to finish and introduces excessive harmonic distortion and clicks and pops and timing errors and that is before you slide the LP out of its cover and play it. Vinyl pedants claim that analogue sound reproduction can be perfect - no it cannot - clicks and pops are unavoidable. And, from a pedantic point of view if you hear one pop which should not be there then you are not listening to Hi-Fi.
I love listening to LPs on occasion but when I do it is for fun and for the different sound from "digital" music. For serious musical appreciation I choose digital sources.
Deciding what equipment to buy can be a nightmare for the uninitiated. There is so much exaggeration and hyperbole written about the subject of turntables and LPs that it is difficult to find sound advice.
Most of the budget turntables are perfectly capable of giving good sound reproduction. The likes of Pioneer, Project, Marantz, Sony, Music Hall etc. all have reputations to maintain and they are not going to sell you a product which does not sound good. Some of these turntables are made of plastic and are a bit flimsy but if you place them on a solid rack or shelf they will perform well. The cheap turntables will suffer from quality control issues so that the odd one will suffer from wow or flutter or speed variations; in which case you return it to the supplier. To get reasonable sound reproduction ensure that your turntable has a moving magnet cartridge rather than a ceramic one.
Most of the criticism on forums relates to the fact that the cheap budget turntables are made of plastic. Well consider this, vinyl is plastic and many expensive decks have acrylic plinths or platters and what is acrylic if it is not plastic? The solidity and weightiness of a good deck helps to reduce vibration but if you site your budget deck on a solid platform its flimsiness is mitigated.
On many forums budget turntables are dismissed as junk or rubbish but a budget turntable maybe all you can afford so do not let this opinion put you off. Try them for yourself and if they are no good return them to the supplier.
When you buy a turntable, you do not want to damage your records because of excessive down force or stylus pressure especially if you have bought an expensive 180gm vinyl record. Many audiophiles get anal about this and constantly tinker with down force and may even reset it every time they play a record. Some set this to the minimum; my cartridge has a down force range of 1.5gms to 2.5gms. I have set mine to 2.2gms and I see no reason to change it. Many budget tables use a pre-set or unchangeable down force of 3.5gms. Such a force would be traduced by an audiophile but I do not think that this will damage your records even after repeated playing.
If you digitise your records properly to a 16/44.1 Wav file using a good USB deck or USB phono-stage then you can reserve playing the LP for special occasions to avoid wear and tear. The digital file will sound almost exactly the same as the LP.
Many contributors to forums and magazines criticise turntables with built in phono-stages. Well I have got two such turntables and they both sound fantastic. When I use an external phono-stage they hardly sound any different. Phono-stages use electronics to amplify the weak signal of a moving magnet cartridge and they also equalise the sound according to RIAA standards. When a record is cut the bass is attenuated and the treble is accentuated this is reversed by the phono-stage. RIAA equalisation has been around since the mid 1950's so there has been plenty of time for Pioneer, Sony, Project, Teac and Denon etc. to get this right. You do not need to spend hundreds of pounds for a simple phono-stage.
There is so much exaggeration and unjustified criticism I could go on forever. Just remember that the commentators on forums and in magazines rarely make comparisons to a standard in fact they almost never do. When they are making their judgements, they never do so on the basis of double blind testing . All the comment is mostly based on asserted hearsay rather than facts established by the scientific method.
If you want to then you can buy a moving coil cartridge that will playback ultra-sonic sound up to 45khz; but the trouble is no-one can hear sound with a higher frequency than 20kHz (reserved for children) and for many adults their highest frequency is much lower. So you may well ask what is the point of a moving coil cartridge? Many audiophiles do not ask this question. Most LPs do not have musical content above 15khz.
When you read a forum that traduces your potential purchase just remember this: when the Beatles and the Rolling Stones first started making records we played their music on Dansette type record players with poorly produced and specified ceramic cartridges with a down force of about 10gms. The music still sounded good enough for the Beatles and the Stones etc. to sell millions of records.
The other day I was at a market where someone was selling second hand records and he was playing them on a real budget job - less than £100 pounds. It sounded better than our Dansettes. Why not try a cheap turntable if you cannot decide if the medium suits you or not but buy some second hand records to play on it? You can always upgrade later.
Also consider this, a £30,000 pound turntable can sound marvellous and I would never criticise someone who bought one. However, the £30,000 record player gives you the ultimate in sound reproduction which includes the music and the clicks and pops and surface noise which cannot be removed no matter how much you spend, because the system is flawed sonically from start to finish. Try listening to a 180gm acoustic music vinyl LP but with headphones and then you will see what I mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)