Is High Resolution Audio really the way to go for music reproduction?

I recently tuned in to the “You and Yours “article on HIRES music on BBC Radio 4 iPlayer which was first broadcast in March 2014. Their piece can be heard in HIRES from a download which can be found here:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/youyours/high_res_you_and_yours.wav.

Your ears may be able to hear a difference just as mine did but this is not down to whether the music was from a CD quality file or a 24/96 HIRES file as the guest experts explained below. I really recommend that you listen to the broadcast.

My ears could not distinguish between CD and 24/96 resolution even when listening to the high definition broadcast through a good quality DAC, amplifier and headphones.

The host, Winifred, and her two guests listened to jazz, pop and classical music in both CD and 24/96 HIRES format. One of the comparisons was blind and both of the sound engineering experts, Stephen Rinker and Steve Levine, had the courage to say that they would be embarrassed if they could not tell the difference. They failed to identify the HIRES music but I hope they were not ashamed of themselves as they were in good company.

As far as I can tell, no-one has been proven to hear the difference between CD quality and HIRES, with all other parameters being equal and even when using high quality equipment. Proof can only be obtained by using double-blind tests in a peer reviewed study using the scientific method. Such peer reviewed studies are conducted by the medical profession to prove whether a treatment works or not or is safe to use. Surely, what is good for medical science is also good for sound engineering?

The sound engineers behind the radio programme did not use the same volume level for the single blind test and the two experts were easily misled by this. One of the experts explained the Fletcher –Munson curve which demonstrates that human beings perceive the frequencies of music differently according to volume level.

The scientific tests, which have been conducted, up until now, have used small samples of people so it is possible that individuals can be found who are able to hear the difference. Sound engineers, HI-FI journalists and audiophiles have a duty to step forward to prove that they are better able to distinguish between CD quality music and HIRES than the likes of  you and me.

Who is going to have the courage of Rinker and Levine and allow themselves to be double-blind tested at their leisure with the equipment of their choice? Let’s have some real evidence, rather than assertions, to prove the sceptics wrong.

Such tests will be costly and time consuming and would have to use the highest quality sound reproduction equipment and sound engineering techniques. The tests would also have to be conducted ethically to ensure that participants are not exposed to volumes which would damage their hearing.  Perhaps, the BBC could divert some funds from “Top Gear” or “Strictly Come Dancing” to conduct such a study for they have the nous and expertise to do it.

There are good reasons for proving whether HIRES music sounds better at our ears or not:

HIRES music is now being scrutinised by consumer programmes and the mainstream newspapers so let’s prove the benefits once and for all, if they really exist, and end any controversy or sonic opinion turf wars.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/05/pono-neil-young-24bit-192khz-review

and  here is your chance to spot the hidden errors! Try the graphics for a start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-m-kaye/hires-audio-hear-what-you_b_4789827.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology

The anecdotal and hearsay evidence is not strong enough; we need the proof to confirm the theory.

We must confirm that the resolution of our ears is good enough to appreciate the technical and mathematical superiority of HIRES reproduced music.

If there are people who can genuinely tell the difference then shouldn't we want to know why? Then, shouldn't we want to know if sound engineering can improve the situation for those of us who have reduced hearing acuity?

 If no-one can truly perceive a difference then there would be little point proceeding with 24/96 sound delivery just to go up a costly blind alley.

 Many other improvements could be made to recording and sound reproduction techniques without the use of HIRES files at the point of delivery but only the scientific method can verify any improvement and help us to move forward.

Stephen Rinker and Steve Levine made the perfectly valid point that 24/96 resolution is extremely useful in the studio and at the sound mixing desk; so 24/96 does have a proven case for the recording of music if not its delivery.

As far as the individual enthusiast is concerned, you should be open-minded to the fact that your perception can be misled by a simple change of volume levels when you listen to a sales demonstration or make comparisons at home. Beware of the pitfalls before you part with substantial amounts of cash unless your purse or wallet is bulging.

As far as I am concerned, I shall still buy 24/96 recordings if that is the only way to obtain music which has been mastered to the highest quality; otherwise its CD quality to save money and hard disk space.  This might be a hard nosed approach but really it is only the music that matters to me.

  

Record Store Day in Bromley 19th April 2014

I have always loved browsing the shelves of independent record stores and talking to the staff. Record shops have almost met their demise, on the high street, as a result of competition from the internet. Record Store Day, which originated in the USA in 2008, is part of the fight back to help keep record shops as part of modern cultural life.

Even though I was given an advance list of the music on sale, I went with the intention of just browsing and listening to the live music. The main feature of the day was row upon row of old style LP and 45 records.  I was disappointed not to see more people taking part.

Not many were combing through the records or even glancing at the covers. LP sales are on the up and in the UK last year 800,000 shiny new vinyl records were sold. Young people are meant to be leading a revival of music sold on solid and tangible media. But I did not see much evidence of it.

What I did see was a fair number of enthusiasts who were interested in buying collectors’ items and I spoke to a number of people looking for records from the likes of Jimi Hendrix, Deep Purple and Bob Dylan.

The live Band, “The Get-Go”, was drawing crowds of people to the store front, but the audience stood on the outside instead of joining in. What were they afraid of? The Band was hitting some great blue notes and what better backdrop was there for browsing the shelves?

Perhaps, latter day music buyers are reluctant to get involved with an unfamiliar and old fashioned way of finding out about music and buying it.  Has internet surfing replaced social interaction by a form of shy individuality? Have headphones and MP3 players detached so many of us from the sociability of listening to music?

I could not resist buying a couple of LP records even though they were very expensive. It was £25 for “The Jimi Hendrix Experience Live at Monterey “.  And, it was another £25 for a numbered and purple coloured edition of Don Van Vliet and the Magic Bands ‘, “Son of Dust Sucker – The Roger Eagle tapes from 1977.

Don Van Vliet was also known as Captain Beefheart and he had a very powerful blues voice with a 4 ½ octave range. He regularly broke microphones with his voice in the recording studio. I remember seeing him live at the Drury Theatre London in 1974. It was music and performance art at its best.

The live Band was doing so well that it drew complaints from the adjoining shops about the noise. My ears weren’t ringing so I suspect that it was just sour grapes that all the shoppers had drifted away to hear music rather than open their wallets.

There was time to buy a 45 rpm or two before the music stopped. At £10 each, these were even more expensive pro rata and by the minute. I chose a 1969 Marianne Faithful single - “Sister Morphine” with “Something Better” on the flip side. I also bought a Norah Jones 45 rpm - “She’s 22”.

Ry Cooder, one of America’s finest guitarists, played some great slide guitar rifts on the Marianne Faithful record and he also featured on the Captain Beefheart “Safe as Milk “Album”. The rock music family is very small.

The live Band was forced to stop playing. This was a little churlish, I thought, as Record Store Day only happens once a year. I commiserated with Stuart Farnham, the lead guitarist, and congratulated him on his use of the blue note.  “Yes” he said, “you don’t get that with classical music”.

Before my wife arrived to stop me spending more, it was time to buy a copy of the Band’s music on vinyl but no such luck; it was only available on CD.

As we left the shop someone, who had worked in record retailing, asked me what I had bought and how much I had paid. “Too much; it’s all a big rip off” he said.  But, for me, it was worth every penny and the Captain Beefheart record is not going up for sale on EBay.

Behringer U-Control UCA202

It was never my intention to make comments about individual HIFI products, but for this little device I felt that I had to.

I bought the Behringer U-Control UCA202 to convert some old LPs and 45s to digital music files.

It performs brilliantly. It has plug and play operation and when used with the Audacity software it makes the process of converting your analogue sound media to digital very easy.

It has two RCA analogue "line inputs" which you connect to the "line outputs" out of an amplifier, phono -stage or cassette player. The device does not come equipped with the cables so you will need to buy the cables if you do not already have them. But, you probably do if you connect a turntable to a HIFI system.

For cassette players which sometimes only have a 3.55mm stereo line output you will need a "one to two RCA" cable.

The device, however, is fitted with a USB cable.

All you have to do is connect it to the amplifier at one end and a laptop at the other after you have downloaded the free software from Audacity. Audacity is reasonably easy to use after a little experimentation and by using the ample help text on Wikipedia.

It took me less than 10 minutes to digitise my first 45 record.

The sound quality was simply amazing. I digitised my records to 16 bit/44.1KHz WAV files. The U-Control cannot make 24/96 "HIRES" files but for a one off recording 24/96 is unnecessary.

I made a copy of an Errol Garner LP - "One World Concert" recorded in Seattle in 1961. Garner was a jazz genius and his piano playing is immaculate. The record itself was in good condition and I did not need to remove any crackles, pops or hiss using Audacity functionality.

My wife and I could not hear any difference between the LP and the Digital conversion when played back through the same amplifier and speakers. Other members of my family could not tell the difference either; the digital conversion sounded exactly like the LP with the odd crackle between the tracks. To all intents and purposes the U-Control and Audacity had made a perfect facsimile. I could see no reason why making a 24/96 "HIRES" copy could improve things.

The U-Control is small and very portable so you can place your laptop near your turntable or cassette player to make recording easy. If you only have a PC then plugging a USB cable into the front of the box is easier than directly trying to connect a Cassette player  or Turntable to line inputs on the back of the computer.

The device is not just an analogue to digital converter (ADC) it can also perform the other way round. It can playback music from a laptop or PC  and act as a Digital to Analogue  (DAC) converter connected to your HIFI.

The U-Control has analogue RCA outputs and an Optical output which could be connected to another external DAC or the optical inputs of an AV receiver. I tested these and they work perfectly to give really good sound reproduction.

The U-Control also has a headphone amplifier to monitor your recordings or just to playback music form the laptop when you are out and about.

The U-Control sound card will probably be better than the one in your laptop or PC unless you have bought computer equipment specifically designed for music.

For about £40 including VAT this device represents excellent value for money. It is well designed and economies of scale allow for a cheap price but the performance is  very competitive.

You could also use this device to record audio from a TV set top box if it has line outputs but I have not tried it. It could also be used as part of a portable recording studio.

I recommend this highly, if you just want to archive old analogue recordings or to save new LPs from wear and tear by digitising them for playback over a digital system. An ADC and DAC and headphone amplifier - all in one - this is fantastic sound engineering from Behringer.

This review explains it all.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/behringer-uca202-review.html


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdBFLqK76w8

King Crimson - In the Court of The Crimson King - 200 gm Vinyl Edition

I was thumbing through the new LPs in the record shop the other day and this record caught my eye. I simply had to buy it because of the album art. I rarely buy new LPs these days as I prefer to listen to CD quality music. This record is an icon of progressive rock and of course I bought a copy when it first came out in 1969. Like many of my LP records someone borrowed it and did not return it.

I have always loved the early King Crimson records and I have ITCOTCK on CD. The record is regarded as the first genuine progressive rock album by many commentators and it is a seminal work. King Crimson's music is not based on blues but on jazz, folk and classical music and is symphonic in style. But of course it uses guitar, bass and drums.

The band featured the following superb musicians.

Greg Lake on bass guitar and vocals. Lake joined Emmerson, Lake and Palmer after leaving King Crimsom.

Robert Fripp on Guitar.

Michael Giles on percussion  and backing vocals.

Ian McDonald on woodwind instruments and keyboards including the mellotron and vibes.

Peter Sinfield wrote the lyrics.

The first track 21st Schizoid Century Man leads the way: it is a frenetic fast paced jazz based song using the full panoply of King Crimson instrumentation and Lake's  deliberately distorted voice.

The album progresses through folk, classical and jazz styled songs to the finale: In The Court OF The Crimson King.  This imaginative track is almost surreal and the lyrics take you to a different kingdom.

What singles King Crimson out is the superb musicianship and flawless playing. They are truly great musicians  and up there with John Renbourne, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Paul Desmond and dare I say it Jimmy Hendrix.

The music is more avant-garde than far out - like the Pink Floyd. It sounded truly wonderful and strange at the same time to naive progressive rock fans way back in 1969 and all of my male friends loved it. Funnily, enough it did not appeal to women so much. My wife will not let me play it in her presence even though she is a big fan of the Moody Blues.

If you have not heard this album then I strongly recommend that you buy it; you will not be disappointed by the music or the sound quality if you like progressive rock. It is probably one of the best popular music records of all time and ranks up there with Sgt Pepper.

On a technical note this album is one of the best produced LPs I have got my hands on. In my time thousands of LPs have passed through my hands and all of them have had production flaws such as minor scratches and scuffs. This record has none of them as far as I can see or hear. The LP sounded better than any other version of the record that I heard in the sixties and seventies despite my modest turntable.

This did not mean that I could not hear any snap crackle or pop in the quiet bits. The record was difficult to remove from its sleeve which meant there was a build  up of static. This combined with the high atmospheric and dry pressure  combined to create enough static electricity to make every piece of dust in my living room air to stick to the record.

I earthed myself whilst cleaning the record with a carbon fibre brush but to no avail. The record started playing  so quietly that I thought that the volume was turned completely down or that I had miscued the needle. However, the static built up as I played the record and by the end of the album the needle was full of dust and I could hear the dreaded noise on the quiet bits of the music run off at the end of the record. Of course this spoilt what should have been a great musical experience. You just cannot win with an LP.

Even at low volumes I could hear some noises which sounded like the sound from a tape machine or from the mellotron but this was only in the quiet bits. I could also hear some hiss which I thought was noise from the record. But when I downloaded the 320 kbps MP3 I could hear the same. The hissing noise was from the master tapes. The LP and MP3 were of sufficient high resolution to expose flaws picked up by the master tapes- but so what? The music was not spoilt by any of this.

The LP record and the MP3 version sounded remarkably similar but the mellotron sounded more shrill in the digital version. The inherent harmonic distortion involved in LP replay was probably "softening and thickening the sound" to make the shrill notes sound sweeter to my ears. However, 320 kbps MP3 and CD are to my ears of higher fidelity than LP; the mellotron probably would have sounded shrill if you had monitored it directly through good speakers or headphones.

Both the LP and MP3 have been remastered with the approval of Robert Fripp and they sound great and better than ever before. This LP and MP3 download are well worth the money - £20 - as far as I am concerned.

I shall only play the record on special occasions and stick to listening to the MP3 and CD versions. I am thinking of "digitising" the LP itself using Audacity so that I can retain LP quality sound without wearing out the record. It will then  be a trip back to the 1969 every time I play the album digitally but minus the dust.

CD perfection

If you are not convinced that a CD is  capable of perfectly reproducing a sound wave then watch the video on the page below.  The performance of a CD is measured on an oscilloscope and compared to the performance of an LP.  The CD reproduces the 1KHz and  15KHz sine waves perfectly. The LP cannot match this accuracy and that is why you are able to hear noticeable harmonic distortion no matter what quality of sound reproduction equipment you are using.

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-romance-v-reality/page10

HIFI myths and bunkum

I am in the process of replacing my 1990s CD player and my 1990s amplifier and a recent addition an external DAC. I have bought a combined CD player and DAC and I am going to pick up a new amplifier tomorrow.

I am not going to say the brand names of the equipment because there is always someone who will say I should have gone for something else.

Even though it is tempting to remortgage the house and spend tens of thousands of pounds on HIFI equipment I am not going to do so. My house is a modest size and my listening conditions do not merit have an amplifier which is more than about 50 watts per channel into my 8 ohm speakers.

I have visited some HIFI retailers to listen to equipment and quite frankly HIFI sets costing tens of thousands of pounds do not sound much better, if at all, to my ears than my existing kit . I also have friends who have invested tens of thousands of pounds in HIFI equipment which does not sound much better either.

My ears are as good as anyone's for my age. I am still able to go to the opera or a performance of Verdi's Requiem and hear all the main performers singing against the back drop of the orchestra going full blast along with the choir. I can still pick out the singer in the choir  who is out of tune. There is nothing great in this as many other people can do this too.

The fact of the matter is that all of my existing kit is of HIFI quality and if I buy something newer or more expensive the sonic improvements are going to be marginal this can only stand to reason. If I want to I can fool myself into to believing that because I have paid three times the amount for new kit then it must perform substantially better. The real world does not work like that but the placebo effect does.

The new CD and DAC that I have bought does not sound much better than my existing kit. I was not expecting it to. My wife believes it sounds clearer and I believe I can hear an improvement but if I was to subject myself to a double blind test then I am not so certain I could hear the difference. Why is this? The ultra modern DAC which is being replaced is of very high quality as well. I was replacing the CD player because it has broken down. And, I now have a simpler arrangement.

I am confident that my new amplifier is better with CDs, LPs and streamed music and that I could tell the difference in a double blind test. The improvement in quality is however marginal.

Myth 1: Paying ten of thousands of dollars or pounds for "High End" HIFI equipment will see you getting substantial improvement over more humble equipment.  

The law of diminishing returns kicks in at around $1,000. You could be paying over the odds for equipment costing tens of thousands which sounds no better or even worse than something cheaper. If you do not believe me read this.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/

The electronic chips in a DAC are all made in a factory and they are mass produced; the chips cost next to nothing to buy if you make a bulk purchase. One manufacture let the audio cat out of the bag by stating that 80% or more of the cost of the "High  End"  equipment that he and others were selling was cosmetic to make the products look better.

Myth 2 : HIFI magazines know what they are talking about.

 The amplifier that I am about to buy has been described as not very musical by more than one HIFI magazine. What are they talking about? They are talking bunkum. HIFI equipment is meant to reproduce the sound of the original recording as accurately as possible. Every now and again a performer strikes a bad note: is the HIFI equipment supposed to correct an error?

Quite often the high notes sung by an opera singer sound very piercing. At times a steel stringed guitar can sound a little harsh especially when the high notes are played or when the finger nails or the plectrum do not connect correctly. I want to hear this as it is part of the performance and I do not want to hear the notes "warmed up".

Many writers claim that LPs sound much better than CDs and refuse to acknowledge the benefits of CD. A well mastered and produced LP can sound better than a poorly mastered CD from a technical point of view but not often.

An LP can sound nicer than a CD and some of my 1960s Beatles LPs sound nicer to my ears than the equivalent CD, but Why?  There is sometimes pleasant and noticeable harmonic distortion on the LP especially for acoustic instruments. This takes me back to yesterday, but when I am in the mood for better sound quality without surface noise I choose CD every time.

Many HIFI writers are forgiving of the faults of the LP system and are prepared to put up with surface noise and clicking and ticking noises. However, any amplifier or CD player which made even the slightest noise would be traduced.


HIFI magazines never critically examine the exaggerated  or even bogus claims made by equipment manufactures. I wonder why?

The magazines never test equipment against a standard so most of their listening tests are invalid.

The magazines never interpret measurements into a listening context. Thus they claim that 24/96 or 24/192 "HIRES" sound reproduction is better than CD quality.  They assert that a "HIRES" player is better than CD player because it can reproduce frequencies higher than 20 kHz. This is nonsense as no one can hear above 20 kHz. Think about it.

The magazines also claim that "HIRES" sound reproduction is better than CD because of the "improved " dynamic range - up to 144 db or even a theoretical 192 db for 32 bit music files. Again this is misinterpreted as far as practicality and listening are concerned. Only an orchestra can achieve a dynamic range of 80 db and usually it plays at around a dynamic range of 40 db. Most pop music only ever achieves 20 db at the most. An LP can easily encompass the usual dynamic range of an orchestra  and a CD its complete range.

You can damage your ears listening to an LP or a CD too loudly. A 24 bit "HIRES" music file could theoretically produce a sound of 144 db if its full dynamic range could be exploited by amplifiers and loudspeakers strong enough. A 144 db sound would make you deaf instantly and could possible kill you. HIFI magazines are reluctant to point out that "HIRES" is all about trying to persuade naive consumers that this form of redundant technology is both needed and useful.

HIFI magazines use lurid language to exaggerate  differences between the sound of equipment when making comparisons. If the equipment is of HIFI quality than any difference should be marginal or else something is radically wrong.

Magazines love to jump on bandwagons like HIRES and I expect to next bandwagon to be Ultra HIFI they love to be in the know. The best bandwagon for them to jump on would be exposing bogus claims for equipment and insist that manufactures publish independent and  peer reviewed double blind listening tests when they make claims.

HIFI reviewers claim that they have got better ears than the rest of us mortals - not so but they can be trained to hear faults but so can you.

I do like to read HIFI mags because of the readers' opinions and the review of new equipment even if it does make me laugh. Overall the magazines are very entertaining.



Myth 3: LP is better both technically and sound wise than a CD

Subjectively, LP can sound nicer than digital sourced music especially for pop music; even to my ears. For classical music a CD cannot be beaten. The dynamic range is wider, the sound stage is better because of the improve channel separation inherent in CD. Pitch is better controlled on a CD and there is minimal harmonic distortion. You can imagine something different if you like but a good CD and  player beats even the best LP and turntable from a technical and listening point of view.

Do not get me wrong, I really like to listen to LPs and the quality differences can be marginal but consider the following however:

A CD has a dynamic range of 96 db compared to an LP at about 70 db. The CD can encompass the full dynamic range of an orchestra which is about 80 db but an LP cannot achieve this.

A well mastered CD has a linear response across the full frequency range of human hearing but an LP does not.

A CD has a better signal to noise ratio. A CD usually has minimal harmonic distortion which cannot be perceived by a listener. An LP can have perceivable harmonic distortion.

A CD has none of the snap, crackle and pop which is so annoying on an LP.

A CD does not have the pitch variation and wow and flutter which is intrinsic to both records and turntables.

You can repair a CD which is scratched by "ripping it" and allowing error correction software to correct the track to make it playable . Because of this, not one of my hundreds of CDs has ever had to be returned to the shop.

I have had to return new LPs to the shop many times because of excessive surface noise and many of my LPs have been so damaged by intensive use that they are  now unplayable. CDs are much more durable.

Listeners who are new to LP should consider all of the above before investing hundreds or thousands of pounds or dollars in turntable and "phonostage" gear. Cheaper equipment can do the job almost as well when you consider the limitations of an LP itself. No HIFI equipment, no matter how costly, can correct some of the flaws listed above.

Myth 4 : Cables, little isolation feet etc.

Whilst installing my new HIFI equipment I swapped some cables around to see if I could hear the difference. I could not. As long as you are using reasonable quality and priced cables you will hear good quality music. I am afraid that my Maplins interconnects perform just as well as interconnection cables costing 10 times the price so more fool me for believing the salesman all those years ago.

The same applies to USB cables and HDMI cables; you do not need to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds to achieve good performance; just do not buy something which looks cheap and nasty.

How can an equipment rack really affect the performance of a CD player etc. unless it is about to fall apart?

I grant you that a record deck must be placed on a solid and level platform but whether a shelf is made of walnut, oak or ebony, will it make much difference? It just needs to be solid.

You have just paid 2000 pounds or dollars for a new deck, so do you really think that you need to buy new isolation feet? The manufactures would have thought of that one so their feet will be very good. Do they want the deck returned because you can hear a slight vibration?

You have just bought a 1,000 dollar amplifier do you think that the manufacturer will have omitted a mains hum filter. If you heard mains hum you would send the kit back would you not so why do you need to buy a mains conditioner? 

The first thing I did when I bought my new amplifier was to turn on all the equipment that could be connected to it including a PC and then listen to the amplifier at 1/4 volume setting and listen for noise with my ear against the speakers. I could hear nothing and I could only hear some white noise creeping in at 3/4 volume. So is there a need for little devices that filter out radio frequency interference?  I do not think so. I have not heard mains hum or the local TV transmitter coming across my kit for many a year.

The list of exaggerated or bogus claims for the performance of ancillary equipment is very long so buyer beware.

Myth 5 : HIFI forums and  blogs are informative 

Many lovely people contribute to forums and blogs and they are fun to read  but do the contributors take into account confirmation bias and the placebo effect? Most of them don't. If you have paid 2000 dollars for a cable you will be very disappointed if it does not work. Are you sure you are not convincing yourself that the cable is really better than the Maplins one it is replacing?

The same principle applies to all HIFI equipment and even cosmetics, wine, food supplements, washing powder and HD televisions for that matter so buyer beware.

Read this: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/102-blake-withdrawls-from-pear-cable-challenge.html

With regard to your ears: no one has ever been proven to be able to hear ultrasonic sound so can we really hear the difference between CD and "HIRES" music? Please read this: http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/.


 Myth 6: Science, testing and  common sense are wrong

You can chose to believe that science and double blind tests are wrong if you want to and imagine that some equipment has properties that do not exist. You can believe in ghosts if you want to as well.  But I do not have to believe in Tarot cards to predict that you could be seriously ripped off if you ignore the science and testing and fail to appreciate common sense.

So please think before you part with thousands and pounds or dollars especially if you do not have ready cash freely available .

This is common sense and I have no reason to doubt it:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html


This also looks genuine:

http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/

Buyer beware.

LP frustrations - first time vinyl users beware

I went into my local record shop the other day and bought a brand new LP at a bargain price. It was David Wiffin Live at the Bunkhouse Coffee House 1965. He sings  folk and blues and I like this style of music very much. The LP was attractively packaged in a clear plastic sleeve. The record was produced by BB records on yellow 140gm vinyl. It was supposed to be one of a limited edition of 500 records. All this for £6, not even ten bucks; it seemed like a real winner.

http://www.maplemusic.com/artists/dav/bio.asp

http://www.discogs.com/David-Wiffen-At-The-Bunkhouse-Coffeehouse/release/3345643

I examined the record, as best as I could, in the artificial light of the record store. I was aware that I was taking a bit of a risk.

When I got the record home, I found that it was not protected by an inner sleeve. There was a square plastic insert on which was printed the record information. Getting the record out of the sleeve was a bit of  task as the vinyl was stuck to all the plastic. I had to delve into the cover to prise the record out. I could feel the static electricity raising the hairs on my arms. It did not augur too well for playing the record even though I earthed myself whilst cleaning the record with a carbon brush.

When I played the record it was full of clicks which spoilt most of the music. It was not just the static as both sides of the record were badly scuffed and scratched. It was a good job I hadn't paid a lot of money for this rubbish. For the moment I decided not to take the record back: why waste petrol and time just for £6? I "digitise" all of my small collection of old LPs using a USB interface and Audacity software.

The software did the trick and was able to remove most of the clicks and noise without seriously affecting the sound of the music. The recording now sounds quite good played back via a computer and an external DAC. However, whilst monitoring the "digitisation" through headphones, I noticed some distortion during the louder parts of the music.

I am giving the record producers the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the distortion comes from the tape machines used to record the performance in a coffee house in 1965.

Digital technology rescued the situation to a certain extent but Audacity could not handle the distortion. I shall let the record store know my feelings about this. How was the record damaged? Was it during the production stage or when it was subsequently handled by the record shop? Surely, the store would have examined a record that was returned by a customer just because they did not like the music?

My bad experience was compensated by a better one from the same shop: I bought a copy of Miles Davis Blue Haze for £6. When I played it, it only had one pop sound and the surface noise was minimal. The music was great and it was reproduced very well. This is entirely acceptable. I have never bought an LP without at least one pop. The Miles Davis LP was light and wobbly 120 gm vinyl but it did its business quite well.

During the 1960s and 1970s, I was an avid collector of LPs. I have still got some Beatles  LPs and 45s that have stood the test of 50 years of playing. But, I have given away most of my vinyl to charity shops etc. and replaced them with CDs. I have not got any intention to build up a collection of new LPs after this experience.

I shall only play LPs and 45s for old time's sake. However,  I shall still search second hand shops for interesting music that is not easily available on CD. I can clean up the noise by using digital technology.

Most  of the flaws of LPs cannot be cured by tweaking anti-skate devices, vertical tracking angles, azimuth adjustments and counterbalance adjustment of the tone arm. There is always surface noise and eventually the diamond stylus wears out your records. It stands to reason that it is a flawed medium. Even so, clicks and surface noise are usually drowned out by the sound of  the music on most records. But, not so with classical music as the scratches and dust usually ruin the performance.

What is particularly irksome is the wow and change of pitch . This can still happen even if you have a stroboscope and perfect running speed. If the record's spindle hole is misaligned, by even half a millimetre,  then you will hear wow. A warped record can also generate wow. To mitigate against this you have to pay a lot of money to buy a deck with a special platter.

Try looking at this Nakamichi turntable:

http://www.regonaudio.com/NakamichiTX1000.html.

I fail to see how anyone who is serious about listening to classical music would want to play a vinyl record as opposed to a CD which reproduces music pitch perfectly. A CD does not create the same amount of harmonic distortion that an LP does and the separation of channels is superior, so you can hear a better sound stage. A well mastered CD beats LP for sound quality for most forms of music and a CD really comes into its own for classical music and piano performances.

The LP is the limiting factor for the quality of the sound reproduction. For this reason, you could be wasting lots of money on expensive kit that hardly improves the performance of a flawed disc of PVC.

I have bought CDs which were severely scratched and some of the tracks where unplayable on a conventional player. I have always remedied the situation by "ripping" the CD and allowing the error correction software on the computer to do its job and restore the files to bit perfect harmony. It is then possible to play all the tracks and create a duplicate copy for playing in the car.

At one point, I seriously thought of buying the Beatles and Pink Floyd remastered LP collections. But if I did this I would have to invest in a new deck costing £2,000 or more in the vain hope of doing the records justice. Even so, if the LPs are warped or if the central hole is misplaced I then have to go to the trouble of obtaining a replacement record. £30 an album is too much money to waste.

I have got the re-mastered CDs of the Beatles and Pink Floyd and a good CD player with a good DAC which I can also use for computer stored music. I can invest the the money, saved on vinyl and the kit, in new music on CD and still have plenty left over to buy a case of good wine.  For me it's a " no-brainer".