My first hi-fi wish for 2015 will be for a little bit of honesty to creep into the writings of hi-fi magazines, forums and blogs. As far as I can see the primary object of hi-fi equipment is to reproduce music as faithfully as possible to the original recording. It is not about possession of expensive equipment for its own sake. It is not about a numbers game or worshipping specifications without putting measurements into the context of both the physical and psychological aspects of human hearing.
We have got to the stage where it is increasingly difficult and expensive to make improvements to domestic hi-fi equipment provided that that equipment has been well designed and built. Most of the improvements that can be made are now limited to the recording studio and the production of the master copies - be they digital or analogue.
We are now seeing an increasing number of advertisements in the hi-fi press for HD or "better than CD quality" audio. These adverts are also creeping into the general press. Hi-fi reviewers are already making a big deal out of HD (high definition) audio with its associated 24 bit/ 96 KHz (24/96) digital files. Soon we shall be treated to music reproduction using 24/192 files and 32/384 files. An ordinary CD only stores music in a 16 bit/ 44.1 KHz file. An ordinary CD , however, can reproduce music with a wider sound dynamic range than the human ear can safely cope with and it can reproduce frequencies which no human can hear or perceive as music. Why do we need a wider scope?
Extensive scientific listening tests have been performed which demonstrate that no one, so far, in the general population can hear the difference between ordinary CD quality music and HD music when all other parameters are equal. i.e. the equipment and playback volume is the same and the master recordings are the same. Why can the industry not recognise this? If double blind testing were to ascertain that members of the general population could recognise a difference we would be treated to copious full page advertisements showing the test results in the general press as well as the hi-fi press.
In the hi-fi press, reviewers do not want to talk about scientific listening tests. For some reason reviewers ears seem to be better than for those of the general population. This may be true. Maybe the reviewers can perceive substantial quality differences between CD quality and HD quality music but surely they are obliged to prove their claims with double blind listening tests. If they cannot prove their claims then they should not make them and they should not claim that HD music reproduction is better than CD. Why should young people who are new to the hi-fi hobby be encouraged to spend their hard earnt money on equipment and music files which provide little or no extra benefit?
The hi-fi industry is riddled with exaggerated claims for the performance of expensive cables, equipment racks, fuses!, atomic clocks, power cables etc. The hi-fi magazines, however, are not riddled with double blind listening tests which prove that the very expensive equipment works better than more humble equivalents.
When I was young in the 1960s lots of equipment suffered from mains hum or other interference the use of cheap ferrite rings often sorted out the problem.
I have worked with computers for over 40 years. In the last decade we have seen the increasing use of computer technology to playback music. And of course we have seen increasing pressure within the hi-fi industry for us to buy very expensive and "hi-tech" USB cables to prevent interference to music reproduction or improve data transmission rates. Well, what is so special about music reproduction? The bit rates for transmission are nothing compared to audio-visual data. A PC has enough built in redundancy to easily transmit an audio file with full accuracy. An industry standard usb cable is perfectly sufficient provided it is not excessively long. There is no need for a special super duper and super expensive usb cable. The cabling within the PC itself is all industry standard and there is no need for anything else.
So the theme goes on.
Let's have some honesty, let's have an admission that some of the extravagant claims made hi-fi experts could be the result of hubris, confirmation bias, a change of volume, placebo effect or auditory illusion. With all this mixed in with "the king's new clothes effect". Only scientific testing can ascertain the truth so let's have more double blind testing with peer reviewed results. Let reviewers publish the truth and be damned - some hope but I remain an optimist. I also remain a realist and I only trust my own ears.
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
Monday, 27 October 2014
Atomic Clocks and HiFi
The other day I read an article in a Hi-Fi magazine about using an atomic clock to improve the performance of a very expensive combined CD player and DAC costing £7,000. The rubidium based atomic clock costs around £5,000 and is supposedly accurate to 1 second in 1000 years.
The performance improvement was subjectively described as stunning. But, hold on a second where were the performance measurements? There were none. There were no peer reviewed double blind tests which measured the performance of the CD player with or without the connexion of the atomic clock. No double blind and peer reviewed listening tests where performed either. We had to take the word of the reviewer that using an atomic clock provided a stunning improvement to the performance of a Hi-Fi system.
Let us look a little bit deeper into his claims. Most Hi-Fi enthusiasts agree that you cannot improve upon the performance of the original master recording according to the principle of Garbage In then Garbage Out or GIGO. Most enthusiasts agree that a Hi-Fi system can only be as good as the best performing unit of the system.
The reviewer claimed that there was a dramatic improvement to the sound stage of a 1959 Classical Music recording when the atomic clock was added to the system. This statement implies that a 1959 recording could perform with the timing accuracy of an atomic clock. This is is nonsense; in the 1950s all recordings were made using analogue tape recorders or were recorded direct to vinyl. Whichever method was used the analogue recording machines of the time produced significant timing errors which were both measurable and in some cases audible as wow and flutter.
An atomic clock cannot improve upon the performance of the original tape recorder. In this described case all it can really do is improve the standard of a deficient CD player. Even if it could improve the performance of the CD player to a level beyond that of a 1959 tape recorder then it would make no difference to the overall sound. According to the laws of physics the music coming out of the speakers can perform no better than the performance of the original master recording - GIGO.
If an atomic clock could substantially improve the performance of the CD player then it implies that the player is somehow deficient. The reviewer should be more careful of his words. The original player was already equipped with a very fine quality non-atomic clock which is capable of reducing timing errors or "jitter" to an inaudible level.
Perhaps the reviewer's perceived stunning performance improvement could be attributed to "confirmation bias" or even hubris rather than the atomic clock. Extraordinary claims should be verified by double blind ABX listening tests to eliminate subjective impressions which do not have a firm foundation in reality.
Atomic clocks have their uses in the recording and mastering studio and can be used to reduce the accumulative and detrimental effects of jitter when recording from multiple sources. For domestic playback they are simply not needed. Some Hi-Fi enthusiasts are simply unable or unwilling to accept this reality.
An atomic clock looks mighty fine and would be a wonderful talking point. If you truly believe that it can improve the sound of a CD player without scientific proof then who am I to criticise you.
Hi-Fi magazines produce reams of test results for amplifiers, DACs, speakers, turntables and ordinary CD players to help consumers make a buying judgement. They are, however, very reluctant to produce test results for exotic and expensive accessories such as cables, powers supplies and Hi-Fi stands etc. It maybe worth asking yourself the question: why? What is wrong with a little bit of science and some objectivity to prove whether the accessories work or not ?
My advice to young and perhaps impecunious Hi-Fi enthusiasts would be to audition any piece of expensive equipment and honestly ask yourself if it does really improve performance. It is best to obtain proof by looking at the measurements and seeing the results of peer reviewed double blind listening tests. If the data is not available then you will have to perform the listening tests yourself. You could then easily be deceived by "confirmation bias" or the suggestion of Hi-Fi sales men and internet sales sites. It is easy to waste money if you are not prepared to be objective.
The performance improvement was subjectively described as stunning. But, hold on a second where were the performance measurements? There were none. There were no peer reviewed double blind tests which measured the performance of the CD player with or without the connexion of the atomic clock. No double blind and peer reviewed listening tests where performed either. We had to take the word of the reviewer that using an atomic clock provided a stunning improvement to the performance of a Hi-Fi system.
Let us look a little bit deeper into his claims. Most Hi-Fi enthusiasts agree that you cannot improve upon the performance of the original master recording according to the principle of Garbage In then Garbage Out or GIGO. Most enthusiasts agree that a Hi-Fi system can only be as good as the best performing unit of the system.
The reviewer claimed that there was a dramatic improvement to the sound stage of a 1959 Classical Music recording when the atomic clock was added to the system. This statement implies that a 1959 recording could perform with the timing accuracy of an atomic clock. This is is nonsense; in the 1950s all recordings were made using analogue tape recorders or were recorded direct to vinyl. Whichever method was used the analogue recording machines of the time produced significant timing errors which were both measurable and in some cases audible as wow and flutter.
An atomic clock cannot improve upon the performance of the original tape recorder. In this described case all it can really do is improve the standard of a deficient CD player. Even if it could improve the performance of the CD player to a level beyond that of a 1959 tape recorder then it would make no difference to the overall sound. According to the laws of physics the music coming out of the speakers can perform no better than the performance of the original master recording - GIGO.
If an atomic clock could substantially improve the performance of the CD player then it implies that the player is somehow deficient. The reviewer should be more careful of his words. The original player was already equipped with a very fine quality non-atomic clock which is capable of reducing timing errors or "jitter" to an inaudible level.
Perhaps the reviewer's perceived stunning performance improvement could be attributed to "confirmation bias" or even hubris rather than the atomic clock. Extraordinary claims should be verified by double blind ABX listening tests to eliminate subjective impressions which do not have a firm foundation in reality.
Atomic clocks have their uses in the recording and mastering studio and can be used to reduce the accumulative and detrimental effects of jitter when recording from multiple sources. For domestic playback they are simply not needed. Some Hi-Fi enthusiasts are simply unable or unwilling to accept this reality.
An atomic clock looks mighty fine and would be a wonderful talking point. If you truly believe that it can improve the sound of a CD player without scientific proof then who am I to criticise you.
Hi-Fi magazines produce reams of test results for amplifiers, DACs, speakers, turntables and ordinary CD players to help consumers make a buying judgement. They are, however, very reluctant to produce test results for exotic and expensive accessories such as cables, powers supplies and Hi-Fi stands etc. It maybe worth asking yourself the question: why? What is wrong with a little bit of science and some objectivity to prove whether the accessories work or not ?
My advice to young and perhaps impecunious Hi-Fi enthusiasts would be to audition any piece of expensive equipment and honestly ask yourself if it does really improve performance. It is best to obtain proof by looking at the measurements and seeing the results of peer reviewed double blind listening tests. If the data is not available then you will have to perform the listening tests yourself. You could then easily be deceived by "confirmation bias" or the suggestion of Hi-Fi sales men and internet sales sites. It is easy to waste money if you are not prepared to be objective.
Friday, 3 October 2014
Beatles Mono LPs - "With The Beatles"
Mostly I play music from a digital source but I could not resist buying a copy of the latest LP re-master of "With The Beatles". I already have a 1963 mono version of the LP which is in excellent condition and I played one after the other.
The new re-master sounded remarkably "quiet" and I could hear almost no surface noise at the volume which I use but between two of the tracks I could hear some crackling but this did not affect the music.
The 2014 version and the 1963 version sounded remarkably similar, to my ears anyway, for frequency response etc. The 1963 version sounded distinctly louder, perhaps it was mastered louder to cover up for the deficiencies of early sixties record players which suffered from amplifier hum, mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter. All of these problems have largely been eliminated by modern kit.
The AM radios of the day also suffered from fading and sometimes a soft recording would fade away completely to become almost inaudible. This problem still exists if you tune in to a distant AM radio station.
The older record also showed some signs of (pleasant) harmonic distortion because it had been played so often. Had the 1963 record not been played at all it would probably have sounded exactly the same as 2014 version, apart from the difference in volume.
Remember that repeated playing of the newly re-mastered version will still wear out the groove - even though newer MM cartridges use tracking weights which are a lot lighter than the ceramic cartridges that we used in the sixties.
Both records had been very well pressed and were made from "virgin" vinyl but the 1963 record is 160 gms as opposed to 180 gms in weight; not that that makes much difference.
Many of the reviews of the new re-master, on forums and in magazines, have gone overboard with hyperbole and superlatives. Of course the record has been mastered and pressed perfectly; but it only sounded substantially better than the original would have done, in the sixties, because I was playing it on better equipment.
When I first played a new Beatles record, in 1963, it sounded almost as good as today but from then on it was downhill as the equipment damaged the record or your friends returned it scratched after borrowing it. The record also had to survive many parties.
What you are now getting is a record which has been perfectly mastered and produced and the packaging is almost a replica of the original. The inner sleeve does not have an advert for "Emitex" printed on it but the outer sleeve is almost exactly the same.
To obtain an original record with the same playback quality will cost you a lot of money even if anyone is prepared to sell it to you. I doubt that a mint copy of the newly re-mastered version will command a similar price to the original in 50 years time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/youve-never-heard-the-beatles-sound-like-this-before/
The sound of the 2014 LP will not take you back to the sixties because you have to play it on modern equipment to avoid damaging it.
It is almost impossible to do a like for like comparison and most commentators fail to recognise this hence all the superlatives and hyperbole. If you replay the mono record through one speaker you will get some idea of what it was like to hear music from a single source but the mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter will be missing. You can just as easily hear scratches and crackle now as you could have done in the sixties if you do not take considerable care of your LP.
If you are a fan of The Beatles and can only bear to play analogue sourced music then I recommend this new re-mastered LP of "With The Beatles"; but please be aware that you will not be taken back to sixties "sonic heaven".
The new re-master sounded remarkably "quiet" and I could hear almost no surface noise at the volume which I use but between two of the tracks I could hear some crackling but this did not affect the music.
The 2014 version and the 1963 version sounded remarkably similar, to my ears anyway, for frequency response etc. The 1963 version sounded distinctly louder, perhaps it was mastered louder to cover up for the deficiencies of early sixties record players which suffered from amplifier hum, mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter. All of these problems have largely been eliminated by modern kit.
The AM radios of the day also suffered from fading and sometimes a soft recording would fade away completely to become almost inaudible. This problem still exists if you tune in to a distant AM radio station.
The older record also showed some signs of (pleasant) harmonic distortion because it had been played so often. Had the 1963 record not been played at all it would probably have sounded exactly the same as 2014 version, apart from the difference in volume.
Remember that repeated playing of the newly re-mastered version will still wear out the groove - even though newer MM cartridges use tracking weights which are a lot lighter than the ceramic cartridges that we used in the sixties.
Both records had been very well pressed and were made from "virgin" vinyl but the 1963 record is 160 gms as opposed to 180 gms in weight; not that that makes much difference.
Many of the reviews of the new re-master, on forums and in magazines, have gone overboard with hyperbole and superlatives. Of course the record has been mastered and pressed perfectly; but it only sounded substantially better than the original would have done, in the sixties, because I was playing it on better equipment.
When I first played a new Beatles record, in 1963, it sounded almost as good as today but from then on it was downhill as the equipment damaged the record or your friends returned it scratched after borrowing it. The record also had to survive many parties.
What you are now getting is a record which has been perfectly mastered and produced and the packaging is almost a replica of the original. The inner sleeve does not have an advert for "Emitex" printed on it but the outer sleeve is almost exactly the same.
To obtain an original record with the same playback quality will cost you a lot of money even if anyone is prepared to sell it to you. I doubt that a mint copy of the newly re-mastered version will command a similar price to the original in 50 years time.
http://www.cnet.com/news/youve-never-heard-the-beatles-sound-like-this-before/
The sound of the 2014 LP will not take you back to the sixties because you have to play it on modern equipment to avoid damaging it.
It is almost impossible to do a like for like comparison and most commentators fail to recognise this hence all the superlatives and hyperbole. If you replay the mono record through one speaker you will get some idea of what it was like to hear music from a single source but the mains hum, rumble and wow and flutter will be missing. You can just as easily hear scratches and crackle now as you could have done in the sixties if you do not take considerable care of your LP.
If you are a fan of The Beatles and can only bear to play analogue sourced music then I recommend this new re-mastered LP of "With The Beatles"; but please be aware that you will not be taken back to sixties "sonic heaven".
Thursday, 11 September 2014
The Beatles - Mono Vinyl
Ninety nine percent of the time I play music from a CD or a Computer but I could not resist buying the latest LP copy of Rubber Soul re-mastered in mono. The album comes shrink wrapped and the outer sleeve looks exactly like the original.
I felt none of the anticipation of opening a Fab Four LP that I felt as a fourteen year old in 1965. I did not have to scrimp and save to be able to afford to buy it and I have got enough money in my back pocket to afford the rest of the set. In 1965 most people could not afford to buy an LP on a whim - even grown ups. The fact that you had to save to get a record made it sound all the better - way back then.
The new LP felt a little heavier than its 1965 cousin. The groove on the record is the same gauge as a Stereo record; 1960s mono LP had a wider groove. Nowadays you need to use a needle with a 0.7 mil tip radius to avoid damaging the record or to prevent the stylus from skipping out of the groove.
I opened the record carefully.
The new LP looked as if it was pressed with care and there were no scratches on the surface and I did not feel the need to wash the record. The spindle hole was also correctly aligned. However, I got a bit of a surprise as a cat hair had somehow got onto side two; at first I thought it was a scratch. The cat hair had been floating around the room and of course static electricity had attracted it. Need I say more.
I carefully cued up the record after giving it a clean with a carbon brush. The run in was very quiet and at the volume I use I could hear no surface noise.
The only differences to the sound quality, as far as the record was concerned, were the improved treble and bass compared to 1965. The cymbals and triangles were reproduced more clearly. The higher notes of the guitars and sitars were also more piercing. The bass notes sounded more musical rather than thumping out.
The voices did not really sound much different as they fall into the middle frequency range and 1965 equipment was able to reproduce the middle range very well.
The record has been re-mastered very well and gives sound reproduction as good as it can get. There is pamphlet inside the sleeve which describes that the record has been re-mastered with modern equipment in mind and that 1960s "Hi-Fi" equipment was limited compared to today. FM and AM radio was equally as limited. The original records were produced with this in mind.
So how good is the sound and how much has it improved? Well, I have one Beatles mono LP from the 1960s which has survived rather well and it stands up very well in comparison to the modern vinyl - there is a little bit more surface noise and a couple of pops but no scratches, and the frequency response across the bass, mid and treble is similar to my ears. The modern record still had a couple of popping noises in between tracks. These popping noises would be audible in the very quiet sections of a classical record.
The main reason why the 1960s mono albums and the modern ones sound better is because of the improvements to turntables, amplifiers and speakers.
Back in the days of yore turntables suffered from rumble and wow and flutter. A modern deck hardly suffers from this unless it is really,really cheap. Valve amplifiers usually had a noticeable hum and distorted the music even at moderate amplitude. The ceramic cartridges had a much more limited frequency response and this is why the treble was less apparent.
The cartridge and stylus combination quickly wore out records which were played by teenagers over and over again. The damaged records sounded scratchy.
I lived in West Wales and our street was very quiet so any fault on a record was readily apparent. Today we live in a much more noisy environment so the surface noise from an LP is much less audible. This makes a big difference to sound quality. My living room in the outskirts of south London is relatively quiet at around 32 decibels. But that is only when there are no cars passing in the street. The noise level in 1965 in West Wales was way below this and any surface noise from an LP would have been audible at moderate amplitude and even using the best equipment for the time. This made little difference to a pop record but for a classical record it did.
If you read the audiophile forums, you will get the impression from many commentators that the new Beatles mono vinyl you will get to a new level of sonic heaven. This is not so. The new records are very good but how good? Most of the commentators do not compare any of their records or equipment to a standard. There is no objectivity. I always remain sceptical about any opinion on a forum or in a Hi-Fi magazine.
Some commentators claim that there is a " night and day" difference between the modern sound and that of the 1960s. This is an outrageous claim as it would mean that the music would be unrecognisable in its 60s form. Yes, the sound reproduction in 1965 was not as good today but it was good enough for The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys etc. to sell millions of record.
Some commentators have made reference to the "inky black silence" between the tracks of the new Beatles mono vinyl. I can see where they are coming from with the analogy, as the new records are very quiet, but for a person with normal hearing there is no such as silence. I once stayed in farmhouse in the heart of rural France and it was very quiet there. So quiet that my wife and I found it a little bit disconcerting at night until we got used to it - you could hear an owl from miles away!
You can also read commentary from audiophile gurus that on the new vinyl you can hear a mouse running across Ringo's foot or such like - but of course you cannot hear it on the CD equivalent. This sort of commentary is rubbish.
Inevitably you have to make the comparison between the LP and the CD. I tried not to do this when I played the new Rubber Soul LP for the first time. When I asked my wife what she thought, she insisted that I also played a digital version. She thought that the LP sounded "more primitive" but better. After an hour or so of playing Beatles music I asked her again. She replied that she had forgotten what the LP sounded like and was no longer prepared to make a judgement. This explains it all.
If you are a fan of The Beatles and really like the sound reproduction from an LP then I can recommend that you buy these albums; you will hear a sound quality much better than before without having to pay an arm and a leg for a mint condition original. However, do not expect to to be taken to a new level of sonic heaven as some of the commentators suggest.
If you want a flavour of the 1960s sound then play this You Tube all the way through:
The new vinyl will not take you back to the1960s. To do this, I suggest playing the records through a low powered single active speaker. To me the music sounds better but only because it reminds me of the past. If I want to listen to 1960s music with high sound quality then I choose a modern HiFi and a CD every time - be it mono or stereo.
Monday, 25 August 2014
Sonne Statt Reagan - Joseph Beuys
We were rummaging through some storage boxes the other day when we found the 45 record "Sonne Statt Reagan" by Joseph Beuys. Joseph Beuys was a German performance artist who was born in 1921 in Krefeld in Nordrhein-Westfalen. He died in 1986
He served in the German army during World War 2 and after leaving the army he went to study at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts. He was interested in painting, sculpture, poetry, performance art and social commentary. He was not a lover of the cold war and was highly critical of Ronald Reagan.
His 45 record "Sonne Statt Reagan" is a play on words. Regen means rain in German, so "Sonne Statt Reagan" means "Sun instead of Reagan or Rain".
This record is an icon of German performance art and I bought the record when it first came out in Germany for 5 Deutsche Marks. I thought I had lost it and was about to pay a princely sum to Discogs for a replacement copy. My wife saved me a lot of money.
You can hear the record on You Tube but it is not the same. Digital copies are unavailable and it is not published on Spotify. Luckily, I have an original 1982 version of the record.
You can see and hear a performance here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ1_ALxGbGk
This was New Wave performance art at its best.
The words were by Alain Thomé and the music was by Klaus Heuser. The flip side has another Heuser compostion an instrumental called Kraefte Sammeln (collect one's strength or fortify yourself) which sounds a bit like Focus - not bad.
The words of "Sonne Statt Reagan" are translated very well here:
http://www.artsconnected.org/resource/90726/sound-sonne-statt-reagan-sun-instead-of-rain
So how did it sound? Even though the record had been in the garage and the cover smells a little bit damp and mouldy it remained in excellent condition.It was lying on its side which is not the best way to store a record. I wiped it with a carbon brush and the record sounded as fresh as when I bought with just a little bit of crackle and pop on the fade out. I have digitised it but I did not apply any noise reduction.
The digitised version sounds almost exactly the same as the record so this is a tribute to modern digital sound engineering and this is why competent digital re-mastering of old master tapes produces better sounding playback than LPs or 45s. The cutting lathes for LP and 45 records cannot fully reproduce the original sound waves. Vinyl records and their playback equipment cannot replicate the original sound waves fully either. But,of course, brand new LPs and 45s can still sound wonderful; as does my original of "Sonne Statt Reagan".
We also found a near pristine copy of a 1982 recording by Altered Images you may have heard it - "Happy Birthday". This is not the best of music but the sound reproduction was almost perfect for an old 45. It must of been my girlfriend at the time who bought it as I cannot remember playing it. This was New Wave triviality.
He served in the German army during World War 2 and after leaving the army he went to study at the Düsseldorf Academy of Fine Arts. He was interested in painting, sculpture, poetry, performance art and social commentary. He was not a lover of the cold war and was highly critical of Ronald Reagan.
His 45 record "Sonne Statt Reagan" is a play on words. Regen means rain in German, so "Sonne Statt Reagan" means "Sun instead of Reagan or Rain".
This record is an icon of German performance art and I bought the record when it first came out in Germany for 5 Deutsche Marks. I thought I had lost it and was about to pay a princely sum to Discogs for a replacement copy. My wife saved me a lot of money.
You can hear the record on You Tube but it is not the same. Digital copies are unavailable and it is not published on Spotify. Luckily, I have an original 1982 version of the record.
You can see and hear a performance here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ1_ALxGbGk
This was New Wave performance art at its best.
The words were by Alain Thomé and the music was by Klaus Heuser. The flip side has another Heuser compostion an instrumental called Kraefte Sammeln (collect one's strength or fortify yourself) which sounds a bit like Focus - not bad.
The words of "Sonne Statt Reagan" are translated very well here:
http://www.artsconnected.org/resource/90726/sound-sonne-statt-reagan-sun-instead-of-rain
So how did it sound? Even though the record had been in the garage and the cover smells a little bit damp and mouldy it remained in excellent condition.It was lying on its side which is not the best way to store a record. I wiped it with a carbon brush and the record sounded as fresh as when I bought with just a little bit of crackle and pop on the fade out. I have digitised it but I did not apply any noise reduction.
The digitised version sounds almost exactly the same as the record so this is a tribute to modern digital sound engineering and this is why competent digital re-mastering of old master tapes produces better sounding playback than LPs or 45s. The cutting lathes for LP and 45 records cannot fully reproduce the original sound waves. Vinyl records and their playback equipment cannot replicate the original sound waves fully either. But,of course, brand new LPs and 45s can still sound wonderful; as does my original of "Sonne Statt Reagan".
We also found a near pristine copy of a 1982 recording by Altered Images you may have heard it - "Happy Birthday". This is not the best of music but the sound reproduction was almost perfect for an old 45. It must of been my girlfriend at the time who bought it as I cannot remember playing it. This was New Wave triviality.
Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Super-tweeters
Super-tweeters which are capable of reproducing ultrasonic frequencies above the 20 kHz, which is generally considered to be the cut-off frequency for human hearing, are becoming fashionable again. This is possibly because of the increased interest in so called High Resolution files which are capable of reproducing sounds in the ultra-sonic range.
Many users of super-tweeters claim that they improve the sound of the bass frequencies and make the sound more "airy" whatever that means. Some users claim an extraordinary improvement in sound quality. Let's see the proof anyone can make a claim which has no real foundation in fact.
Many supporters quote some research conducted by Tsutomu Oohashi in the year 2000 which is supposed to prove that subjects can perceive the so called "hypersonic" sounds above 20 kHz. No-one has been able to repeat these results yet.
Oohashi research also indicated that ultrasonics did affect the brainwaves of experimental subjects but it did not prove that the subjects were able to perceive this effect.
There have been many double-blind tests performed which have not been able to confirm that test subjects can perceive the difference between music reproduction which contains ultrasonic content and music which does not.
Anyone who claims to be able to hear a difference is obliged to submit themselves to double-blind testing.
Super-tweeter manufacturers should also publish any independent and peer reviewed double-blind tests which they have conducted which prove that human beings can perceive ultrasonic frequencies or that super-tweeters do in fact improve sound quality.
The proponents of super-tweeters and ultra high frequency sound files should be open-minded enough to accept that their claims should be tested by the scientific method to ascertain whether there is any substance or not. If proof is delivered then I shall shut up about this and accept that some people can in fact hear music or harmonics with ultra-sonic frequency.
Until such a day occurs I shall remain sceptical and suspect that such claims are in fact confirmation bias combined a little element of the emperor's new "sonic" clothes.
The users of super-tweeters should also be open minded enough to consider the possibility that they could be damaging their hearing if they play high frequency sounds above 17 kHz at too loud a volume (over 110 db at your ears). You could be damaging your ears and those of your family members without realising it .
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf
Ultrasonics are used to break down kidney stones and there are even forms of ultrasonic scalpels which are used in surgery. Ultrasonics can do damage.
Why not play safe and just listen to ordinary speakers and save yourself some money into the bargain? And just wait until there is proof that such super-tweeters work and that they are safe to use.
Many users of super-tweeters claim that they improve the sound of the bass frequencies and make the sound more "airy" whatever that means. Some users claim an extraordinary improvement in sound quality. Let's see the proof anyone can make a claim which has no real foundation in fact.
Many supporters quote some research conducted by Tsutomu Oohashi in the year 2000 which is supposed to prove that subjects can perceive the so called "hypersonic" sounds above 20 kHz. No-one has been able to repeat these results yet.
Oohashi research also indicated that ultrasonics did affect the brainwaves of experimental subjects but it did not prove that the subjects were able to perceive this effect.
There have been many double-blind tests performed which have not been able to confirm that test subjects can perceive the difference between music reproduction which contains ultrasonic content and music which does not.
Anyone who claims to be able to hear a difference is obliged to submit themselves to double-blind testing.
Super-tweeter manufacturers should also publish any independent and peer reviewed double-blind tests which they have conducted which prove that human beings can perceive ultrasonic frequencies or that super-tweeters do in fact improve sound quality.
The proponents of super-tweeters and ultra high frequency sound files should be open-minded enough to accept that their claims should be tested by the scientific method to ascertain whether there is any substance or not. If proof is delivered then I shall shut up about this and accept that some people can in fact hear music or harmonics with ultra-sonic frequency.
Until such a day occurs I shall remain sceptical and suspect that such claims are in fact confirmation bias combined a little element of the emperor's new "sonic" clothes.
The users of super-tweeters should also be open minded enough to consider the possibility that they could be damaging their hearing if they play high frequency sounds above 17 kHz at too loud a volume (over 110 db at your ears). You could be damaging your ears and those of your family members without realising it .
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2001/crr01343.pdf
Ultrasonics are used to break down kidney stones and there are even forms of ultrasonic scalpels which are used in surgery. Ultrasonics can do damage.
Why not play safe and just listen to ordinary speakers and save yourself some money into the bargain? And just wait until there is proof that such super-tweeters work and that they are safe to use.
Friday, 16 May 2014
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:
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.
and here is your chance to spot the hidden errors! Try the graphics for a start.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)