It looks like the revival of LPs is hotting up. The consumer hi-fi companies are introducing more and more turntables to the market. Panasonic is bringing out an updated model its famous Technics 1200 series complete with a modified direct drive system. You will have to pay big bucks for what is really quite old technology, and the marginal improvement to the sound might not justify the extra expense. Direct drive turntables were introduced to the market in the early 1970s.
Many manufacturers are now producing turntables with built in phono-stages and USB stages so that you can easily digitise your LPs and store the result on a computer drive.
Many of the hi-fi forums have members which pour scorn on the feature of having a phono-stage built in to the turntable. But isn't this where it should have been in the first place? Most modern amplifiers no longer provide a "phono" input. Audiophiles with lots of money to throw away on specialist phono-stages never use an amplifier with a built in phono-stage, anyway.
By having a phono-stage built into your consumer deck you can connect the turntable to any integrated amplifier, powered speakers or even a mini-hi-fi or television sound bar. It's all very convenient and it is all very flexible now and that is the way it should be.
Consumer turntables now sound very good. And, because the limiting factor to quality is the LP production process itself the marginal benefits of spending thousands on a turntable probably do not justify an expensive outlay. A die hard audiophile, who loves his LP, will never acknowledge this fact. Let's face it, LPs are old technology where a diamond is scrapped against a piece of plastic at a fixed speed - it's a minor miracle that an LP can sound very good. A turntable and all its accoutrements could cost you thousands - all that to play a piece of plastic worth 10 pence.
Phono-stages have been around since the 1950s. It is easy for electronics companies to mass produce ones that work very well.
The phono-stage acts as a means of amplifying the rather weak signals generated by a moving magnet (and coil) cartridges. The phono-stage also applies RIAA equalisation to accentuate the bass response and attenuate the treble response. Thus it reverses the equalisation applied when the master vinyl pressing plate is cut.
The circuitry to produce a phono-stage is as cheap as chips, just like the DAC circuitry found in even the most expensive CD player or network streamer. Millions of these hi-fi chips are produced in factories and all hi-fi makers benefit from the economies of scale of modern manufacturing.
One consumer electronics manufacturer is associating its turntable with high definition sound and it provides users with the means to digitise their LPs to 24/192 high definition music files. Don't be fooled by this; the LP is not high definition. LPs cannot reproduce music to a higher definition than CD. The whole process of producing an LP and playing it is flawed. What is more, 24/192 "high definition" files do not sound better than a 16/44.1 CD music file when all other factors remain equal. Double blind listening tests prove this time and time again; no one can hear a difference at safe listening volumes.
Hi-fi magazines perpetuate the myth of using high definition music files to digitise your LPs as if this was going to make the LP sound better - it won't. You can use software to remove the clicks and pops on an LP but doing this actually removes some of the music frequencies. You have made the flaws of vinyl more acceptable but you have not improved frequency response or dynamic range by using noise removal software.
I am not suggesting that those new to LPs should throw away their vinyl and ditch their turntable. I am appealing to their sense of reason so that they can see through all the marketing hype and myths perpetuated on forums. Hi-fi magazines should know better as the vinyl revival will not lead to improved sound reproduction over CD.
I have got two turntables and my wife and I like to sit down and listen to an LP every now and then; just for old time's sake. To this end, I recently bought my wife David Bowie's Blackstar: it cost me a lot of money, £25 as compared to £10 pounds for the CD, but I got a voucher for a 320 kbps mp3 download.
When I played the record it sounded fantastic. The LP was well produced in "180 g virgin vinyl", there were no scratches and there was only one pop which I heard on one of the quiet parts of the album - of which there were few. When I played the digital version it sounded almost exactly the same. Why was that ? I used the same amplifier and speakers and I matched the volume and I also played it back in the same room. Over time the LP will wear out and it will collect minor scratches and ingrained dust, despite cleaning, so the sound will deteriorate. I shall save playing the LP for special occasions or when we feel in the mood. In the main I shall play the mp3 download. There will be no need to digitise the LP to 24/192 high definition. The download will be free of pops and clicks.
There is no doubt that the Blackstar album would have been recorded digitally and then transposed to analogue for the production of the LP. There is nothing wrong with this and this is one of the reasons why the LP sounds so good.
The LP production process degrades the sound by introducing harmonic distortion, clicks and pops and sometimes audible wow and flutter. Playback adds further harmonic distortion and sometimes extra and audible wow and flutter too. Playback also adds surface noise to the sound reproduction just from the stylus rubbing against the plastic disc. Playback can also introduce static electricity pops and dust can land on the playing surface to introduce further hissing noises.
Despite all the hype most modern LPs will have been recorded digitally and you will not be hearing so called analogue purity.
For pop music, most of the faults of LP playback are inaudible because the music is much louder than the surface noise. Wow and flutter can be audible though. For classical music, which usually has a much wider dynamic range than pop, the surface noise intrudes into to the quieter sections of the performance. I cannot stand this, and for this reason I never play classical music on a turntable. I always use digital sources.
Please do not fall for all the hype and if you do not have lots of money to spend on new equipment then you might be better off sticking to CD. There is also the time overhead of setting up your turntable and making sure it runs properly. LPs can sound very good and it is great to see a mechanical device spinning your music around. But, there are many pitfalls and if you do not look after your records they will eventually sound awful.
Monday, 1 February 2016
Wednesday, 6 January 2016
HIFI sound stage
There is lots of talk on hi-fi forums and hi-fi magazines about sound stage and of course lots of it is rubbish.
A so called sound stage is created by using two or mores speakers and feeding more than one channel of music into the speakers.
We have got two ears and having two ears helps us to locate the position of a sound quite accurately most of the time. We locate a sound by hearing volume differences between our ears and by the timing differences that a sound takes to move from one ear to the other.
When we listen to an orchestra playing live we can locate the positions of the various instruments in both the lateral and vertical planes. An orchestra generally positions the violins on the left as you are facing it and the cellos and double bass instruments on the left and so on. The woodwind is generally in the middle. Our hearing and perception enable us to determine the location of the instruments with our eyes closed. But, of course, our perception and hearing can be fooled by echoes and hall acoustics. Anyone who regularly attends orchestral concerts can verify this.
When stereo recordings became generally available in the 1950's sound engineers used recording techniques and microphone placement to generate a similar sound ,when reproducing the sound an orchestra, so that a listener could appreciate the sound stage in his living room, but of course the stereo speakers had to be placed correctly and wired correctly.
If you listen to a good recording of an orchestra through a hfi-fi quality sound system then you will be able to hear an approximate positioning of the instruments. This of course depends upon the acoustics of your listening room and your position in it. Your perceptions are assisted by an expectation bias that an orchestra always positions the instruments in a "standard" configuration. No sound recording can achieve an exact duplication of the original sound stage.
Now to the rubbish that is spoken. If you do not have access to the original master recording you cannot verify that the sound stage from your hi-fi matches reality. You cannot know where the instruments where originally positioned and whether the original master recording had a 3 dimensional sound stage or not. Modern recording techniques using electric guitars and other electronic instruments now plug the instruments directly into the recording deck so they could be positioned anywhere.
If you do not have a method of comparing the original master recording to your hi-fi then all talk about the competence of your equipment's generation of an accurate sound stage is pure conjecture. Lots of hi-fi magazines ignore this fact and make comment about the sound stage of the equipment, that they are reviewing, with a misplaced and exaggerated authority - thus they are talking out of the back of their necks most of the time. Many hi-fi forum contributors also repeat this school boy error.
All I can say is that I have a reasonable hi-fi set up and when I play an orchestral work the instrument positions more or less sound as if they are coming from the place I would expect them to, but I would be shocked if it was exactly the same as if I had attended the actual performance. This is all I can expect of the sound stage of any hi-fi equipment and this is why we will never be able to achieve absolute hi-fi reproduction. You can believe of pretend otherwise if you wish.
A so called sound stage is created by using two or mores speakers and feeding more than one channel of music into the speakers.
We have got two ears and having two ears helps us to locate the position of a sound quite accurately most of the time. We locate a sound by hearing volume differences between our ears and by the timing differences that a sound takes to move from one ear to the other.
When we listen to an orchestra playing live we can locate the positions of the various instruments in both the lateral and vertical planes. An orchestra generally positions the violins on the left as you are facing it and the cellos and double bass instruments on the left and so on. The woodwind is generally in the middle. Our hearing and perception enable us to determine the location of the instruments with our eyes closed. But, of course, our perception and hearing can be fooled by echoes and hall acoustics. Anyone who regularly attends orchestral concerts can verify this.
When stereo recordings became generally available in the 1950's sound engineers used recording techniques and microphone placement to generate a similar sound ,when reproducing the sound an orchestra, so that a listener could appreciate the sound stage in his living room, but of course the stereo speakers had to be placed correctly and wired correctly.
If you listen to a good recording of an orchestra through a hfi-fi quality sound system then you will be able to hear an approximate positioning of the instruments. This of course depends upon the acoustics of your listening room and your position in it. Your perceptions are assisted by an expectation bias that an orchestra always positions the instruments in a "standard" configuration. No sound recording can achieve an exact duplication of the original sound stage.
Now to the rubbish that is spoken. If you do not have access to the original master recording you cannot verify that the sound stage from your hi-fi matches reality. You cannot know where the instruments where originally positioned and whether the original master recording had a 3 dimensional sound stage or not. Modern recording techniques using electric guitars and other electronic instruments now plug the instruments directly into the recording deck so they could be positioned anywhere.
If you do not have a method of comparing the original master recording to your hi-fi then all talk about the competence of your equipment's generation of an accurate sound stage is pure conjecture. Lots of hi-fi magazines ignore this fact and make comment about the sound stage of the equipment, that they are reviewing, with a misplaced and exaggerated authority - thus they are talking out of the back of their necks most of the time. Many hi-fi forum contributors also repeat this school boy error.
All I can say is that I have a reasonable hi-fi set up and when I play an orchestral work the instrument positions more or less sound as if they are coming from the place I would expect them to, but I would be shocked if it was exactly the same as if I had attended the actual performance. This is all I can expect of the sound stage of any hi-fi equipment and this is why we will never be able to achieve absolute hi-fi reproduction. You can believe of pretend otherwise if you wish.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Beatles on Spotify etc
I suppose that it had to happen The Beatles are now available on Spotify and other streaming services. I sometimes use Spotify and at one time I subscribed to their full service which you can receive without adverts. Millions of tracks are available and Spotify caters for all musical tastes. Similar services are also available on-line.
The sound reproduction is very good if you feed the stream from your computer to an external DAC and use a decent amplifier and speakers. Listening through headphones on a tablet computer or a portable phone is not such a good experience. Amplifying the headphone output of a phone or tablet is also not perfect.
If you want really good sound reproduction you are better off listening to a decent hi-fi in a quiet room through speakers without the sound of traffic whooshing past or the "clickety clack" of a railway carriage.
With streaming services you don't need a hard drive or vinyl LPs and most of your favourite music is instantly at your disposal; and you are the DJ to play whatever music you like in any order that you like. The music is de-materialised and this is part of a hi-fi future that CDs and LPs will not be able to compete with. Of course, some people will hang onto their beloved hard copies and will sit down and enjoy their music in the living room without other distractions.
The sound reproduction is very good if you feed the stream from your computer to an external DAC and use a decent amplifier and speakers. Listening through headphones on a tablet computer or a portable phone is not such a good experience. Amplifying the headphone output of a phone or tablet is also not perfect.
If you want really good sound reproduction you are better off listening to a decent hi-fi in a quiet room through speakers without the sound of traffic whooshing past or the "clickety clack" of a railway carriage.
With streaming services you don't need a hard drive or vinyl LPs and most of your favourite music is instantly at your disposal; and you are the DJ to play whatever music you like in any order that you like. The music is de-materialised and this is part of a hi-fi future that CDs and LPs will not be able to compete with. Of course, some people will hang onto their beloved hard copies and will sit down and enjoy their music in the living room without other distractions.
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Listening to Hi-Fi through headphones
You can buy a decent pair of headphones for about £100. You do not need to to spend a fortune on a famous branded name which is marketed using the names of pop stars or rugby players; as you will be paying for the publicity rather than the quality of the sound reproduction.
Not so long ago I bought a cheap pair of Sennheiser 'phones for about £25 for use with Skype etc. when I plugged them into a combined DAC and headphone amplifier and listened to some CD quality music I was astonished at how good they sounded. I could hardly hear any difference between them and a pair of Audio Technica 'phones costing many times more.
The frequency response of the Sennheissers was limited to 15 KHz and those of the Audio Technica up to 45 KHz. Why could I hear very little difference in the upper range of the frequencies?
Here are some good reasons why.
My middle aged ears can no longer hear a 15 KHz tone.
There is very little music happening at 15 KHz. The primary harmonics of most musical instruments rarely climb above 4 KHz.
LPs are usually limited to a highest frequency of 15 KHz for production reasons.
CDs perform better as far as frequency response go but only some children can hear tones above 15KHz.
"HIRES" music files can reproduce tones much higher than a CD but nobody, not even the fittest 4 year old, can hear a tone above the CD limit of 22 KHz.
The £25 Sennheiser 'phones are able to reproduce all the musical frequencies that most people can hear without noticeable distortion. They are almost perfect at reproducing Hi-Fi sound with a linear response. The Audio Technica 'phones are almost perfect too and cannot be criticised in terms of value for money.
If you are prepared to put up with the plastic construction and feel of the £25 Sennheiser 'phones and their lack of street credibility then you have got yourself a very good buy.
Headphones have advantages over listening through speakers:
You have to pay a lot more for Speakers giving a similar sonic performance,
You hear the music unhindered by the echoes and sound absorption from your room and its furniture,
The music is closer to your ears and year can hear sonic imperfections better when you are making comparisons.
You do not disturb your neighbours when playing the music loud.
They also have disadvantages:
You could be tempted to play the music too loud and damage your ears,
They can be uncomfortable,
You never hear sounds in a natural environment so close to your ears so 'phones can feel unnatural. For this reason I rarely listen through 'phones.
Headphones can block out the sound of your surroundings and in certain situations this could be dangerous especially when crossing the road or driving - you have to be more visually aware of what is happening around you.
It is anti-social to listen to music with 'phones when you are surrounded by your family and friends.
Headphones are great for making musical comparisons , however.
The other day I was listening to some 180 and 200 gm brand new LPs and I thought it would be a great idea to make comparisons to their CD equivalents.
I heard these faults on the LPs through the headphones which I could not hear on the CD equivalent:
Noticeable rumble for the LP surface in the quiet bits of the album and in between tracks,
Noticeable hiss from the LP service on the quiet bits and between the tracks,
At elevated and uncomfortable listening levels I could hear the rumble of the turntable motor,
Clicks, pops and crackles in the quiet bits of the records,
On one of The Beatles tracks I could hear noticeable harmonic distortion possibly created by the original disc cutting or from an uneven pressing at the factory or both.
Listening through headphones demonstrates that LP sound reproduction has fundamental flaws which cannot be eliminated even with the highest quality turntables and cartridges.
All in all listening to CD was a more pleasant experience even though the LPs still sounded quite good. It really is not a good idea to listen to LPs through headphones especially when classical music is playing. I can't for the life of me appreciate some of Audiophile claims that LP sound quality is better than CD.
When I listen to an LP through speakers, the speakers themselves and the room acoustics seem to soften the sound of LP faults. However, even though I cannot hear the rumble and hiss at normal listening volumes, I can still hear the clicks, crackles and pops on the softer parts of the music and this is with a brand new LP.
If I ignore the faults of an LP then the music on a brand new album does not sound substantially different to its CD equivalent. However, if I were to be pedantic then I would opine that LP reproduction cannot claim to be of genuine Hi-Fi quality.
Comparing the sound quality of HIRES and CD quality music using headphones.
I have bought some 24/96 music from the internet and then down sampled it using DbPoweramp to CD quality. When I listen through headphones I cannot hear any difference no matter how hard I try.
When I have inverted the 16/44.1 using Audacity and then played this file back at the same time with its HIRES equivalent using a null test then I hear nothing; which proves to me that there is no audible difference between a HIRES file and a CD file - to my ears anyway.
hhttp://sdk.bongiovidps.com/2013/09/26/audio-null-test/
Headphones can be very useful tools and can expose many Hi-Fi myths.
Not so long ago I bought a cheap pair of Sennheiser 'phones for about £25 for use with Skype etc. when I plugged them into a combined DAC and headphone amplifier and listened to some CD quality music I was astonished at how good they sounded. I could hardly hear any difference between them and a pair of Audio Technica 'phones costing many times more.
The frequency response of the Sennheissers was limited to 15 KHz and those of the Audio Technica up to 45 KHz. Why could I hear very little difference in the upper range of the frequencies?
Here are some good reasons why.
My middle aged ears can no longer hear a 15 KHz tone.
There is very little music happening at 15 KHz. The primary harmonics of most musical instruments rarely climb above 4 KHz.
LPs are usually limited to a highest frequency of 15 KHz for production reasons.
CDs perform better as far as frequency response go but only some children can hear tones above 15KHz.
"HIRES" music files can reproduce tones much higher than a CD but nobody, not even the fittest 4 year old, can hear a tone above the CD limit of 22 KHz.
The £25 Sennheiser 'phones are able to reproduce all the musical frequencies that most people can hear without noticeable distortion. They are almost perfect at reproducing Hi-Fi sound with a linear response. The Audio Technica 'phones are almost perfect too and cannot be criticised in terms of value for money.
If you are prepared to put up with the plastic construction and feel of the £25 Sennheiser 'phones and their lack of street credibility then you have got yourself a very good buy.
Headphones have advantages over listening through speakers:
You have to pay a lot more for Speakers giving a similar sonic performance,
You hear the music unhindered by the echoes and sound absorption from your room and its furniture,
The music is closer to your ears and year can hear sonic imperfections better when you are making comparisons.
You do not disturb your neighbours when playing the music loud.
They also have disadvantages:
You could be tempted to play the music too loud and damage your ears,
They can be uncomfortable,
You never hear sounds in a natural environment so close to your ears so 'phones can feel unnatural. For this reason I rarely listen through 'phones.
Headphones can block out the sound of your surroundings and in certain situations this could be dangerous especially when crossing the road or driving - you have to be more visually aware of what is happening around you.
It is anti-social to listen to music with 'phones when you are surrounded by your family and friends.
Headphones are great for making musical comparisons , however.
The other day I was listening to some 180 and 200 gm brand new LPs and I thought it would be a great idea to make comparisons to their CD equivalents.
I heard these faults on the LPs through the headphones which I could not hear on the CD equivalent:
Noticeable rumble for the LP surface in the quiet bits of the album and in between tracks,
Noticeable hiss from the LP service on the quiet bits and between the tracks,
At elevated and uncomfortable listening levels I could hear the rumble of the turntable motor,
Clicks, pops and crackles in the quiet bits of the records,
On one of The Beatles tracks I could hear noticeable harmonic distortion possibly created by the original disc cutting or from an uneven pressing at the factory or both.
Listening through headphones demonstrates that LP sound reproduction has fundamental flaws which cannot be eliminated even with the highest quality turntables and cartridges.
All in all listening to CD was a more pleasant experience even though the LPs still sounded quite good. It really is not a good idea to listen to LPs through headphones especially when classical music is playing. I can't for the life of me appreciate some of Audiophile claims that LP sound quality is better than CD.
When I listen to an LP through speakers, the speakers themselves and the room acoustics seem to soften the sound of LP faults. However, even though I cannot hear the rumble and hiss at normal listening volumes, I can still hear the clicks, crackles and pops on the softer parts of the music and this is with a brand new LP.
If I ignore the faults of an LP then the music on a brand new album does not sound substantially different to its CD equivalent. However, if I were to be pedantic then I would opine that LP reproduction cannot claim to be of genuine Hi-Fi quality.
Comparing the sound quality of HIRES and CD quality music using headphones.
I have bought some 24/96 music from the internet and then down sampled it using DbPoweramp to CD quality. When I listen through headphones I cannot hear any difference no matter how hard I try.
When I have inverted the 16/44.1 using Audacity and then played this file back at the same time with its HIRES equivalent using a null test then I hear nothing; which proves to me that there is no audible difference between a HIRES file and a CD file - to my ears anyway.
hhttp://sdk.bongiovidps.com/2013/09/26/audio-null-test/
Headphones can be very useful tools and can expose many Hi-Fi myths.
Monday, 12 October 2015
Hi-Fi Forums and bunkum
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
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
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)