SUMMER MUSINGS: What could possibly be wrong with the High-End Audiophile Industry?! 🤔 (The supplier side of audiophoolery.)

Alas all good things end including summer, so this will be the last instalment to my "Summer Musings" series for the year. For completeness, since we talked about the "audiophool" consumer hobbyist last time, let's make sure to address the other side of the coin when it comes to audiophile silliness - the supplier - manufacturers, and the media that sell us stuff.

As a pre-emptive comment against sounding like a grumpy old man who doesn't want audiophiles to have fun, let me just say that this commentary is not against "having fun". If fun means enjoying your music, trying out different hardware, exploring the various sounds you can achieve at all kinds of price points, I'm totally on board with that!

However, freedom to do all kinds of things obviously doesn't imply that we shut down our brains and accept that "anything goes!". Many things can be a lot of fun at the time but not good for us, the hangover could be nasty, and regrets more common than we might want to admit. So if there's foolishness when it comes to the Industry itself, let's make sure to think about that and come to terms with it for ourselves.

In the recent post about audiophoolery, Solderdude and Mikhail wrote the following comments:

Solderdude 18 August 2025 at 23:13

I have often wondered how many snake-oil sellers actually believe in what they are selling and are equally 'misguided' by their hearing (they are human after all). Examples could be Paul McClown and Danny.

Some, for sure, are just unscrupulous money grabbers (think Machina Dynamica and absurdly priced cable sellers).

And, oh boy, most audiophools as well as audiophiles usually have plenty of money to spend on their hobby and being human and lacking actual knowledge are very easy to 'hear' things that aren't there just as they are equally fooled by optical illusions.

Some might simply have fallen for the same 'perception effects' and fully believe in what they are selling. Are these sellers also unscrupulous ?

Perhaps only the ones that sell their wares at way too high margins for what it costs to manufacture ?

Mikhail 19 August 2025 at 07:18

Should we start calling this sector of the audio industry "alternative engineering"? If there was Federal Audio Administration they would require putting labels like "Claims not verified by double blind testing" and "This product is not intended to actually improve the sound of your audio system" on their products.

Interesting points. Let's talk about this.

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies: time to overcome resistance? Also, on anachronistic nostalgia. And why I rarely go to movie theaters these days.

This week, indulge me in staying a little longer with discussions on the video theme; since I view audio and video technologies as members of the same family, there will be references and detours made about audio in this post.

Although I think 4K is plenty of spatial resolution already for home use (discussed years ago at the advent of UHD BluRays), there is one obvious way to increase the perceived resolution of video playback - improve the "time domain" performance.

While basically everything about motion picture technology has evolved - aspect ratio changes from 4:3 (silent film) to widescreen, frame sizes (35mm various forms, 65/70mm, various digital sensor sizes), B&W to color, higher effective resolution, transition from analog film to digital - isn't it amazing that the cinematic framerate has remained at a mere 24fps, and commonly 180° shutter rule for motion blurring (more geeky testing here)? Since the dawn of the "sound film" in 1926 - almost exactly a century ago! 

High Frame Rate (HFR) movies - movies that were filmed and projected at more than the "cinematic" 24fps - typically 48fps or 60fps - have been simply uncommon for feature presentations to this point. Perhaps reminiscent of multichannel music which had its starts and misses over the decades (eg. 4.0-channel quad back in the '70s), HFR also had a time in the '70s and early '80s when the company Showscan was trying to achieve higher image quality with 65-70mm film at 60fps. But like quadraphonic audio, the technology of the day wasn't really good enough for practical, economical, trouble-free high-fidelity visual reproduction.

Imagine what kind of physical demands would have been necessary for this. Showscan ran the film at 4.68ft/s or 281ft/minute! Clearly a costly endeavor (estimated $2-3M just for the negatives and processing to make a movie back in the '80s) plus imagine the pounds of film to send out to all the theaters, maintenance needs, plus potential damage to the film after a number of runs. How many showings would have been needed for a decent return on investment?!

No surprise then that full-length films were never released in this format. (Here's an interesting brochure from 1990 of their High Impact Cinema prototype, and their 1987 company prospectus.)

MUSINGS: On YouTube listening tests and the sound of "high-end" vinyl vs. streamed digital playback.

The Internet is wonderful, isn't it?!

In the span of a few decades, we can all make our presence known to the far corners of the world and express (almost) anything we want whether it's sharing what we had for lunch, whether we're "available", our political/moral/ethical affiliations, or even esoteric blog topics. 🤪

Even better, we can project sounds and videos on YouTube and the like, opening up the opportunity to reach others though a modern "boob tube" where instead of the TV station programmer telling us what to watch next, good-ol' YouTube algorithms choose what we might desire from tracked search preferences. Amazing, if not also creepy...

Of course, if we have an entrepreneurial spirit, one could receive great rewards. Monetization potential can be impressive as witnessed by some of the elaborate content on YouTube channels! That's great so long as we're seeing knowledgeable, verifiable content presented in fair ways that can help teach and promote understanding. Not so great when information is perpetuating falsehoods, potentially destructive conspiracies and propaganda.

For this post, let's talk about something we've seen presented over the years on a number of audio channels. There is at least an implied idea out there, thanks to YouTube, we can now "hear" the sound quality of an audiophile system. Furthermore, that we can make comparisons of the sound quality. Is this true?

MUSINGS: Regarding the MoFiGate class action document, the love of analogue master tapes (on recent Bernie Grundman interview), and reminder of digital developments. [Yes, Canadian iPhone 14 still has hardware SIM tray.]

There are "hot topic" debates that stand the test of time, never truly resolved as it were. Typically, these debates are arguments of subjective ideologies (thus never fully resolved even if some elements can be shown to be clearly false) rather than explorations of nuanced facts. The "Analogue vs. Digital - which is best?" debate remains popular among audiophiles since the dawn of CD consumer audio in the early 1980's. As if there is ever only one single answer to such a broad topic with various pros and cons. I suspect most of us these days have grown at least a little tiresome of the topic even if we recognize that this "issue" will inevitably arise along our audiophile journeys interacting with others.

In the last while, there have been items in the news related to analogue audio, and by extension this whole debate, I think worth examining honestly. Let's spend some time to talk about this, consider some facts, and address a few of the unsubstantiated beliefs often perpetuated even among some respected members in the audiophile pursuit.

HOW-TO: CD Pre-Emphasis & Using SoX De-Emphasis. (And the decline of physical media with vinyl revenue > CD now.)

Have you ever ripped or downloaded an old music CD that just sounds way too harsh? Sounding like the EQ is accentuated with too much treble?

Back in the day, a number of CDs were processed with pre-emphasis used and we can see at least a partial list of pre-emphasized albums here. Typically these would be early CDs from the mid-'80s although as per the list there are also a number from the late '80s and even early '90s.

In those early years, DACs were incapable of true 16-bit resolution and noisy analogue brick-wall filters added high-frequency distortions. As a means of improving signal-to-noise, they boosted the high frequency content and corrected the tone on playback (see this Hydrogen Audio FAQ on Pre-emphasis). As you're probably aware, a CD doesn't just contain the 16/44.1 audio data but have encoded within each "frame" 8 bytes of CIRC error correction and another byte of "subcode" data which can be thought of as "control data"; like a precursor to today's much more complete metadata. One of the subcodes is the "pre-emphasis flag". When activated, a CD player will engage its "de-emphasis" circuitry/filter. These days, DAC chips themselves can implement digital de-emphasis as part of basic functionality.

MEASUREMENTS: Onkyo TX-NR1009 "WRAT" AV Receiver Class AB Amplifier... Plus Pi / LP / Resolution miscellany.

I currently have 3 AV receivers here at home. The Denon AVR-3802 is my oldest machine, purchased back in 2001 and being used in the living room for stereo playback. My newer Yamaha RX-V781 (2016) is currently in use for movie playback with Atmos/dts:X decoding. This leaves the Onkyo TX-NR1009 (2011 model) that I bought used in 2013 which has actually been sitting unused for the last few years mainly because it's an older HDMI 1.4 device which did not support full 4K/HDR/60fps switching:

It's a shame because I think of the 3 receivers, subjectively this is probably the best sounding (no blind test done, just a suspicion), has the highest power rating (135W into 8Ω, 1kHz, 1%), THX Select2 Plus certified, can amplify 9 channels (9.2 decoding), and when new, was also the most expensive of the three. I'm sure at some point I'll find a use for this 41 pound monster - maybe if/when the old Denon breaks down :-).

I don't think anyone can fault the external build quality which also looks quite handsome. Onkyo did unfortunately have some electronics failure issues with this generation of receivers however and back around 2016, I sent this unit back to them for an HDMI board replacement (here's a thread on the issue a few years back).

For this post, I think it would be interesting to explore the sound quality of this device as a 2-channel amplifier (especially compared to the little Yeeco TI TPA3116 amp last week). It'll give us an idea of how well a good receiver could perform and give us a peek at a modern Class AB device sitting in the higher end of the consumer price ladder (Class AB receiver amplifier designs have not changed that much in the last number of years). These days a similar tier THX model with equivalent power would be the newer Onkyo TX-NR1030 and TX-RZ1100.

MUSINGS / MEASUREMENTS: Thoughts on Vinyl LP Fidelity... (And thoughts on Sgt. Pepper's 50th Anniversary Remix.)

Alright... Let's not get worked up about the cartoon :-).

I know, the debate between vinyl and CD (digital) remains one of the greatest "wars" of the audio world; not that it should be a big deal IMO... As usual in most audiophile conflicts, there are many words spilled about the topic, but it is rare to see "data" or actual direct comparisons. For example, look at Wikipedia's entry for "Comparison of analog and digital recording" and we see no actual illustration to demonstrate differences.

Years ago, I wrote a little about this here (and I think it's only fair that I have a digital-preferring Batman cartoon). As you know, over the years there are all kinds of vinyl evangelists going around touting the superiority of LPs over CDs and digital overall (and vice versa although I'm not sure the digital camp is as evangelistic). Here's a nice example of all the awesomeness that is vinyl based on someone's opinion.

As I've said before, I agree that there are some great qualities about having an LP collection. So long as you have the space for the non-biodegradable collection, the beauty of the artwork is wonderful. It's comforting and collectable memorabilia. And likewise the sound can be alluring in the same romantic way. For some, the ritualization of the playback process can bring with it that sense of security and physical engagement as well.

HOWTO: Vinyl LP Cleaning with the 3M Bondo Locking Suction Cup Dent Pullers.

Time to clean some old Beatles - RIP George Martin...

Alright guys, I figured I'll post on something a bit less "heavy" and more fun for this week :-). (That's assuming one could consider LP cleaning as potentially fun rather than neurotic or obsessive...)

Although for the most part I listen to digital, I do still enjoy rummaging through the used vinyl at the local record shops. Great way to "get physical" with the music and great to sometimes pick up some minty LP's from the old days with sentimental value or some "classics" especially when the album cover artwork is in great shape.

As I posted a couple years back, I've got a little collection of "tools" for the LP set-up. For the most part, I still use the Spin Clean as my primary wet cleaning device. It's not too expensive, does the job well most of the time, and is quick and easy.

I had been curious about the various "record cleaning machines" as well and have tried an Okki Nokki here at home as well as had some records cleaned at the local record store using their VPI HW-16.5 (I think), and another one with a Music Hall WCS-2. I actually decided not to keep the Okki Nokki because I realized I just didn't "need" it for casual LP collecting... I found the vacuum too loud (in general I find this "audiophilically dysphoric"), didn't really want to deal with the liquid reservoir nor to devote tabletop space to something I wouldn't use enough of. Admittedly, I haven't tried the ultrasonic RCM devices so maybe those can work even better although they are significantly more expensive commercially, take up a bit of space, and one would still have to deal with the water bath.

MUSINGS: The ongoing Vinyl vs. Digital debate...

The always assertive Batman. But assertiveness isn't necessarily correct...

(Just a shortish post this week... I've covered much of this in the past.)

As I mentioned in the comments section of the previous post on HRA, there have been discussions recently again around the sound quality of vinyl compared to CD. I assume it started from this article "Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl" from the L.A. Weekly. Overall, I think it's a good article! Some excellent quotes from veterans in the audio engineering business like Bob Clearmountain and Bob Ludwig. We even have the pleasure of an interview with James T. Russell - the "father" of digital optical media. Folks... These people know what they're talking about, so do not take their comments lightly.

Despite the fact that there's nothing ground breaking in that article, it's no surprise that the vinylphiles are up in a tizzy. Michael Fremer has now dragged out an old 1996 article about "Does Vinyl Have Wider Dynamic Range Than CDs?" (the PDF in the article). Let's talk about this...

RESULT: Archimago's LP Needle Drop Blind Test

Okay, finally it's time to put up the test results for the "LP Needle Drop Blind Test"!

Of course the TMS system looks great compared to my "man cave" vintage Technics rig. :-)

A big thank-you to those who spent the time to listen to the 3 vinyl rips and then entered your results in the survey site I put up!

As I noted with the test page, this test is more for fun and obviously has less potential significance than the previous high bitrate MP3 listening test, or the more recent 24-bit audio blind test. Nonetheless, I think it does illustrate some points about vinyl sonic reproduction to those who had a listen and provides an opportunity to talk about the relative cost of audio hardware and what that actually buys in terms of sound quality...

Procedure:

As described previously, the purpose of this blind test was to ascertain the preference of respondents listening to a high-resolution rip of Paul Simon's "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes" from the same Graceland album (2012 25th Anniversary Edition - RTI 180gm remaster - Matrix / Runout (Side A): 88691914721-A RE1 20315.1(3) STERLING RKS). The samples were all ripped with the same ADC (my Creative E-MU 0404USB) and laptop (Acer Aspire 5552-7858) using Audacity 2.0.5 at 24/96 bitdepth/samplerate. The raw audio files were edited with Adobe Audition 3 for equivalent fade-ins and fade-outs, and average volume was normalized across the three samples (alas resulting in a few clipped samples which I do not affect the final "gestalt" of the sound). I felt that a 2 minute sample was adequate for evaluation of sound quality. Instantaneous A/B testing with something like the foobar ABX Comparator was encouraged.

A significantly more expensive turntable system consisting of the Roksan TMS, SME309 tonearm, Ortofon Cadenza Black moving coil cartridge and Whest PhonoStage.20 preamp was compared with my own modestly priced stock Technics SL-1200 M3D turntable with either a Denon DL-110 (high output moving coil) or Shure M97xE (moving magnet) cartridge fed to an Emotiva XSP-1 preamp with phono input. 

In total, I received 39 responses to this test. I know that my FTP site uploaded >150 copies of the audio test file so I suspect many more people must have listened than took the time to respond. There was also an alternate download site so I suspect much more than 150 people downloaded the samples.

Compared to previous tests with survey result of >100 responses, 39 results is relatively small but realize that this is still larger than most informal surveys I have seen done on audiophile forums. Also, compared to previous surveys, this one wasn't advertised to nearly as many places. Vinyl rips are a little odd, "straddling" both computer audio in that they're often ripped at high-resolution (24/96 in this case) so ideally the tester has high-res digital playback gear, but the actual sonic differences are mainly due to the analogue hardware and would likely only interest those who know about turntables and cartridges. Needless to say, despite the growth in LPs, the LP format remains a niche market (8.3 million LPs in all of 2014 for the U.S. isn't bad, but remember, weekly CD sales is on the order of 4-5 million units but dropping).

I announced the test only on the Audio Hardware forum on Steve Hoffman Music Forums, the Squeezebox Audiophile forum, the Vinyl forum on Audio Asylum, and the Vinyl Circle at AudioCircle.

As in previous tests, the responses came from various countries around the world:

Interestingly the majority of survey responses came from Europe - ~54%. Followed by North America with 33%.

Results:

In the survey, I asked respondents to rate which of the 3 files they liked the MOST, the SECOND, and finally LEAST.

As you can see Sample A marginally edged out Sample B as the "best" sounding file by only 1 vote. However, if we include results for what was "second best", clearly Sample A beat out B and C as preferred. Consistently, Sample C was considered least well liked.

A weighted score (3-points for best, 2-points for second best, and 1-point for least preferred divided by total of 39 entries) results in:

Sample A - 2.28
Sample B - 2.03
Sample C - 1.69

So, what analogue gear produced these samples:

Sample A - Technics SL-1200 M3D with Denon DL-110 cartridge
Sample B - Roksan TMS/SME309/Ortofon Cadenza Black cartridge
Sample C - Technics SL-1200 M3D with Shure M97xE cartridge

Overall, it looks like the Technics SL-1200 and Denon combo connected to the Emotiva XSP-1 preamp was the "winner" in this survey! Not by a huge margin of course.

To gauge whether respondents thought the difference was worth an upgrade between the "best" and "worst", these were the results:

In total, about 1/3 of respondents thought the difference was worth the upgrade versus a combined 51% thinking there's probably not enough of a difference to consider a $1000 upgrade (of course the price difference between the TMS system and the Technics is much larger!). Interesting to see that 15% basically found that the difference was significant but would not change their level of musical enjoyment if upgraded.

I was curious - of the 33% who thought an upgrade was warranted, which system they thought sounded the "best", "second best", and "worst" (to get an idea of which system they thought was most worth upgrading to):

Weighted score of the data above (of 13 respondents, maximum 3 "Best"):

Sample A - 2.23
Sample B - 2.0
Sample C - 1.77

Again, we're seeing a similar pattern to the results of the full sample; that overall Sample A (Technics SL-1200 M3D + Denon DL-110 cartridge) was preferred and the same turntable with the Shure M97xE was least preferred. There was no evidence of any special preference with the group that heard a greater difference.

Like with my other tests, I asked the respondents to identify the digital gear used to listen to these samples. Also like before, clearly most audiophiles who took this test used very good equipment to listen with. DACs used included the Schiit Modi, Naim DAC-V1, Meridian Explorer, ATOLL DAC 200, M-Audio Delta 410, iFi Micro iDSD, FiiO X3, Benchmark DAC2, Mackie Onyx Blackjack, Simaudio Moon 100D. Only about 4 respondents reported using the built-in computer motherboard DAC. About 50% of respondents identified themselves as using headphones for the evaluation. Headphones identified included many using Sennheiser models (HD800, HD650, HD600, HD280, HD580, HD428), Sony MDR-7520, HiFiMan HE-500, Audeze LCD-2 rev2, AKG K530, AKG K612 Pro, AKG K701, Denon AH-D2000, AudioTechnica ATH-M50x, Grado SR80. Speaker systems included Monitor Audio RX8, Linn Isobarik, B&W 805, Rega RS5, Klipsch Heresy, Dynaudio Contour S3.4, Devialet 200 + B&W 802D system, Meridian active speakers, Mission 702e. 18% reported using foobar ABX Comparator or equivalent.

Summary - So What?

Well, I did say this is for fun, right? But I think there are a few general facts to keep in mind when talking about vinyl drops in general and specifically analogue gear.

1. I believe a well recorded LP needle drop (especially at high resolution) does represent the actual sound produced by the turntable/cartridge/preamp - essentially 100%. I tested this by recording the track at 24/96 (with the old E-MU 0404USB) and volume matched with the turntable playing back the song in realtime, switching between inputs resulted in indistinguishable sound at least for me (and my wife was willing to lend her ears); as in all subjective experiences YMMV. Of course, it's important to make sure you play the digital files back with an accurate digital front end. As a result, I believe one can evaluate the sonic differences quite easily - audibly obvious compared to say high bitrate MP3 vs. lossless or the difference between 16/44 and high resolution digital. for example, a friend sent me his rip of this same track using the Audio-Technica AT150MLx and the high frequency boost from that cartridge was easily heard.

2. A number of people commented they did not like the sound of vinyl rips in general compared to the CD rip. I can totally understand, especially since so many respondents used headphones for evaluation. Vinyl rips, especially when completely untouched like the samples in this test do contain the imperfections of vinyl playback. Surface noise is heard during quiet segments and the occasional crackle and pop will be heard from dust, static, or vinyl defects. I have seen people post on forums that they've never experienced surface noise and never heard a pop - that's just nonsense. It's not uncommon to find new LPs with noisy background even after thorough cleaning and many of my records from the oil crisis days of the early to mid-1970s clearly were made with noisy, probably recycled vinyl. (Interestingly, most of my 1980's LPs sound great even though they may appear thin on inspection.) Over the years I have checked out some beautifully recorded vinyl rips rivalling the quality of professionally produced remasters; there's a real skill and art in restoring the sound especially for music that was dynamically squashed in the CD/digital release.

3. I think this is a nice demonstration of how important the choice of a good cartridge is! Notice that the "best" overall sample was the Technics turntable with Denon DL-110 cartridge. And the "worst" sample was the Technics turntable with Shure M97xE. The only difference being the different cartridges. Nice to know that the more expensive Denon in this case was felt to be superior on the whole (at about 3x the price). The main complaint about the Shure was that it accentuated the sibilance in Paul Simon's vocals (like in the word "she"). Even so, 20.5% of respondents thought the Shure sample sounded best so there's obviously significant subjective variation.

4. BUT a much more expensive system like the TMS turntable + SME tonearm + Whest phono preamp did not draw higher preference overall from the respondents. It goes without saying that there is always a point of diminishing return with mature technologies and it's no surprise that price itself is not necessarily a determinant for best sound quality. I have already previously posted on wow & flutter measurements for both the Roksan TMS and Technics SL-1200 M3D demonstrating that the Technics is actually more accurate in terms of absolute speed. A few respondents and chatter on the Steve Hoffman Forum noted that Sample B (TMS system) had an audible hum in the silent portion. This is true and can be heard at 57 seconds at the end of the Ladysmith Black Mambazo segment as it transitions to the Paul Simon vocals. This is much more obvious with closed headphones or a quiet sound room with low ambient noise. It's obvious that not everyone heard this anomaly though. I've gone back to my friend's place and confirmed that it's coming from the Whest phono stage (rather than the TMS turntable or phono cable). It serves as a good reminder of the importance of sensitivity to noise of an analogue setup. Remember that the Ortofon Cadenza Black is a low output voltage (0.33mV) moving coil cartridge (vs. 1.6mV Denon vs. 4mV Shure). This means there's greater amplification applied by the phono preamp and a concomitant increased risk of picking up hum in the system. The quality of the phono amplification stage therefore becomes extremely important. I cannot tell if this hum is unique to my friend's Whest unit (which is a number of years old at this point). For the record, vibration isolation isn't really an issue in this case because I was recording the needle drops without the speakers playing the music and the room was basically silent during LP playback.

Well folks... I hope you enjoyed listening to the Paul Simon LP samples. I'm still having fun with some used vinyl collecting. Lots of good stuff out there to collect and at exceptional prices as well. I know a few people have gotten into vinyl and have been disappointed with the sound. I think there's a lot of hype out there around this almost mythical "sound quality" of vinyl that some people will excitedly plunk a wad of cash down expecting audio nirvana to emanate from their speakers. Sure, if everything goes right, the sound can be excellent, but like everything in life, it's important to have realistic expectations. :-)

Hope you're all enjoying the music as we head into the Holiday Season... Thanks again for all the respondents; I obviously wouldn't be able to do any of these blind tests / surveys without your time and participation!

I have a new audio "toy" to play with over the holidays! Stay tuned...

--------------

ADDENDUM:
Last night I went to watch the movie Interstellar at the local megaplex. Wow! Neat movie; reminds me of 2001: A Space Odyssey with all kinds of sci-fi ideas - AI (robots with humor!), evolution of humanity, almost "divine" guidance, centrifugal artificial gravity and cryosleep. Elements of modern science gets thrown in: black holes, wormholes, Grand Unified Theory, space-time relativity, and genetics. Of course we must throw in the human elements: love, family, relationship, fear, loneliness, perhaps even madness. Highly recommended flick and one I'll be looking forward to on Blu-Ray.

But as reported elsewhere (here, here and here for example), the movie soundtrack was remarkably "loud"! Although I didn't have any issues with deciphering the dialogue (seriously, Matthew McConaughey's southern accent and lack of enunciation at times doesn't help), there were parts that were obviously rife with clipping distortion. I have actually never heard these levels of distortion to the point of hearing "pops" and "crackles" at this specific theatre before (with excellent sound setup including Dolby Atmos decoding). As I noted previously, the Dark Knight Rises soundtrack (another Christopher Nolan film with Hans Zimmer score) from 2012 was remarkably compressed for an orchestral score. I really don't know what the point is of doing this other than annoying the moviegoer! Loud is one thing which the theatre can accomplish by turning the knob up, but to the point of pushing the levels to "11" on the mix itself? That's obscene. (In fact, ironically I wouldn't be surprised if this theater turned down the volume if many viewers complain thinking it's their sound system crackling rather than inherent in the soundtrack mix. I believe I've heard louder transients in the theater before on other movies.)

E-Mail: "Full Dynamic Range" - Now there's a marketing phrase to get behind!

 The other day, I got this E-mail from an audiophile friend:

Hi Arch, 

I think this is funny. A contradiction in every way imaginable which is why I wanted to share it with you. I know it’s not your type of music and although I still listen to it sometimes, it’s mostly youth sentiment for me. One of the loudest and fastest bands back in the days was Terrorizer. Their drummer (Pete Sandoval) is one of the fastest drummers I have heard, he's amazing. But unfortunately production for this kind of music wasn't always very good. It's often compressed to hell and equalized with typical "rock" settings; increased lows and highs and suppressed mids. It's often overdone in my opinion. I do think production of hard rock and metal albums have improved over the years but back then, some were just downright bad. This particular album wasn't that bad though, it was actually pretty decent from what I remember. 

Terrorizer was a so-called super band. Some of the best musicians from different bands came together to produce one album. The band split up that same year but after 2005 they came together a few more times to release other albums. This album was their debut from 1989, titled World Downfall. It is considered one of the most influential albums in the genre and now a classic that every fan of the genre should own. I ordered this album on vinyl recently, limited to 100 copies, in "Downfall Orange". What struck me was that it is marketed as a "Full Dynamic Range" version. I would never have ordered it if that wasn't mentioned! Could this be the new marketing phrase? The end of the loudness wars? How much dynamic range can be in music like this? And how good can it really sound? I was curious and I could not resist the urge so I bought it ... :). Fitting label too, Earache! Haha!
 

Here's a screenshot of the waveform. The entire album looks similar:

The average album DR is 12. I think that's amazing! 

The album sounds spatial, black background, there's air around the instruments and the drums sound natural. Basically, the album just sounds very good. Obviously the entire album is one massive wall of noise so I can't say it’s not tiring to listen to but at least now it’s a good sounding wall of noise haha! :D. 

I am surprised that the end of the loudness wars (if that ever happens) would see a start with albums like this. But if this is it, it definitely looks promising!

Funny story about the drummer, the band once played a prank on him by making him listen to a band that used a pre-programmed drum machine, and pretended it was a real drummer who could play faster than he could. He was gutted, and went on to practice until he managed to play faster than the machine.

PS. I don't advise you listen to the album. If you decide to do so you it's at your own risk. I'm not liable for any damage this might cause, physically or mentally! Haha! Just kidding! You’ll live J.

Well. That would be amazing wouldn't it?! To start advertising music as "Full Dynamic Range" (with a nice logo maybe?) to grab the interest of those who actually understand the importance of mastering quality. Slowly this could build into a "movement" of sorts that might even capture the interest of the mainstream music industry - imagine seeing CDs being advertised like this...

As I noted in this previous article, I actually think that the next round of remastering will actually swing the pendulum towards "full dynamic range" to differentiate the sound from current loud dynamically overcompressed releases. A movement of this sort would be a true advancement of sound quality that would make the push towards "High-Resolution Audio" and format wars like PCM vs. DSD (yawn...) audibly irrelevant in relative significance.

Remember, we should be cautious about reading too much into DR values of vinyl rips and comparing directly to a CD version, of course. However, also remember that vinyl is limited in how much compression can be applied in order to prevent tracking issues. I wonder in fact if this limitation may be an important reason why LPs have survived - they can sound better than the corresponding CD because the masters used to cut the vinyl have always needed to be of a decent dynamic range. Although the track is loud; visibly so zoomed out like this, I'm sure zooming into the waveform would reveal zero clipping / peak limiting which is what kills the DR value.

In other news: we just saw the release of Bruce Springsteen's Born In The U.S.A. available on HDTracks at 24/96 with a DR of 9. Original first CD release in the 80's - DR13. Born To Run is even worse with DR8 (I think even the 30th Anniversary CD release may be better). Hey Columbia Records, you do realize a little bit more audio realism can be squeezed out from 24-bits, right (which I hope is what audiophiles are looking for in these "better than CD" releases)? As usual, I highly recommend checking out the Dynamic Range Database to get a sense of the mastering quality before jumping into these so-called "high-resolution" albums.

BTW, I jEst liStenEd to dA TerRoRiZER AlbuM... i'M pReety ShuRe Im OhhKaAaY! EErAchE inDeeD. :-)

------------------

Thanks to everyone for trying out the "LP Needle Drop Blind Test", especially those who took the time to submit survey results. The survey site is closed although the FTP remains open for now. I'll likely close that off this weekend.

Work has been crazy-busy this last 2 weeks so I'll try to get results up in the next week. Stay tuned...

Enjoy the music everyone! (I'm trying to find the time as we head towards a busy holiday season...)

LP Needle Drop Test: Final Week!

Just wanted to remind everyone that I'm closing off the LP Needle Drop Blind Test survey at the end of this week (November 30). Thanks for all the submissions so far... Thanks for the downloads so please submit your results!

No real audio discussion from me this week... Just been readjusting to the work and time zone now that I'm back in North America. One thing I will note however:

That's the Sony A6000 mirrorless camera. I'm very impressed by the travel images I got from this little device! Even with just the kit zoom lens (E PZ 16-50/3.5-5.6 OSS) [35mm equivalent 24-75mm zoom].

I carried this little guy through the 2 weeks in China and over the 2 cities I visited and worked at. Light weight but good build, reasonably fast, really excellent autofocus mechanism, and best of all, image quality even with challenging low light situations using ISO3200 resulted in usable images thanks to the 24Mpixel APS-C sensor!

Although I would love to bring my Nikon D800 along, I just don't have the space during work trips and this little guy performed admirably.

Sure, the EVF viewfinder isn't as good as a bright SLR and I would have loved greater depth of field with my f/2.8 lenses. But for 95% of the situations, this little Sony was more than adequate.

Time to get reacquainted with my audio system back home :-)...

Have a great week everyone!

MEASUREMENTS: Roksan TMS (1) Wow & Flutter - PlatterSpeed test.

Greetings from this place:

Port city of Xiamen, China - just across from Taiwan.

Wrote this up right before I left Canada to go to Asia...

---------------------

Hello folks, while you're working on the vinyl LP test and as I prepare to go overseas for a few weeks, I thought it might be interesting to post the objective PlatterSpeed results from the Roksan turntable as well as a couple more pictures of the setup...

It is a thing of beauty:

Although there have been updates to the TMS design (I think TMS 3 is the latest, here's a TSM 2 review from 2003), the appearance and general design principles seem to have stayed constant over the years. The build of this device is top notch and smoothness of operation appears excellent. Switching from 33.3rpm to 45rpm is easy with the push of a button up front.

Using the same Adjust+ Test LP to measure as I did previously with the SL-1200, here are the 33.3 rpm charts and calculations as per PlatterSpeed measured off the same iPad:

As you can see, it measures quite well. It's running a little fast with a mean frequency of 3156.5 Hz instead of 3150 over 60 seconds or so. Wow measurements with the DIN IEC 386 plugin is a little higher than the SL-1200, a similar pattern with the raw frequency maximum deviation. But when lowpassed, the maximum deviation was the same as the Technics at +/-0.02%.

Here it is measured at 45 rpm:

Again, it's a bit fast at 45rpm as well. Remember the target "mean frequency" at 45rpm should be 4252.5Hz. There's only a slight increase in the DIN IEC 386 wow measurement and slight increase in the lowpass-filtered result compared to 33rpm demonstrating good stability with the increased table speed.

It'll be fun to see the LP blind test results! Keep the entries coming - you have to end of November :-).

Enjoy the tunes.

TEST: Archimago's LP Needle Drop Blind Test.

Hello everyone. Welcome to another "blind" test! Unlike the previous High Bitrate MP3 Test last year and the more recent 24-Bit vs. 16-Bit Test, this one is much more subjective and essentially for fun :-). Not that previous tests weren't fun, but the results of this one is more for the experience of having tried (that's at least part of the fun of this hobby I hope!)...

This time, we're looking at vinyl "needle drops"; digitized output from turntable setups. You can download the test file here:

ftp://lptest.dyndns.org 

Login: LP 

Test: test

Download the file "Archimago's LP Test.zip" (~125MB).

Alternate download site (thanks again Ingemar):
www.privatebits.net/archimago/Archimago's LP Test.zip

Within the ZIP file, you will find 3 sample FLAC files - A, B, and C. Each is a high-resolution 24/96 audio recording of 2 minutes, 2 seconds duration. I trust this is a long enough sample to evaluate the sound quality.

Each file was created with the same LP; a 2012 180gm remaster of Paul Simon's "Graceland", specifically the last track on side 1 - "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes" (Matrix / Runout (Side A): 88691914721-A RE1 20315.1(3) STERLING RKS) so there's maximal inner groove distortion potentially. This LP is completely "virgin", purchased new about a month before I did these recordings and never been played before these samples. The LP looked clean and about as perfect (eg. no warps, dents, fill defects, scuffs, scratches...) as can be. I used an air blower to remove any obvious surface dust. It was NOT washed prior to playback since I did not want to inadvertently add anything (nor can I say I removed any potential deep embedded dust from the factory).

The recordings were done in the following order with the following systems:

1. Roksan TMS (first generation), SME309 magnesium tonearm, Ortofon Cadenza Black cartridge fed into a Whest PhonoStage.20 preamp. Audio output was through a pair of shielded 6' RCA cables plugged into the preamp (no balanced XLR on the Whest). Total cost for this setup should easily exceed $5000 on the used market.

Took a shot right after the vinyl needle drop was done...

2. My own stock Technics SL-1200 M3D turntable. Denon DL-110 cartridge fed into the Emotiva XSP-1 preamp (Gen1). This cartridge is a high-output moving coil (HOMC, 1.6mV) so the preamp was set at standard MM load and 47kohm load. Output recorded off 6' of MonoPrice balanced XLR cables. Total cost of this would be <$2000 considering the Technics was bought used. The Denon DL-110 costs about $150-$200 new shipped.

3. My own stock Technics SL-1200 M3D turntable. Shure M97xE cartridge fed into the same Emotive XSP-1 preamp (Gen1). This is a standard moving magnet cartridge with 4mV output. Again, 47kohm setting used on the preamp. Output recorded off 6' MonoPrice XLR cable. Slightly less expensive than (2) above with the Shure cartridge <$100. Again, total cost of this system would be <$2000.

Technics setup calibrated using Baerwald geometry and SME tonearm using the SME-supplied protractor (Stevenson?). Vertical Tracking Force optimized with digital scale (Ortofon = 2.3g, Denon = 1.8g, Shure = 1.25g dynamic stabilizer disengaged). Azimuth set to perpendicular by visualization using a mirror protractor. I tried to optimize the "stylus rake angle" to something like 92-degrees (I honestly believe it makes no sense to spend too much time or effort on this unless extremely misaligned; vinyl thickness differences and mild but common surface unevenness will easily affect this):

eg. Denon DL-110 stylus on vinyl. Photo taken with Nikon D800 using Tamron SP 90mm/2.8 macro lens at f8, manual focus on small tripod. Angles estimated & measured on screen with MB-Ruler.

Analogue-to-Digital conversion was done with the Creative E-MU 0404USB device at 24/96 using Audacity to record. I can confirm with A/B switching while playing the digital file off a Squeezebox Transporter and the Technics turntable playing at the same time that the sound is essentially identical when volume matched.

For consistency, the digital files were:
1. Trimmed to ~2'02" in length.
2. First second essentially silenced to provide the same "lead in".
3. Last 2 seconds faded out to silence.
4. All file volumes RMS normalized to -18.87dB. Note that there are a few clipped samples due to unanticipated dynamics of this recording but should not impede evaluation.
5. All samples compressed to FLAC lossless and tagged.
6. Randomized to Sample A / B / C.

Other than the above there was no other processing done to the files. Nothing like noise reduction or ClickRepair for example.

As you can see from the DR meter log file (foo_dr.txt from foobar2000 plug-in) in this ZIP file, the music has a good dynamic range of 14dB. (Excellent LP remaster!)

Your task:

1. Listen to the 3 tracks in native 24/96. Which sample did you think was the best? Which did you think was the worst? (It's OK to also feel there's no preference or even if you notice a difference, think that it would make no difference to musical enjoyment.)

2. How much difference did you hear? Although the cost differential is much more between the Roksan vs. Technics setups, suppose your system sounded like the "worst" sample, would you spend $1000 to upgrade it to sound like the "best" sample?

3. Go and fill out my simple survey. All 7 questions are mandatory and I will have to delete responses that have not been filled out correctly. Should take <5 minutes. Please also let me know which computer/DAC and what headphones/speakers used. Also whether you used something like the Foobar ABX tool for evaluation.
(http://freeonlinesurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9qk9tpzbxq8uwlk539831)

As usual, thanks to all who try this out! It's not often that one gets to hear turntable setups side-by-side and this was about as "controlled" as I could find a way to do this to get a taste of what disparate gear could sound like. As usual, although this test is more subjective than previous tests, make sure to listen and not just look at waveforms in an audio editor, also, I think it's better not to discuss one's results until after the test is complete so as not to influence others.

I'm going to run the survey until November 30th - I'll be overseas for a bit so in case there are issues, please leave a note in the comments section if you run into any difficulties. Have fun with this!

Best regards,
Archimago

-----------------------
Disclaimer: I believe this test conforms to the spirit of "fair use" for copyrighted material for the purpose of education and research. The author derives no financial benefit from conducting this survey.

See RESULTS here.

MUSINGS: Vinyl Paraphernalia & Good Old (Free) Vinyl :-)

As I mentioned before, I've been going through the bargain bins at the local LP stores and it has been great finding stuff I hadn't listened to for years! Tonight, as I'm typing this I'm getting reacquainted with Henry Lee Summer's I've Got Everything album for example [recent article on Summer]. It indeed has been decades since I've heard "Hey Baby"...

Yup, old memories of high school - Gen-X and proud of the 80's :-)

Okay, on to the main topic for this post.

I noticed over the last month how getting into vinyl resulted in an accumulation of "paraphernalia". I've got a little collection of "things" now on my music rack that wasn't there before. Plus I've got a compartment where I keep my albums for a few of these things. It's all part of the ritual of maintaining a clean LP collection. I suspect you can tell the "serious" vinyl audiophiles from the "casual" based on whether they have these items hanging around; many of which I would consider essential! I'm sure this is 'old hat' for you vinylphiles already, but for those curious, without further ado, let's have a peek at what I've accumulated:

I. Cleaning Supplies:

Without a doubt, this "class" of products is essential. There's just no way to experience decent LP sound unless it's clean.

For dry cleaning, I started with the Vinyl Styl anti-static carbon fiber brush. It's relatively cheap at $15 or so and good to brush off surface dust as the disk spins on the platter before dropping the needle. Often dust is just moved around and you end up with a "line" of dust unless you direct the dust off tangentially. I've also seen a demo where the brush is moved medially towards the spindle to touch the central metal part. Supposedly this discharges the brush allowing it to hang on to the dust particles. I personally have not found this consistently does the job.

There are of course many such brush products out there. I've heard of folks complain that carbon fiber brushes can leave "hairs" or micro-scratches on the LP. I have not had either of these problems. Just don't press down too hard when cleaning the vinyl surface.

To the left in the clear plastic box is the Nagaoka Rolling CL-1000. I got this off eBay for about $120 from Japan shipped. It's not cheap. Basically it's like a fancy sticky (elastomer) lint brush meant for dry LP cleaning. I have wondered if the cheap sticky roller from the local store would do the trick but too chicken to try :-). In any event, this thing works quite well. I don't know how deep in the groove it can get but the ability to lift dirt and dust off is better than the plain carbon fiber brush. I had noticed with the first usage that I saw a little bit of residue which was removed with a second round of cleaning and no problem thereafter - I think it may have come from the clear plastic protector wrapped around the elastomer that had to be peeled off. I usually will use this on new LPs just to remove the small amount of dust/particles rather than doing a wet clean. Static charge builds up when rolling so make sure the environment is clean - I often will do the rolling on top of an anti-static inner sleeve. (I've noticed some much cheaper ones like the Stop-a-Clicks; I presume this would be fine at a much lower price point.)

The yellow box is of course the Spin Clean. IMO wet cleaning is essential! There's no way I'm going to play the majority of my used purchases unless they've been through a wash cycle. The Spin Clean Mark II works great. I have had some albums cleaned at a local store with their VPI 16.5 machine and I thought the result was really quite similar so long as I took care with the Spin Clean. I have not had any issues with scratching or abrasions. A few observations / suggestions:

1. Use distilled water especially if your region has high mineral content 'hard' water (not really a problem here in Vancouver).

2. After the wash, hold the LP over the Spin Clean to let the residual water drip off the disk before drying for about 10 seconds. This reduces the amount of fluid to wipe off and noticeably less water spots after drying.

3. Buy some good, soft, absorbent microfiber cloths to use for drying. The Spin Clean kit comes with a couple of rather substandard drying wipes.

4. I never use much of the provided cleaning fluid. My formula: fill the Spin Clean up to 90% distilled water, 10% with isopropyl alcohol, and just 1 cap of the starter kit fluid (they recommend 3 cap fulls).

5. Don't let the reservoir fluid get too dirty... I usually wash less than 20 used albums before throwing the fluid out.

II. Needle / Stylus Cleaner:

Have to keep the stylus clean of course. On the right is the "free" stylus brush provided in the package with my Denon DL-110 cartridge. Does the job with very delicate fibers.

On the left is the Onzow ZeroDust. Removing the plastic cover reveals a piece of convex gelatinous substance you can gently "drop" the needle on, removing any dust or pieces of vinyl stuck on. I first saw one of these at AudioPhil's place and liked it - easy and quick.

III. Calibration Paraphernalia:

Then I got all this stuff:

Precision electronic VTF scale. Good down to +/-0.01g. The manual scale on the Technics SL-1200 standard tonearm counterbalance is quite accurate already down to about 0.1g from experience. It's nice to have this for confirmation though plus it's not expensive (~$20).

Without question, the most arduous task with turntable setup is getting the cartridge aligned. A reflective alignment tool such as the ruler-like device to the right is helpful. However, with my Technics, the freely-available-to-print Baerwald Arc Protractor off Vinyl Engine is all I really need. Just make sure you print it out 100% with no print scaling to keep the dimensions accurate and punch the center spindle hole accurately.

I got one of these inexpensive ~400gm record clamps off eBay from Asia. I don't buy noticeably warped records so I don't use this much but there is a convenient spirit/bubble level on top to make sure the turntable is flat. The 50Hz stroboscope is useless for me here in 60Hz AC land.

Some people will use things like USB microscopes to check the Stylus Rake Angle (SRA) for VTA calibration. I haven't gone to this level of fine tuning yet (and possibly never will plus I really doubt it's all that important since slight warping is common yet I don't generally hear any difference when the needle tracks over those areas!). One idea has been to use a macro lens on my dSLR to take close up pictures using a well aligned tripod... I'll maybe give that a try.

IV. Sleeves:

After cleaning used vinyl, there's no way I'd put them back in the original old record inner sleeves. So far, I have found the Mobile Fidelity "Original Master Sleeves" a must have. They're soft, thin, and I have not had any problems with powder residue some have complained about. At about $20-25 for a pack of 50, they're not cheap though. One gripe I've had with a number of new 180g remasters (like my new Guns N' Roses Appetite For Destruction) is the shiny paper used without any soft inner lining. Often with the tight fit of thicker vinyl, the paper sleeve almost guarantees abrasions when putting the LP in or taking it out. Disappointing and all too common to take out a new LP for the first time feeling the resistance of the inner sleeve when pulling out and finding abrasions already on the vinyl.

Then there's the transparent outer sleeves which will keep the outer artwork safe from scratches. I've been able to find good 4 mil locally for about 25 cents a piece.

Summary:

Well, that's not too long a list of paraphernalia I suppose... But it's certainly more than one ever needed for a CD collection (all I had was a soft microfiber cloth to wipe off smudges and a few extra jewel cases). Taken together, there's at least $300 of "stuff" purchased; not counting the extras for the sleeves and obviously I'm not buying anything extravagant here. Of course, not all of this is essential, but significant considering the price of my used Technics SL-1200 M3D (only around $500). Something to keep in mind for those getting into vinyl. However, the bargain used LPs (at least a lot of the 80's stuff I like) can be had for really cheap!

I'd love to hear what other items you've found useful with your LP rig... How much difference do you think a vacuum record cleaning machine makes compared to washing by hand or a relatively inexpensive system like the <$100 Spin Clean?

-------------

To end off this post, I remember awhile back reading one of Stephen Mejias articles in Stereophile where he observed that when others realize one has a record collection, friends and associated will start offering up LPs they don't listen to any more... Indeed, I was fortunate enough to have a friend offer the following:

Interesting early Beatles pressings from Asia purchased when first released - Abbey Road and Let It Be appear to be pressed in Hong Kong, With The Beatles from Malaysia, and Sgt. Pepper's from Singapore. I'm not sure about the Red and Blue compilations.

I have both an early Canada pressing of Abbey Road and later pressing of Let It Be from the mid-1970's for comparison. As best I can tell, the Asian Abbey Road sounded cleaner and Let It Be was about the same. I compared Abbey Road with the recent 180g LP remaster and not unexpectedly, these older pressings sound softer, and perhaps less detailed compared to the more compressed and digital remastered LPs. This is the same impression listening to an early Dutch pressing of Dark Side Of The Moon (thanks Ingemar!) compared to my new 180g remaster. It's subjective which mastering one prefers of course but there is something special to be said about holding and playing an album of historical importance physically created before I was even out of diapers. As I have noted before, these properties of a physical object add to the joys of vinyl collecting irrespective of sonic quality (obviously I'm not getting the same vibe with new digital remaster LPs).

Finally, I also received the following box:

The Beatles E.P. Collection of 45's in both original mono and stereo! Mint vinyl condition! Thanks Paul :-).

Have a great weekend and week ahead. Gotta run off to listen to some "classics" now...