Gramophone Player Audio Quality

As a streaming service, I think it is quite good. But as a means for sampling a recording before buying, especially for the audiophile population, it's got miles to go compared with the CD.

I don't know whether I'm getting less critical in my old(er) age, or whether the new DS player and my upgraded amps and speakers are contributing, but I am finding the sound quality of new CDs impressive across the board.  (And I buy a fair handful every month.)

In general, I would avoid buying new releases if the reviewer mentioned poor sound quality or if they receive less than four stars for sound quality in the BBC Music magazine review, but otherwise, it's the rated performance that attracts my attention.  (I try to keep in mind, ""It's the music, stupid"", notwithstanding my defence of the pursuit of audio excellence elsewhere on this forum.)

The Gramophone Player is certainly good enough to fully reveal the quality of the performance and while the covermount CD had the edge with revealing recorded sound quality, few, I guess, would not buy for the difference it was able to show.  In my experience, the recommended discs that turn out to have exceptional sound quality (the Emerson String Quartet's new Dvorak on DG springs to mind) have been well worth buying on performance criteria alone.

I have argued forcefully elsewhere that the pursuit of good sound reproduction is more important to revealing great music than many realise, but it is not, or shouldn't be, why we seek out exceptional performances.

Mike's and Ecysun's point above might be seen by some as putting the hi-fi cart before the musical horse, perhaps.

Vic.

Mike,

Yes, I take your point and broadly agree.  And CDs definately vary in sound quality.

When you talk of downloads, I take it that you don't include the "studio master" 24bit 192kHz (etc) versions, such as those available from Linn Records and others?  I certainly find them significantly superior to any 16bit CD.  And mp3, iPod downloads are only fine for doing the Waitrose run.

Vic.

There is a suspicion among some audiophiles, I feel, that all MP3 compression can be discerned, if you listen closely enough. And as we all know, suggestion is a powerful tool. The truth is that compression technology continues to improve, and that as we age, our hearing deteriorates.

I wonder how many people commenting on the Gramophone Player have tested their hearing ability, either informally or in proper, blind testing?

I consider that I have good hearing for my age, though I am approaching 50 so my hearing is long past its peak. The impact of Presbycusis (age-related hearing loss) will be accelerating. My own testing suggests that for most recordings, I cease to hear any difference between the original recording and the MP3 file at 192kbps VBR (created with the most recent version of LAME). For testing purposes I did not use streams. I used MP3s files played through my hifi via a Squeezebox media player. Trawling around various audio forums, 192kbps MP3s seems to be the point at which the majority of people can no longer tell the compressed file from the original. With AAC, I can use a slightly lower bitrate and the compressed files are still "transparent" to my ears.

Assuming that the Gramophone Player stream is VBR and created with a top-class encoder (both important assumptions), I would be very surprised if anyone could tell the difference between the stream and the original CD in a formal test. Perhaps you might find an 18-year-old with particularly good hearing who might do so. Or slightly older people with a highly-trained ear -- young recording engineers or full-time musicians, perhaps. But the average Gramophone reader?

With the Gramophone Player and BBC R3 HD, we have reached a stage where streamed audio is "good enough" for the vast majority of listeners, even those who call themselves audiophiles, whether they realise it or not. Indeed if you found the mythical 18-year-old with exceptional hearing, I would guess he would rank the BBC R3 HD stream (320k AAC) equal to or better than CD quality -- 320kbps AAC is a huge jump in broadcast quality, and truly a cause for celebration.

All this is not to discount mikealdren's comments on the general quality of modern recordings. That's a viable argument, but a different discussion.

PS: One related issue that comes into my head from time to time. Judging by the pictures published in some audio/hifi magazines, many of the people testing audio equipment or reviewing CDs are the wrong side of 40. How often are they tested for age-related hearing loss, I wonder?