Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?

[risabet]

You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

You won't get the best sound from analog without a good TT, arm and cartridge, not meaning to offend, but a Pioneer is not a good TT. Direct drive, Goldmund excepted (maybe), is not an acceptable drive system for high-end TT's.

I will admit that analog that is better than redbook CD is usually more expensive, more finicky and you can't play them in your car, but IMO on a good sytem with a good TT analog is better than CD.

[musicoverall]

You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

Well, if you tell me what world you come from, we'll find out if I'm from a different one!

Long story I'll keep short - when CD's came out, I jumped onto the new format as soon as I could afford a player. The $100 units of today cost a grand back then! I could hardly wait! No more surface noise, no accidental scratches, no partyers sitting on them and breaking them, etc, etc. So I took the plunge eventually and I was happy... for awhile. Then my excitement faded as it just seemed like the music didn't sound as good as I remembered. I thought it was my system so I started upgrading. The problem didn't go away and often times it was made worse. At some point, I pulled out my old LP's that I had boxed up and they sounded much better, surface noise and all. More like real music.
That was a rather confounding realization... but I did get an improved stereo out of the deal!

CD sound has improved, particularly with the discs that were newly recorded directly to digital (rather than digital remasters of old analog tapes) and with the improvement in players. In fact, the new DAC I bought has narrowed the gap. No one can tell me that all CD players sound alike and make me believe it! I haven't complained about the sound of CD's since. I still don't think the best of them sounds as good as the average record but they're close enough that the differences aren't worth obsessing over. And if it helps any, it boggles MY mind, too! But I don't necessarily believe that the LP format is superior. I think it's more that the care in recording and mastering was better back in the old days - as a rule. But I think that's changing to a degree as well.

[wfontenot]

It is funny how this topic still comes up. I remember this 20 years ago when a friend of mine told me his buddy would not buy a CD player since he could hear the limitations on his system. All he would play was OMRs, which were dirt cheap since everyone was converting to CDs. Interesting, very interesting.

[ruadmaa]

You won't get the best sound from analog without a good TT, arm and cartridge, not meaning to offend, but a Pioneer is not a good TT. Direct drive, Goldmund excepted (maybe), is not an acceptable drive system for high-end TT's.

I will admit that analog that is better than redbook CD is usually more expensive, more finicky and you can't play them in your car, but IMO on a good sytem with a good TT analog is better than CD.

Sorry but I highly disagree, the Pioneer PL540 is an excellent turntable (mayby not high end but very respectable specifications) As to direct drive not being as good as belt drive this was an argument that had gone on for years with an equal number of adherents on both sides. You would be hard pressed to find a better phono cartridge than a Shure V15.

[RGA]

fdgdfhgfghfdhfdhffdh

Listen to what you like...could not delete post?

[musicoverall]

It is funny how this topic still comes up. I remember this 20 years ago when a friend of mine told me his buddy would not buy a CD player since he could hear the limitations on his system. All he would play was OMRs, which were dirt cheap since everyone was converting to CDs. Interesting, very interesting.

I have a friend who to this day does not own a CD player nor any CD's because he's so annoyed with the sound. When he comes over, he can always tell when I'm spinning vinyl or CD by sound. He can't believe I can listen to those "foul sounding pieces of garbage" CD's. I tried to reason with him years ago and have long since given up.

[BRANDONH]

I went back to vinyl a couple of years back.
I only quit spinning records because my T.T. broke and could no longer get parts for it.
Then all the local record stores either went out of business of switched to CD.
I remember thinking back then vinyl must be dead, which I could never understand why because even then I still preferred the sound of analog over digital.
One day I stumbled across a website selling new sealed re-releases then I researched even more and found plenty of online vinyl sites selling new sealed records and used mint.
I now have over 26 vinyl websites in my favorites that I can choose from!
I went to a local family owned electronics store that had Sumiko so I purchased the
Pro-ject 1.2, then upgraded the cartridge to a Shure V15VxMR.
Granted neither the T.T. or cartridge is as high-end as some here have but it does me just fine.
All I know is, that when I am listening to a CD it sounds digital to me lacking depth and realism but when listening to a record it comes to life with a real presence, vocalization and instrumentation feel real.
I do have some CD that sound great and some records that sound terrible.
But the same recording in most cases the records sound better than the CD. If I can only find the Musician (s) on CD then so be it, but if also available on vinyl Ill purchase the vinyl.
I can listen to my vinyl records at high volume levels (600 to 1000 watts*) hours longer than CD at the same level without becoming fatigued.
Musicoverall mentioned 45 RPM and although harder to find they are fantastic sounding.
My favorites are any halfspeed mastered especially 45 RPM halfspeed mastered.
Ruadmaa mentioned surface noise some of my records have it but even with the surface noise some of the records in most cases still sound better than the CD of the same recording.
Incidentally most of my audiophile 180g & 200g albums are dead silent.
I guess that it is all depends on the listeners preference.
* (I live in a rural area I can blast it)

[musicoverall]

I went back to vinyl a couple of years back.
I only quit spinning records because my T.T. broke and could no longer get parts for it.
Then all the local record stores either went out of business of switched to CD.
I remember thinking back then vinyl must be dead, which I could never understand why because even then I still preferred the sound of analog over digital.
One day I stumbled across a website selling new sealed re-releases then I researched even more and found plenty of online vinyl sites selling new sealed records and used mint.
I now have over 26 vinyl websites in my favorites that I can choose from!
I went to a local family owned electronics store that had Sumiko so I purchased the
Pro-ject 1.2, then upgraded the cartridge to a Shure V15VxMR.
Granted neither the T.T. or cartridge is as high-end as some here have but it does me just fine.
All I know is, that when I am listening to a CD it sounds digital to me lacking depth and realism but when listening to a record it comes to life with a real presence, vocalization and instrumentation feel real.
I do have some CD’s that sound great and some records that sound terrible.
But the same recording in most cases the records sound better than the CD. If I can only find the Musician (s) on CD then so be it, but if also available on vinyl I’ll purchase the vinyl.
I can listen to my vinyl records at high volume levels (600 to 1000 watts*) hours longer than CD’s at the same level without becoming fatigued.
Musicoverall mentioned 45 RPM and although harder to find they are fantastic sounding.
My favorites are any ½ speed mastered especially 45 RPM ½ speed mastered.
Ruadmaa mentioned surface noise some of my records have it but even with the surface noise some of the records in most cases still sound better than the CD of the same recording.
Incidentally most of my audiophile 180g & 200g albums are dead silent.
I guess that it is all depends on the listeners’ preference.
* (I live in a rural area I can blast it)

I have very few records that are dead silent but also very few with enough surface noise to be very noticeable. Plus it tends to be a steady-state noise rather than intermittent and it's easy to filter it out.

As you found out, there is a wealth of places to go to buy new vinyl, not to mention the places with used LP's. And like you, I rarely if ever find a CD that sounds better than its vinyl counterpart. Different strokes, I guess. But I've always wished I preferred CD - life would be so much simpler. OTOH, I am not anti-digital or even anti-redbook digital. I have yet to find a medium that I don't enjoy. P.S I missed the 8-track craze of the 1970's!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have had some pretty high quality turntables(and VERY expensive ones at that), love the sound of a clean piece of vinyl, but I don't wax poetic about it like many of you guys. I have always had damn good CD transports with external high quality DAC in my systems over the years, and nothing I heard on vinyl can really compete IMO. Now what has given my CD combo's a run for their money has been a very high quality reel to reel tape player with good quality noise reduction(DBX or Dolby S). This combo I feel is as good as it gets in terms of reaching out and pulling me in. The last reel to reel I had was a discrete 4 channel Teac, with Dolby S on all channels. It had a S/N ratio of close to what you get with digital, dynamic range was equal to redbook CD(about 96db), and it sounded just unreal with stuff I recorded myself.

[BRANDONH]

I have very few records that are dead silent but also very few with enough surface noise to be very noticeable. Plus it tends to be a steady-state noise rather than intermittent and it's easy to filter it out.

As you found out, there is a wealth of places to go to buy new vinyl, not to mention the places with used LP's. And like you, I rarely if ever find a CD that sounds better than its vinyl counterpart. Different strokes, I guess. But I've always wished I preferred CD - life would be so much simpler. OTOH, I am not anti-digital or even anti-redbook digital. I have yet to find a medium that I don't enjoy. P.S I missed the 8-track craze of the 1970's!

My Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here CBS master very quite. And the re-issue of DSOTM is so quiet its eerie.
I remember the 8-track very well especially when sometimes I needed to slide a matchbook under it to prevent double tracking.
I used to have a quadraphonic 8-track and turntable.

[BRANDONH]

I have had some pretty high quality turntables(and VERY expensive ones at that), love the sound of a clean piece of vinyl, but I don't wax poetic about it like many of you guys. I have always had damn good CD transports with external high quality DAC in my systems over the years, and nothing I heard on vinyl can really compete IMO. Now what has given my CD combo's a run for their money has been a very high quality reel to reel tape player with good quality noise reduction(DBX or Dolby S). This combo I feel is as good as it gets in terms of reaching out and pulling me in. The last reel to reel I had was a discrete 4 channel Teac, with Dolby S on all channels. It had a S/N ratio of close to what you get with digital, dynamic range was equal to redbook CD(about 96db), and it sounded just unreal with stuff I recorded myself.

Where can I find one of these redbook CD s?
If you have a link please provide I want to try one.
thanks

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Where can I find one of these redbook CD s?
If you have a link please provide I want to try one.
thanks

Brandon,
The CD's you are currently listening to are redbook CD

[risabet]

All I know is, that when I am listening to a CD it sounds digital to me lacking depth and realism but when listening to a record it comes to life with a real presence, vocalization and instrumentation feel real.
I do have some CD that sound great and some records that sound terrible.
But the same recording in most cases the records sound better than the CD. If I can only find the Musician (s) on CD then so be it, but if also available on vinyl Ill purchase the vinyl.
I can listen to my vinyl records at high volume levels (600 to 1000 watts*) hours longer than CD at the same level without becoming fatigued.
Musicoverall mentioned 45 RPM and although harder to find they are fantastic sounding.
My favorites are any halfspeed mastered especially 45 RPM halfspeed mastered.
Ruadmaa mentioned surface noise some of my records have it but even with the surface noise some of the records in most cases still sound better than the CD of the same recording.
Incidentally most of my audiophile 180g & 200g albums are dead silent.
I guess that it is all depends on the listeners preference.
* (I live in a rural area I can blast it)

Regarding surface noise, I find most of my LP's dead silent. I use a Nitty Gritty machine on all LP's before the first listen, I store them in VRP style rice paper sleeves and the whole thing is kept in a polyethylene bag to form a dust seal. On the few albums that have some surface noise the noise is out of the plane of the music and as such does not intrude on the music for me.

I can definitely play analog longer and louder, with less fatigue than CD. I agree that there are some CD's that sound good and some albums that sound TERRIBLE.

The "best" pressings do tend to be the 180 to 200g versions but even the standard pressings can be kept quiet and warp free with a little care, well a lot of care.

[20to20K]

Looks like I've instigated a real "Hatfields and McCoy" scenario here!

You guys should divide into two panels with desks and microphones and get a C-Span thing going. Put it on pay-per-view. Have one of those monster truck voice-overs do the promo:

"It's the DIGITAL DOMINATORS vs. VINYL-SAURUS REX!!!"

"LIVE LIVE LIVE..."

"AT THE LAS VEGAS CONSUMER ELECTRONIC SHOW ARENA ARENA ARENA!!!"

First 5000 get a free computer burned CD or pre-recorded cassette....YOUR CHOICE!

BE THERE!!!!!!!

[risabet]

I have had some pretty high quality turntables(and VERY expensive ones at that), love the sound of a clean piece of vinyl, but I don't wax poetic about it like many of you guys. I have always had damn good CD transports with external high quality DAC in my systems over the years, and nothing I heard on vinyl can really compete IMO. Now what has given my CD combo's a run for their money has been a very high quality reel to reel tape player with good quality noise reduction(DBX or Dolby S). This combo I feel is as good as it gets in terms of reaching out and pulling me in. The last reel to reel I had was a discrete 4 channel Teac, with Dolby S on all channels. It had a S/N ratio of close to what you get with digital, dynamic range was equal to redbook CD(about 96db), and it sounded just unreal with stuff I recorded myself.

Open reel tapes were the finest medium for reproducing sound ever. I too had a 4 track Teac (3.25 and 7.5 IPS) machine and the tapes that I had were simply incredible. But storing tapes is nightmarish, infinitely harder than LP's and they deteriorate under the best of circumstances. I finally gave mine away as parts were no longer easily available.

[BRANDONH]

Thanks Sir Terrence,
I feel dumb not knowing I looked it up though and here is a link for others to read if they want.
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/...3642%2C00.html

[RobotCzar]

So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

Redbook CD is nearly perfect because that is what it was designed to be. All parameters were chosen to exceed the ability of humans to distinguish. How can one get better than that? The major flaw of redbook CD is that it is two channel only.

I suggested a simple experiment that you could perform to demonstrate the superiority of CD (i..e., record an LP to CD and try to distiguish it from the LP).

The differences you are hearing are almost certainly due to differences in the recordings themselves. Many CD recordings are terrible--just compare samples of old rock CDs with newer remastered versions and you will begin to understand the problem. Instead of telling us what your equipment is, you should have told us what the recordings were. You must compare media only with high quality, non-multitracked/mixed recordings. Until you do this (and perhaps the experiment I suggested) your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

[20to20K]

And Digital Dominator Scores With A Sharp Kick To The Groin.

Don't Know If Rex Can Recover From That One Rusty...

Wait A Minute...he's Starting To Move On The Canvas...

Is He Getting Back Up...?????

[BRANDONH]

http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html

The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling. This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise. good job of replicating the original signal.

[20to20K]

Yes...yes...rex Is Back On His Feet...

...and While Dominator Had His Back Turn...not Doubt Celebrating His Presumed Victory...rex Stabbed Him In The Back With A Pointy Sine Wave!!!

[musicoverall]

your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

It doesn't matter if I'm comparing apples to bicycles, my subjective opinion is the only thing that IS useful... to me. If better measurements don't result in better sound (even if it's because the mastering was poorly done), it's the objective side of the argument that isn't useful to me. Unless I argue that "analog is better than digital" I'm taking a personal, subjective approach and simply telling of my personal experiences rather than presenting an argument.

[Geoffcin]

http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html

The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling. This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise. good job of replicating the original signal.

Nearly all of your assumptions are false.

The graph is very misleading. What you see as a truncated waveform is not what the D/A converter in the CD Player sees.

The D/A converter doesn't "think" like you. When it sees a code for a 10khz waveform, it produces an ANALOG 10khz waveform. This squared & truncated waveform that you show in the graph would produce a perfect ANALOG 10khz tone from my CD player. Not only that, but the waveform would be without any harmonics that a record needle/cartriage assembly would produce. The 10khz note would be cleaner than any phonograph could possibly produce.

Your claim that transients are not handled well by CD is also false. With a 44,100 sample rate, the transient would have to be faster than 1/20,000 of a second for it to move "faster" than the CD is able to capture. A 33 rpm record moves less than 1/1000 of an inch in that
span of time, do you think it could respond faster?

A vinyl record has grooves cut in it. These grooves DO NOT mirror the waveform of the recorded sound, anymore than the pulse-code of Redbook CD does. The grooves on a record are coded too. The coding is ANALOG in nature, but if you were to hear the uncoded signal, it would be tinny and unnatural. Only after RIAA Eq is applied to the signal is the record a "usable" medium for music reproduction.

There's only one digital lossless codec in use right now, and that is the MLP coding for DVD-Audio. Your graph shows that as a "less truncated" signal, but in reality, when it's decoded the ANALOG output from the D/A converter can EXACTLY conform to the original.

Vinyl records are NOT a lossless technology. If you could compare the waveform output of the master tape to the output of a phono cartridge you would see it quite clearly.

All of this has NOTHING to do with the apparent "quality" of either LP, CD, or any of the other recording mediums. Many people prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. I am happy for them, and I also like good records too.

[Shwamdoo]

No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

Yes, you are correct that CDs are statisticly superior.

However, I have heard numerous speakers or amplifiers be trumped by other speakers or amplifiers with less impressive specifications. The obvious goal of every piece of audio equipment is to stay true to the music (With the exception of Bose and Sony. ). But, nothing can ever be perfect. Thus, each component adds its own characteristics to the music. A speaker or amplifier with greater dynamic range may sound less appealing simply because it is to forward and less musical.

This also reminds me of the comaprison of tube amplifiers versus solid state amplifiers...alot. Statisticly, solid state amplifiers are superior. However, many audiophiles are returning to the tube amplifier because they find it to be more musical and warm.

I find this to be the case with CDs in comparison to LPs. CDs, while statisticly superior, often sound less musical and lively than LPs. Granted, a crapy LP on a crapy turn table will sound...well, crappy. And, a well recorded CD on a high quality CD player will sound brillantly.

In the end, its personal prefrence. Some people like a very forward sound. Some people like a smooth and very warm sound. I will say that my collection is almost entirly comprised of CDs. This is because I am young and by the time I discovered LPs I already had 400 CDs in my collection. Also, CDs are far more convenient and universal. And, I will say this in defense of the CD: even in comparison to LPs, CDs still sound magnificently well.

[risabet]

No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

True, CD measures better than LP, and if I listened to measurements CD would win hands down. Fortunately I listen to music and analog sounds more like it than CD.

Redbook CD is nearly perfect because that is what it was designed to be. All parameters were chosen to exceed the ability of humans to distinguish. How can one get better than that? The major flaw of redbook CD is that it is two channel only.

The major flaw of Redbook CD isn't its 2-channel format, it is its sound.

I suggested a simple experiment that you could perform to demonstrate the superiority of CD (i..e., record an LP to CD and try to distiguish it from the LP).

The differences you are hearing are almost certainly due to differences in the recordings themselves. Many CD recordings are terrible--just compare samples of old rock CDs with newer remastered versions and you will begin to understand the problem. Instead of telling us what your equipment is, you should have told us what the recordings were. You must compare media only with high quality, non-multitracked/mixed recordings. Until you do this (and perhaps the experiment I suggested) your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

I have a standard piece that I use for exactly this purpose. Reference Recordings "Copland: Appalachian Spring" (RR-22 on LP, RR-22CD on CD) The LP is from an analog master and the CD is from a digital master. Both were recorded from the identical feed from the console with no further processing.

On this disc the LP simply sounds more like real instruments playing in a real space. The clarinet on the LP has the sound of a real instrument, the woody tone with the same surrounding space heard in real life. The CD version's sound is thinner, less woody, a simulacrum of the real thing.

In the "Simple Gifts " section the entire ensemble plays a lyrical, mezzo-forte passage. The sound on the LP is open and quite detailed, the strings have the glow and rosin of the real thing, the 13 players are spread out in a realistic placement. The CD presentation is brighter, especially in the strings, and not as three dimensional.

CD isn't terrible, I own and buy many CD's, but it simply IMO is not as realistic sounding as analog. I find myself pulling out albums when I listen seriously and CD's when I'm cleaning or working on the computer. It is rare that I will listen to CD's, especially classical CD's, for Pleasure

[RGA]

The debate rages on...really the proof is in the listening so far LP and the vinyl format is an opinion based thing -- Robot Czar is arguing about frequencies of 20khz which no one on this board over the age of 25 could hear anyway. Just because you have some measurements doesn;t mean you measured the right things...