Specs & Pricing

Letters
Red Book is Forever
It seems that your staff is either misguided about the current digital standard or that you expect
to get blood from a stone from the new formats. First of all, Red Book CD—the “aging format”
is only about 17 years old. Look how long we had the Westrex 45-45 standard [the stereo LP
format—Ed.]. Secondly, it has been obvious for some time now that the new “high-res” formats
would fail for many reasons—one of which is no mass-market interest in higher-fidelity software.
But the biggest reason for me is that both SACD and DVD-Audio are technically handicapped.
To be brief, DSD [Direct Stream Digital, the encoding scheme used in SACD—Ed.] has only six bits
of intrinsic resolution (Red Book has 14), and its “real” production only goes up to 8kHz—the rest is
pure noise (Red Book goes up to 20kHz). How can a system this bad sound acceptable By aggressive
noise-shaping. But this works only up to a certain level. Indeed, DSD is only half a format—a very
good sounding one at that, but it’s nevertheless incomplete when compared to Red Book. DSD
masters sound exceptional, but something happens along the way where they come up short at
home. A PCM master can be improved upon—a DSD master goes the other way. The bottom line
It was best said by the editor of Hi-Fi News last year: “ SACD can and mostly does sound better at
price points up to $6k, but at the reference level, Red Book is the winner.” This is so true. Let’s not
forget that SACD was supposed to sound a lot better than Red Book six years ago. Some thought
that it did; you blew it out in 1999, as so many others back then did. The exception was good ol’
Jonathan Valin. He never thought it was better than reference Red Book—thank God for him. He
was one of the first to cry out against SACD, but there have been many more since. [I did and do
have reservations about the treble of certain SACDs and SACD players, but that doesn’t mean that I
think CD is sonically superior to SACD. I do not.—JV]
DVD-A is no better off, but its problems are very different. First, 24-bits are much more susceptible
to external influences (noise and timing variations). The difference is striking. In a 16-bit system a
power supply has to keep voltage or current levels to within 0.0015% in order to realize full resolution
without distortion. The demands for a 20-bit power supply are 16 times more stringent—0.0001%.
Moreover, the conversion involved with high-bit systems would require impossible accuracy. Robert
Harley covers this in The Complete Guide to High-End Audio (third edition). It was always true that
16 bits were enough to define the musical waveform completely.
So where does that leave us I for one am not afraid to say that Red Book is forever. Why Because
it sounds so good. And there will never be enough support for a new format to replace it. Besides, it
is improving rapidly, even after 20 years, with no end in sight. Until we hear what this “old format”
can really do, I think it’s premature to anyone ask for more. Sixteen bits aren’t enough Yes, they
are! It’s true that a 20-bit system might be a good idea, for it has been determined that humans can
hear up to 20-bit resolution. But wait—we have this 20-bit format and it’s been sitting right in front
of us for the past ten years. It’s called HDCD.
John Harnick
Robert Harley replies: I must disagree with Mr. Harnick’s technical justification for concluding
that SACD and DVD-Audio are inferior to CD. Moreover, I’ve had quite a bit of experience with
reference-quality CD, and to my ears, the best examples of SACD and DVD-A sound significantly
better than the best CD.
You can decide for yourself whether “16 bits are enough” by listening to a remarkable disc
called The Resolution Project (DVD-Audio player required). This disc contains musical pieces
encoded at a wide range of resolutions, from MP3 to 16-bit/44.1kHz to 24-bit/192kHz. There’s
absolutely no question after hearing this disc that high-resolution PCM is vastly better to CD. In
fact, CD is to MP3 what 24/192 is to CD.
Join the discussion of all
things audio with fellow
readers and the TAS editors
and writers at the
AVGuide.com forum.
The following letters
were sent directly to HP’s
Workshop. I have edited
some of them without
the usual indications of
deleted materials. Believe
me, nothing “tough”
went out. —HP
The Real Thing
and Sonic Criteria
HP:
…I found the analysis of the digital domain the
August issue of The Absolute Sound particularly
interesting. I’d like to know the criteria you
used for you selection of digital sources—e.g.,
there is no Wadia, DCS, Meitner.
Another point of interest is the choice of
music. I am particularly interested in classical
music. I will buy an “audiophile” recording if
I consider the performance to be, in musical
terms, of the highest quality. Interestingly, and
this applies to all the main high-end magazines,
sometimes audiophile recordings used in
reviews may not be what are generally regarded
as amongst the best performances of a piece in
musical terms. Often top orchestras—the likes
of Berlin, Vienna, London, Chicago—are not
represented. As an aside, might I say that your
choice of material for the digital review certainly
comprised top musical performances, at least
of the more vintage variety. Whilst there may
be some sense in using audiophile recordings
to illustrate the qualities of equipment, is there
not an argument in musical terms for using
the most critically acclaimed performances,
even if they do not always “sound” the best I
have decided to renew my subscription to The
Absolute Sound based on your Workshop and
The Cutting Edge.
Warren Gordon
I gather you are asking my criteria for excluding the
Wadia and DCS. The Meitner multichannel SACD
gear I have commented upon at some length. I
really don’t have a rule of thumb for reviewing
components. In this instance, I picked those digital
devices that I thought were either at the cutting
edge of playback or approaching that in more
modestly priced units. Much of this is intuitive on
my part. I am not trying to find “representative”
products. Nothing could interest me less.
The recordings you use depend on the kind of
review you are writing. Obviously, a record from a
major label using a world-class orchestra does not,
these days, guarantee a superior interpretation,
and all too seldom a lifelike sound. Few music-
December 2006 The Absolute Sound