UHF No 70 (Net).indd - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine
UHF No 70 (Net).indd - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine
UHF No 70 (Net).indd - Ultra High Fidelity Magazine
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
How SACD Won the War<br />
tles? Should you buy a Palm<br />
handheld or a PocketPC?<br />
Should you pick a PC or a<br />
Mac? Should you go for Beta or VHS?<br />
In the latter case, of course, even<br />
technophobes know the answer. We<br />
also know the outcome of the cassette<br />
vs 8-track rivalry, not that it matters<br />
so much anymore. And we know that<br />
consumers who guessed wrong got little<br />
sympathy from the merchandisers of<br />
failed standards.<br />
Of course, there have always been<br />
alternatives to the clear knockout of<br />
the Beta/VHS battle. Half a century<br />
ago, when RCA launched its<br />
45 rpm discs against Columbia’s<br />
microgroove LP, both standards<br />
won, and they stayed around<br />
for decades. On the other hand,<br />
when Philips’ DCC digital cassette<br />
went up against Sony’s<br />
MiniDisc, there were two ways you<br />
could lose.<br />
So what about DVD-Audio versus<br />
SACD?<br />
Despite claims by numerous audio<br />
mavens, including a<br />
majority of specialty<br />
magazines, we have<br />
long known that the<br />
CD Red Book standard of 16 bits and<br />
a 44.1 kHz sampling rate wasn’t even<br />
giving us what the LP had offered,<br />
never mind the “perfect sound” that<br />
digital promised. promised. Over the years crack<br />
designers have have found ways to optimize<br />
the imperfect imperfect standard: better fi lters,<br />
mapping systems that minimized (or at<br />
least optimized) optimized) mathematical rounding<br />
errors in the digital bitstream, bitstream, and even<br />
HDCD encoding, a way of giving 16<br />
bits the performance of 20 bits or more.<br />
Of course, course, we all suspected there was a<br />
better standard in our future…but what?<br />
And when?<br />
Nuts&Bolts Don’t you love technology bat-<br />
A disc that holds more<br />
The emergence of the DVD gave us<br />
hope. The new medium was conceived<br />
primarily for movies, to be sure — the<br />
22 ULTRA HIGH FIDELITY <strong>Magazine</strong><br />
“V” stood initially for “video.” Still, a<br />
storage medium was a storage medium.<br />
The new disc would have nearly seven<br />
times the storage space of a conventional<br />
CD, more than enough for a superior<br />
digital music system. Doubling the sampling<br />
rate to 96 kHz* would of course<br />
take twice the data space, and bumping<br />
the 16 bits up to 24 bits would increase<br />
size by another 50%. That would be<br />
easy to handle, and in fact we could<br />
even double the sampling rate again to<br />
192 kHz. Perfect sound would fi nally<br />
arrive.<br />
But of course movies was where the<br />
money money was, and it was on movies that<br />
the DVD Consortium (later renamed<br />
the DVD Forum) concentrated. There<br />
was plenty to concentrate on, because the<br />
DVD was an amalgam of two incompatible<br />
technologies, and the consortium consortium<br />
had to listen listen to many dissenting voices.<br />
The result was that the audio-only disc<br />
became an afterthought.<br />
Indeed, it nearly got derailed. As<br />
Or, to put it another<br />
way, way, how DVD-Audio<br />
blew it big time.<br />
members of the consortium tested different<br />
film sound systems on human<br />
subjects, they became convinced that<br />
one of the eventual winners, Dolby Digital<br />
(then called AC-3) was to all intents<br />
and purposes perfect. Then why not<br />
use a similar system for DVD-Audio?<br />
Even though the DVD had huge storage<br />
capacity, it wasn’t quite enough. If<br />
we wanted to add surround sound, with<br />
5.1 channels, we would need to increase<br />
space by another 275%, taking us to nine<br />
times the CD’s storage space. Too much.<br />
Compression was inevitable.<br />
For some time it looked as though<br />
the new medium would be crippled<br />
by the same compromises that<br />
affected DVD-Video, and there<br />
were letter-writing campaigns<br />
by audiophiles, arguing for a<br />
lossless system. Finally, one<br />
was proposed, Meridian’s MLP<br />
(Meridian Lossless Packing)<br />
compressed the signal by as much<br />
as half but could reconstitute the<br />
original signal bit for bit. With its adoption<br />
in late 1998, DVD-A seemed to be<br />
on its way. There were more than 160<br />
member companies,<br />
many of them eagerly<br />
waiting to release<br />
DVD-A discs…or so<br />
we were told.<br />
In the meantime, there was action<br />
elsewhere.<br />
The “other” superdisc<br />
The original CD standard had been<br />
developed by Sony and Philips, which<br />
had made a good deal of money over<br />
*Obviously, 96 kHz is more than double<br />
44.1 kHz. It is in fact double the 48 kHz sampling<br />
rate that most first-generation digital<br />
masters were recorded at. The master would<br />
then be downsampled to the CD standard.<br />
That required an unwelcome transformation.<br />
Most DVD-A mastering is today<br />
done at 96 kHz. Some producers argued for<br />
88.2 kHz, which would downsample nicely<br />
for CD. That rate was adopted as a DVD-A<br />
option, option, though it is seldom used.<br />
The truth about the new formats<br />
This has always been true of <strong>UHF</strong>: what you read in its pages is not what the<br />
best-known audio (and home theatre!) magazines tell you. This is even more<br />
true when it comes to the new media, such as SACD and DVD-A. Our goal is,<br />
and has always been, to help you make the choices best for you. Oh…by the way,<br />
the subscription information is on page 3…page 5 of the PDF.