SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) Oct. 1984

Digital Gets His Vote

Dear Editor:

Hallelujah! Your esteemed Mr. Ken Pohlmann agrees exactly with what I have long believed: That the Compact Disc is the first time we can experience the feeling of live music in the home.

Let's face it, despite all the claims of the detractors, analog sound is vastly inferior to digital, what with record players' finicky setup and mechanical resonances, and tape's high-frequency hiss and modulation noise. Add to this the very large phase shifts that occur at all frequencies, and now you know why I think the LP will go the way of the 78s by the end of this decade. Take that, Doug Sax!

-Raymond Chuang Sacramento, Cal.

Truth in CD Labeling

Dear Editor:

I appreciate the constantly engrossing and quite often funny writing in the "Digital Domain" and "Audio ETC" columns. Please continue to educate and entertain me.

My question seems to fall into the awkward area of "digital semantics." I am referring to the meaning of the following terms found on CDs: "Digital Mastering" (Epic), "Digitally Mastered Analog Recording" (CBS), "Digital Stereo," and "Digital Recording" (Vogue), and, of course, "Digital Audio," found on all CDs.

The above terms seem ambiguous, not to mention misleading, particularly when referring to Compact Discs.

Now, I don't consider myself ignorant in audio as I have studied this and associated fields for many years, but I think some clarification is called for.

All CDs are digital of course, but what of the information that was placed on the disc? As in the case of CDs manufactured by CBS, is the information truly digital to start with? And if it is, why degrade the quality by converting to analog then back to digital? I realize that the digital era is in its infancy relative to the analog period, but couldn't some standardization of terms be arranged, just like the bit sampling rate and error correction systems were agreed to by those same companies?

-Antonio J. Aguilera Miami, Fla.

Editor's Note: Your letter certainly touches upon a serious question facing the advance of digital technology into the audio field. Whenever any new technology is introduced, some confusion (and temptation to make a fast buck) always exists; with digital I think this is especially true because of some of the misconceptions particularly surrounding the technology. The outcome, of course, is damage to people’s confidence in digital audio as they purchase "digital" recordings which sound about the same as analog recordings (because they are essentially analog recordings). One solution is legal action; one record company was issuing electronically processed monaural recordings labeled as "stereo." A healthy fine cured that problem quickly.

The other solution is a more gentlemanly approach; perhaps all record companies could agree on a common labeling procedure which would accurately represent the contents of any recording. Phrases such as the ones you have presented are, of course, totally useless because they do not fully define the entire signal path. Even one analog piece in the chain could negate the benefits of the other digital sections. Although a complete description would create more confusion than it would overcome, a simplified code might provide the consumer with the information he most needs to make an informed purchase. SPARS (Society of Professional Audio Recording Studios) has proposed a three-letter code, with each letter representing recording, mixing. and mastering. An A or D would denote analog or digital technology used in that section of the signal chain. For example, an ADD recording would have been recorded on analog, mixed to stereo digital, and released on Compact Disc.

Will the record companies perceive the fact that honesty is the best policy (and that consumer confidence in digital will yield enormous profits)? That is a question awaiting an answer. Polygram is adopting the SPARS code for use or its CDs; no word from other companies.-Ken Pohlmann Dear Editor: This letter is being sent to over 100 different sources, all of whom have a vested interest in the strong survival of Compact Discs.

As an audiophile, acting singly, I am submitting a proposal as shown below.

I express full confidence in the technology of the Compact Disc. It has clearly set new reproduction standards.

Interested audiophiles, however, simply need more cover and jacket information in order to make intelligent purchasing decisions. Some manufacturers are more tuned into this type of marketing-others are not.

I call for a voluntary compliance to my proposed "Truth-in-Recording Proposal." I doubt seriously if I am the first consumer to have thought of this. However, I can only speak for myself and act accordingly.

By trade, I am a Doctor of Mathematics teaching in high school, an audiophile for many years, and a fascinated follower of the current analog/digital debate. Are not we all?

-James F. Kregg Evanston, Ill.

"Truth In Recording" Proposal.

Each Compact Disc shall provide the following information:

Recording: Name, site, and date of recording.

Recorder: Name and model of master tape machine.

Microphone(s): Name, model, and number of each employed.

Mixing: Name of mixing console (if digital, so stated).

Analog Intervention: A "yes" or "no" statement as to whether any intervening analog processing was used.

Doctoring: A "yes" or "no" statement as to the use of limiting, compression, and/or equalization during any stage of processing.

Sampling Frequency Converter: Name and model (if any).

Monitoring: Name and model of monitoring amplifier and speakers.

Editor's Note: It seems unlikely that all of Mr. Kregg's suggestions will be followed. But Polygram and CBS have already announced plans to indicate at least which CDs were originally mastered in analog and which in digital, and a committee has been formed to coordinate others. We'll announce details as we get them. - I. B.

Please Sir, I Want Some More

Dear Editor:

I am a recent subscriber to Audio, primarily due to your monthly Compact Disc reviews. In spite of the arguable quirks of the technology, I find myself listening to my new CD player almost exclusively. My LP albums sound just too dull in comparison! I am sure there are many other CD player owners who are in my same position-they wish to make the Compact Disc their music source of choice but are limited by their own meager CD collections. Considering their expense and reputation for having both good and poor recordings, some guide would help us all. Therefore, my proposal to you is to increase the number of CD reviews in each issue.

I understand that space for detailed, lengthy reviews is limited. Why not include a page or so of a rating system based on sonic quality and performance? It might also be helpful and fun to compile a list done every month or so from readers' responses to the CDs in their own collections.

Please consider our plight and humor my obsession for more Compact Disc reviews.

-Chuck Belanger Richmond, Cal.

Music, Not Maintenance

Dear Editor:

This is in regard to the continuing debate over the sound quality of the Compact Disc player.

I recently bought one, and what I did not get with the deal is as follows: A rumbling turntable, a mis-aligned cartridge, a stylus that has to be replaced twice a year, cracking and popping (even on so-called "audiophile records"), a step-up device for certain cartridges, record and stylus cleaning paraphernalia, or uppity salesmen cutting down my carefully considered choices of components to sell me their inventory overstock! What I did get was 50 to 70 minutes of the best music I ever heard without having my listening interrupted by having to turn over an album.

I don't care if they say the sampling rate is too low (whatever that means), or the sound doesn't measure up to their ultra-high-end turntables (which cost 10 times as much as my CD player). I couldn't get near the same sound from a turntable for the same amount of money that I paid for the CD player.

Now, I can direct my attention to my real reason for having a stereo system: Music, not maintenance! I never realized how much I disliked all the little chores involved in having a turntable.

For the time being, I seem to want to ignore my collection of 500 LPs and only play my 6 CDs.

Even the best high-end turntable, tonearm and cartridge combinations are only as good as the LPs played on them. Faults in the recording process are now apparent that few knew about before the Compact Disc. Now there is no room for shoddy recording techniques.

Compact Disc technology will improve the sound of record albums and CDs once the newly learned recording techniques are applied on a wide scale.

-Al Larson; Lake Worth, Fla.

Sing a Song of Souther

Dear Editor:

I wish to congratulate Ed Long on his fine evaluation of the Souther SLA-3 tonearm in the May issue of Audio. I concur with Mr. Long in his observation that, among linear tracking tonearms, the Souther is, "the best of its type I have seen." In addition, I would like to offer a few comments of my own.

First, I believe that, in an effort, perhaps, to achieve a measured and objective tone, Mr. Long may have understated the virtues of this singular product. While the "remarkable tracking," "stereo effect ... as good as the reference system," "tighter and more solid" bass (noted by some, but not all, members of the listening panel), and "best results I have seen to date" for tone-burst testing were duly noted for the Souther/Shure combination, I would go even further. For, despite the many positive comments, I am not sure the reader could appreciate from this review the phenomenal subjective clarity, detail, "air," and precision afforded by the SLA-3. The soundstage revealed by the Souther Linear Arm is equaled by few and, in my experience, surpassed by none. The ability to track impossible groove modulations and faithfully reproduce dynamic contrasts may be unmatched anywhere. In my years in audio, this is truly one of the standout products I have encountered.

Second, I would like to pass along to your readers that the Souther is now available with steel-filled arm tubes which effectively increase mass, lower resonant frequencies, and generally allow the arm greater compatibility with a wider range of low compliance cartridges without materially affecting the virtually frictionless operation of the arm bearings. While I believe that Mr. Long may have somewhat overstated his concerns about such cartridges (we have achieved fine results with quite a range of cartridges), this option should alleviate any cautions in this area. Resonant frequencies in the supposedly ideal 10 to 12 Hz range are routinely attainable with moving-coil and moving-iron or moving-magnet cartridges such as the Dynavector Ruby, Accuphase, Alpha, Shure, Grace, Talisman, and others.

I could rightfully be accused of bias.

I own and operate a high-end audio store which carries the Souther Linear Arm. However, we also carry other similar products, many of them far more costly than the Souther. I honestly believe that this is an exemplary product, and both the consumer and the manufacturer deserve to have attention paid to it. In its price range, it is well more than a reasonable value. It approaches true state-of-the-art performance at a fraction of the price of some of its direct competitors. Congratulations are in order for Lou Souther.

Once again, thanks to Ed Long for his thorough and insightful review. I hope Audio will print this reader response and demonstrate that mainstream audio magazines, as well as smaller, underground publications, can support subjective discussion of important trends and products in the audio industry. Such discussion benefits consumers and industry members alike. Keep up the good work.

-Jeffrey Teuber; The Record Player; Goleta, Cal.

Erratum The June 1984 cover of The Carver Receiver was photographed by Robert Lewis.

(Audio magazine, Oct. 1984)

= = = =