Re: More on SACDs.. and supercomputers

[John Hill <jphill@home.com>]

Birgitte Jorgensen wrote:

> Thanks, John, for your replies to my original query about the sound
> quality of SACD. If it is even half as impressive to my ears as it was
> to yours, I am eager to sample it. A pity, though, that no one on the
> list seems to have heard the 1981 Goldberg Variations on SACD. I am
> curious to know if it yields any hitherto unperceived resonances. Given
> the current price tag for an SACD setup, however, it is instead tempting
> to buy a copy of the GV SACD and do the rounds of audio showrooms,
> asking for demonstrations just to have the opportunity to hear it!

Yes, it is tempting and I hope you get a chance to do that and report
back to us with your impressions!

I'm not sure that you will hear a dramatic difference on that particular
recording, because the original was done on a Sony 1610 or 1630
system, which was 16-bit, fixed linear PCM with stock Sony A/D
converters.  Digital was still in its infancy and those converters were
(and I'm being charitable here) not very good-sounding.  Personally,
I don't care much for that piano either (not even close to CD318, in
my book).  Since the original master recording had limitations inherent
in the technology of the time, there may not be a gigantic improvement
on the SACD version.  Ironically, if the original had been an *analog*
recording with Dolby A noise reduction (Kazdin got fired from Columbia
for not wanting to go along with the digital crowd) the new SACD
would probably be *much* superior to any red book CD mastered
from the edited 1630 digital master.

[aside to the list]
If that went "through you" rather than "to you", don't worry...
it's an audio engineering thang!

> In your discussion of the various formats available in audio and video
> playback and recording technologies, you underscore the confusion which
> exists in the marketplace and also the all-important economic rationale
> which makes mass-market acceptance a necessity for both
> researcher/manufacturer and consumer. And, you are correct to assert
> that the results are mixed: the consumer isn't axiomatically the
> recipient of the best of all competing technologies. To your examples of
> Beta vs. VHS and Mac vs. PC, I would add the obvious case of Explorer
> vs. Navigator, and Microsoft?s ominous stifling of competition in the
> browser market.

Yeah, gosh.  Don't get me started on M-soft.  Suffice to say that I'm a
Mac guy (G4/400) and I really like Netscape.

> By adapt,
> I mean both our capacity and willingness to pay the cost of upgrading to
> cutting-edge equipment every 18 months or so, and also the ability of
> the marketplace to transfer the entire canon of recordings to each new
> format, which, of course, is what determines whether or not any given
> format will thrive or whither.

That's a good point.  And it's very germaine to the discussion of SACD,
because essentially, the consumer is being asked to shell out about $3k
right now and buy more expensive software to accomplish what is basically
a CD-player upgrade.  Not to be elitist, but many mainstream consumers
won't appreciate the sonic difference because they simply don't have
trained ears or they really don't care.  So, I have my doubts about that
format catching on.  However, I've been wrong before (witness the fact
that I own and still use a Beta machine).

As far as reissuing the canon, I would just make two points:

1.  Becker and Fagan (steely dan) didn't *have* to work much in
the 80's.  They made a ton of "mailbox money".  BTW, I *love* the Dan.

2.  Record labels have engaged in rather shameless price-fixing
and consumer price-gouging.  They've done very well financially
and continue to do so by charging *outrageously* inflated prices
for compact discs in the consumer marketplace.

> The ultimate irony in this dazzling and dizzying era of advanced
> technology is that rather than concentrating more purposefully on the
> art (now known as "content") which it delivers to us in ever more
> life-like presentations, we tend to distract ourselves with the race to
> keep up with the latest gadgetry.

This is very true and perhaps no more so than in the production of
popular music.  There is so much really substandard music being
made these days.  The "democratization" of home music production
has also *really* lowered the lowest common denominator of the "art".
I absolutely *loathe* the concept of music as "content".  That's really
so offensive to me that it's hard to put into words.  Courtney Love
(of all folks) had some very interesting things to say on all of this.
Check out her comments at:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html

> On the other hand, there is the tantalizing expectation that as the
> Internet becomes fully integrated into the electronic structure of our
> homes and offices, we?ll have a universal playback unit that will
> download recordings, films, books, games, etc. instantaneously as you
> hit play. The recording itself (or any data that can be digitized) will
> be permanently stored in the appropriate format on a vast server
> somewhere, so the format quandary as we now know it simply won?t be an
> issue. That would be the Borgesian/Gibson ideal: a vast virtual library
> powered by a technology so omnipotent that it is invisible.

Of course, it would have to *sound* amazing as well.  Ah, Utopia!

Then, your audiophile friend with the nice system commented:

> THAT AND DVD-AUDIO ARE THE FUTURE IN THE TOP END, BUT YOU NEED AT LEAST
> A $10K+ SOUND SYSTEM TO REALLY APPRECIATE THE ANALOG TYPE SOUND
> INPROVEMENT OVER CD. MOREOVER ON THE BACK OF THE FEW SACD PLAYERS MADE
> THERE IS A SCREWED DOWN SWITCH WHICH LOCKS IN A FILTER ATTENUATING THE
> PLAYERS OUTPUT TO 50K HERTZ. TO REALLY GET THE BEST OUT THE SOUND YOU
> HAVE TO REMOVE THE SCREW AND TURN THE FILTER OFF SO THE OUTPUT TO 150K+
> OCCURS, HOWEVER ALMOST ALL LESS THAN TOP END AMPLIFIERS EG A/V RECEIVERS
> WILL SELF-DESTRUCT IF YOU DO SO AS THEIR INEXPENSIVE TRANSISTERS ARE NOT
> FAST ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH THIS HIGH FREQUENCY LOAD. HENCE IT WILL BE
> INTERESTING TO SEE THE CONSUMER DEMAND FOR THEM WHEN YOU RISK BLOWING UP
> YOUR AMP IF YOU WANT THE BEST SOUND AND ARE NOT PREPARED TO PAY THE $20K
> FOR A TOP AMPLIFIER.

Oops......another blow to mass market acceptance!!!!
I would disagree, however, that one would need a $10k system to hear the
difference.
I don't think so.  I could put something together for substantially less than
that and
*any* careful listener could hear this difference.  It was not subtle.

> While many of us are willing to pay the price
> for genuine technological progress, such as was the case with the switch
> from vinyl to CD, I believe SACD will remain, for now, an esoteric
> high-end option.

Good point.  You realize, of course, that many audiophiles never *left* vinyl
and still embrace that technology as representing the best form of information
retrieval.  Personally, i feel that CDs did allow more consumers to get
*closer*
to the master tape.   But this was NOT without a price.  And the price was
related to things like "warmth", resolution, ambience retreival and,
ultimately,
that ever-evasive thing we call "musicality".  Your high-end buddy will know
exactly what I'm talking about and I think he would likely agree.  Then again,
high-performance digital is becoming *really* good these days.  It's getting
very analog-like.  Isn't it ironic that when we measure the subjective
performance
of digital technology, the yardstick is always analog?  Nobody I know lusts
after early 14-bit converters!

> The prospects of future technology fill me with a daunting sense of
> wonder, yet consider the idea embedded in today?s New York Times, which
> carried a timely article on the impending limits of Moore?s Law, which
> states that the number of transistors chip makers can fit on a given
> piece of silicon doubles every 18 months. While the physical boundaries
> of this particular paradigm are now, finally, in sight, IBM last week
> unveiled the world?s fastest supercomputer, thereby superceding the
> previous record holder, their own design released just 21 months ago,
> which is not solely reliant on silicon lithography. Think of the
> possibilities?

Yep.  I think everybody acknowledges that silicon is nearing the end of
its life cycle.  There will be newer, more powerful stuff.  I can't wait.
I want it now.  Did I mention that I think analog still rules?

This raises an interesting point.  I recently bought a compilation of Bill
Withers' greatest hits, nicely remastered on CD.  I listened to his well-known
cut "Use Me" and I was *blown away* by how absolutely MUSICAL this recording
sounds.  It was recorded in 1972.  I'm not sure what stuff they used, but
it was certainly analog multitrack tape, probably an old Neve console and
a bunch of tube mics.  It sounds so much *better* than about 75% of what
I hear being done today.  Amazing.  Sometimes it is *not* about having the
newest technology.  It's about things that are musical and not getting in
the way with the recording technology.

> According to the Times, it harnesses the "data-chugging power of more
> than 8,100 microprocessors" and its achievements "are impressive even to
> nonpropeller heads. It would take a person with a calculator 10 million
> years to do the number of calculations that the new supercomputer can do
> in one second."
>
> Ah, but could it create another Glenn Gould?

Nope.  But I have a feeling that he would have been the first to want to try
the new technology out and see what some Bach or Strauss sounded like
through it.

Thanks for an interesting thread, Birgitte!

cheers,
jh