burris@ihopa.UUCP (David Burris) (01/08/84)
Here's something for your reading enjoyment, an open letter to the audio manufacturers from Doug Sax. RE: COMPACT DISKS Copied from the October 1983 issue of "Mix" magazine. ********* There are many things that I should be doing for my company instead of writing this letter, and there are at least twenty valid reasons why I shouldn't open up this can of worms, but ultimately there is one deciding factor - it must be done. A few months ago, during a magazine interview, I was asked if I considered the Compact Disc a threat to Sheffield Lab. "Only to my integrity," I replied, explaining that Sheffield ran digital master tapes on their recordings, but that I have reservations about their sound qualities. The above answer is glib and true as far as it goes, but I frankly hadn't expected a storage medium that I feel to be far below established high fidelity standards to garner such outlandish praise from the big three magzines: Stereo Review, High Fidelity and Audio. Some of what I've read is astounding. Possibly I shouldn't have expected anything more from publications that have established a reputation for being non-critical, but the amount of misinformation being written could fill a magazine - and does. Any privately-held opinions concerning these magazines don't count. What does count is the fact that they have over 2 million readers and these readers are your customers. I invite you to read the last three issues of these magazines, and if you still have retained your lunch, ask yourself honestly: would you buy a new phonograph cartridge at this time? Would you buy a preamp boasting a superior RIAA section? How about a new CD player? I have two myself; well, I borrowed two...but I bought the disks. If you like the CD system you needn't read further - unless perhaps you like it but don't manufacture it. Glad you're still with me. A quick evaluation: clearly the CD does not match the abilities of a digital master tape. A handful of chips are not doing their job as well as $20,000 worth of professional electronics. There appears to be a constant series of aberrations that you don't hear from a professional digital master. Reviewers percieve these as engineering faults that have been covered up by the shortcomings of analog recording. Even though I feel a digital master is musically disasterous, I respect its ability to store energy. It will sound just as bad in one year as it did the day it was made. An LP cut from a digital master tape will either sound inferior to, or essentially the same as, or in some cases, definately better than the CD version. The differences will lie in how well the LP was mastered and processed, and how well the CD master tape was made. On the other hand, if the CD master was made from a good analog tape, then the LP can blow the CD out of the water. Surprised? That's my opinion, speaking for The Mastering Lab, and the opinion of Bernie Grungman of A & M Records. Between us we have over 35 years of independent disk cutting experience. It is also the opinion of top recording engineers when they compared the $7.98 production pressing to the $17.00 CD. The controversy amoung professionals concerning digital recording wouldn't exist if the digital recorder even approached its claim of accuracy but, as it stands now, many engineers not only prefer analog recording to digital but actually feel that the aberrations of digital make it unusable. Do you think that your customers would be interested in these facts or are they and you better served by the one-sided view expressed by the "big three"? I'm not going to waste your time reciting the litany of high fidelity rules that are being broken by the Compact Disk. Suffice it to say that the CD will not fool the ear forever and that its maximum potential is far below that which analog has achieved; it is a finite, low resolution, synthesized model of its input. The only thing infinite about the CD is the bullshit. Something doesn't feel right about how all this is developing. The push from the manufacturers of CD systems is unprecedented in my memory. Sony is spending a fortune transporting buyers, representatives and writers to Japan and back. The media cannot be immune to the onslaught of players, PR men and advertising. Readers have been exhorted to buy the CD system months before its availability but I read no words concerning the forthright statement from Denon that the CD system has some flaws. I see nothing about the dramatic slowdown of sales for the CD in Japan where there is a surplus of hardware and software and no advice to the buyer to wait a bit - that some of these models are first generation, their replacements are forthcoming and you might be buying last week's brocolli. Where is the reasoned overview that has historically proven that introducing a new storage medium is often prone to failure? How attractive will the CD be when Pioneer and Matsushita reach production of their new compact digital cassette recorders that not only offer pre-recorded product with economy and digital silence but also will be able to record? Is this forseeable competition the underlying reason for such speed? Sheffield Lab has been accused of having a vested interest in the phonograph record. You're damn right we do. We have an even bigger vested interest in the truth and our lifelong commitment to music. Many of you are in this industry for the same reason. All manufacturers have a vested interest in their products and the magazines have a vested interest in their advertisers, in preserving the credibility of their writers and, one would hope, in the objectivity of their reporting. Certainly the manufacturers of the CD have an enormous vested interest - a fact not unnoticed in the Wall Street Journal. A strong motivating force to this large push is the widespread feeling that the CD is the needed new tool to spur on our flagging industry - to bring new customers into our retail stores and to increase business. There is merit to this argument but there is greater need for the high fidelity industry to maintain faith with its customers by accurately reflecting the pros and cons of a new technology so that when the consumer does but the device of his choice he will find its performance will agree, both initially and with time, with his expectations. And what are his expectations? Phillips' slogan is "Perfect Sound, Forever." I defy you to make a more grandiose statement. What is the integrity of a company that resorts to such hype? Is this ultimately good for the credibility of our industry? And if it is good for business, is it good for YOUR business? Will your carefully conceived amplifier really sound better than some mass produced version on a CD player? Will your high resolution, precise imaging loudspeaker please you from a CD source and justify the years of work and research invested? If you make something related to the playback of phonograph record, well...there are no words. The CD will initially be good for retail business. But whose retail business? Many are being introduced in department stores and, since they all sound the same (thank you, reviewers), expect to see them discounted at the high volume, boxes-to-the-ceiling merchandisers. High fidelity stores that offer service and good listening environments, and that have traditionally presented your products to the public, will be eaten alive. This letter is being sent to the presidents of companies that have established a reputation for producing the finest audio components in the world. Realistically, the the CD system is in its infancy with only a few thousand devices available in the United States in contrast to over 100 million devices for disk playback and over 60 million cassette recorders. The CD will appeal to the man who has to have the newest of everything and less so to the audiophile who is already sceptical of the merits of digital recording. As the price drops, it is supposed to appeal to everyone. Eventually the unsatisfying reality of CD will be perceived by the user of high fidelity equipment, but htis will be a long process. I don't believe you can afford to let exaggerated claims saturate the media with no counter view being expressed. The British press is known to be of critical nature, with a history of comparing the sonic merits of similar components. In their magazines you will find critical evaluation that shows real disappointment with the CD as compared to the LP, even when the master tape was digital. Most importantly, a dialogue has been initiated and data has been presented that has caused them to question much about the present day digital technology. As president of your company you are interviewable, quotable and command great respect and credibility. Although your company possesses a wealth of technical talent and equipment that could certainly pinpoint the poor performance areas of the CD, it might be ultimately more meaningful to merely state that you find the CD to have poor sonic characteristics. The ear has always been the final judge in audio. Many of your companies have spent substantial dollars in the audio magazines, and you would be welcomed with open arms should you desire to present opinion divergent with those being printed. For me, personally, all digital attempts thus far have been a failure. I simply cannot enjoy music that has been digitally processed, and the enjoyment of music in the home is the sole reason we have a high fidelity industry. I support analog recording because it works. It is a time-proven process that contains musical information which is accessable to all and which has a resolution that allows the listener to continually discover hidden nuances as he improves the abilities of his home playback system. The silence on the CD is not golden. A high musical price is being paid for that one virtue, but not as high a price as you might pay by your silence. It's been said that, "A journey of thousand miles starts with a single step." I've taken mine. Sincerely, Douglas Sax President Sheffield Lab Inc. ***** -- Dave Burris ..!ihnp4!ihopa!burris AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il.