Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Hi-Rez Highway ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

A candid exchange with John Atkinson:

Posted by regmac (A) on March 8, 2004 at 08:32:08

Dear Mr. Atkinson:

I've been meaning to write you for sometime now about two issues that interest me in the hope of getting some clarification...My other concern has to do with the SACD/CD imbroglio that is currently raging. My position is that I hear no difference between the two formats. Though I hasten to add that when it comes to SACD players I've heard nothing richer than $2,000. Personally, I think the boys on Madison Avenue have pulled off yet another marketing coup by selling a product - SACD - to a gullible public. To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: No one ever went broke underestimating the IQ of the American consumer. I suppose this observation could be extended to our audio brethren in Europe and Asia as well.

If I read him correctly, J. Gordon Holt is pretty dogmatic on this subject, opining recently that even mid-fi SACD players offer no audible improvement over their CD counterparts. As I understand it, he insists that a modest sonic improvement is found only with cost-no-object players. If this is an accurate rendering of his position, would you concur with his evaluation? If not would you be kind enough to offer some player(s) in the mid-fi area, and associated software, that you think offer an audible improvement over the CD version? For the sake of this exercise let's define mid-fi as having a $2,000 price ceiling. And when people speak of a "sonic improvement" are we talking about mere nuance or a night and day difference? Some SACD zealots appear to be speaking in terms of the latter.

I'm curious to learn your opinion in large part because of some sensational claims made by the SACD camp. Any skepticism in this area is met with all the tolerance and understanding of those who practice Islamic jihad; as is any attempt to introduce some objectivism into the debate by soliciting volunteers for a blind test format in which SACD adherents would be asked to identify their favorite format from that of Redbook.

I realize that scientific methodology is anathema in the audiophile community - especially blind and dbt - and I understand the reluctance to embrace it is due to vested interests both financial and reputational which would be severely damaged should it be manifestly proven that reviewers and designers could not differentiate their favorite brands from others. Better to flourish in one's own solipsism than to perish by losing credibility with one's readership.

Audio critics have always enjoyed a distinct advantage in this regard, unlike wine critics who often participate in blind tastings. Were Robert Parker to begin mistaking burgundy for Rhone, he would lose much credibility, not to mention revenue, by way of canceled subscriptions to his splendid wine magazine. Yet Mr. Parker continues to uphold his reputation by PROVING his ability to differentiate between various wines, thereby demonstrating he knows what he's talking about.

Conversely, audiophiles, by insisting that the scientific method be relegated to the sidelines, enjoy about the same credibility as that of Pat Robertson who insists God spoke to him recently and assured him that the GOP will win the November elections in grand style. When it comes to credibility, surely the SACD crowd in particular, and the audio world in general, aspire to something more ambitious for themselves.

When pressed on the credibility issue, the SACD crowd's complaint always goes something like this: "Why should the burden of proof be placed upon us?!" To which the correct response is, because it's dreadfully difficult to disprove a negative: Do you still beat your dog? If I say I hear no difference between the two formats and someone else insists he does, then it's up to the fellow making the positive assertion to prove his case by identifying his preferred format in a blind test.

But until a credible journal of audio opinion, such as Stereophile, steps up to the plate and organizes a formal test setting in which certain claims can be objectively evaluated, I'm afraid the SACD camp and others like it, will enjoy about as much credibility as The Flat Earth Society. It's not enough to talk a good game, sooner or later one must step up to the plate and hit the ball.

Again, as rational beings it's incumbent upon us to draw inferences from the empirical data presented. If SACD proponents insist their technology results in an audible improvement then let them demonstrate their ability to differentiate. To continue to take refuge in pure subjectivism does not do much to gain credibility with those skeptical of SACD and only strengthens the position of one's critics. Perhaps "greater resolution" is not the panacea that many predicted. I'm reminded of the spec wars of the 1970s regarding distortion levels: "Hey, your amp is rated at .01% THD while mine comes in at .001% THD; therefore mine MUST sound better."

I'm cognizant of the fact that nothing I've said is unfamiliar to you. Moreover, you've probably discussed my concerns ad nauseam with various people lo these many years. I seem to remember my wine critic analogy being bandied about in the pages of Stereophile as far back as the 1980s. Still, putting pen to paper often times achieves a certain cathartic effect for the writer, and now that I've accomplished that I would be interested in learning your position on SACD performance vs. that of conventional CD.

Best,
R.L. McConnell

Mr. Mcconnell:

> J. Gordon Holt is pretty dogmatic on this subject, opining recently that even mid-fi SACD players offer no audible improvement over their CD counterparts. As I understand it, he insists that a modest sonic improvement is found only with cost-no-object players. If this is an accurate rendering of his position, would you concur with his evaluation? <
Â
Not having discussed this matter with Gordon, I have no idea if it is an accurate statement of his position or not. You need to ask him. Â
Â
> Â If not would you be kind enough to offer some player (s) in the mid-fi area, and associated software, that you think offer an audible improvement over the CD version? <
Â
There are no direct comparisons that can be made, as there are no products that are available in CD or SACD versions. All we can do is describe how the players we review perform on the media for which they are designed. I will make 2 blanket statements on this subject: 1) almost without exception. DVD players make poor CD players (for technical reasons); 2) even though the SACD medium offers superior specifications to CD, when you walk into a room playing music, you cannot tell just by listening whether you are listening to a well-recorded CD or an SACD.Â

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Mr. Atkinson:

> I'm curious as to why you mention DVD players given the fact that my concern lies with SACD/CD. <
Â
Only that this is a subject that is currently on my mind, given the misleading advice being offered audiophiles by so many sources who should know better.

Mr. Atkinson:
Â
> Â Would your blanket statement also include "Universal players" inasmuch as they play DVDs? <
Â
Absolutely, the problem stems from the need to have clock circuits in the chassis to handle the video signals that are not related to the CD playback clock frequencies. The result is a slew of audio-band intermodulation products that contaminate the player's noise floor when it plays back CDs, reducing performance, in the worst case I have examined, to around 13 bits' worth of dynamic range.Â

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Mr. Atkinson:

> Â Â Would you mind my posting your comments concerning SACD on the "Audio Asylum" message board? <
Â
Not at all. -- JohnÂ

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---