 |
| Letters -- March 2004 Silversmith Palladium? March 18, 2004 To Mike Silverton, Thanks for your recent cable reviews. You probably have the Silversmith Audio Palladium wires on order, eh? I hung out at the Art Audio room at CES and heard some after-hours comparisons of Palladium and Silver. The Palladium was incredible -- more transparency and space between instruments, and more solidity and presence to images. They sounded fantastic to me, though it seems you have to balance the blend of wires in a system. It appears the Silversmith Palladium is more refined than the RS Cables palladium interconnects, but that's only a guess. Dave Sturdevant I think the world of Silversmith's Palladium interconnects and speaker cables. As an earnest of sincerity, they're in the system as my reference. I've not yet compared the RS Cables to the Silversmith Palladium interconnects, but may do that in my next cable report....Mike Silverton Ideas for "The World's Best Audio System" March 4, 2004 To Jeff Fritz, What a thoroughly enjoyable article about an absolutely wonderful idea ["The World's Best Audio System"]! I would love to read (and hear) about other contenders to the throne. For example, how about testing the winners from the various audio shows (like HE 2004's Joseph Audio Pearl/Manley system), or asking top speaker makers which amps/cables they would like in the test (or top amp makers). In the interest of "science," you should probably keep the source machines the same. Also, just to be complete, please detail the size of your room, any room treatments, and the kind of shelving you used. Oh, and your home address so all us loyal readers can visit. Thanks again for the great article! Jay Valancy Some good ideas, Jay. One thing that all of the feedback from the article has reinforced for me is that "The World's Best Audio System" is an excellent evaluative tool for components that push the envelope. I've come to realize that many of the subtleties these products encompass need very close scrutiny in order to accurately communicate to the reader just what the differences between them are. I recently read in another publication about a highly lauded $20,000 amplifier -- the problem is that the expensive review sample, in fact, replaced a ten-year-old $1000 amp in the reviewer's system. It makes you wonder just what can be learned from such an exercise. TWBAS gives me the unique opportunity to evaluate the best there is, and I intend on using this system to the fullest for our readership's benefit (and my own). But I can't give out my address!...Jeff Fritz A deliberate distortion? March 2, 2004 Editor, I read your recent editorial on Ultra Audio ["Deliberate Distortions in Hybrid SACDs?"] and your allegations regarding the relative quality of the CD layer contained within SACD. I can only speak firsthand on Telarc product. Always, ALWAYS, A-L-W-A-Y-S, every Telarc SACD hybrid CD layer is made from the exact same PCM PMCD that is used for the CD-only release of the same title. There has never been a different or "compromised" CD master for the SACD. Telarc has always made every effort to produce the best-quality CD master possible, regardless of a companion SACD product or whatever. Every version of a Telarc release has to be the best it can be -- this is an issue on which Bob Woods has always stood firm, and every production staff member shares that same commitment. Since you made reference to Telarc SACDs along with your inference that labels deliberately compromise SACD PCM hybrid layers in your article, I request that you issue an immediate retraction and clarification on where Telarc stands in regard to SACD and SACD/hybrid production. If you require further information on our production, mastering, and authoring techniques, I would be glad to be of assistance. I will further offer an invitation to you to visit Telarc's post-production facility and witness SACD and CD authoring processes firsthand. I'd be glad to demonstrate what we look for in comparing SACD layers and our quality-control process. I will be glad to demonstrate how the SACD will always sound better than the PCM version despite our every effort to produce the best-possible PCM program, even when reproduced through the very same DAC. You'll also be interested to know that Telarc has not used the SBM-Direct process for several years, and have in fact remastered our earlier SACD/hybrid releases to eliminate the SBM-Direct transfers. If you are basing your allegations of "chicanery" on what you heard on the Norah Jones SACD, please consider (1) that the Norah Jones source master is a ProTools PCM source --- not DSD; (2) the label releasing that particular SACD does not have a longstanding commitment to, or experience with, high-quality high-resolution SACD releases; (3) there are countless ways of screwing-up a CD or CD-layer mastering job other than deliberate "chicanery," and this certainly wouldn't be the first example of such screw-ups. I look forward to reading your published clarification of the above issues and to hearing from you regarding my invitation to Telarc. Michael Bishop I agree that Ross missed the mark regarding Telarc and have edited the editorial so that it does not imply that Telarc is somehow sabotaging the CD layer on SACDs. This is not only incorrect, as you point out, but it also is not my personal experience based on listening to many Telarc SACDs....Marc Mickelson
Ultra Audio is part of the SoundStage! Network. |
