Issue 15

For anyone who has been around audio for any length of time, the parallels to spectator sports are obvious. As with sports, conversations about the biz often revolve around the moves of significant players (“Who’re they with now? Really? What happened to —-?”). The movements of superstar designers or creation of new start-ups by industry vets often put companies on the audiophiles’ radar.

For example, few designers can match Richard Vandersteen’s four decades of designing speakers for his own company;  most careers resemble that of Andrew Jones (except for the level of talent), moving from KEF to Infinity to Pioneer/TAD to ELAC. Andrew seems to like acronyms…. 

Having now written about  the career paths of a number of talented and versatile designers after their demise, working from second- and third-hand sources, I’ve decided to interview designers who had significant influence on audio, back in the day and continuing to this day , and hear their stories firsthand.

I’m not abandoning audio history: on the contrary, I’m trying to approach it with more insight and accuracy than before, simply by going directly to those who lived it and shaped the industry. To be brutally frank, I’m no longer young, and there are a lot of important figures in audio who have a quarter-century on me. What happens to their stories when they—inevitably—pass on?

Having struggled to find something—anything!—on a number of important figures in audio, the prospect of more blank spaces in the big picture doesn’t  thrill me. At all.

I’m not abandoning the company history format; I just hope to flesh out some of the histories with more insider info. Some pieces will be interviews, others our standard form. Some subjects will be company founders; others, utility infielders (if you will) who played on a variety of teams. Some will likely be hard to find, but some info is better than no info.

Here are some of the folks I’m thinking of, in no particular order:

• Dick Sequerra (Marantz, Sequerra)
• Mitchell Cotter (AR, Marantz, Verion/Cotter)
• John Bicht (Mission, Versa Dynamics)
• Sao Win (Win Labs)
• Nelson Pass (Threshold, Pass Labs, First Watt)
• Harry Weisfeld (VPI)
• John Grado (Grado Labs)
• Peter Ledermann (RAM, Bozak, Soundsmith)
• Mike Moffat (Theta, Schiit)
• Bob Carver (Phase Linear, Carver, Sunfire)
• John Curl (the Dead, Mark Levinson, Vendetta, Parasound….)
• Richard Schram (Pacific Stereo, Parasound)
• Sandy Gross (Polk, Definitive Technology, GoldenEar)
• Richard Vandersteen (Vandersteen)
• Lew Conrad and Bill Johnson (conrad-johnson)

I normally try to avoid anything resembling bias, and I work with the next three…

but all three have been significant figures in American audio for nearly 50 years:

• Paul McGowan (PS Audio, Genesis)
• Arnie Nudell (Infinity Systems, Genesis)
• Bascom King (Infinity, Marantz, Constellation, PS Audio….)

So: who would you be interested in hearing from, and reading about? Let us know!

Sometime during the summer of 1992 I got a call from Bill Bottrell. It had been a few months since we had talked, during which time he’d been working on finishing up Triage, mostly on his own. He called to say that he and David Baerwald  had decided to continue, doing… whatever. And to do it on Tuesday nights: thus, the Tuesday Night Music Club.

It was sort of my ideal. It combined what I’d been doing for more than a decade, collaborating in improvising songs or pieces of music with a completely new kind of first-class studio: my vision of music married to Bill’s vision of music, along with the other three guys.

The first night I went we jammed up a song that instantly became “Joytown”. David wasn’t there that night. Brian (MacLeod, already a great drummer, who has only aged into the groove), Kevin (Gilbert, a sub-lessee of Bill’s, who played a bit of everything, but was an amazing keyboard player) and Bill were asking what we should do, but I was already playing the first thing that fell out of my fingers, the bass line of “Joytown”. Everybody went to their instruments and before the evening was over the song was there: MacLeod playing a plastic tub in among his drums, Bill playing a very processed guitar, and Kevin ran next door to get some lyrics he already had and a Gretsch acoustic guitar. (This is kind of amusing to me, as I’ve read Kevin Gilbert devotees insisting that only he could come up with a bass line like that.)

Shortly after, I went east for a couple weeks and when I got back, Bill called again asking me to come in the next morning, a Saturday. He wanted me to hear what they had done while I was gone. I think he was using me to check himself — to allay any doubts he had.

The songs he played were “Strong Enough” and “Leaving Las Vegas”. They featured a singer who Bill said was Kevin’s girlfriend. While I was gone, Bill complained about the lack of women in the group and Kevin called his girlfriend, who was staying at his house. Enter Sheryl Crow.

Like it or not, what he played that morning is what came out (except unmixed). He wanted to know what I thought. I said that if it was real, I was in love. But I doubted its, “veracity”, let’s say. He said, no, it wasn’t — but that he had to decide if it was worth continuing; he was confident he could make a great pop record with that voice. I replied that while I appreciated being consulted, it was probably a mistake to ask me, that I didn’t know what to tell him, because if he went ahead with it, I would jump in all the way: it was that compelling.

And that’s how we lost our new band.

We were never a band in the formal sense, but we talked (as did various managers) about doing local shows and touring behind the people we did records for, a TNMC cabaret, with David, Sheryl and Kevin as the singers. This all got subsumed by the expanding career of one of our creations. Not that it was strictly our creation; she had been working towards building it for some time.

She had already made one record, produced and mixed by Hugh Padgham, with the requisite star players, remixed by Kevin — and tossed out as not very good. She was already nearly half-a-million dollars in debt to A&M, and was in limbo, a far worse state than having lost her label: she was contracted but shelved. [The songs were by her and a collaborator, in my impression, picking and choosing them in a one-from-column-A-one-from-column-B way. Everything about it reflected a style of record-making that I had run (screaming) from some years earlier — although I didn’t hear it until we were done with the one we made: it was almost as if they’d deliberately kept it from me. When I finally heard it, I was horrified at what we’d done. But: we had also grown to believe our own bullshit.]

Our songs are what they are: some people love them, some like them, some hate them, and some don’t give a shit. But 12,000,000 people bought them in the last century, back when people still paid for music. The bass part on “Run, Baby, Run” I remember recalling as a high-point for me — I played it as big as I felt it —- but it was made smaller by being tracked through a Fairchild 670, which cuts bass the more it compresses, and eviscerated further by being mixed through the Fairchild.

I want to focus on one song, though: “We Do What We Can”, and in particular, it’s bridge.

The procession on the TV screen

What could it possibly mean for a man

Who’s come this far just to turn around

Could there still be life in Kenton’s swing

With the Kennedys gone and everything

Those sad rows of houses with their optimistic colors

Democrat grandparents and draft-dodging brothers

Riots down the street and discontented mothers

We do what we can

This is pure Bill, whose art is paramount, above everybody else’s, on that record. It sums up his whole attitude in a paragraph, given liberation by having worked on Triage. If almost everybody missed the point of “All I Wanna Do” (a couple of drunks, drinking themselves to death in a bar in the middle of the afternoon), anybody who read the lyrics to “We Do What We Can” couldn’t miss them now.  The song is credited to four of us but — that bridge, that’s all Bill.

During the mixing of the album, I would frequently kibbitz the mix, but I found myself saying that Bill listened to my suggestions only in order to reject them. That would later not always be the case, but it’s my memory of how it went down at the time.[1]

And then the album came out, and life would never be the same.

[1] Like Triage, Tuesday Night Music Club was mixed to my EAR/Studer 1” machine, the 3rd one made, re-machined to order from ½” to improve bandwidth and signal-to-noise specs, with all-tube electronics by Tim de Paravicini. Bill said it was the only device he’d ever used that sounded like his mixes.

In Copper #`13 we announced a contest, offering a PS Audio LANRover for the best answer to the question, “What is there in audio that’s really new?” Several technologies mentioned in responses  may have been new a few years ago, but to me that’s not NEW new (that may be arbitrary, but I’m calling the shots). We received a wide range of responses, some provocative, some amusing…but all were interesting. We print them here in their entirety, along with a few comments from me in bold italics. We hope you’ll enjoy reading them. —Editor.

So do not know how current it is, but I have been experimenting with Detecting the difference between Regular Redbox CD’s, CD’s sampled at 24/96, SACD’s and Gold CD’s as compared with:

Emerald Coated CD’s. The Emerald coating is claimed to reduce stray refracted light that we cannot see. The stray light affects the amount of noise during playback the Emerald Coating reduces this noise. I can send photos of Emerald CD I have been listening to when at home. Away out of town at the moment.

Below is an article I found on-line that references an Emerald spray product for CD’s, but it has to do with a spray product, not what I have.
The Emerald coated CD, I have was manufactured with a visible Emerald coating not a spray. The CD is an Audiophile CD and came from MA Recordings, but the Principle behind the spray seems to support the objective of the manufactured CD with the Emerald Coating. (Paul Stevenson) (Sounds like the green pen revisited, to me.)

I think the biggest new thing in audio is how we consume music. Personal digital DJ’s / internet radio are so common we don’t even think of them anymore except as another source. Streaming and sharing has gutted the industry which depended on physical album sales. But what do I know, I’m just the guy who had the room in issue 11.
(PhoenixG)

Voxativ Speaker drivers. Incredible design + sound  Also driven with the Battery supply is crazy good. (Andre Turlings) (Yes, they’re excellent–but Lowther-inspired drivers, especially with field coils? I can’t think of those as “new”, by any means. Sorry!)

I spotted this on line and thought it would be unquestionably, uniquely NEW in audio!!
(Chris Coakes) (It’s a utility pole. New? An audacious application, maybe–but not new.)

Software defined DACS implemented in FPGAs. Like in the top-of-the-line PS Audio DAC. Software defined anything is a hot topic in IT. (Fred Bosick) (Thanks, and clearly I’m a believer, but not as new as I’d like.)

As a genuinely NEW idea – how does ‘sound diffusion at source’ rank?

Sure, Manfred Schroeder proposed the use of Quadratic Residue reflector panels in auditoriums, as a method for treating standing waves and other distractive reflections – but to actually ‘diffuse’ the sound into the listening space? We’re talking a mathematically derived ‘pure’ diffusion here; nobody had even thought of it. Of course, it was hard to do – but having been granted a patent suggests that no one else had even tried.

That ‘diffusion at source’ seems to make any room a better listening space is great. That you don’t need to turn the room into an anechoic chamber is even better (if you’ve been in one you’ll know what I mean). And that it not only militates against specular reflections that often present as ‘false cues’ but also energises the actual recorded cues in a way that ‘presents well’ to human audiology, is truly worthy of an audition. (Joe Hayes)

This is an interesting question, what is truly new in audio? I started by thinking, what was new at one time, going back over the last 30 years. Things that were new all seem based on ideas of the past. Two that came to mind were the CD, and the Power Plant. They were real innovations at the time. Now looking at the present there are a few things that appear to be new, but can be traced back.

They are the ultrasonic record cleaners and the company that offers SAM, where they supply corrections for known loudspeakers. Still based on earlier technology.

I think the one thing that could and will be an innovation is the adapting of virtual reality. I just heard an interview today that states the realism they are achieving is to the point that it can be used to train athletes like quarterbacks and for example, people caught in a virtual fire, trick their minds into feeling the heat.

Zuckerberg has recently purchased the company for billions.

I think with this technology you will be able to place yourself in the audience of concerts. It will feel so real that people who can afford the early commercial versions will with the combination of the visual and digitally manipulated headphones experience, for the first time at home the Absolute sound. Well there minds will believe that. And in time that technology will be mainstreamed. I personally wouldn’t want one, but I am old. Younger people will want it. Imagine going to that hip-hop show without the hassle of leaving their homes.

Every other “new” thing in audio has really been a refinement of existing technology. I remember something about a laser or optical device that could read and play vinyl records, but have not heard anything lately about it.  (Jeff Starr) (I get the buzz about VR stuff, but I don’t think it’s there yet for audio.)

Assuming that ‘audio’ should be synonymous for HIFI or stereo your question creates an ill posed problem, Bill. Advancements in Highend HIFI cannot but be based on research in psychoacoustics and cutting edge technology. Thus every serious progress in HIFI marketed as innovation had been previously discovered in other areas most often in military research. Thus nothing in HIFI will ever be new under the sun! (forum)

The way I see it, what makes a difference and it’s really new is the wealth of information and the associated broadening of the musical experience. I’ll explain myself.

The digital era has marked a step-function increase, that has permeated everything in our lives (audio being but a small aspect), much like the industrial revolution did at the end of the 19th century.

You could have perfectly good analogue evolution in audio if there had not been any digital revolution. But once in the digital era, you could have as well perfectly good digital evolution in audio, either if you use the silver spinning discs (whatever the types available), or the music files in a computer. That is the usual, expected ways in which things evolve, in a steady gentle slope.

When listening to music from LPs, silver discs or files, your information used to be limited to what was included in the sleeves and cases, or that which could be googled. At least, in the digital realm, until recently.

But what is of real relevance is having at your fingertips in a portable device not only the instant selection of your music to be played, but also the amount of information associated. This almost instant and vast wealth of information presented by music management interface softwares is what is really a leap jump in audio and in the enjoyment of music, for us audio and music fans.
Could anyone have ever guessed this? (Juan Palaua) (Good points, but basically true of all smartphone tech.)

I recall speaking to my friend Murray Zelligman years ago about the amplifier circuit David Berning designed as an OTL where he uses a high frequency carrier to support the signal. I have to mention that Murray spent decades trying all sorts of amplifier circuits, power supplies,etc to design his own amps. He even owned a couple of patents for FET/tube combos. So Murray tried tons of things and knew lots of amp history. And that day he told me that all the circuit topologies, both tube and solid state had been around for decades and the changes were at best significant details, both tube and solid stae. But David’s design was a true invention, the first new idea he had seen in his many years in audio.(Allen Edelstein) (To the best of my knowledge, Berning’s design is unique–but at this point it’s not new, as in 2016.)

To me the “new” in audio is software.  The last few years has seen a rapid advance in both software players and cataloging software.  With the emphasis on digital files and streaming the software players and renderers have finally caught up to their potential.  From Solos to Roon to an ever widening group of proprietary options giving the consumer a seamless way to access their music and also accompany the listening with the ability to access liner note and artist information while listening. (Beau Ranheim)

The answer to this is much simpler than you think.  What is new in audio is the ability to hear and share all types of music through the internet and other digital means.  There is no way we would have been able to had this kind of exposure to all of this music, even 5 years ago.  Maybe we can finally silence the people that say there is no good music anymore. (Wayne Berkowitz)

One of the most innovative ideas I have heard of in the audio world (specifically headphones) involves the assignment of particular location of a sound so that when you turn your head that sound appears to be emanating from one spot and does not move from it, so that if the sound is in front of you just slightly to your left and you turn your head completely around,  it is behind you slightly to your right. In the world of gaming, it would certainly make things more realistic. For example in a WWII battle game, you could hear a Tiger tank rumbling to the right of you, with their support soldiers marching behind them on the left and you as a squad leader guiding your men through the terrain, dodging machine gun nests to your objective.

Sound emanating things retain their sense of place, (or point of place), allowing you to be in that landscape, but not bother your neighbors with a potentially bothersome surround sound speaker setup late at night. The innovation comes from how and how quickly you can change and manipulate the signal, more so than a piece of hardware itself. (Tom Abbott)

The cartridge  DS-W1 Night Rider from Japan, which produce music signals photoelectrically, using infrared LED. (Haluk Ozumerzifon) (Sorry. Would you believe Philco, 1940?)  http://atomictoasters.com/2013/09/philco-beam-of-light-phonograph/    

I believe that virtual reproduction of audio by implantation of a device in the central nervous system hasn’t been discussed much before. This would effectively bypass all physical reproducing  elements, including the ear, so that music reproduction would be truly private. The device would effectively combine electronic and physiological elements to make this possible. Perhaps an early implementation of superconductive elements.
Now, this would be tremendously convenient and would allow people with hearing deficiencies to enjoy music again. It may even be possible to design an algorithm to cancel out tinnitus.

The problem with virtual audio reproduction is the lack of apparent resolution. When reproducing music in my head I find the frequency extremes to be lacking, with only a distant image of the musical event. But I am sure this could be worked out.

A variation of this concept would involve reproducing virtual music not only inside one’s head but in an actual room mimicking loudspeakers. With all the spatial cues present.

Another variation would be to create “beamed” music, that could be reproduced only within a narrow window and not outside of it. A special device would be installed in the ceiling creating a hologram of the musical event below.  Stepping outside the intended listening area would cancel out all sounds.(Nestor Salguaro-Polidor) (Implants creep me out, and the narrow-beam bit sounds like that Tom Cruise movie I hate. It’s also been done by several companies, none of whom I can think of right now….)

For me what is new is not the technology which is ever changing or what medium the technology is played on.  What is frankly new for me and I have noticed in drips and drabs is a genuine positive feeling in seeing young children attend shows (such as the Capital Audiofest).  Those few vendors that have engaged my kids have frankly indicated that they need to see more of this.  Kids as we know are our future in its most fundamental way and we need to nurture and mentor them in what is important.  Music is very important.  The faithfulness of music reproduction is important as well but if it is not shown to them all you will see is a teenager listening to MP3s.   

I will share a brief moment regarding my daughter who is now 7.  I took her and my son (now 9) to a Capital Audiofest show and they listened to a variety of music over Audeze and Mr Speaker headphones.  When they sat down and listened they were completely still, not a muscle moved, completely immersed in the musical experience and this really hit home for me.  For me the new has to become routine so the next generation of Audiophiles can continue to educate and show us all what music really sounds like. (Tyrone Vias) (I’m happy to hear this, but I’m not sure we can consider it new.)

I would like to share a new audio design I found to be interesting and New to me.

I receive start up campaigns from Indiegogo and one that caught my eye was a set of headphones I found to be revolutionary.  They are called Aura and what they do different is they spend 30 seconds measuring each ear’s frequency response without any input from the user.  Once your response is known any music played through the headphones are equalized to bring you the same experience as someone with perfect hearing.   Being in my 60s this concept really hit my get excited buttons.  On top of that the headphones appear to be of high quality.(Alan Morgan)

MP3.

Certainly nothing new but the medium has made music so accessible to our youth and many are now beginning to ask about how to get better or best SQ for their favourite genres. The portability factor delivers music even when they are on the go. Their desire for trendy mediums and better sound has led to a resurgence in vinyl as well as cool products for digital playback both static and portable.

Music has a Cool factor.

Software and hardware.

The Digital revolution, once shunned by Audiophools as a gimmick and lacking in resolution and warmth, has a NEW acceptance aspect. This appears to be driven by better software, better hardware as well as a whole new world of accessibility for playback thanks to players like iTunes, JRiver and the tweakers who add value to these players.

So the NEW “attitude” is innovation and this is driven by a whole NEW herd of Musicphiles who want to hear their music their way. They are also introduced to NEW artists and genres by streaming services seamlessly, as if it was in their own libraries.

Perhaps this music based focus and the ability to audition present second choice genres, with affordability, is also NEW and is very stimulating for the artist industry.

Without the music what would they need playback equipment for? (Gordon Grobec)

A transducer in the form of an inflated balloon which reproduces music by rapidly introducing or withdrawing a gas.  (B. Jan Montana) (Sorry: the Navy did compressed-air hailing loudspeakers a century ago. Similar in principle, if not execution.)

I’LL SAY HD-VINYL (Mark Harris) (I’ll believe it when I see it. Sorry.)

On Demand Music.

Originally, I was thinking podcasts were a new thing but then I realized that podcasts are treated mostly as a broadcast medium, like an old radio show.  That technology dates back to the 1920s.

For a few minutes, I thought internet delivery might be a new thing but that’s just  the telegraph originating in the late 1800s.  BTW, could Twitter by any more telegraph-like?

One might say that on-demand music dates back to library technology.
And, sure, one could go to the library and get a copy of a song or album and play it.  But that assumes one knows what to look for, how to look it up, etc.  With on-demand music it’s as easy as saying, “Siri, play some Stones for me”, or “Echo, play Jay Z’s latest album.”

That has never existed in our world before last year.  If your questioned was intended only as a hardware-centric thing then I offer the Amazon Echo (which implements the above). (Arturo Perez) (I’ll buy it. Winner winner chicken dinner.)

I think one thing that’s new and important in audio (although it depends on the time scale you use) is the renewed focus on time-domain behavior, especially in digital audio. I’m thinking of MP versus FR digital filters–ringing, pre-echo, etc.–and also new storage-and-transmission technologies such as MQA. I don’t remember what exactly, but there was also something in Ted Smith’s technical presentation on the DS design, captured on video now posted on YouTube–that also made me think of this, although I haven’t watched it in a while and don’t remember exactly what.

I know people have been thinking about this for a long time, but it seems like the focus in digital audio was mostly on the frequency domain, and that there’s been a gradual shift over the last, what, decade-plus? And it seems to have made a difference.

Next up: a return to time-alignment in loudspeakers? (Jim Austin) (Important, but strictly speaking, not new.)

What was new when we landed on the moon?  Rockets had been around for centuries (invented by the Chinese), yet a person setting foot on the moon was certainly “new!”

So I posit that what is really “new” for audio is the result of advancements that:

1)      Let us listen to music in our homes with clarity that was unheard of even 10 years ago with picosecond-level jitter stability (e.g, DirectStream and BHK, coupled with better recordings using increasingly more accurate microphones)
2)      Libraries that offer huge selections and availability that we don’t have to  physically buy (we can, but we don’t have to with some streaming services)
3)      The ability to get some of the above in good-sounding portable devices (DAPs like A&K, FIIO, LHL Wave when it’s ever actually delivered to the Indiegogo backers)

You can make the same argument for cars.  Looking at a 1912 Buick one realizes the functions on the 1912 model are pretty much just as they are today between engine, chassis, coachwork, suspension,  brakes, and whatnot, but it’s a lot more enjoyable to go on long trips in my “new” car than its 1912 counterpart.

I feel so blessed to be able to live in this time when such advances are not only available, but also affordable.  (David Rosing)

Well, the pace of advancements in DAC technology in the last five years is pretty staggering, PS Audio’s Directstream included. But to me, the biggest “new” thing is the studios in general are FINALLY doing a decent job at digital mastering new content and remastering the crap they’ve been feeding us for years. (Still waiting, however, for lots of that lifeless garbage to be remastered…) High-res formats are frosting on the cake, a high-res remaster being particularly tasty, e.g., Van Morrison’s “Moondance.” Combined with new DAC technology, you can now get a stunningly realistic playback experience that erases any advantages vinyl ever had against poorly mastered digital. The unwashed masses sadly have no clue how good it can be. (David Fair) (Important, but kinda vague.)

I’d have to say SOFTWARE!  And that software is ROON.

Music, how it is being played and explored, in my house hold hasn’t been the same since ROON.  The ability of that software to open up a world of music to me that was not possible just a year ago is fantastic.  How else would I have gone from listening to Miles Davis and end up at Erykah Badu via the bass playing of Ron Carter.  Fascinating! (Jason Chin) (Important, but rather derivative of Sooloos, by the same crew.)

IMHO, the newest, most innovative technology that advances the sound quality of home audio is Ted Denney’s (Lead Designer/CEO of Synergistic Research) Atmospheres. I have heard this gizmo demonstrated several times, and I am convinced of its effectiveness. (George Sakakini)

No doubt that our hobby has constantly reinvented the wheel over and over.
What would be interesting is if somehow a device could be designed that would allow everyone to have exactly the same hearing abilities. ( physically and mentally )

But then the differences in hearing abilities seems to be what keeps the audio industry going!  We all need to be careful what we wish for. (Robert Aka “MrDerrick”)

What’s new in sound? NOTHING!!!! (Mario Gouveia) (umm…okay. ;->)

I have mentioned Sigma–Delta Modulators (SDMs) in this column before.  These are, in effect, complex filter structures and they are used to produce DSD and other bitstreams.  I know I talk about DSD a lot, and I also know that digital audio is more about PCM that it ever is – or ever will be – about DSD.  But SDMs are widely used today to make both ADCs and DACs, and so cannot be ignored by anybody who really wants to understand digital audio.  So I thought I would devote a column to an attempt to explain what SDMs are, how they work, and what their limitations are.  This will be doubly taxing, because it is deeply technical subject, and will make for a very long column.  In fact, it will make for two very long columns!  At the end of it all, I will conclude by attempting to place the results of my ramblings in the context of the PCM-vs-DSD debate, with perhaps a surprising result.

The words Sigma and Delta refer to two Greek letters, Σ and Δ, which are used by convention in mathematics to denote addition (Σ) and subtraction (Δ).  Negative feedback, where the output signal is subtracted from the input signal, is a form of Delta modulation.  Similarly, an unstable amplifier, where the output signal is added back into the input signal causing the whole thing to increase uncontrollably, is a form of Sigma modulation.  Sigma–Delta Modulators work by combining those functions into a single complex structure.  I use the term ‘structure’ intentionally, because SDMs can be implemented both in the analog domain (where they would be referred to as circuits) and in the digital domain (where they would be referred to as algorithms).  In this context, analog and digital refer only to the inputs of the SDM, as an SDM’s output is always digital.  For the remainder of this post I will refer only to digital SDMs, mainly because it is easier to describe.  But you should read it all as being equally applicable to the analog case.

At the core of an SDM lies the basic concept of a negative feedback loop.  This is where you take the output of the SDM and subtract it from its input.  We’ll call that the Delta stage.  If the output of the SDM is identical to its input, then the output of this Delta stage will always be zero.  Between the Delta Stage and the SDM output is a Sigma stage.  A Sigma stage works by maintaining an accumulated value to which it adds every input value it receives.  This accumulated value then becomes its output, and the output of the Sigma stage is also the output of the SDM itself.  Therefore, so long as the output of the SDM remains identical to its input, the output of the Delta stage will always be zero, and consequently will continue to add zero to the accumulated output of the Sigma stage which will therefore also remain unchanged.  This is what we call the “steady-state case”.

But music is not steady-state.  It is always changing.  Let’s look at what happens when the input to the SDM increases slightly.  This results in a small difference between the input and the output of the SDM.  This difference appears at the output of the SDM’s Delta stage, and, consequently, at the input of it’s Sigma stage.  This causes the output of the Sigma stage to increase slightly.  The output of the Sigma stage is also the output of the SDM, and so the SDM’s output also increases slightly.  Now, the output of the SDM is once more identical to its input.  The same argument can be followed for a small decrease in the input to the SDM.  The SDM as described here is basically a structure whose output follows its input.  Which makes it a singularly useless construct.

So now we will modify the SDM described above in order to make it useful.  What we will do is to place a Quantizer between the output of the Sigma stage and the output of the SDM, so that the output of the SDM is now the quantized output of the Sigma stage.  This apparently minor change will have dramatic implications.  For a start, this is what gives it its digital-only output.  To illustrate this, we will take it to its logical extreme.  Although we can choose to quantize the output to any bit depth we like, we will elect to quantize it to 1-bit, which means the output can only take on one of two values.  We’ll call these +1 and -1 (although we will represent them digitally using the binary digits 1 and 0).  One result of this is that now the input and output values of the SDM will always be different, and the output of the Delta stage will never be zero.  The SDM is still trying to do the same job, which is to try to make the output signal as close as possible to the input signal.  This would appear to be a losing cause since the output signal is now constrained to taking on only the values +1 or -1 and the input signal occupies the space between them.

At this point, mathematics takes over, and it becomes a challenge to reduce what I am going to describe to simple illustrative concepts.  I hope you will bear with me.

In order to understand what the SDM is actually doing, we need to make some sort of model.  In other words we’ll need a set of equations which describe the SDM’s behavior.  By solving those equations we can gain an understanding of what the SDM is capable of doing, and what its limits are.  There is a problem, though.  The Quantizer is a non-linear element.  If we know what the input value to the Quantizer is, we can determine precisely what the output value will be, but the opposite is not true.  Given the output of the Quantizer, we cannot know a priori what the input value was that resulted in that output value.  We cannot solve equations containing non-linear elements.  The way we tend to approach problems such as this is to consider the Quantizer instead as a noise source.  Instead of trying to model a Quantizer, we consider that we are adding noise (i.e. random values) to the output of the Sigma stage, such that the output values of the SDM just happen to end up being either +1 or -1.

The next thing we do is to observe that one thing we have said about how the SDM works is not entirely correct.  We said that at the input to the Delta stage we take the SDM’s input and subtract from it the SDM’s output.  In fact what we subtract is the SDM’s output at the previous time step.  This is very important, because it means that we can use this one-step delay to express the SDM’s behavior in terms of a digital transfer function, using theories developed to understand how filters work.  When we apply all this gobbledygook to the SDM we come up with two properties that we call the Signal Transfer Function (STF) and the Noise Transfer Function (NTF).  These are two very useful properties.

The STF tells us how much of the signal applied to the input of the SDM makes it through and appears in the output, whereas the NTF tells us how much of the quantization noise generated by the Quantizer makes it to the SDM’s output.  Both of these properties are strongly interrelated, and are strongly frequency dependent.  It would be great if we could arrange for STF~1 and NTF~0 across the low frequencies where the audio band is located.  By contrast, at the high frequencies we won’t care if the STF ends up being ~0 or the NTF ends up being ~1.  So, what exactly does all that gobbledygook mean?

The important thing is that at low frequencies we want the combination of STF~1 and NTF~0.  This means that at these low frequencies the output of the SDM contains all of the signal and none of the Quantization noise.  If we can arrange it such that those “low frequencies” comprise the entire audio frequency band, then our SDM might be capable of encoding that music signal with surprising precision even though the format has a bit depth of only 1-bit.

A simpler way for the performance potential of this SDM to be viewed is to consider just the Quantization noise.  This is nothing more than the difference between what the ideal (not Quantized) input signal looks like and what the actual (Quantized) output signal actually does looks like.  If those differences could be stripped off, then the output signal would be identical to the input signal, which is our perfect ideal.  What the NTF of the SDM has done is to arrange for all of those differences to be concentrated into a certain band of high frequencies which are quite separate from the audio frequency band containing the ideal output.  By the simple expedient of applying a suitable low-pass filter, we can filter them out completely, and thereby faithfully reconstruct the ideal output signal.

Unfortunately, the simplistic SDM I have just described is not quite up to the task I set for it.  The NTF is not good enough to meet our requirements.  In reality, a final step is required in the design of the SDM which will enable us to fine tune the STF and NTF to acquire the characteristics needed to make a high-performance SDM.

In Part II I will discuss how we approach this challenge, and see how well it works.  We will then discuss some of the limitations and challenges of SDM design, and conclude by attempting to place my observations in the context of the PCM-vs-DSD debate

I recently read this piece on industry website Dealerscope Magazine, and felt that Gary Yacoubian very clearly stated  the rite of passage that appears to be taking place. I’ve struggled in the past with how to convey this idea: audiophiles aren’t dying off as a breed, they’re just changing somewhat. Adapt, or die—right?

Thanks to the kind folks at Dealerscope.com for their permission to reprint this piece. —Ed.

One of the oldest lessons I learned in retail was – find out what stimulates a customer’s passion and present options based on what appeals to those passions. It used to be that someone passionate about investing time and money into musical playback was described as an audiophile, and the pursuit was viewed as a legitimate hobby. Over time, the “true believers” among audiophiles have stigmatized the term by injecting a sense of elitism which really doesn’t belong there. Maybe it was the grouchy, condescending attitudes expressed towards novices in forums and blog comments. Or maybe it was the notion that you had to spend ridiculous amounts of money to even qualify as an aspiring audiophile. These attitudes ultimately shrunk the category and put audiophiles squarely at the butt of many jokes.

Jokes aside, when someone says the word “audiophile”, what image appears in your head? An older man, sitting alone, listening to an absurdly expensive stereo system? It’s a tired cliché, and unfortunate because the reality can be so much more positive and inclusive. The good news is that most younger audiences have no preconceived notions about what being an audiophile means, so if you define it around different kinds of content and how to experience it, the term can evolve to be inclusive in a way that’s hugely positive for the audio category. And if you look around, the audio world could really benefit from a rallying cry.

Think about it in these terms: Could someone streaming Spotify through Apple TV be an audiophile? Could a gamer who plays through a 5.1 surround sound system be an audiophile? Could someone using a laptop to power a 2.1 desktop system be an audiophile? I would argue yes to all three. And when you’re talking about selling to a person’s passions, the term audiophile conveys a sense of aspiration and expertise that draws them deeper into their quest for the best sounding system within their means.

Our Director of Brand Messaging, Nick Brown, recently asked a number of media who work in the CE industry to provide their definition of the modern audiophile, and here are a few responses. (Full list is posted on our company blog here: Who are the Modern Audiophiles?

• “I believe audiophile should refer to your level of enjoyment and appreciation, and not to you level of investment in the gear or the purity of your recording. Does good gear matter? Sure, but it shouldn’t be used as a litmus test on a consumer’s sincerity to their music.”
• “An audiophile is someone who cares about sound quality enough to make an effort to improve their audio experience. The internet and advances in technology have made this very accessible, so “audiophile” is no longer a term applicable only to those with fat pocketbooks or strong DIY skills.”
• “To me, an audiophile is simply someone who loves and seeks high-fidelity audio reproduction. Adhering to the rules of the faith-based audio community should not be a requirement.”
• “As long as you strive to improve the listening experience, you are an audiophile to me.”

These “industry voices” present the modern audiophile in very progressive terms. Anyone seeking a $30 earbud upgrade, their first subwoofer, or a $50,000 pair of speakers can figure into these definitions. So really, defining the modern audiophile is about releasing the stigma and making it inclusive, whether you’re seeking to improve the sound experience for vinyl, Blu-rays, DACs, video games, Netflix, cable, streaming, or any combination.

We recently surveyed SVS customers from the past three months, and 60% said they consider themselves audiophiles, 27% not, and 13% unsure. That tells me it’s a polarizing term, and if you asked the question, “Do you care about improving sound quality?” the results would be overwhelmingly positive.

We need to be the torchbearers for making hi-fi, surround sound and the pursuit of better audio experiences a noble quest. We’re seeing that our audio business can’t just be about headphones, speakers, vinyl, etc.  It has to be about movie fans, live sports fans, streaming music lovers, gamers and anyone who desires or might benefit from a convincing, immersive sonic experience, period.  These are the modern audiophiles, and they need more of our attention!!

To reach the next generation of audiophiles, we need to challenge our own preconceived notions about what it means to be an audiophile and rethink how we demo and communicate with these new audiences. It can all start with the same question we asked our survey takers, “Do you consider yourself an audiophile?” Whether they answer yes or no, you are inviting them to think about a deeper interest in sound quality and opening the door for a conversation about whatever content and experiences they are passionate about.

The other side of it is working with brand partners who are dialed into the desires of a younger and wider base of audio consumers, and who are investing real resources into social media marketing and analysis, paid and organic search, digital marketing, and most importantly, using these tools to engage people’s passions for music, movies and any other experiential content. This is how we nurture the next generation of audiophiles.

What world do you prefer: one where audiophiles are becoming extinct, or one where they are alive, well, and ready to be re-defined and engaged?

Some history. Actually a lot of history. I came late to paying attention to audio reproduction. I always loved and collected the music, especially from the era in which I grew up as a teenager, the early and mid 70s, with massive retroactive appreciation of the simply extraordinary second half of the 60s. Jazz and classical came to me much later.

But it was almost a matter of macho self image that the means of playing the music should be perversely disregarded.

It was only when I was living in Hong Kong, with the sort of work/life ratio you tend to have there, when the audio bug started working me over. It was all down to computer audio, and the initial infection had occurred in Thailand, where I had been previously posted. That was in the Napster era, and I carelessly mentioned to my teenaged daughter that I would love to get my hands on a cd with a one off hit by something called Python Lee Jackson, called In A Broken Dream, which seemed to be sung by Rod Stewart. (It was).

She said (duh) that I should just download it (duh) as an mp3 (duh). My children always respected me. All this was utterly new to me, but I did as she suggested, and it was a Damascene moment. In the immortal words of Homer (Simpson), “Computers can do that?!”

So then I began to learn how to digitize cds, and by the fourth time round and ten or so years later I had clean EAC flac rips and had learned to have a NAS. In the meantime it had gradually dawned on me that a Sony AV amp and just frankly horrible JBL cheap speakers were not transporting me to nirvana, very especially when the Tallis Scholars hit the high notes and all I could hear was what I learned to call sibilance. Action was required.

A rather rapid evolution followed, through Cyrus equipment (a fine brand, not well enough known outside the UK), initially with boy racer Polk towers then waaaay better Dynaudio Contours, with a chance sidestep to the NAD M2, all paralleled by learning about building noiseless PCs as the transport and using streaming programs.

Proof of the McGowan Postulate that old farts ARE a renewable audio resource, I guess.

Hong Kong beginning to pall, and some financial fortune coinciding, led to a decision to move to Jakarta (my first posting in Asia, and my wife’s home town), build a house here, adjust the work/life balance and enjoy the music.

In indecent haste considering the money involved, a new system was purchased before the big move, on faith leavened by a modest degree of research and auditioning, Apart from changing from a dCS Debussy DAC to the Ayre DAC, and doing the Twenty upgrades (definitely a good decision) that was the system I still have, barring minor elements.

Building a room and indeed a house to put it in was a lot of fun. It was hardly a demonstration of the scientific method, but it worked.

So I have 7m x 5.5m library and music room, with a domed ceiling rising to about 4.5m. The speakers are well out into the room and so is the listening position. The bookcases provide a lot of absorption.

The kit is listed below. Most of the big stuff comes from Boulder, Colorado. Why??

For more severe levels of information about it all, especially the house and infrastructure, look here http://www.rdhworld.myzen.co.uk/smfcu/index.php?topic=20886.0 and then http://www.rdhworld.myzen.co.uk/smfcu/index.php?topic=24787.0

NAS > noiseless PC / JRiver > Jitterbugs > USB Regen > Ayre QB-9 DSD DAC > Ayre KX-R Twenty > 2 x Ayre MX-R Twenty > Dynaudio Confidence C4 Signatures

Mainly Chord Sarum loom plus PS Audio P10 mains regeneration and Sonority isolation platforms.

Which is a disproof of the Kessler Assumption that nobody runs an all digital system. I can’t even be bothered to get up to change a cd. So you can figure my views on LPs.

All I want is a tall screen, and a wireless keyboard to steer her by …

They used to be called liner notes. Nowadays, since there’s not always a “liner,” we call them CD booklets, or text inserts, or . . . liner notes. Downloads offer them too: “digital program booklets.”

Notes are important to classical fans. If there’s a song or an opera in a foreign language (which, in the case of sopranos, includes English!) then we may want a translation. If it’s something new to us—Beethoven, Busoni, doesn’t matter—we’ll also want background, context, anecdotes. Performers may want to add personal thoughts. Exhaustive personnel lists (e.g., every single member of the Tapiola Sinfonietta) have also become trendy; they now compete for space with the customary creative and production credits, thank-you’s, and metadata. (I love those details, but then I’m the guy who stays after the movie to watch everyone’s name scroll by.)

You never know when you’re going to need good liner notes. A couple of nights ago, I got a call from Mr. Insomnia at about 2 a.m. So I lumbered out to my living-room recliner, where I keep a nice pair of Senns, a portable DAC, and my iPhone at the ready. Suitably plugged in, I can usually settle down with my Haydn Adagios playlist, maybe a few Goldberg Variations, and await the arrival of Morpheus.

But lately I’ve gone in for new sounds: sometimes the best way to quiet the mind is by actively distracting it from everyday concerns. This time, my Distracting Angel was a Kevin Puts album from Naxos (8.559794). Track 1, the 21-minute Symphony No. 2, sounded “accessible” (major chords, actual melodies) but arbitrary in structure: did a program—an extramusical agenda—lurk in its pastoral-to-stormy-to-peaceful-again progression? Was this music “about” something? I skipped past track 2, River’s Rush, being more curious about tracks 3–5, a new Flute Concerto.

Its first movement proved very satisfying: lyrical but energetic, full of the open-hearted, friendly quality we associate with Howard Hanson, Morton Gould, or Roy Harris, i.e., the centrist wing of 20th-century American music. The flute was handled nicely too. Then the second movement got underway:

Pretty clear what that was “about,” at least superficially. (In case you’re wondering, this kind of hommage or whatever is not only permitted, it’s fashionable at the moment.) But why, I wondered, would Puts pilfer Mozart’s beloved K467 for his middle movement, while in the outer movements he stuck with ideas that carried no such historical baggage?

Later, when I read the liner notes, I learned too much, yet not enough. Symphony No. 2 is Puts’s 9/11 piece, premiered by the Cincinnati SO in April 2002. Only now is it receiving a first recording, which may tell you something. Puts wrote his own notes, which tell you almost nothing. Here are his last two sentences about the Symphony:

At the height of this crescendo, the solo violin returns in a more extended passage than before and effectively subdues the turbulent orchestra. This leads to a reflective epilogue in which a clock-like pulse creates a mood of expectancy and uncertainty, interlaced with hope.

As Yogi Berra might have said, you can hear all that just by listening. Mr. Puts’s prosaic prose captures none of the poetry that may be present in the work itself.

In writing about the Flute Concerto, he also executes a sidestep:

To me, [Mozart’s Andante] is music of otherworldly beauty whose emotional impact is incalculably greater than the sum of its parts. I found myself entering into this hallowed environment, and—in a sense—speaking from within it, freely drawing upon my own proclivities.

Hmm. Enchanted by the simplicity of K467, our composer entered it and spoke from within—except not really, since he was “freely drawing upon [his] own proclivities.” The composer remains silent about those “proclivities,” although they lie at the heart of the matter.

It’s one thing for Alfred Schnittke to have wandered through the desolate scrap-heap of Western civilization, poking amidst the rubble for a bone, a shard, something still edible or meaningful. That was his whole life quest. Mr. Puts will only cop to having fun for a moment with a bit of Mozart. He seems unaware or unable to admit that musically, anything he added or took away will register as a critique, a commentary, a cautionary tale, a sour addendum. Post-modern appropriation of the past is, or should be, very serious business. (As is the task of addressing a national tragedy via an artwork.)

Here’s the takeaway: composers should not write their own notes. Nor should performers. For every Yevgeny Sudbin, who writes about music with wit and insight, you can find a dozen other talkative artists with nothing to say.

And yet. Consider the single most famous liner note ever written. It’s by a performer:

There is a Japanese visual art in which the artist is forced to be spontaneous. He must paint on a thin stretched parchment with a special brush and black water paint . . . [read more here]

What makes those words so memorable? They are brief and free of hype. The author concentrates on matters both essential and poetic: he reflects on musical creativity in general and jazz in particular, but in an oblique fashion, citing the practices of “a Japanese visual art” to shed light on what improvisation feels like. In short, he provides insight, and in a way that respects the serious nature of the art under consideration. In a final paragraph, he provides an outline of structures in the music but leaves it to the reader/listener to fill in the details, another smart—and respectful—move.

My favorite classical liner notes embody similar values. I’ve just finished reviewing a new Stravinsky album from an unlikely source, conductor Masaaki Suzuki of the Bach Collegium Japan. It’s a winner, and so are the notes by Arnold Whittall. Whittall covers all the bases—ancient historical sources, ballet scenarios, composer’s revisions, aesthetic context, reception history, and more. He’s clever, well-organized, and useful, always useful. If you read his words, you’ll enjoy the music more. Of which, here’s a sample:

If I had space I’d cite other good examples, although practically anything from Hyperion Records would do, e.g., Roger Nichols on the Franck Piano Quintet (CDA 68061). Read and enjoy.

Your turn now. Have a favorite set of classical liner notes? Want to share? (Note: no free LANRover.)

From enthusiasts who deny their contribution to those who spend thousands on them, cables are one of the more highly debated topics in audio. While building a system, this widespread skepticism and polarization can leave an audiophile scratching his or her head about how much they should spend. My opinion is that there are falsities on both extremes of the spectrum.

In order to get the maximum performance out of your system, good quality cables are a must; yet, they don’t need to break the bank. The most economical way to cable your system correctly is to make them yourself. In this article, I’ll walk you through the construction of a cost effective, high performance interconnect cable that anyone can make. Before you roll up your sleeves and turn on that soldering iron, let’s talk a few minutes about choosing a good cable for our project.

Feeling Balanced

There’s never been a time when we’ve had more electromagnetic interference in our homes. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) is radio-frequency energy that can be emitted by common household electronics such as TVs, cell phones, computers, and light ballasts. EMI can wreak havoc on high bandwidth analog circuitry, compromising sound quality and stability. Even some high-end components such as DACs and class D amplifiers generate moderate to high levels of EMI. Most audio components have their chassis grounded, creating a Faraday cage which helps shield sensitive low noise circuitry from this interference.
|
Unfortunately, this doesn’t make them completely immune. This is because the weakest part of our systems from an EMI perspective is actually our cables, which act as excellent antennas, picking up noise and sending it directly to where we don’t want it… the input of our amplifiers.

The best weapon we have to reduce this noise pickup is to use balanced components and interconnects in our system. A truly balanced connection rejects noise because the receiving end only amplifies the difference between the two phases, thus canceling the noise that is common between them. For this reason, balanced connections are standard in the professional audio field; without them, long runs from microphones and sound boards would be impossible to implement quietly. Due to the size of the pro audio market, microphone cable is mass-produced, which increases its cost efficiency.

The Mogami W2534, which averages around $2/foot, is my pick for a nice quality microphone cable made from oxygen free copper that also has a fairly low capacitance for a quad balanced type. This is my choice, but it doesn’t have to be yours. There are plenty of choices online so I urge you to experiment with different cable types and brands to see what sounds best to you.

Cutting and Terminating the Cable

Now that we have picked the cable, determine the desired length and cut two equal pieces. I’ll be making a 4-foot cable, but don’t hesitate to make yours as long as you need.

Unscrew a female XLR connector so that it separates into four pieces. You should have a large exterior metal case, a piece that contains the contacts, and an exterior and interior contact cover. Slide the exterior cover (the metal and rubber piece that you just unscrewed) and slide it down the cable inserting the narrow rubber side first.

Remove approximately an inch of the outer jacket from one side of the cable and twist the copper sheath. With wire strippers, remove a small portion of the jacket around the four inner conductors. Twist the two white wires together and then repeat for the two blue ones. Tin the ends of the three conductors with a little solder. If you’ve never used a soldering iron before, you can purchase one for under 10 dollars at your local hardware store.  You can then learn how to solder quickly by watching some videos on YouTube by using the search “how to solder”. Here’s a good example.

Take the piece that contains the contacts and solder the ground sheath to pin 1, the blue wire to pin 2 and the white wire to pin 3. The pins numbers can be found on the opposing side of the solder contacts.

Attach the inner contact cover and slide it up so that it covers the soldered contacts. In order to slide the metal case over the contacts, you must first line up the contact piece and inner cover so that the two raised notches are aligned.

Once the case slides on, bring the outer cover that was first put on the cable up and screw it into place.

Awesome! We’ve terminated the first side of the cable. Repeat the same process, this time with a male connector on the opposing end.

Looking Good

So we managed to make a high performance cable for a fraction of the price of one on the market…except something’s not quite right. Expensive cables don’t just measure and sound good, they also look attractive, outfitting our systems like a good set of rims complements a sports car. Here’s how to make our new cable look like a thousand bucks.

Cut a piece of ½- inch diameter corrugated split loom tubing a few inches longer than your cable. You can find this tubing at your local hardware store or many places online.

Stuff the cable inside the tubing and cut the excess so that both ends of the tubing cover and stop on the rubber contact covers located on the XLR connectors. Use electrical tape to tightly secure the tubing on each end. I also ran a few strips of tape every foot or so to make sure the split in the tubing remains closed.

Cut 3 to 4 inch pieces of heat shrink and place one at each end so that it covers the electrical tape. Use a hot air gun to shrink the tubing into place. If you are using a hairdryer, turn it on high and place the shrink tubing within a few centimeters of the dryer. It could take a few minutes of heating until the tubing has completely shrunk.

Voila! Just repeat this process for the other channel and you’re finished!

So that’s how you can make a high end audio interconnect at a fraction of the retail price. As I mentioned before, you can also create your own designs by using different brands of connectors and cable. Show us your creation on the PS Audio DIY forum. Hope to see you up there! Until then, I’m going to go and listen to my new cables…

Parts List:

Can be purchased from Redco.com:

Mogami W2534 cable

2 Neutrik

Neutrik NC3FX-B connectors

2 Neutrik NC3MX-B connectors

Black Techflex, part number PTN0.50

Redco 1” 2:1 heat shrink tubing or equivalent.

Can be purchased from your local hardware store:

Electrical tape

½ inch corrugated split loom tubing

*$50 estimate is based on a 4 foot stereo run.

We all understand what a CD player is; a box we insert CDs and play them.

But, not so fast. What’s going on inside? What are the basic elements of a CD player and why do Audiophiles not use them very often, preferring instead CD transports and DACs?

Back to the beginning

On October 1, 1982, Sony placed the first nail in the LP’s coffin with its release of the world’s first commercial compact disc player, the CDP-101, in Japan. The launch signaled a new audio medium that promised to deliver a crystal-clear music experience for a generation of consumers accustomed to vinyl records.

It was touted as “PerfectSound Forever”. It was anything but perfect.

The CDP-101 retailed for about $674 (roughly $1609 in today’s dollars), and was launched alongside a group of 50 classical and pop CDs published by CBS Records. Names like Mozart, Tchaikovsky, and Schubert shared the bill with more modern artists such as Billy Joel, Pink Floyd, and Journey. Each disc cost $14 apiece (about $33 in today’s dollars).

From vinyl to optical

It was Sony and Philips that together invented the CD player, though they hadn’t come up with the technology itself. Instead, American engineer James T. Russell invented the first system to record digital information on an optical transparent foil. He applied for a patent in 1966, and it was granted in 1970. Sony and Philips hijacked the technology, at first for laser discs, later for the audio CD, but Russell (and the company he had sold the patent to) took them to court and won, forcing them to license his invention.

That first player

So, what was inside that first player? The same three basic elements found in every CD and DVD player today: a turntable, an optical reader, and a DAC.

Let’s first take a look at the turntable and optical reader.

The turntable is exactly what it sounds like, a spinning platter that rotates the CD itself. Speeds are quite a bit faster than an album, averaging 600 rpm as opposed to 33 1/3 rpm for vinyl. When you place a CD atop the turntable, the label faces you, the optical surface with all the bits faces down.

Below the CD optical disc waits a laser mounted to a moving sled or carriage. The carriage can move back and forth along the CD as it spins. In close proximity to the laser beam is a photo receptor that converts the reflected laser light into an electric current.

Once converted to electrical signals, the ones and zeros we’re so familiar with are sent to the CD player’s internal DAC.

The DAC inside

DAC stands for Digital To Audio Converter. As its name implies, this circuitry takes the ones and zeros we call digital audio, and converts their message into audio—sound we can then use to play through speakers or headphones.

The bits of digital audio form a type of machine language with words, just like in any language. In digital audio, words represent numbers, and each number represents a higher or lower part of the music’s loudness.

The maximum number of bits within a word determine the number of possible words. CD words have 16 bits, which means CD systems are limited to 65,536 words (compared to 16,777,216 possible words in a 24 bit system). Within those restrictions, digital words form louder and softer levels that the DAC turns into sound.

The difference between a CD player and transport

Most Audiophiles no longer use CD players, preferring instead to separate the duties of the CD player into two separate pieces of equipment, the Transport and DAC.

An aftermarket transport contains the turntable, laser mechanism, photo receptor, and associated electronics to convert what is on the CD to electrical ones and zeros.

One of the more interesting aspects of the optical extraction process is the format the ones and zeros are prepared in, called I²S.

I²S (pronounced, “I squared S”) has multiple elements of digital audio: several clocks and the digital music data itself. Clocks are needed to keep all the bits coming at the proper time and organizes the order in which they appear.

Some transports output this I²S format, but most do not. Instead, the four separate digital audio clocks and data of I²S, are mixed together and output through a single RCA connector, optical cable, or XLR. This new format, which must later be untangled back into I²S inside the DAC, is known as S/PDIF, an acronym for Sony Philips Digital Interface.

Why CD players have fallen out of favor

The vast majority of high-end audio systems separate the duties of the all-in-one CD player into two units, the transport and DAC. Separating these necessary components in a digital audio system results in better sound, or at least that’s the theory.

There’s no reason whatsoever that separating CD players into two chassis is superior other than the fact it permits manufacturers to lavish more attention on each, as well as allows consumers to mix and match to best advantage.

The venerable all-in-one CD player might just have a comeback someday, if enough high-end manufacturers decide it’s something their customers want. Otherwise, CD players—the very equipment that forever changed the audio landscape—will likely be relegated to the basement and audio museums.