Home Theater Geeks: Mark Waldrep Interview

[DiminishingReturnsOfficer]

Chris (our Founder) provided a link to Home Theater Geeks for a interview with Mark Walldrep of iTrax. It was very interesting to listen to him speak quite intelligently about his recording techniques and theories on mixing arrangements and music in general. I must say, though, he made a few statements that were shocking to me, and would probably alarm much of the audiophile community. First he said that Hi-Res. digital recordings are sonically superior to vinyl. Personally, I don't have an analog set-up or any records, but I know the turntable is the audiophile's source of choice. The other thing he said that surprised me was that a Mac computer and Benchmark DAC would sound better than a $60K CD player. What do you guys think about that? I'm not refuting him. He made the statement generally and did not reference any side by side A/B comparisons or a specific CD player. $60K CD players are not very common, and even less so these days because of what's happening with computer audio. You would probably be looking at a Burmester, Goldmund, DCS, or Boulder player at that price range; possibly a separate transport, DAC, and power supply. The best CD players have S/N ratios approaching 120 dB, vanishingly low distortion, and 20-20K frequency response. The DAC in such a CD player would, more than likely, be superior to a Benchmark. The signal generated by the transport, I'd have to assume, would be more robust with less jitter than the Mac. I don't know; I certainly don't own one of these mega-buck CD players, but I would expect one to sound better than the Mac/Benchmark combination. If he would have referenced a $6K CD player, I'd agree with him flat out, but when you start talking about the ultra high end stuff; people don't spend $60K on a component that can be surpassed by something 1/24th it's price. Again, I thoroughly enjoyed the interview and found Mark to be very knowledgeable. I'm interested in his Hi-Res. recordings, and plan to visit iTrax today.

 

[nigel]

"First he said that Hi-Res. digital recordings are sonically superior to vinyl. Personally, I don't have an analog set-up or any records, but I know the turntable is the audiophile's source of choice.".

 

He is right and, given that this is "Computer Audiophile", I think many people here would agree with him. Vinyl has a signal-to-noise ratio of only 60 dB (even before it accumulates clicks and pops), and a dynamic range of only 65 dB, compared to 96 dB and 90 dB for even Compact Disc. Hi-Res digital formats are even better than this.

 

I always hated vinyl, and preferred even cassette tape before the CD came along. When CD came along in 1982, I couldn't believe how good it sounded. I have been enjoying digital recording ever since.

 

[Dr. AIX]

I'm pleased that the Home Theater Geeks pod cast gets such wide play and am happy to respond to the points raised in this post regarding my comments.

 

The Redbook CD specification defines the fidelity potential available in the format. Even a $60K upsampling, state-of-the-art transport and electronics (DACs) cannot pull something from the 44.1 kHz/16 bit discs that are being played in the machine. 96 dB is the maximum theoretical signal to noise ratio that is possible from 16 bits and commercial CD usually have much less. And the frequency response is likewise limited to half of 44.1 kHz...hardly super sonic.

 

My point is that a Mac Mini playing one of our real HD tracks (especially AIX tracks that are 96 kHz/24-bits), not an upconverted SD track or a track that originated as an analog tape can easily exceed the specs of even the best CD player in the world because the native specs of the sound file exceed that of a CD.

 

I just wrote about the so-called HD Tracks release of the Stones ABKCO catalog (itrax forum). The spectragraphs that I did show a maximum frequency of 14 kHz! Yet these are being pitched and sold as HD!

 

A great 96 kHz/24-bit track done with purist style will sound much better than any CD on a Mac Mini through a Benchmark DAC (which I would argue is as good if not better than the DAC in any piece of hardware).

 

 

 

[wgb113]

In vinyl's golden years much more care was taken in the recording of music in general. For the past twenty years we've been witnessing an escalating loudness war. Digital has the potential to sound better than vinyl but in general it does not.

 

As far as the Mac + Benchmark vs. $60K CD - every time I sit down and listen to music on that setup I scratch my head as to how it can sound so good. Granted it only replaced a $1K CD player but still, it puts my SACD setup (also only $1K) to shame. But as we all know as part of this community some of us with that sort of disposable income just enjoy the pursuit of that Holy Grail...perhaps at the detriment of expanding our musical interests.

 

Bill

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Mark - I've been thinking about your definition of HD lately and have a question for you. I believe you say HD is music that exceeds the range of human hearing or something similar. Please correct me or provide more detail to help the discussion. My question is, what if you are recording and releasing a Yo-Yo Ma solo cello performance where the frequency range of the cello is only within the range of human hearing. I believe it's from around 56Hz to less than 8kHz according to the Interactive Frequency Chart. Is it then impossible to create an HD album of such a performance given your definition?

 

I'm honestly curious and would like to pursue the definition of HD further. I look forward to hearing from you on this.

 

[Dr. AIX]

Chris...my definition for HD Music is this:

 

A high-definition audio recording is one that meets or exceeds the capabilities of human hearing. Specifically, this translates to 130-140 dB of dynamic range and frequency response well beyond 20 kHz...on to at least 50 kHz.

 

The chart that you reference is approximating the frequency range of each listed instrument...especially as it relates to the high end the range. They are obviously not taking into account the harmonics or partials that extend well beyond the traditional range of human hearing.

 

For instance, while I have not recorded Yo-Yo Ma...I have captured Wallace Roney playing his trumpet through a Harmon mute. The range listed in the chart says the frequency should top out at 10 kHz...when the spectragraph of the recording I made goes past 48 kHz!

 

And yes a cello will benefit from a recording and playback system that can handle 45 kHz. There are experiential difference between listening to audio with that extra octave and recording that don't. And even if it is not an "audible" experience, if the sound is there in real life, I would like to know that my recordings have all of that sound and that it is reproduced in your listening environment.

 

The spectragraphs that I've been using for many years contain a great deal of information. The Stones tracks are SD and will always be SD...only new recordings have the potential to be HD.

 

I'm not saying the the Stones or the Beatles tracks aren't wonderful listening experiences...only that they are not HD.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Thanks Mark.