[markl]

"Bits iz bits" and "all digital is the same" folks need not qualify. Go away and be miserable with your crappy CD-ROM drives and Ipods.

What's a SHM-CD?

Quote:

The high quality SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) format features enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic. Using a process developed by JVC and Universal Music Japan discovered through the joint companies' research into LCD display manufacturing, SHM-CDs feature improved transparency on the data side of the disc, allowing for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head. SHM-CD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players.

It's a regular 16 bit 44.1 CD that plays on any ol' CD player. Nope, no extra data, no extra resolution, and no surround sound. It's a normally-encoded CD with all the same bits as any CD.

In Japan, there's an explosion of SHM-CDs. These are NOT special remasters made just for SHM-CD. These are the same exact digital remasters that you will find on normally pressed good ol' USA CDs.

Er, so what's the point? Why should I pay $30 for the exact same digital bits I can get in the USA for $15? Good question.

Not everyone believes that all CDs are the same or sound the same, even when they press the same data. There is a reason why the early Japan and West Germany pressings of many titles are sought after by audiophiles. Yes, it's true that in the "olden days" of 83-87 all of thse CDs were mastered without the absurd levels compression and LOUDNESS applied as we see today. DYNAMICS-- that's just one reason to seek out an old CD.

If given a choice between an original Japan-pressed CD with the same data as a mid-90s version of the same thing, audiophiles will choose the original every time.

Why? These early CDs were made to a ridiculous standard that modern CDs can't match. These old CDs are thicker, more solid, and more resistant to scratches and marks. They were made on superior equipment and held to a higher standard. They also sound better.

Why? They are early pressings closer to the original glass master of the master tape. The stampers aren't exhausted and producing errors and mistakes that have to be corrected. When pits are clearer and more distinct, you get better sound.

SHM-CD is an attempt to make physical media matter again. It's today's best shot at making a "perfect" CD. As someone who can hear differences in physical pressings of the same data, and who has a system that is capable of revealing them, SHM-CD is a worth-while investment, so long as you are already a fan of the original mastering or re-mastering of the disc that has been turned into a SHM-CD.

So far I've replaced about 20 of my regular CDs with their SHM-CD counterparts. Overall, I would say this investment is worth-while. The difference is not HUGE, nor does it turn a regular CD into Hi-Rez as some overly-enthusiastic reviewers have claimed.

If you have a quality source and quality headphones, I believe SHM-CDs will be a worth-while investment for you, but only for your most treasured albums, and given you like their most recent remaster, which most SHM-CDs are based on.

 

[jilgiljongiljing]

I've been interested in this format for a while now, but just havent tried it out yet. Maybe I should get an album I already have and then see if its worth it. So far I am quite content with SACD's. I didnt quite get into XRCD all that much since I felt the stuff they put out were very well recorded to begin with, so its bound to sound great. Besides the artist and album selection on XRCD is a bit too eclectic for my tastes. On the other hand I have seen some albums I might be interested in on SHM.

 

[Bojamijams]

I think SACD > SHM-CD in every shape, no?

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Bits iz bits" and "all digital is the same" folks need not qualify. Go away and be miserable with your crappy CD-ROM drives and Ipods.

While I applaud the effort to make sure there is interest in physical media, this statement makes you sound a bit arrogant and/or bitter,no? I am sure you realize that many very high end standalone CD players and transports are made using DVD-ROM drives, so I would not be so gung-ho about putting down "crappy CD-ROM drives."

In addition, in the interest of objectivity, if the polycarbonate is of higher quality, the rips using EAC should yield comparable improvements since both computer and standalone use identical optical technology and the output of their respective drives will be identical. Having said this, SHM-CD should be a win-win for both standalone fans and computer source fans.

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bojamijams /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think SACD > SHM-CD in every shape, no?

I agree completely puresuperaudio.blogspot.com: Hi-rez demystified: "I've just ordered SHM-CDs from online music store, I'm hoping they are remastered with care and they are even better than SACDs"

BTW, SACD/DSD or DVD-A/MLP were new formats when introduced around 1999, SMH-CD is redbook CD (PCM 16-bit/44kHz) which is 30 year old digital standard! it's definitely not a new format

In my opinion even if you have super extra clear plastic, or don't have any plastic at all so you listen to redbook directly from your harddrive bypassing optical playback, it's still 16bit/44,1kHz of audio information.

 

[markl]

Quote:

I think SACD > SHM-CD in every shape, no?

This depends on how you feel about SACD. The better my systems get, the less and less I like SACD, but that's a different discussion. As I say in the original post, SHM-CD is NOT a new audio format, there is no more digital bits there, it's plain old Redbook CD. In theory, a true hi-rez format (say 24/96) should and will spank SHM-CD. Unfortunately, DVD-Audio died and all we have is SACD....

Anyway, based on what I hear in doing a lot of A/B-ing the regular CD vs. SHM-CD can provide a nice upgrade, provided you like the existing mastering of the current CD (they are not remastered Mo-Fi grade audiophile CDs, they have same old mastering as the orig). On a good system, the SHM-CD is cleaner, more full-sounding, more solid, more vivid and resolving. No, not to the degree of going from Redbook to 24/96, but still appreciable enough. Worth it for your favorite albums and if you have a system that can capture these differences.

Quote:

While I applaud the effort to make sure there is interest in physical media, this statement makes you sound a bit arrogant and/or bitter,no? I am sure you realize that many very high end standalone CD players and transports are made using DVD-ROM drives, so I would not be so gung-ho about putting down "crappy CD-ROM drives."

You're right roadtonowhere08, being snotty in advance of expecting snotty and snippy retorts from the usual crowd is probably bad form. As a verteran of the Cables section (which I no longer visit to preserve mental health), I still have the scars from butting heads with the "just say no" crowd.

 

[Oggranak]

Okay, help explain one thing to me, just because I honestly don't understand it. If a CD can store 500 MB of non-audio data and not mess any of it up (I never have issues with corrupted or somehow different files), why can't it do the same for 500 MB of audio data?

This isn't sarcasm or an attack on the idea, I just want to know if there are different processes/methods of writing/whatever involved.

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif This depends on how you feel about SACD. The better my systems get, the less and less I like SACD, but that's a different discussion. As I say in the original post, SHM-CD is NOT a new audio format, there is no more digital bits there, it's plain old Redbook CD. In theory, a true hi-rez format (say 24/96) should and will spank SHM-CD. Unfortunately, DVD-Audio died and all we have is SACD....

but since SACD sounds better than DVD-A the situation isn't that bad, even Morten Lindberg from 2L admits that SACD sounds better than 24/96kHz. Please check The Three Cornered Hat SACD to hear true hi-rez format

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, not to the degree of going from Redbook to 24/96

so we actually get worse than hi-rez quality for twice the price of regular SACD or 24/96 flac download

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oggranak /img/forum/go_quote.gif Okay, help explain one thing to me, just because I honestly don't understand it. If a CD can store 500 MB of non-audio data and not mess any of it up (I never have issues with corrupted or somehow different files), why can't it do the same for 500 MB of audio data? This isn't sarcasm or an attack on the idea, I just want to know if there are different processes/methods of writing/whatever involved.

There is. There is no error correction data on an audio CD. But if you instead place a lossless audio file on the CD, using approximately the same space, but in data format, it will not be messed up. Then you need a cd player that can read the file, though. Data on a data-cd uses checksums to make sure that there are no read errors. Audio CD does not work like that. I guess it's because there was no time to re-read, but I'm not quite sure actually. There was a time when a 2x CD player was fast ( I bought one of the 2x CD players for my computer actually, when they were new, and thought that it was a remarkable new technology ).

This is why audio ripping can be such a complicated process, since if you rip a CD once, you might want the rip to be as accurate as possible - even if it takes a lot of time to do.

(And then they invented USB audio, and guess what they did ....)

 

[markl]

Quote:

Okay, help explain one thing to me, just because I honestly don't understand it. If a CD can store 500 MB of non-audio data and not mess any of it up (I never have issues with corrupted or somehow different files), why can't it do the same for 500 MB of audio data? This isn't sarcasm or an attack on the idea, I just want to know if there are different processes/methods of writing/whatever involved.

Do you have a good system? If so, listen and A/B and see for yourself.

The truth is there is no explanation that will satisfy the bits iz bits crowd. I'm not a EE or PhD in digital encoding. But from what I have read over many many years is-- The data encoded for music is NOT the same as data encoded for software/data. This is a primitive system developed in the Long Long Ago; data is read in real-time and errors corrected on the fly, with the best guess as to what that data should have been. You don't get a fatal error if a CD player can't read a certain bit like you would with software. You get the best guess as to what that bit should have been (or, you get no information at all, it skips and goes to next readable bit). Lots of errors, and a bad pressing = lots of errors to be corrected or lots of missing bits. So, you get a generic sound of the algorithm determining how to fill the bad bits, or less resolution from bits missing altogether.

I expect flat-earthers who are also not EEs or experts in digital music encoding to parrot what they've heard, too. Great. Now, go do some listening (on a good system), and get back to me.

Also, if I dare raise the dreaded word "jitter" I'm sure some will plotz. Oops, too late I said it.

Quote:

but since SACD sounds better than DVD-A

Sez who, Sony? Yes, there are excellent SACDs. But my opinion FWIW, if I was picking an ideal improvement over CD is stick with PCM and give me more of it (more data please). You don't have all of SACD's hi-frequency resolution issues to deal with.

 

[markl]

Quote:

so we actually get worse than hi-rez quality for twice the price of regular SACD or 24/96 flac download

In a world where it appears for all intents and purposes we will be lucky if 16/44.1 even survives, and no one actually buys regular CDs at $16 a pop, yes, you got it right, twice the price and no extra data. Would I prefer 24/96 or 24/192, hell ya, then throw that data on the same material as SHM-CD and now we REALLY got somethin'.

I'm an old-school dude raised on paying for his music. I'm also a guy not averse to spending $80+ on a MoFi/DCC CD. A $30 SHM-CD of a title I love in mastering I can live with is worth-while for me. I have a system that can reveal the difference. That's all this thread is about.

Again, I haven't claimed monumental Hi-Rez like revelatory performance, just a nice upgrade over the normal CD for people who can tell the difference.

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sez who, Sony? Yes, there are excellent SACDs. But my opinion FWIW, if I was picking an ideal improvement over CD is stick with PCM and give me more of it (more data please). You don't have all of SACD's hi-frequency resolution issues to deal with.

sez who? Mr Lindberg from 2L records, says Kevin Killen (in Deep Listening why audio quality matters discussion), Jared Sacks, me

etc

PS of course you have problems with high frequencies in 24/96 PCM... plus you have PCM decimation signature problem.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioholik /img/forum/go_quote.gif sez who? Mr Lindberg from 2L records, says Kevin Killen (in Deep Listening why audio quality matters discussion), Jared Sacks, me etc PS of course you have problems with high frequencies in 24/96 PCM... plus you have PCM decimation problems signature problem.

But does SACD have error correction (checksums and a process to re-read?)
Otherwise there is a problem, since read errors might make loose some of that valuable extra data encoded on the SACD.... and then if you compare a high-end audio cd to a lower end SACD...

 

[audioholik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif In a world where it appears for all intents and purposes we will be lucky if 16/44.1 even survives

let's hope rbcd will end soon, and we finally get true HD sound

improving redbook CD is nonsense to me, it's like improving dvd disc with super clear plastic, will it give us better quality than Blu-ray disc, hell no!

just like clearer plastic won't give us better sound quality than SACD or 24/96 DAD for example.