Led Zeppelin - new SHM Box from Japan.

Barry, thanks for pointing this out. It was some Bad Math in my script that parses/formats the EAC output. Fixed it now, obviously should have been:


ARTIST:_Led_Zeppelin
TITLE:_Led_Zeppelin_II
TIME______PEAK____NAME
5:35.17___100.0___Whole Lotta Love
4:45.63___100.0___What Is And What Should Never Be
6:19.52___100.0___The Lemon Song
4:49.43___100.0___Thank You
4:14.05___100.0___Heartbreaker
2:39.25___100.0___Living Loving Maid (She's Just A Woman)
4:24.20___100.0___Ramble On
4:20.70___100.0___Moby Dick
4:21.10___100.0___Bring It On Home
PEAK_AVE:_100.0
PEAK_MIN:_100.0
PEAK_MAX:_100.0
TOTAL_TIME:_00:41:29


-s1m0n-

 

Actually, wouldn't the peak average of 89 be correct? Although the tracks max out at 100, overall, the average of the lowest and highest points within each song would be around 89.

If the average was truly 100, then the entire song would need to be at 100.

I think, anyways

 

You'd be correct in your idea (not nec. the number 89) if not just peaks were considered but peaks (EAC peak levels) are the data that I (and my script) have to go by thus the average for peaks of 100 (since they are all 100). Hope that makes some sense

P.S. program in sig has been updated to fix Bad Math issue.

-s1m0n-

 

what does PEAK_MIN designate?

 

Hi Shawn,

What is being displayed is not the lowest point within each song but the minimum peak. That being the case, with a minimum of 100 and a max of 100, the average should work out to be 100... or in this case, most likely 650, the number of milligrams of aspirin required to help the headache. ;-}

(I'm not referring to this CD specifically... just to any record where the minimum peak = 100.)

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I think a better way of comparing the SHM's to the original '94 remasters, would be by using the '94 remasters that were made in Japan...I wouldn't be surprised if those made in Japan sound a little better than the U.S. pressings.

 

I got some time to look at the SHM compared to the Marino remaster (a U.S.A. copy, not a Japanese one, sorry) and there are obvious differences, for the worse. Take a look (the Marino is on top and the SHM is on the bottom):



-s1m0n-

 

Ahh, now I get it! Thanks for that explanation.

 

Whadda ya know, the sound dynamics ARE much cleaner!

 

Are you being sarcastic?

All I see is the same mastering source cranked slightly louder with transients squashed slightly more.

 

Yeah, this bears out what I found when a friend sent me two tracks from his SHM CD of the debut album. I compared them with the Marino remaster. They sync'd all throughout (meaning they were from the same digital source), but the SHM was compressed and louder.

Since I collect CDs more for the music than the packaging, I now have zero interest in these SHM CDs.

 

Do you think that all SHM CDs are more compressed and louder than standart CD versions? I have some SHM items - Metallica, for example, and like what i hear But i can't compare them with USA CD's..

 

Why would the '94 remasters pressed by WEA in Japan sound better that those pressed by WEA in the US or Germany?

 

Because of higher quality manufacturing?

 

Good question. The only SHM disc I've heard is a sampler. It came with a second disc that repeats the track list in "regular CD format". The main difference I noticed was that the SHM disc was louder and more boomy. I much preferred the standard CD.

 

So you figure WEA decided to send their superior CD pressing technology to its plant in Japan and press CDs in the US and Europe with some type of inferior technology?

Seems unlikely, don't you think?

 

Jeff, i'm talking about manufacturing quality. Better technologys, better plastic In some technologys Japan is going in advance..

 

Jeff, I don't think it happened this way. I think it is more along the lines of:

O.k., we want to build a plant here in the U.S. to manufacture CD's. I am sure we can tweak the process to cut cost during manufacturing, by reducing the time needed for each CD etc.

Maybe for the first initial pressings in the U.S., the technology was still more or less the same as in the early days in Japan (and early DADC pressings have a similar look and feel as early Japanese pressings), but it didn't take them long to change the processes to cut cost, and quite often quality suffers in these processes.

 

What sounds good?

For the host of this site, and many members, what sounds best is no (further) compression and natural equalization.

But there are also lots of members who eagerly post that a new mastering which is more compressed and/or unnaturally equalized sounds great / much better etc.

Given that the measurable changes of further compression / equalization means that the CD sounds worse to some, and better to others, unless you know the taste of the person writing a comment any comment about sound quality on this forum is almost meaningless.

What the graphs show is some measurable differences.

This tells me instantly that for me, as I prefer the mastering style of our host, the new CDs will sound worse than the earlier ones.

On the other hand, those who, for example, like the resent Genesis box sets, may very well love the new LZ CDs.

Of course there are some in the middle of the love / hate extra compression in remasters. These people do need to listen to decide.

From now on there is information when someone says these CDs sound better or worse. This is not information about the sound quality, but information about the taste of the person making the comment.

Given the huge variation in taste, the graphs are the only sure way of deciding to buy or to avoid.

LONG LIVE GRAPHS!

Cheers,
Michael

PS As the new CDs are compressed compared to the Marino remasters, these new CDs have been remastered (the extra compression). Even though the source was the Marino, we now have a third easily available version of LZ on CD (The BD, the Marino, and now these).

 

I hear ya Roland, but I've yet to hear a CD that was digitally identical to another CD where my ears were certain of any difference, whatsoever. Irrespective of where one was pressed or the other was pressed.

In my experience, the idea that the Japanese have some type of superior quality manufacturing when it comes to CDs has proved to be likely false at best, and utter nonsense at worst. I suspect the "belief" originates from the days of Japanese vinyl, which was often quieter than other pressings, but this has nothing to do with considering what we know about how digital audio works.

These SHM CDs are a different matter, of course. And they are advertised as "better" as a result of the different materials (not the same but "better" quality materials) being used. I think you can be sure that if the Japanese had a superior capability in 1994 to produce a better sounding CD of the same mastering that was used for the Zeppelin CDs in the US and Europe, it would have been advertised and promoted in a manner no different to what we are seeing now with the advent of SHM.

Ttbomk, there is no hard data to support that anyone can tell the difference in two digitally identical CDs played back on the eaxct same equipment at the exact same volume. And while I do not rule out the possibility for such variation, I think the idea that the Japanese are superior when it comes to producing compact discs is not only a myth, but arguably ridiculous and likely based on superior packaging and rarity influencing people's listening experience. I speak not of CDs with different masterings, of course, but some of the claims that the very same masterings sound better when they are put into a cool little sleeve. Probably not a coincidence that the disc with the better packaging seems to come out on top in most of these observations. I highly suspect if I put a US pressed disc in that same packaging and the listener was unaware that it has been switched, this thinking would remain the same.

And btw, when it comes to mastering, as I think we both know from experience, many of those Japanese mini lp CDs that are actually remastered in Japan are amongst the very worst sonic manipulations at present.

 

I've posted samples in the other LZ thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?p=3922863#post3922863

Let me know what you think!

 

Wow. I always figured bits were bits ... but, I painfuly compared back-and-forth the Shm of 'Houses' with the American Marino. The Shm had more air, depth and sported a wider soundstage. It made Marino's poor mastering choices more tolerable. And most of all, it didn't sound any more compressed than the older Marino's, nor did it sound remastered -- it sounded like the improvement one hears when upgrading a CD player. Truly.
I loath the idea of yet another format, but after hearing these -- I compared T.Rex's 'Electric Warrior' -- both remastered by Tony Visconti and the Shm bettered the 'standard' version -- and wished all CDs were made of whatever properties the Shm's are made of. And I'm a skeptic who dislikes most Japanese releases because they are often remastered to dreadful results.

 

My comments, as indicated, have nothing to do with SHM.

Again, SHM is a different material for the CD surface. It's a different polycarbonate plastic. This is not the same as what is being discussed by some as regards the "legend" of standard Japanese CDs sounding better than standard CDs produced elsewhere when the CDs feature the same mastering.

I've heard a difference in a comparison with SHM. And the wider soundstage is something I noted, but it almost sounded like a "stereo chorus" effect. I'm not sure this could be considered better so much as different, but it's also been noted by at least one member here that this material seemed to produce better results on some tracks on a CD more than others.

Why people worry about subtle differences in SHM vs. standard CDs 1/100th as much as whether the mastering being used is worth a damn in the first place eludes me, but hey...

I guess in the end I am still into differences in mastering, and I have enough trouble tracking down decent masterings without worrying about SHM making masterings I don't care for in the first place easing the pain just a bit.

 

I prefer the 2nd (48 second) sample by far. Softer, more analog sounding. The first clip sounds digital, more tightly wound and a bit sterile to me.

Here are screen caps from both. Of note is that it appears this difference can be heard even after ripping the CD to a computer, whereas the "two digitally identical (non-SHM) CDs can sound different" crowd seems to argue that the difference can only be heard on a player, not via ripping the track to computer. Clearly with SHM, the audible difference is notable despite these discs obviously being the same mastering.

Clip one (52 seconds) on top and clip two (48 seconds) next:

 

Those screen caps look identical. Just like the ones I made using audacity.