My SHM-CD results...

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by markl, Apr 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DragonQ

    DragonQ Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Moon
    You could argue that computer RAM (being fed from a hard disk) is a more stable playback medium (there should definitely be no jitter or anything there) than a CD but the main difference between a PC sound card, low-end CD players and high-end CD players is in the quality of the DAC. Also, storing something on an HDD is pretty similar to reading ahead and storing the acquired data in a buffer before it being converted by the DAC, which has to always be done to a certain extent anyway.

    I do want to reply to more stuff that's been posted since last night but I'm at work right now so it'll have to wait. :)
     
  2. Leo K

    Leo K Forum Resident

    Location:
    Midwest USA
    By the way, has anyone heard the Toshiba SHM Pet Sounds release?


    I'm a big fan of SHM myself...especially for classical releases, where the sound becomes more transparent...yet at times alittle bright and "wet" or glassy. Otherwise, the bass is much more detailed. In particular I really have enjoyed the Bernstein DG Mahler cycle on SHM. The sonics of these recordings are not always the optimum, but on LP or SHM they can sound quite spectacular indeed.
     
  3. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Recording it is simple enough. But where do you go from there? What exactly are you analyzing? And how?
     
  4. foobar2000

    foobar2000 New Member

    Location:
    US
    Welp, what have we got - frequency, time, and amplitude, right?

    One could do a frequency compare by subtracting one spectral analysis from another. Line up the peaks in 100% view, and see if any are a microsecond out of place. Check that each peak is exactly the same level too. I'm sure the "bit brigade" can think up more ways?

    Prolly simplest is to invert one and paste it over the other, listen to the result. Raise the volume 50dB (or something) if the result is basically silent. If we hear even the slightest wisp of musical information then maybe there is something to all this after all.

    If this is as audible as some folks (not me, mind you) are claiming then the signal must have some detectable difference, no?
     
  5. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi Jeff,

    I'm familiar with that article (keep it bookmarked in fact).
    I've heard it phrased both ways.

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

    krlpuretone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Grantham, NH
    Yes, but what is the source that is being turned into 16bit/44.1kHz...is it DSD? is it a 24/96???

    I think it's pretty natural to expect that the abilities of the mastering engineer to compensate for known variables and the computers/algorithms used *(mastering software AND hardware) has improved significantly since the 1980's...

    I know just from upgrades in some of the home recording software I use that software improves at computer development speeds i.e. much faster than output hardware. F'instance Sony has never seen fit to release a home SACD burner, although clearly there are SACD "burners" available for commercial production.
     
  7. shokhead

    shokhead Head shok and you still don't what it is. HA!

    Location:
    SoCal, Long Beach
    Not always positive or just different?
     
  8. GreenDrazi

    GreenDrazi Truth is beauty

    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    While I sincerely would like to know if there are sonic benefits to the SHM-CD’s, the OP’s attempt to make a definitive statement is entirely undermined by seriously flawed assumptions and process.

    1. No list posted of what discs that have been compared (one or two are mentioned and in fact, the replacement of discs is stated which implies the non-SHM discs were ditched)
    2. Masterings declared the same based on liner notes and track listings
    A. Comparing null samples of wav forms would be a fairly accurate determination
    B. EAC peaks would be a very quick and meaningful comparison
    3. No list of A/B playback comparisons
    4. No mention of level matching
    5. Playback solely via headphones (no speakers listed in profile, nor mentioned in thread - whereas headphones are mentioned)


    Reminds me of MacBeth:
    "it is a tale ..., full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
     
  9. Metoo

    Metoo Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Spain (EU)
    That's because there are many people who haven't gotten into hard disk playback, they want their high-end CD players.

    Have you compared the same file playing from a CD and a hard disk through the same DAC? Try it, you'll be surprised.
     
  10. Jeff Wong

    Jeff Wong Gort

    Location:
    NY
    Hi Barry - I've heard it both ways as well; Harley may not have been the first to coin the same sentiment, but, the diagram of the reconstructed waveform in his article is the clearest, simplest depiction I have ever seen of jitter.
     
  11. bdiament

    bdiament Producer, Engineer, Soundkeeper

    Location:
    New York
    Hi Jeff,

    I like the diagram too.
    I like the whole article and find it one of the better ones I've read on the subject.

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

    triple Senior Member

    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    I never quite understood that argument. I am aware that a lot of people use it though. To me, it does not mean anything. If component A sounds better than component B, then component A is better, and the level is not important.

    You can always tell which woman (out of 2) looks better to you, even if they are not dressed exactly the same, no? Or do they have to wear exactly the same clothes? ;)

    Goran
     
  13. Jeff Wong

    Jeff Wong Gort

    Location:
    NY
    I can see the point of level matching--if a CD is a little louder than another, it might be perceived as having attributes it doesn't when the output is matched. That said, if you know what to listen for deep in the recording, you'll probably be able to hear beyond volume differences. There's an SHM CD I'm planning on picking up that is supposed to be the same master as two other versions (I've also got some K2HD discs I'm curious to compare) which I'll eventually report back on.
     
  14. darkmatter

    darkmatter Gort Astronomer Staff

    Any other classical SHM issues you could recommend? :)
     
  15. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    The problem with this is the timing for each D/A -> A/D transfer will be slightly different. The amplitudes might be slightly different too. I.e., you can record the same CD 10 times and no 2 will be digitally identical. Perhaps the differences between different CDs will be *larger*, but it isn't like comparing two digital sources.

    Using a master clock for both D/A and A/D *might* fix the clock issue, but I don't have a way to do that, and the amplitude would still be slightly different.
     
  16. krlpuretone

    krlpuretone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Grantham, NH
    There have been a number of threads on SHM discs in which comparisons have been made (Jeff Carney posted that intentionally hilarious Khan waveform diagrams, which could have been used to jump start Frankenstein's monster)...

    Ive done fairly in-depth A/B'ing with various versions of the Allmans Fillmore discs and the SHM was second to the SACD to my ears, and definitely had a higher level of some of the minute details of the recording (for example - it was very easy to tell which drummer was playing which pattern)...but where does that get us, as some people here will swear that this or that SACD sucks and is NOT the definitive reference of a particular recording?

    So we are attempting to turn a scientific conclusion from what is at best a subjective conclusion...there are people out there (or maybe shut in) playing 8 tracks and swearing the sound is great.

    To repeat what I've said elsewhere, people here tend to interchange Remixing with Remastering; which essentially is wrong. To simplify; you can run the same source through a different hardware configuration and get a different master as the output, depending on what and how it has been extracted. It is possible to get a different master from the same source, and the fact that we all choose to use different brands of hardware speaks to the same logic in reverse - if all CDs were in fact the same and identical, why do we choose and hear differences between different brands of CD players? Using EAC > Hardrive > Output presents a similar conundrum - you are essentially using your computer's sound card as an onboard DAC.

    As far as the whole "bits are bits" argument, you can run the same bits through different DACs with audibly different results. The Cayin iDAC is great for this, as there are two different outputs that use different chips (PCM2706 and TDA1543) for the conversion. Both sound unique. Which one is better? Not sure, it's a personal preference, and varies from recording to recording...

    I think the biggest fallacy in the whole SHM can't possibly work argument is Barry's assertion that masters and discs from different plants can sound different.

    In conclusion, I've had good results with certain SHM CDs on recordings that I know very well, on multiple excellent systems. Customers have agreed (without volume trickery) and been happy with the results.

    Others here have had not-so-great results or pointed out poorly mastered SHM titles

    Still others have dismissed the format as impossible-to-work marketing.

    But that is what makes this demented hobby so much fun, isn't it ???

    :laugh:
     
  17. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan

    Location:
    Atlanta
    It's like I always say here: Bits is bits only if they arrive at precisely the right time.

    :righton:
     
  18. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan

    Location:
    Atlanta
    What would be beneficial here is for the SHM supporters to release a sampler set for audiophiles with one CD on SHM and another CD of exactly the same mastering but not SHM disc. Then we could all do an apples to apples listening test.
     
  19. krlpuretone

    krlpuretone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Grantham, NH
    That would only work if we didn't tell which was which...

    :righton:
     
  20. Hiro

    Hiro Forum Resident

    Location:
    Poland
    personally I somehow dismissed the redbook CD format as I prefer the high resolution sound (SACD and 24/96 PCM)... improvements such as clear plastic on redbook CD or super precise pits on redbook CD just aren't what I'm looking for and willing to pay.

    BTW just wondering does shm-cd use super clear plastic but the master is still cut with not precise red laser :confused:

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Metoo

    Metoo Forum Hall Of Fame

    Location:
    Spain (EU)
    There are some Blu-Spec CD titles that include a regular CD and a Blu-Spec CD in the same package. But I don't think that they are 'audiophile.'

    See here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Feel-Difference-Blu-Spec-CD/dp/B001O77128

    http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=SICP-20048
     
  22. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan

    Location:
    Atlanta
  23. darkmatter

    darkmatter Gort Astronomer Staff

  24. Even if they are not audiophile, that would be a step in the right direction.
     
  25. foobar2000

    foobar2000 New Member

    Location:
    US
    Yep, recording off the analog outputs will not get us two bit-identical files. I realize that. And, we'll want to include two recording of the same disc, just so we're aware of how much random noise we have.

    Still, I maintain that if this alleged difference in sound quality is as noticeable as folks are saying then there must be some difference we can detect, somehow.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine