Platinum SHM-CDs launched!

yeah sorry to throw a spanner in the works!

 

The non platinum versions also have the green coated surface.

 

Dear Guys,

I want to share my own comparison of 3 Aja discs: Platinum, non-Platinum and SHM-SACD.
It was written 2 weeks ago, but I was waiting for some another comparison to be posted to do not put any pressure from my report. I sent open letter to my friend about this comparison test. Here it is:

Hi Paul,

I have to tell you very important thing, which can be named: Truth about Platinum Reflective Coating. As you know, I bought all 3 versions of Aja to compare them to each other. Please listen to whole story:

From the beginning, I compared Pt and non-Pt in my computer system, which is not bad at all (Axiom Audio Audiobites):
No difference in sound was found.(I believe, it's due to cheap computer Blu-ray transport. Pt happens to be less reflective then Au, and, even less than Al. It's required a good laser. Overall sound was good, better than any regular CD.

Because I, currently, don't have SACD player, I decided to run to local Hi-End Audio store, named Quintessence Audio, while it was still open. Owner of the store agreed to do blind test. The system was: Vienna Acoustic speakers with Simaudio Moon electronics. From the first 40 sec of the first track, it became obvious to us: Pt was better, and not just a little better, but hands down better, non-Pt was... somewhat dull, closer to reg. CD sound, while Pt was closer to good LP sound. Soundstage was shockingly huge. Transparent sound immediately filled entire room - speakers disappeared. Second noticeable difference was separation between instruments, which usually leads to revealing more details, but I didn't have time to catch that.

Again, because SACD was not on display at the time, I quickly left for another Hi-End Audio store - Audio Consultants. Guy at the store also agreed to help with blind test to compare all 3 discs. Player was Ayre G-5xe universal player, speakers - Wilson Audio Sophia 3. But, unfortunately, in excitement rush, I made big mistake choosing right amp. Instead of good, time tested workhorse Bryston (600W/ch), I picked two Boulder monoblocks and, even didn't ask how much power they have. It happened to be just 200W, definitely not enough for Sophia with Sensitivity 87db. As result, Pt sounded a bit bright, even edgy at some places, when we tried to crank the volume. No wonder that Pt, regardless it won over non-Pt, lost to SHM-SACD. SHM-SACD withstands underpowered amp and showed solid, weighty more natural sound. However, Pt was more speedy one. I have to admit, that non-Pt was better in this setup. Both Pt and non-Pt showed equally good deep undistorted bottom end.

I ended up in my living room testing Pt vs. non-Pt in my own system:

CD Player: Music Fidelity New-Vista
Power amp: InnerSound/Coda Technologies Kilowatt Monoblocks (1000W)
Preamp: InnerSound/Coda Technologies
Speakers: B & W Nautilus 802 (500W power handling)
Sub: Polk Audio DSW MicroPro 2000 (1200W)
Speaker Cables: Analysis Plus Oval 8 (bi-amped)
Interconnect Cables: Acoustic Zen

Treated with such a power, Pt showed its best: striking soundstage, openness and details. 3-demantional sound was VITAL from the top to the bottom without any sign of brightness or edginess, even, when I cranked the volume. Big Power is the best doctor in any system. When big Power stepping in, there is no place for the match-no-match game - all components match to each other and sound improves in all aspects and characteristics.

MoFi never gives us opportunity to compare Gold version with Regular one, featuring the same Remaster. Universal does. It was already very good sign. I was truly believer, but even me, didn't expect such a result. How big deference is between Pt and non-Pt CD?:

I asked my wife, who is far from my toys, to take blind test. First I put Pt, then non-Pt. She said: "Of course, first one is better - it's Stereo one, second one is not Stereo". End of Story.

I tried one more time next day with fresh head. Non-Pt sounds also very good, no distortion, high and low are the same, sound is pretty clean. But when you put Pt one, you like went into the different room; room with better acoustic. "Sweet spot"/Focus is so wide that you are walking across the room from one speaker to another and still can hear the first speaker. Sound is more airy, more immediate - better dynamics. It's, also, more clear. When people are saying "crystal clear", that's exactly, I think, what it is.

After all, I came to conclusion: Platinum reflective coating does sound better vs. non-Platinum version. How better, depends on equipment and system configuration.

(Paul, when you will upgrade your system just follow my rule #2: Min Power of the amp must be twice as much as is Max Power Handling of your speakers. This is the way you can squeeze the best sound from your speakers.)

If you remember, I compared CD with wheels of the car: alloy wheels can improve performance of the car just a bit, but they will last. The same thing with SHM, which can improve performance of CD about 2-3%, but it can last several times longer than reg. CD. However tires can improve performance of the car drastically. That what happened with CD. Platinum coating is our tires. You didn't believe, but it improves sound quality drastically. I predicted that it will improve sound on 5-7%, but I was wrong. I think, upon what I heard by my own ears, it improves sound on 20-25%. SHM and Platinum coating match to each other perfectly - the best "pit formation" met the smoothest surface - perfect combination. I have no doubts now: Platinum layer does matter it breathed life into old redbook CD. It is great job by JVC and Uni. They said that they choose Platinum for its durability and ability to create smoothest surface, as a "noble material of finest"; it was widely used in other fields, but not in audio; "We dare to try". And they succeeded. I only can be happy for them. Further improvement of old CD, I think, will be drive price over $43 - it doesn't make sense.
I wish that all SHM CD will be made with Platinum reflective coating.
I hope non-Pt version and fancy Pt boxes will be dropped and price will go dawn to $30. It is already happened to SHM: difference in the price between SHM and non-SHM Mini LP is $3-5 now.

As Mini LP collector, I need to buy Pt Queen entire collection. I just wonder how far-looking Uni is: they made Queen SHM-SACD in stupid plastic especially, that now, I could put SACD discs on the holder of Pt boxes to keep both version together.

For myself, I decided to buy Platinum SHM of old SHM-SACD releases, where Remaster wasn't done right and those, where I need Mini LP for my collection (Queen, Mike Oldfield...), and SHM-SACD new releases, which coming in Mini LP presentation now. I compared Universal Japanese descriptions, and it is the same for both versions of new releases.
I believe that Platinum SHM Jazz titles will be released in Digibook (in size of Mini LP) with clear slipcase and Logo, similar to Sony new K2HD Series.

Thank you very much and wish you well, T.D.

P.S. I ordered Pt Aja not just for myself, but for another guy to compare with SACD. Here is his review:

''Just did the comparison between SACD Aja and the new Platinum disc. Not a whole lot of difference! The SACD sounds a little "fuller" to my ears than the CD, but both are really outstanding. I don't think I'll sell my SACD's yet, but am terribly excited about the future of these new discs.''

Waiting for your response.


Speaking of MristerBritt's test, the result is pretty similar:

Mr.Britt's: On a scale of 1-10 -- not saying the SHM-SACD is an absolute "10", but simply relative to the contenders it represents the far side of the spectrum -- I would say the non-Platinum is 6, the Platinum - 7 and 1/2, and the SHM-SACD - 10.

Mine: On a scale of 1-10: non-Pt -5, Pt -8 and SHM-SACD - 9 and 1/2.

Mr.Britt's: The non-Platinum CD sounds great. The Platinum sounds even better. The SHM-SACD blows them away.

Mine: The non-Platinum CD sounds very good. The Platinum blows him away. The SHM-SACD sounds even better.

I really appreciate MisterBritt's effort and asking him to contact me [email protected], as I have very personal question for him.

Thank you, guys.

 

i also don't have the gear to compare in the way champions of the platinum discs here can (i.e. acoustically in a room with hi-end equipment), so my observations are based on ripped media and careful A/Bing under headphones of three sources, with hi-res downsampled/dithered to 16/44 and then by upsampling the 16/44 to go head to head with the hi-res, in each case level matched. IMO the source is identical and nothing has been altered in terms of EQ, compression or any underhand trickery to deceive the listener. worth mentioning that i wasn't able to get the files to cancel out completely but i'd expect the noise-shaping etc to have played a part in that. i considered an ABX test but as i couldn't hear any difference when switching at random between the three sources, i knew the result would be worthless in this instance.

Well to me headphones are just fine for critical listening as long as their good quality. Second, I don't want to be seen as a 'champion' of the Platinum Cd's. It started with Exile and again, I know that album inside and out backwards and forwards. I was NOT impressed with the SACD SHM of it, quite the opposite, I even stated that to my other Stones Friend. But when the Platinum hit the laser, and that tambourine popped out at me throughout the whole song, which I've NEVER experienced before-I knew right then that some kind of REAL improvement had occurred.
And again, it's almost impossible but what others have said comes close.....'sounded more NATURAL, There's AIR around the instruments that isn't there on other issues, etc. It's NOT an EQ thing at all. It's like going from Standard NTSC television and then going to HD.......the picture itself hasn't changed, just everything is 'Closer To What I would Expect listening to the Studio Tape'. Bingo....That's about it in a nutshell.
more later on the two new Aerosmith Blu-Spec2 cd's I got three days ago, it fits in with this as Sony's BS2 is their answer to the SHM discs.
The Beave

More Room Pictures:

 

True story. I wonder why they are green and SHM-SACDs as well? Shouldn't matter at all. The disc is not transparent, must be just to make it look cool and special.
Any sound engineers here to explain those magical test results? l am learning not to be cynical. Help please!

 

the platinum disc is a 16/44 version of the same DSD master found on the SACD. you're essentially claiming that a different surface on a lower resolution medium is turning the same data from "unimpressive" to (if i understand correctly) the best digital version of Exile.

obvious follow-up question: are both discs being played on the same player? if so is it normal for SACDs and CDs sharing the same master to display different characteristics? if not then the platinum surface would appear to be colouring the sound in some way. similar claims are heard both for and against the SHM and Blu-Spec discs (i.e. those that hear a difference sometimes prefer them, sometimes not). as i stated earlier, when ripped there is no audible difference that i can discern, so excuse me if i'm sounding skeptical about the magic powers of the platinum disc.

but we're not discussing SHM here, the SACDs and both platinum and non-platinum discs are all SHM. it's the platinum surface that is the talking point here, no reason to muddy the waters further...

 

Oh Good Lord, here we go with the green sharpie thing again?????????
beave

 

thanks, rules that out of the equation then.

 

Ok Karmaman here weeeee gooooooo.
No. I'm Not (really) trying to claim anything here. The Platinum SHM CD I have of "Exile" sounds incredible-fidelity wise and of course as i've said before I wish there was more bass all around in the mix.
Compared to the Cd I burned from the SHM SACD going from the Onkyo SACD player optical digital out to my Tascam CD recorder in dithered 24 bit resolution, the Platinum was just like the Standard Def TV vs the Hi Def television picture analogy I used. I can't get any more precise with that. But I stick to my theory that there is something in the Digital converting stage that has changed for the better. Or maybe the lower reflectivity of the Platinum makes for a less 'splattered' read from the laser. That is the only theory that could even come close to making sense. But in ANY case, because of the Exquisite packaging that My Classic
Stones titles (Sticky/Exile/Goats Head Soup/IORR/Black And Blue/Some Girls/Tattoo You) I'll pay the extra $10 and then my search will finally be over. But please consider the 'Splatter' theory I put out here.
Now can somebody please repost the link for 'ExactAudioCopy' for me to try and get some numbers from these discs, I'd appreciate it.
The Beave

 

It's sad that the "scientific mafia" has ruled the world in the 30-years of CD. They have told us it does not matter....don't question the standard polycarbonate CDs made of...produce the polycarbonate as cheap as possible...it does not matter, fabricate the CDs as cheap and fast as you can... it does not matter...all is in the bit data, if the one and zero's are on the disc, then it's perfect and it will sound perfect.

Oh yeah...

 

So why can any cheap computer CD drive read 30 year old CD's perfectly (verified by AccurateRip) every single time? Are CD players so horrible they haven't been able to read the data off of CDs all these years?

 

I don't know exactly what is happening, but something is happening between the laser optics reading the disc and the two-step error correction system, and further to the D/A.

 

It is not even a science, just an engineerig. It is pretty clear why dvda and sacd are better sounding than CDs. And as far as a know, platinum, gold and green paint is not used in Sacds. So where is an explaination to the "phenomenon"? Just because?

 

I love science. And good engineering. But I do not like people that have a hard time open their mind. In a perfect reality there should be no differences in sound whatever quality of the materials CDs made of and quality of the disc transport used, as long as the data transfered is the same. But it isn't.

 

What is your evidence for this? I skimmed back a few pages, was there someone that did a double blind test or are you just going on a poster stating that they could hear a difference?

 

Steve Martin, forget it. I will not go into a discussen about double blind tests.

 

And, iirc, that subject is banned for discussion anyway hereabouts.

 

Does it mean you don't like me? Why? Inquisitive mind wants to know. With your love for science and engineering (was it you who used an expression "scientific mafia" one post ago) could you give some reasonable explaination? Believe me my mind is very open. I will order some Platinums right away.

 

OK, forget that I mentioned them. But I still wonder what causes you to state with such certainty that there is a difference.

 

No no...it was not directed at you at all. Just a general statement from me.

 

[/quote]

Cheers then. I am having a beer now and listening King Crimson and not in the mood for arguing.

 

Sure it is. Compatibility with a wide array of amplifiers was one of the Wilson design goals of the Sophia from the start.

Not a rule I would endorse.

Otherwise I enjoyed your post a great deal.

 

http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/en/index.php/resources/download/

EAC peak levels for the platinum SHM-CD of Exile on Main St. (DR11)
76.2 / 74.9 / 63.0 / 76.0 / 73.2 / 76.8 / 88.4 / 83.4 / 89.9 / 83.3 / 75.1 / 73.9 / 55.0 / 79.9 / 82.2 / 86.1 / 95.4

 

Same as the SHM-SACD.