U.K. on SHM SACD!! I hope it will not be Jobson 're-master'

My two UK SHM-SACDs arrived today. Just had a listen of UK s/t, and it is excellent. Very nicely done. Pretty much perfect sound. No, I don't have any other versions.

 

I've played through S/T and Danger Money, and also compared them to my old E'G cds (EGCD 35 and VJD-28049 respectively).

I've always thought that the old E'Gs sounded great (and I still do), but these flat transfers are even better. Not a radical difference (maybe the old E'Gs were flat, too, but done with inferior tapes and equipment?), but definitely audible: softer treble, fuller bass, and more clarity/transparancy. When flat transfers sound like this, why the hell would anyone do anything but flat transfers?

I only wish they had dropped the bonus tracks, I don't like add-ons on great albums. And I wish they came in proper jewel cases instead of these rubbish boxes. But I've solved that problem by "transplanting" trays into them to make them more user friendly and kind on the discs.

Those are really petty grievances, though. The sound is what matters, and I'm very happy with these. Excellent sound!

 

So, how profound is the difference in sound quality between the SHM cds, and the SHM-SACDs or UK and Danger Money? Probably not an easy question to answer. So, what is the consensus on the SHM cds of these two records?

 

Due to the same Mastering and Material, this question is simplified to the general: SACD vs. CD.

Long ago, when the trees were still a green grass and SACD were the little babies, one guy said: "The worst SACD sounds better than the best CD." It looked so true at the time... Since then, I've heard so many bad sounding SACDs that I cannot agree on this. However, if done rightly, SACDs are sound 30.8% better than CDs.

 

I've played through S/T and Danger Money, and also compared them to my old E'G cds (EGCD 35 and VJD-28049 respectively).

I've always thought that the old E'Gs sounded great (and I still do), but these flat transfers are even better. Not a radical difference (maybe the old E'Gs were flat, too, but done with inferior tapes and equipment?), but definitely audible: softer treble, fuller bass, and more clarity/transparancy. When flat transfers sound like this, why the hell would anyone do anything but flat transfers?


It sounds good, as Tape was good, but, unfortunately, it's not always the case.

I only wish they had dropped the bonus tracks, I don't like add-ons on great albums. And I wish they came in proper jewel cases instead of these rubbish boxes. But I've solved that problem by "transplanting" trays into them to make them more user friendly and kind on the discs.

They alredy did drop "these rubbish boxes" for you (at least four last releases are coming without them). However, nobody will replace Mini LP cardboard covers with the "proper jewel cases", as all this mess is about the production of Miniature copy of old LPs to please thousands crazy Mini LP Collectors. If not for that, this nice issue would never have seen the light of day.

The sound is what matters, and I'm very happy with these. Excellent sound!

"Thank you guys, I tried my best..." -- E.J.

 

As fussy as I am I personally don't do SACD I find SHM-CD more useful, cheaper and sound fantastic anyway. (I can only compare with the originals).

 

I was referring to U.K. specifically, since that's the thread topic. In my opinion these flat transfers confirm that the albums were very well engineered and produced, and in no need of further manipulation during mastering. Not sure what you mean by "Tape was good", but if you're talking about engineering/production, then we're on the same page. And, for that matter, I strongly suspect that this is the case with many "old" albums, not only U.K.s. Not all, of course, but many.

Yes, it seems like most people think mini-LP packaging is a plus. I obviously don't, but I'm used to being in the minority and I don't fret about it.

This quote has me puzzled. Is Jobson reading this thread?

 

"I was referring to U.K. specifically, since that's the thread topic. In my opinion these flat transfers confirm that the albums were very well engineered and produced, and in no need of further manipulation during mastering. Not sure what you mean by "Tape was good", but if you're talking about engineering/production, then we're on the same page. And, for that matter, I strongly suspect that this is the case with many "old" albums, not only U.K.s. Not all, of course, but many." -- Capt Fongsby

Yes, we are on the same page on this. I even suggested that about 80% of old stuff is good enough to do Flat Transfer, but not everyone agree (please read from post #40 and on...):
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/genesis-gabriel-era-shm-and-platinum-shm-coming.381244/page-2

"Yes, it seems like most people think mini-LP packaging is a plus. I obviously don't, but I'm used to being in the minority and I don't fret about it." -- Capt Fongsby

Each packaging has its advantages and downsides. I see that the convenience is more important for you than esthetic, beauty of original Artwork, exceptional print quality as only Japanese are willing to do, great craftsmanship, collectability and heart wrenching nostalgia to the old times. Also, CD can accidentally be scratched by the plastic holder, while soft fabric of inner sleeve makes it safe.

"This quote has me puzzled. Is Jobson reading this thread?" -- Capt Fongsby

Mr. Jobson was involved in the original mixing process in 70's - he did good job, and Flat Transfer is a proof of this. Later, he also did first 24-bit Remaster of U.K. albums for Japanese release in 2009. I used to have it until September 2014 and it always was sounding good in my major system. I was surprised to learn that there are people who were unhappy with the sound, including two at our forum. I dug deeper and found only 3 more negative reviews around the Globe. The rest of the people just created some negative buzz around the release, never actually owning the CDs.

For 2014 release EMI, who got license from U.K./Jobson, cut the deal with Universal to issue 4 albums, using "latest" remaster. For U.K. it was 2009 one, but for Green Album it was old outdated 16-bit mastering. Eddie Jobson could not let it happen. As people all over were asking about Flat Transfer, he did it for all albums, despite the agreement, thanks that the Tapes were always under his hand.

He not only awarded us with great sounding release, he also showed Universal that non-Universal releases can be done with flat transfer too. It became very important in a wake of new non-Universal Genesis release, coming on Nov. 24.
I named Eddie Jobson a Hero for everything he has done. He proved that Artists can do everything when they really care about their music.

Is Mr. Jobson reading this thread? I don't see any obstruction preventing him to do so and me to quote him.

 

P.S. Guys, to read about the farther impact of Eddie Jobson on entire Industry go to post 501 page 20:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...d-on-packaging-sonics-part-two.359066/page-20







"Eddie Jobson has changed the way how entire Industry operates."

 

For anyone reading this thread who was not in the know (like me); my research revealed the "The Green Album" is actually called Zinc & credited to Eddie Jobson.

 

What is the U.K. stance on SHM-CD?

 

This was posted on the Eddie Jobson forum a few days ago.

Author: EJ
Date: 07-16-15 23:52

To the best of my knowledge, the SHM and SACDs that have recently been released by Universal in Japan are simply derived from the original 16-bit/44.1k CD masters and are not technically a fidelity improvement on anything previously released (other than the improved error rate and laser scatter of the SHM technology itself). I personally do not approve of this slightly deceptive practice of artificially increasing the sample and bit rates and reselling the same products disguised as super high-resolution releases.

In the next few days I will be announcing a plan for genuine high-res releases of the UK material. Stay tuned.

This contradicts what toilet_doctor stated earlier that EJ was directly involved in the transfer process for the SACD releases. Also the SACD notes do state " DSD flat transferred from the UK original master tapes". So, are Universal lying? They usually are very clear on the source of these releases as they market these for the audiophile market. Also they must have used different tapes as the bonus tracks have never existed on a previous CD release that I know of. Can anyone clarify what the source of the SACD's are?

 

IIRC, the frequency response of the SACDs extended past 22kHz, indicating an analog master. I'm going from memory so I would have to check again to be sure.
Plus, the first two albums are from 1978 and 1979, a bit early for digital. Maybe EJ is confused between SHM-CD releases.

And how could anyone take seriously anything "toilet_doctor" wrote is beyond me.

 

I don't know if EJ was implying that the original digital transfer was done at 16bits, but if the SACD's indicate above 22 kHz response then they must be from a different source.

I don't know who toilet_doctor is. His, how can I say "expressive" use of language made me think maybe he has insider info! I am being naive maybe!

 

If Universal is lying about sources used for their SHM-SACD releases, then I'm done with them. I wish we had more information about this.

There are a few self proclaimed "experts" "insiders" on this forum. They are usually full of it. I think they just need the attention.

 

I only have 2014 non-Pt SHM-CDs of U.K. & Danger Money (stemmed from the same respective DSD masters as 2014 SHM-SACDs of these albums). Here are the waveforms & spectrograms of 2 tracks (1 from each non-Pt SHM CD). They sure don't look like they have been taken from a 44 kHz LPCM transfers to me:

08 - Mental Medication
- Waveform:


- Spectrogram:



01 - Danger Money
- Waveform:


- Spectrogram:

 

Universal Japan have in the past been fairly rigorous in stating their sources for their SHM-SACD releases. I did think for the UK rereleases they weren't as detailed on who did the transfers as they usually are. But stating a DSD transfer from original master tapes is fairly conclusive as to what the sources should be. If EJ is stating that is not the case, then something isn't right!

 

I don't have a cite or a link – it really isn't that important – but despite the way the cover art is presented, I remember the intent was that the band name was Zinc, and the album title was The Green Album. But the sloppy execution set itself up for alternate future identification.

 

No kidding. This IS important.

I bought the SHM CDs, the first SHM-anything I ever bought. Never wanted to pay that kind of premium for a microscopic sonic improvement. I'll be happy to never buy another SHM.

That said, to my ears there was a noticeable improvement in Danger Money. Discernibly smoother in the mids-highs; my original EG is a screecher. (Forget what the vinyl was like, long gone.)

Couldn't tell any difference at al in the UK s/t.

Glad I skipped SHM Zinc.

Looking forward to see what Eddie dials up.

 

Yes they do.... For any CD, you would expect to see frequency content in a spectrogram to reach 22khz. These spectrograms tell us nothing at all about the source. However the waveforms show that there was very little or possibly no compression used.

 

We need someone with the SACDs to do the spectrograms. I have the disks, but I don't have the software/knowhow to do the graphs.

As to how I think the SACDs sound, compared to the original EG CDs the SACDs have more breathing room in the soundstage, and the high frequencies sound more natural. The difference is not night and day by any means, but I'm glad I bought the SACDs. They are an improvement no matter what their origin.

 

I love the sound of UK SHM-SACDs. Most satisfying. Can't tell what is the source though.

 

We agree to disagree...

 

You're disagreeing that a 44khz LPCM file should show frequency content up to 22khz?! Ok then... I feel no need to argue about it

 

Toilet doctor is just a member here! He has no inside information and does not work for Universal Japan! Take his views with a grain of salt!