Ultimate HQCD (UHQCD) - new CD format, King Crimson on UHQCD and more

Wouldn't it be more likely that lower end cd players would be the ones that failed to correctly read standard cds but could read these?

Or is the point that the difference is so subtle that high end equipment is needed to detect it?

 

I don't have "normal" regular system to compare, only computer based one with cheap built-in blu-ray player and car audio. I'm going to give my friend to try both versions - he has reg and hi-end.

 

So, just to confirm here -- these are the same masterings being compared, standard CD vs. UHQCD?

 

(from my post #1305 at the Pt thread):
"Polish guys, who compared different KC releases marked: "The Platinum SHM-CD versions were better each time." ...and came to conclusion: "Should you buy Platinum SHM-CD 7'' version? - Janusz says that it is beyond discussion, and so says Wiciu, and I happen to agree with them – each of us already has all three boxes and look forward to next releases." And they are technical engineers, not toilet doctors. They recommended to buy selected Pt CDs for those who already have back issues, but it can never happen."

Please read their comparison tests for now, but tomorrow I will provide much more...
High Fidelity »

 

Hi Endymion, it's been a long time...
I thought you did a comparison test...
But thank you for your contribution to the thread anyway.

 

Yes, it a New Nov. 2015 Recording, do not even need to be remastered - best of the best for comparison test.

 

For an audiophile forum that focuses on minor details in sound this is an interesting comment to make. I expect you listen to one before posting your comment?

 

Which title did you compare with the regular cd? Or you just post this kind of comments for fun?

 

You will buy this too, but it could be too late...

 

I'll pass.

 

It could be mistakes in translation.
"Crystal Disc" they probably meant 'stamper' disc made of glass (?)

 

It may not... Please correct me, if I'm wrong, I thought 43-47 dB is kind of normal listening level for the music.
You may like one more KC review of mine Pt vs non-Pt with the same mastering and mixing:
Please read Post #1287 at Pt thread:
Platinum SHM-CDs launched! (Disc 3) »

 

There's always the -element in discussions like these. The 'converted' one reports audible improvement, the non-believer takes out his 'snake-oil'-argument. And the latter won't buy the new format because, well, it's snake oil. And in 'audio-world' there's often the tendency to spend a lot of money on new, more expensive formats with loads of text, limited numbered issues and the chance it does have a placebo-effect. ("My ears don't lie!"-Oh yes, they do).
I'm interested in sound improvement in cd's, but even at the greatest layer- and surface-treatment theoretically a ripped cd at 16 bit and 44,100 sample-rate played on a good DAC would give the best results because you can bypass all the (eventual) physical shortcomings of the physical media?

 

How can you even seriously discuss all this HQCD and platinum nonsense? If somebody is worried that normal CDs are not read correctly by CD players he should just rip them and listen to them with a great DAC. No need for shiny snake oil discs in limited editions.

 

I'm not worried, because my player has this "great DAC" with upsampling rate 96, 192, 384, 512 and 768 kHz. That's why I can discuss this not HQCD, but already UHQ (Ultimate HQ)CD "nonsense". (And it is a whole point of this tread). I don't understand why do I need manipulate data by ripping it off from CD and losing some of it on this way?

 

In the end everything depends on the physical media anyway, whether it is Disc or File player or Separates - Hi-End provides better quality of them to squeeze the best from the disc or file.

I am "converted" because I dared to try. And I tried in the system, which can "feel the benefits" (10cc).
"Non-believers with snake-oil arguments" are those who have never tried. It is much cheaper and much comfy to reject than verify.

 

I don't need to. Marketing at its best

 

For those who are unfamiliar with Pt (from my archive):

"First test: Sticky Fingers.
Audio system: Naim cd5x/flatcap2x cdplayer, Audio Research ls2 preamp, Mark Levinson n29 Amp and Tannoy Prestige Stirling TW Speakers. Signal cables Magrigal Gel, Power cables YBA Diamond.
Well...firstly, Pt and non pt don't sound the same. Is not an opinion, it is a certainty. But what are the difference? I found differences where I thought.... The files are identical....so...they are tonally identical, same dynamic, same level. The differences are on focus, on details and , above all, soundstage. The Platinum sounds more detailed, there is more separation and more "air" between instruments. As I said, the soundstage is more three-dimensional, more deep. There are some differences on vocals. Mick Jagger's voice is more natural and clear, while in the non platinum is a little blurred. Cymbals are more metallic and real in the Platinum, while in the non pt are little confused. This does not mean that the non platinum is not good, but this means that the platinum has a better presentation of sound message.

I did a test with my son non hi end audio system (Teac CD 3, Pioneer integrated amplifier and LS1 Rogers speakers)... and the differences disappeared!
In conclusion....I can safely say the the platinum is the best (or a possible choice) for hi end system owners, that can to appreciate the nuances in sound and the Platinum soundstage difference. The regular shm, however, sound excellent. So....finally....if you want the best possible version of Sticky Fingers, and you have a really good stereo system, get the Platinum, otherwise you can get without remorse the non pt. You will not be disappointed!" -- redfox62,Nov 28, 2013#60

Second test Platinum Vs non Platinum: Blind Faith, Layla
"All observations regarding Sticky Fingers pt/non pt test can be retrieved here. Same differences on focus, details and soundstage. Either sound great. Same considerations as above for the choice between the two options." -- redfox62,Nov 29, 2013#71

-Did you do a blind test?
-Yes I did. I have just posted the conclusions but I was not alone. Tests were blinded, and all people here reported the same impressions.

"...original LPs were good but not very dynamic.....You must try it! If you don't try....every talk is just a speculation or a supposition." -- redfox62,Nov 30, 2013#95

Here is my own test of Aja (concise version):

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. Overall sound was good, better than any regular CD. Then, I compared them in two different systems of two Hi-End Audio stores. (for full review see Platinum SHM-CDs launched! Page 24, # 579)
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)
Speaker Cables: Analysis Plus Oval 8 (bi-wired)
Interconnect Cables: Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II

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.
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. Sound is more airy, more immediate and more clear.

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. 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 red book CD.

After all I came to conclusion:
In reg. mass market systems Pt and non-Pt CD sound the same.
In Hi-End systems Platinum reflective coating does sound better vs. non-Platinum version. How better, depends on equipment and system configuration. The more refined and well balanced system is, the more it will benefit from Pt surface.

I'll tell more: Platinum CD is like indicator, if in your Hi-End system Pt CD sounds bright and edgy, your system is not in a balance. More likely, your system is underpowered - the amp doesn't have enough power for your speakers.

For mid-fi systems, especially, when is some mix of hi-fi and reg. components, you have to spend a few bucks on two versions to compare by yourself. (Oct. 2013)


Our very first test Pt vs. non-Pt:

"I did indeed receive my order yesterday. I sat down last night intending to audition only the new Platinum SHM against the non-Platinum SHM -- both, according to CDJapan's website, featuring "HR cutting from the DSD master which was newly flat transferred from US original analogue master tapes in 2013." And I sat down last evening and did just that. I initially compared these two side by side.

However, in order to try and gain some further perspective, I also retrieved my existing SHM-SACD and added that to the mix. This, only after dedicating myself to the endeavor at hand: Platinum versus non-Platinum. And that's where I will begin.

To let the cat out of the bag a bit, let me say that the two new discs sound very nice. I'm sure they are, per a previous inquiry, identical "files." The only thing I really want to say by way of conclusion is that the Platinum did sound noticeably better to me. I'm confident I would have passed a blindfold test between these two. The Platinum simply seemed richer and more flavorful. It offered more dynamic impact.

For dedicated listening -- by that I mean when you are dedicated to sitting in your listening environment and doing basically nothing but listening -- the Platinum offered a more engaging listening experience. But otherwise, I have not much to say about it. I mean, they are otherwise identical to my ears. I wasn't hearing anything in the "tonality" or frequency range that favored one over the other. But the Platinum came across as richer, more dynamic, more engaging, more special. For issues where there is no SHM-SACD counterpart, yes, I would say the Platinum is worth the extra $10 -- to me. Which leads me to my extended evaluation.

As I say, I also reached for my SHM-SACD and gave that a run as well. The SHM-SACD, we shall recall, was done from 2008 master tapes. Much has been noted that it was the same master tape at the MoFi hybrid. I previously compared the existing SHM-SACD against the existing MoFi and felt, with the exception of one tune, the last tune on the album, the SHM-SACD bests the MoFi. I sold my MoFi. But, how do the new issues compare against the SHM-SACD? No contest. The SHM-SACD blows away the new issues.

Interestingly, the SHM-SACD was done at a higher base level in volume. I had to adjust the volume down on the SHM-SACD to achieve something like apples to apples. Hmm. I might have thought, if anything it would have been the other way around. No matter. I simply adjusted the volume a bit.

In conclusion, I would say that I will be looking to add Platinum SHM CDs to my collection of only such titles as are not available as SHM-SACDs. While the non-Platinum was fine -- nothing wrong with it -- it was not as engaging as the Platinum version. That's part of what I wanted to discover for myself. Moreover, I wanted to discover if the new 2013 masterings, coupled with the Platinum process, might even best the existing SHM-SACDs. In my opinion, based only on this one recording, the answer is a resounding no. The SHM-SACD was several notches, head and shoulders, above the Platinum SHM CD. The SHM-SACD remains far and away more engaging, more holographic (spacial, three-dimensional), and with much greater dynamics. It has weight. It has balls.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not that I have an axe to grind, a horse in the race, a reason to favor one version over another. I currently own all three versions, and would have been delighted if, when considering future selections, the non-Platinum came out as king of the hill. Or even if the Platinum SHM had done so. They did not. Not even close. 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 a six, the Platinum a seven and one-half, and the SHM-SACD a ten. That's about the size of it to me. That's the way the cards fell.

Oh, by the way, I had meant to mention that I did this comparison both last night and again this morning before committing my thoughts to this correspondence. I made some mental notes last night. Yet, I was curious what "fresh" ears might reveal or discover in the morning. Moreover, I recalled that some believe these green discs need to be played ("read") a couple of times (just some speculation I recalled from previous threads) in order to sound their best. So I did that. I played them a couple of times to address that perceived obstacle.

If you're curious, I too have had that experience. Whether it's the actual discs or our neurology, our perception of them, that's improved by "greasing the disc" I have no idea. But to reveal a bias, I fall into this camp. I believe one has to play these green discs a couple times to really get deeper into them and what they are revealing.

At any rate, this morning's dedicated listening session only confirmed my initial impressions from last evening. The non-Platinum CD sounds great. The Platinum sounds even better. The SHM-SACD blows them away." -- MisterBritt (Oct 17, 2013)

 

Instead of paying thousands of dollars on voodoo-hifi I recommend reading a book about cognitive biases. It would open up some people's eyes here. Or maybe not.

 

60 - 65 dB is a conversational voice heard from three feet away

80 - 85 dB is a string quartet unamplified in a small auditorium

Rock concerts are almost always over 100 dB

 

I hope anyone could understand with both parts of his brain that it is a New Recording and thus do not need "new improved remastering" at all.

As for "Digital is digital is digital":

"I know most talk of these CDs has been about the rock releases however I would like to share my experience of the Pt version of Mravinksy Tchaikovsky Symphony No.6. I compared it against a 1960s vinyl UK pressing, 1970s UK pressing and the recent DGG CD release.

Like some others here I found that the Pt version has the most unbelievable detail and dynamics. It's hard to explain but though the DGG CD version is actually pretty good when you close your eyes and really listen it's a bit like the music is contained in a wide narrow box. The Pt version on the other hand has the same width but far more height and depth. The music seems to move effortlessly around the space at times breaking out of the edges. The 1960s vinyl is similar but it lacks the detail. Even my wife who is not a seasoned listener was amazed at the quality of the sound of the Pt as soon as I put it on. She usually complains incessantly about the harsh metallic sound of most standard CDs.

I don't have a massively expensive hifi but the Pt CD made my audio system sound very special. Hence I ordered a load more titles! They are expensive but you never know they could be as good an investment as the Classic Records 24ct Gold CDs which now sell upwards of £200 a title." -- Irwin69 (Dec. 3, 2013)

 

MQA is likely more snake oil. That doesn't really bolster your argument.

 

That's fine, and I wasn't saying it needed a new remastering, I was simply stating that with digital there is no such thing as a better sounding delivery format, given an identical master source.

The same bits on a redbook CD, a UHQCD, a USB stick, a solid state drive, a platter hard drive, a memory card, flac streaming over wifi, etc, etc, etc, as long as they are all the same 44.1kHz/16bit master, will all sound **identical** on the same playback system.

There is no way the same master file played back on the same system via a UHQCD will sound any different than a CD, flac file, USB stick, etc. Not even 0.000001% of a difference. That is the beauty of digital. It is black and white. It is on or off. It is identical. Your playback system will see the data from the UHQCD exactly the same way it would see the data from a flac stream, or redbook CD, etc.

This isn't even an argument, it is a fact.

Now playback systems will vary. The DAC in a high-end CD player deck could be better than the DAC in a low-cost computer, and that would result in a different playback quality from the same master source... but that's not what we're saying here. We're saying the same digital master played back from two different delivery methods on the same system will play back identically.

 

Thank you, but I preferred The Complete Guide to High-End Audio by Robert Harley. There is already 5th edition of the book and thousands people use it for their "voodoo-hifi", spending their money to enjoy the Music in full blow. So do I.

However, as a toilet doctor, I understand that it's easier for you to live, naming Hi-End gear "voodoo-hifi", Platinum UHQ CDs snake-oil and on... I have to invite guys like you to my toilet doctors session. It will be new life for you after all. "Or may be not."