Where is the magic in a SHM disk?

Hi David,

I don't really see anything "controversial" myself because like you, I don't listen to data. It would seem the retrieval of data (and its conversion) from a spinning disc in a transport or player - all done in what is essentially real time - produces quite different results from offline, multiple reads of the disc to get it into a computer and playback from the latter.

In my experience, pressing differences only come into play with transports and players - which is still how most folks listen - and not at all with proper extraction to a computer based music server (where we're closer to the data and don't have to demodulate 8:14 encoding, worry about tracking, perform CD error correction, all while converting to analog).

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

 

Like the CD plant DanDisc in Denmark in the early 90's. They produced all music CDs up CD-Rom standards (less error toletated in disc production)All music CDs from this plant had an analogue, grain-free sound.

 

What I don't buy, is that the SHM material makes any difference good or bad.

I have a lot of experience in the LCD materials world and guess what, the standard polycarbonate material Makrolon from Bayer that the CD standard was based on and its competing equivalents from the world's chemical companies like DuPont, Mitsubishi Chemical, Dow/Styron, Teijin, etc. has 99%+ transparency to start with. Birefringence is well below the level of significance. This was in 1982.

In addition, with the advent of DVD, now Blu-Ray, improvements in the polycarbonate materials along the way to taking a non-factor in disc coherence to making it primarily about manufacturing yields.

Which means it is effectively clear. Near the clarity of high purity glass used in much smaller feature semiconductor manufacturing. So an "improved" material is going to be at best near zero to zero improvement on lab bench, which is much more analysis than any optical drive can do.

Victor-JVC and Universal Japan also don't own a chemical plant to make this stuff, they get it from the above companies. Just like anyone else can.

If there anything different about a SHM disc that would noticeable would be either the glass master or the mastering itself.

If Victor-JVC is pressing all these SHM CDs (and surprise! they aren't!) one could compare the matricies to see if the same glass masters are used vs. standard CDs from the same plants.

 

That's what she said...

 

I have the SHM-SACD rock sampler that also has a regular SACD and a SHM version. I prefer the regular version as well. I went back to it a couple of times but the non-SHM tone is better to these ears on my equipment.

 

In the SHM CDs that I've compared to their identical-mastering non-SHM CD counterparts (various Rolling Stones, Who and Hendrix titles), I hear no difference.

To answer the OP's question, the 'magic' is in Universal/JVC's marketing department.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Barry

If these findings are real (ie, scientifically repeatable), then the only explanation can be limitations in transport design.

I used to find that bit-identical pressings appeared to sound different (both CD vs CD and CD vs CD-R) on a CD player but I wasn't doing blind tests and concluded that I was probaby just imagining the differences.

Either way, moving over to streaming music with the Squeezebox means this is no longer an issue for me.

While this may be true, it should be noted that the files on a CD-Rom have more in the way of built-in error correction than the audio files on a Compact Disc.

 

I don't know. Of the CDs where I have both versions with the same mastering (Def Leppard - High 'n' Dry is one), I do feel the SHM has added clarity and presence, but it sounds unnatural compared to the regular disc. It has to be the material that is "adding" (maybe not the right word) the sound difference. Just my observation from owning multiple commercial CDs, regular and SHM with the same mastering. I have never heard one of those samplers.

 

I think there is a tiny difference if you compare identical masterings, but I think the SHM sounds worse on some CD players, not better. Ripping to hard drive and then burning a cdr obviously solves this if such is the case. Other CD players seem to react differently to the material so people's experiences are probably different.

I think the main difference has to do with "normalizing", which the SHM's material somehow does with low volume information, at least accoriding to the "pitch". Is this a good thing?
http://shm-cd.co-site.jp/about/about_e.html

 

Adding eq. to bring up/out signals will only ruin the balance of the original recording especially when it's done with a digital work station via single or multi-band compression.

Am I to understand you prefer a non-natural sounding CD/mastering or am I misunderstanding Gerry?

 

shm's seem to have been more popular than SACD's... go figure... never underestimate the power of marketing of the reality of quality...

 

I think the SHM material makes CDs sound unnatural compared to the regular disc. Maybe it improves it, and I just don't like the way it is improved. SHM sounds too perfect, and like the other post said, it normalizes the sound. I can't believe you guys would like that compared to the natural way a CDs sounds with natural CD material that we all know.

 

Hanging up the 911 call, thanks Gerry.

I haven't heard many but from the few I've heard, they left me wanting my original because it sounds better.

 

I have a CD-R made from the SHM-CD rock sampler disc. The CD-R doesn't sound the same and is a bit duller. This is a good thing, though, because the extra "sparkle" of the SHM-CD accentuates the poor mastering. I have also had regular SACDs and have prefered the redbook layer because the high resolution of the SACD accentuates the "moderness" of the mastering.


I did send the SHM-CD sampler and CD-R (three discs: SHM-CD, CD, CD-R) to a member who rips his music and plays it wireless. I have PM'd him to double check his results. IIRC, it was the CD data which sounded different.

The wirless option does not appeal to me. If I like the sound of disc A over disc B and then I rip them, which sound (or soundstage -- forward, laid back, etc.) will I get? A, B, or something different? Maybe I'll get what was on the master, but if it doesn't sound as good as the one I like, it is useless -- I woud not get the one I like 100%* of the time. I like the option of fine tuning with pressing differences.


*How do I know I won't get what I want 100% of the time? I used to A/B things with Dave and there were times when we didn't agree on a disc because we both prefered a different soundstage (personal taste). If the music was ripped, I know one of us would not be happy with the results since it can't be two things at once (being digital it can only be one thing ).

 

I don't really have an opinion on SHM-CDs (I only listen from my hard drive), but is this supposed to be a scientific chart?



JVC internal tests have proven the range of "Clearness" is on level 5 for SHM-CDs, as opposed to level 3 on standard CDs? The "Balance of Sound Quality" is on level 4 for SHM-CDs and only on level 3 for CDs?

I wonder how you measure these values in order to put them in a diagram.

 

I don't know, but that appears to be what causes the difference in sound that I hear from SHM. For me, it is case closed. SHM is real, and makes a difference in the way the music is presented to the listener, but I personally do not like that difference. Back to my standard redbook CDs.

 

What were they thinking?? They should have just kept everything improved by one unit and then they'd have been on to something. I mean, who wants to listen to an irregular pentagon?

 

Where are the SHM-CD-Rs?

 

And, we're back to my "clearer" equals loudness theory. And...marketing.

 

Hi Gerry,

Direct comparison with the CD master will show the SHM isn't adding anything and that the CD pressing is actually losing something.
(Also, if you extract both to computer hard disk, you'll find the CD now sounds like the SHM.)

As to which any given listener might prefer, I can't say.

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

 

Oooh! It must be real! There's a graph!

 

It's one louder.

Literally.

 

I really think it is bad for this forum that totally unfounded opinions turn into facts and remain unchallenged just for the sake of good manners.
I see the holy ghost with SHM CDs but not with standard CDs. It's a FACT.

 

This is not an opinion. This is the scientific reason that SHM differs in sound compared to regular CD material. Manners or not, if people do not want to look at the scientific facts that is their choice.

http://shm-cd.co-site.jp/about/about_e.html