Where is the magic in a SHM disk?

A writ is on it's way from Russ Andrews labs.

 

If that information is scientific then I am Santa Claus.

Anything scientific must be repeatable and measurable.

 

I am still not convinced that SHM provides any sound improvement.

 

View attachment 209462
This graph suggests to me that for SHM, there is a near linear correlation coefficient
between volume, clarity and resolution. Hmmmm....
Our host wouldn't agree with that (Assuming I am interpreting the graph correctly).

 

No, it's a marketing chart. Presumably they took scientific measurements and dumbed them down to make the "spider diagram". I hate spider diagrams. Sure, they're simple enough, but they don't really tell you anything. What does a '3' mean? Is the difference between a '4' and a '3' significant? What test methods were used? What's the standard deviation?

 

Hi Mal,

Trust your ears a bit more, my friend.
Based on my experience since the first CD I mastered in 1983 and the fact that decades (and all sorts of transports and players) later, I have yet to encounter a single exception - and based on conversations with many other mastering engineers; folks who also make these comparisons day after day, year after year and who have all told me they hear the same thing, as do many of our clients, I am convinced this phenomenon is real.

There have been many times (with pressings from typical plants) where no A/B (blind or otherwise) is even needed. Having lived with an album for while, hearing it over and over and over again and going into it in the minutest detail during the mastering, its sound can get into one's memory quite enough that the obvious losses of focus and fine detail engendered by most CD pressings comes to the fore at the first listen to said pressing.
This is much more easily experienced than explained with words.

In the SHM jazz sampler I spoke of, the difference in sonics was well beyond any I have encountered with different pressings before (and I've already said I have found many of those to be quite obvious). I would have sworn I was listening to different EQ, such were the discrepancies between the sound of the trumpet, piano and cymbals audible in the first seconds of the disc. I was quite surprised to find, after extraction to hard disk, the source for both discs was one and the same.

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

 

I have Yngwie Malmsteen - Rising Force Mini LP CD, both regular and SHM. The same mastering from 2007. As soon as Black Star starts you can tell the SHM from the other. The drums, bass, and guitar all have a sparkle to them the non-SHM does not have. It is very clear the SHM material is not snake oil. I don't like it personally, because the sparkle sounds artificial compared to the original CD, but it does exist.

 

There is no scientific evidence to support your claims, either in this thread or your link - just anecdotal evidence. This doesn't mean your conclusions are necessarily wrong but your confidence in them is too high based on the available evidence, in my opinion.

I certainly agree that one's impression can be that there is an audible difference between bit-identical discs played on an optical disc transport based system. However, I am also aware of just how susceptible we are to unconscious bias in making such judgements. While I am happy to accept that such findings may indeed be due to real differences in the playack between bit-identical discs, unlike you I won't be convinced that the phenomenon is real until properly conducted blind tests are performed using the full rigour of the scientific method.

Anyone know if any such tests have been carried out?

 

As with all magic, it's an illusion--slight of hand, i.e., it's not real.

 

The whole country of Japan fooled by magic, and all of you who buy SHM-SACD.

 

SHM= Silly Hogwash Material

 

I was going to get Wingers first two albums on shm cd and I still might do that. They state on the package they are 96/24 remastered and those first 2 albums sound good as they are. I would like to hear them on these shm discs

 

I buy SHM-SACDs because they're SACDs. I don't buy SHM-CDs since there are plenty of options for great-sounding CDs in most cases.

 

Some High Markup....

 

Great thread

A few months ago I bought Led Zeppelin's SHM version of Presence and compared it to the regular Japanese Mini Lp version (both as WPCR 13137).

The SHM version sounds a LITTLE different from the regular one...in my ears. My words about that is: SHM = more definition in sound.

Which one do I prefer?? Hard to say but I'm glad I have both to listen to.


Tx

P.S: Am I the only one who is grateful to have M.Barry Diament discussing with us in this forum?

 

Just read a comment from an article in the January Stereophile where the writer and owner of Acoustic Sounds commented on single layer SACD costing $60 not being worth it. The only $60 single layer SACD I see on the site are the SHM. now of course that doesn't make comment as to the quality of the audio or the effectiveness of the material but it seems a strange comment from a core source of these titles.

 

Right. That is what I have found, also. You summed it up pretty well, and I am also glad Mr. Diament is on here with us. I have some great sounding Zeppelin CDs.

 

I don't think they're fooled by the SACD just the SHM portion of it. SACD would improve the sound compared to a regular CD so that's where the difference would be there.

As for gimmicks, well entire nations have been fooled with less...

I'll never say never but I haven't noticed a signficant difference maybe it's my ears...maybe it's not.

 

Great post, thanks for the explanation. Having not heard a SHM-CD, I was willing to believe it was just marketing, but I see that could be wrong. Are these samplers still available anywhere (that have 2 discs to compare)? I'd love to try this myself.

 

Can you tell me how much optical quality is needed to track the pits correctly, as a baseline vs. the SHM-CD material? Attributes such as transmittance/transparecy, birefringence?

i.e. if one could make it "perfect", what would the attributes be? 101%?

Philips made prototype discs (not disks) out of glass in 1982....

the Chinese have a name for this: booshi.

 

G'day,

So ... if I understand Barry Diament's posts correctly ... assuming identical mastering and for a given transport, the SHM-CD may sound better than a normal CD (depending on the quality control of the pressing plant); but once both have been ripped accurately to a file, those files should sound identical when played back through the same DAC. (Left unsaid is how the playback of the file through the DAC compares to the playback of the SHM-CD through the transport).

It would follow that given I rip my CDs to FLAC and always play back the FLAC, then there's no advantage in my purchasing an SHM-CD over the normal CD (again assuming identical mastering).

--Geoff

 

Some circles have claimed playing a FLAC file colors the sound output differently than playing straight off the PCM file.

 

I can't help you with all that. I just know that SHM sounds different, and for me not for the better.

 

I don't rip anything but farts.