Are SHM releases necessarily better than the original CD ?

[chriss71]

Please, Robert, you can call me a**hole, or whatever...

 

Once again the Question, proof for you answer:

Right. SHM will make a difference on the exact same master.

[chriss71]

I hope Chis leaves this in the board...

 

OK, once again, who believes that the same mastering sounds different on an SHM Disc?

I am interesting in a conversion... BUT can we here discuss science not believe....

[Robert Hutton]

I hope Chis leaves this in the board...

 

OK, once again, who believes that the same mastering sounds different on an SHM Disc?

I am interesting in a conversion... BUT can we here discuss science not believe....

 

Well Chris, to quote your friend Barry in this very thread:

 

"In my experience, when the same master is used to create both, if they are played in a CD player or CD transport (*any* player or transport), the SHM disc comes back sounding significantly more like the master than the CD disc does."

 

Don't now give me this B.S. about "english not so good". You seem to blow out of both sides of your mouth quite often and use that excuse as it suits you.

 

Obviously Barry finds that the same mastering sounds better on an SHM disc, as I do.

[jazzy1]

Well Chris, to quote your friend Barry in this very thread:

 

"In my experience, when the same master is used to create both, if they are played in a CD player or CD transport (*any* player or transport), the SHM disc comes back sounding significantly more like the master than the CD disc does."

.

 

So the digital output of the identically mastered and bit-identical CDs is different for SHM CDs than regular CDs, on all players?

 

Why? Regular CDs are inherently flawed, even if they are within specifications? And even the best player out there can't properly read the discs?

[sandyk]

So the digital output of the identically mastered and bit-identical CDs is different for SHM CDs than regular CDs, on all players?

 

Why? Regular CDs are inherently flawed, even if they are within specifications? And even the best player out there can't properly read the discs?

 

Jazzy1

 

I only have experience with BluSpec comparison set discs, but they also have improved polymer formulations, and the BluSpec

version sounds better than the RB CD version, BUT the higher the quality of the CD player, the less obvious the difference is. Binary comparisons report that they have identical check sums after being ripped to a HD, and that is with players where the error correction is working properly. Recently I made 2 sets of 2 comparison CDs with identical content. One was on a normal type CD-R, the other was on a MAM Gold CD-R which are considerably more expensive. When both sets were ripped to HDD using E.A.C. , in order to verify that the check sums were still the same as with the source files , the MAM Gold CD-Rs were ripped at several times the speed of the normal CD-Rs. That effect is quite repeatable too.

Alex

[Julf]

Why? Regular CDs are inherently flawed, even if they are within specifications? And even the best player out there can't properly read the discs?

 

But I am sure that can be fixed with a green marker pen

 

Now, to make it more interesting, if the source material is identically mastered and is bit-identical, which one sounds the best - a standard CD, a SHM CD or a standard CD with the edges treated with a green marker pen? Oh, choices, choices, choices...

[Julf]

would you say this outweighs the improvement from sourcing a disk made from a better master?

no !!!

 

So you are saying that the media is more important than the contents?

[sandyk]

My guess would be that the mastering is the more important - some of the 90s and 2000 re-mastered CDs I've bought have been pretty poor, even on my relatively modest system.-Souptin

 

I was agreeing with Souptin. But I feel sure that you already knew that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com/

[Julf]

I was agreeing with Souptin. But I feel sure that you already knew that.

 

OK, just wanted to clarify that - the problem is that the "no !!!" could be read literally, or as irony - hard to read the tone in plain text. Thanks for the clarification.

[souptin]

I understood what sandyk meant

 

Incidentally, for those interested in getting more information about the original mastering of music they intend to buy, I found a website called discogs that catalogues this info. Can't vouch for it's accuracy or completeness, but it goes into some detail and so far I've found information on everything I've searched for:

http://www.discogs.com

 

fwiw I haven't found any research that goes into more objective detail about SHM, but since I'm personally happy with the answers given in this topic I'm not motivated to look too hard. I'm sure that the different process by which a CDP reads discs, as opposed to a CD drive ripping them, has already been discussed somewhere on CA.

 

Agree with Julf that it's not always easy to understand tone of voice from plain text. Some of the replies right here almost look like the writer is trying to pick a fight rather than seeking more information, and I'm sure that's not the case. Better add a smiley

[Jud]

I hope Chis leaves this in the board...

 

OK, once again, who believes that the same mastering sounds different on an SHM Disc?

I am interesting in a conversion... BUT can we here discuss science not believe....

 

Julf hinted at an answer with his "green marker pen" remark.

 

A way in which the same digits can sound different is if there is greater jitter in one bitstream than another. Same digits, but less good timing in one stream. If the SHM-CDs are more easily readable by the CD mechanism, it is possible the bitstream coming from them would have less jitter.

 

This also would be a potential explanation as to why there would be less difference in better CD players, where the reading mechanism might be more efficient at reading CDs that are less easily read by players that aren't as good.

 

(Julf's reference to green marker pen involves the apparently absurd premise that green marker pen on the outside edge of CDs changed the sound. Proponents thought the sound was improved. Keith Johnson demonstrated that the green pen actually increased jitter and made the sound worse by making it more difficult for the player to read CDs treated in this way. So the sound was in fact different, but not in the way proponents claimed/hoped.)

[chriss71]

OK, Boys, here are the facts:

 

Bit-identical files sounds always the same (and it doesn't matter on which media). Pure digital facts... No more, no less...

 

About Jitter: Not in the playback domain, because you have the data buffered. How should I explain it: Imagine there is a bus where 20 People goes into it. The Busdriver waits for exactly 20 People and then he begins to drive. The same is on the playback system on a digital domain. The DAC get's always the same bits because of buffering.

 

We are here not on a Voodoo Thread, it's just simple digital physics....

[Julf]

While I agree with your sentiment, I have to pick a few nits.

 

Bit-identical files sounds always the same (and it doesn't matter on which media). Pure digital facts... No more, no less...

 

Yes, if they are really bit-identical. But if they have to be processed in some way (such as unpacked from FLAC format), there is a theoretical possibility that that processing causes some kind of audible artefacts - but I won't accept claims of the differences really being audible in real life without seeing some solid evidence.

 

About Jitter: Not in the playback domain, because you have the data buffered. How should I explain it: Imagine there is a bus where 20 People goes into it. The Busdriver waits for exactly 20 People and then he begins to drive. The same is on the playback system on a digital domain. The DAC get's always the same bits because of buffering.

 

That is true for a system where the output clock is independent of the input clock on a sample-to-sample level. The problem is what to do if there is a connecting bus - does it leave on time, even if the incoming bus hasn't arrived, or do you wait for the incoming bus? Somehow the input stream has to be synchronized to the output stream. No problem with async USB, where the DAC can tell the source "OK, I am now ready for more", but a slightly more significant issue with older connection mechanisms that lack a synchronizing mechanism. The "easy" solutions are to derive the output clock from the input clock (usually with a phase-locked loop), or to have a "large enough" buffer and accept that you might get an occasional under- or overflow.

[chriss71]

@Julf: Sorry for being not so detailed as you, but you are correct. But I think we all here have Async DAC's, so jitter should not be a problem.

[Julf]

But I think we all here have Async DAC's, so jitter should not be a problem.

 

I agree.

[souptin]

OK, Boys, here are the facts:

 

Yes but...

 

One more fact for you to consider: This topic has been about playback of SHM CDs in a CD player, as well as ripping them to disk and playback via computer. I was under the impression that these are not the exact same process, except maybe in the case of a very few CD players.

 

I don't think Voodoo has been discussed yet as a useful CD tweak. Do you bury your CDs for a week, say the prayers and wait for the zombie disks to rise, or just buy a blank cd and stick pins in it?

[bdiament]

Hi Chris,

 

OK, Boys, here are the facts:

 

Bit-identical files sounds always the same (and it doesn't matter on which media). Pure digital facts... No more, no less...

 

About Jitter: Not in the playback domain, because you have the data buffered. How should I explain it: Imagine there is a bus where 20 People goes into it. The Busdriver waits for exactly 20 People and then he begins to drive. The same is on the playback system on a digital domain. The DAC get's always the same bits because of buffering.

 

We are here not on a Voodoo Thread, it's just simple digital physics....

 

What you are describing is the *theory*.

As Yogi Berra once said "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." ;-}

 

I have heard differences between Blue Spec, HQCD and SHM discs when compared directly against their plain CD counterparts created from the exact same master. In one such comparison, which I've written about elsewhere, my listening made me *sure* I was hearing two different masterings, so different was the tonality of the instruments.

 

I was confident I was hearing different *EQ* and to "prove" it, I extracted both versions to my hard drive. I brought them both into one of my mastering applications and synchronized them to the sample. Then I flipped the polarity of one of the files and looked at the result of mixing the two together. This, as you may recognize, is what is called a "null test". All that remains is what is different between the files -- everything they have in common is cancelled (or "nulled").

 

Note, there can be no false positives on a null test. (False negatives are easy to achieve if the synchronization is not precise.)

 

The results? Absolutely dead silence. The extracted files, which sounded so very different via my transport, proved to be exactly the same, to the sample. When listened to via the computer, both had the "better" sound, i.e. they sounded the same. But when listened to via the transport, feeding the same DAC, I was *sure* the EQ was different and they were done by different engineers!

 

So, for me, it goes back to what Yogi said. When theory and my empirical experience different consistently and repeatably, I'm going to seek out another theory. (I have been saying for years that I will not be at all surprised when other, new quantifiable phenomena are discovered with digital audio.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

Hi Chriss,

 

...so jitter should not be a problem.

 

If I've learned anything over the years, particularly about audio (but also about life) is it that "should" and "is" are very often different things.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Julf]

I don't think Voodoo has been discussed yet as a useful CD tweak. Do you bury your CDs for a week, say the prayers and wait for the zombie disks to rise, or just buy a blank cd and stick pins in it?

 

I usually make a black vinyl copy of my CD, and push a needle on it...

[Jud]

@Julf: Sorry for being not so detailed as you, but you are correct. But I think we all here have Async DAC's, so jitter should not be a problem.

 

My CD player doesn't have USB output to be sent to my DAC's async USB input, and the DAC's SPDIF input is not async. Only with at least one of these in the setup will clocking of data out of the DAC's buffer be asynchronous to the clocking at the CD player source.

 

Chris, if you go back and look at my nearly 3000 posts on this forum, you'll see I'm very much in favor of scientific explanations. So the next time you think I've said something that equates to "voodoo," please do ask yourself first (or even ask me) whether there's something you're missing, such as the fact that in many if not most of the setups we have at home, there will not be an async connection between CD player and DAC.

[chriss71]

Chris, if you go back and look at my nearly 3000 posts on this forum, you'll see I'm very much in favor of scientific explanations. So the next time you think I've said something that equates to "voodoo," please do ask yourself first (or even ask me) whether there's something you're missing, such as the fact that in many if not most of the setups we have at home, there will not be an async connection between CD player and DAC.

 

@Jud: Where have I quoted you (about scientific)? If I have quoted you, I will apologize to you...

[chriss71]

Hi Barry,

 

you know that I respect you very much (also Robert). If you hear a difference, OK. No problem at all (which is the same for Robert). But facts are facts. We (the computer science people like me) work 20 years on that digital science and all is working wonderful. So, this said: OK, you hear a difference (as Robert), but it was not scientific proved.

 

I hope, you and Robert don't take my words like shots, no offend to both of you. But I think, facts are facts. As I wrote to Robert: We are here in digital science not in believe...

[Jud]

@Jud: Where have I quoted you (about scientific)? If I have quoted you, I will apologize to you...

 

Not a direct quote, but a reference:

 

A way in which the same digits can sound different is if there is greater jitter in one bitstream than another. Same digits, but less good timing in one stream. If the SHM-CDs are more easily readable by the CD mechanism, it is possible the bitstream coming from them would have less jitter.

 

 

About Jitter: Not in the playback domain, because you have the data buffered. How should I explain it: Imagine there is a bus where 20 People goes into it. The Busdriver waits for exactly 20 People and then he begins to drive. The same is on the playback system on a digital domain. The DAC get's always the same bits because of buffering.

 

We are here not on a Voodoo Thread, it's just simple digital physics....

 

I made a reference to possible differences in jitter, you said differences in jitter were not possible in playback due to buffering (about which Julf provided the caveat), then said "We are here not on a Voodoo Thread...." Were you talking about someone *else's* mention of potential differences in jitter?

[chriss71]

OK, I apologize to you, @Jud. It was no offend against you. I am sorry...

 

But the fact stands: Jitter is only on the recording side interesting. On the playback domain only if we have a non async DAC...

[Richard Dale]

Hi Barry,

 

you know that I respect you very much (also Robert). If you hear a difference, OK. No problem at all (which is the same for Robert). But facts are facts. We (the computer science people like me) work 20 years on that digital science and all is working wonderful. So, this said: OK, you hear a difference (as Robert), but it was not scientific proved.

 

I hope, you and Robert don't take my words like shots, no offend to both of you. But I think, facts are facts. As I wrote to Robert: We are here in digital science not in believe...

 

What's 'unscientific' about CD transports suffering from jitter? You can measure the jitter of a CD transport. As far as I know from reading reviews of CD players in the past, the jitter performance of different CD transports can differ by quite a lot.

 

I'm sure you can measure how the jitter of an SHM CD differs from a normal one too when played on a lesser CD transport. It is not a 'fact' that jitter doesn't exist when playing plastic disks. It is actually a big problem, and that is why nearly everybody on a forum called 'Computer Audiophile' prefers to use hard disks and computers as a transport instead.