A number of recordings are showing up on Amazon as new releases with the description (Shm-CD). What does that mean? They seem to be reissues of historical or highly regarded performances, and are labelled as imports, and have a fairly high retail, but the Amazon listings are not very forthcoming on what exactly they are.
As an instance, this one:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/618CRskqxuL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Which leaves me completely in the dark as to what Shm-CD means. "You're a SHMendrick if you pay this much for a CD?"
It's a "new" way to produce CDs:
"The high quality SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) format features enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic. Using a process developed by JVC and Universal Music Japan discovered through the joint companies' research into LCD display manufacturing, SHM-CDs feature improved transparency on the data side of the disc, allowing for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head. SHM-CD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players. Experience the high-fidelity audio quality of the SHM-CD format ."
As far as I can tell it's just a way to sell CDs at ridiculous prices. I have my doubts that either the "new" plastic that is used or the "new" manufacturing process are any more expensive. The only SHM-CDs I have are of Eric Heidsieck's Mozart on the Victor label (that's the only format I could find the recordings in), and while I don't have any prior release of these recordings, neither the sound nor the discs are anything special. Who knows, maybe the original was muddy and dull, etc. Or perhaps SHM means Super High Markup.
Quote from: Todd on June 15, 2011, 06:41:03 AM
It's a "new" way to produce CDs:
"The high quality SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) format features enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic. Using a process developed by JVC and Universal Music Japan discovered through the joint companies' research into LCD display manufacturing, SHM-CDs feature improved transparency on the data side of the disc, allowing for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head. SHM-CD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players. Experience the high-fidelity audio quality of the SHM-CD format ."
As far as I can tell it's just a way to sell CDs at ridiculous prices. I have my doubts that either the "new" plastic that is used or the "new" manufacturing process are any more expensive. The only SHM-CDs I have are of Eric Heidsieck's Mozart on the Victor label (that's the only format I could find the recordings in), and while I don't have any prior release of these recordings, neither the sound nor the discs are anything special. Who knows, maybe the original was muddy and dull, etc. Or perhaps SHM means Super High Markup.
I think that's the basic idea.
Sham-CD! ; )
Quote from: Todd on June 15, 2011, 06:41:03 AM
As far as I can tell it's just a way to sell CDs at ridiculous prices. I have my doubts that either the "new" plastic that is used or the "new" manufacturing process are any more expensive. The only SHM-CDs I have are of Eric Heidsieck's Mozart on the Victor label (that's the only format I could find the recordings in), and while I don't have any prior release of these recordings, neither the sound nor the discs are anything special. Who knows, maybe the original was muddy and dull, etc. Or perhaps SHM means Super High Markup.
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on June 15, 2011, 06:53:02 AM
I think that's the basic idea.
Thank you. My suspicions run the same way: high markup on something readily available elsewhere. It is probably a good indicator that no newly recorded music seems to be among the Shm-CD offerings.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 15, 2011, 06:54:10 AM
Sham-CD! ; )
Free with a purchase of sham-wow! Order today and get an amazing discount of $20 off of the small payments of only $9.95 per week for the next 3 years! :D
(http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/chicago/sham021809.jpg)
;D
Quote from: Il Barone Scarpia on June 15, 2011, 06:53:02 AMI think that's the basic idea.
You know, I'm thinking if I combine SHM-CD technology and Gold CD technology, I could sell discs at $75 a pop. Maybe more. Hmm . . .
A Shim-CD is what I use to keep the dresser level.
A CD that doesn't know if it's a boy or girl?
Two SHM-CDs walk into a bar...
Go to this website:
cdJapan SHM-CD CLASSICAL CDS
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/popular_formats/SHM-CD/genre.html?id=classic
There are over 500 cds to choose from, with US prices indicated at the top. On some pages the cd information: conductor, orchestra, etc. is listed at the very bottom of the page. I've listened to a few recordings already. Those of you with a good sound system should immediately hear the difference. Many of the prices average around $20 to $25 dollars US. There's a Knappertsbusch set of 12 cds at a cost of $280 dollars US, for example. Knock yourself out.
Quote from: RJR on June 30, 2011, 07:35:32 AM
. Those of you with a good sound system should immediately hear the difference.
You mean a system with $1000 cables?
You can immediately hera the difference...
Quote from: Herman on June 30, 2011, 08:45:09 AM
You mean a system with $1000 cables?
You can immediately hera the difference...
It also helps if they are surrounded by polished stones, blessed by Buddhist priests ;)
I'm curious how one CD could sound better than another, given that they all meet the same red book specs. Perhaps all the titles are newly remastered, in which case there could be a difference. Differences due to using a "new" or "special" plastic, well, I'm a bit skeptical.
If someone else wants to buy me some SHM-CDs where I already own old, outdated CDs of the same titles, I'm open to comparing the two. (I'm confident my main system is good enough to reveal any difference.) Based on my admittedly limited experience with SHM-CDs, I can't say I'll rush out to buy anything myself.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on June 30, 2011, 08:49:53 AM
It also helps if they are surrounded by polished stones, blessed by Buddhist priests ;)
The zeroes and ones have never sounded so good!
Quote from: Todd on June 30, 2011, 08:56:37 AM
I'm curious how one CD could sound better than another, given that they all meet the same red book specs. Perhaps all the titles are newly remastered, in which case there could be a difference. Differences due to using a "new" or "special" plastic, well, I'm a bit skeptical.
This was covered in some other thread; the quality of the pressing influences how the accuracy of the data read from the disc. A bad pressing will have the hardware doing a best guess at what is recorded, and different hardware will guess differently.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on June 15, 2011, 06:14:20 AMWhich leaves me completely in the dark as to what Shm-CD means. "You're a SHMendrick if you pay this much for a CD?"
You're SHMendrick and want to buy "Brahms playing Piano" next, our new 4242424242424242424242 kHz SACD for only $120000!
Quote from: Tapio Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on July 01, 2011, 04:50:31 AM
You're SHMendrick and want to buy "Brahms playing Piano" next, our new 4242424242424242424242 kHz SACD for only $120000!
I just have to say: best avatar ever!
Quote from: petrarch on July 01, 2011, 12:38:14 AMThis was covered in some other thread; the quality of the pressing influences how the accuracy of the data read from the disc. A bad pressing will have the hardware doing a best guess at what is recorded, and different hardware will guess differently.
Covered by whom? Engineers who manufacture CDs, or audiophiles and other internet experts who claim there is a difference between CDs? If they meet red book specs they will sound the same. That's one of the points of standardization. It's possible to state that LPs sound different based on pressings, but it's nonsense to claim the same about CDs. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to say that burned CDs sound different from regular CDs. I believe the consensus among such people is that burned CDs sound better than pressed ones, though it could be the other way around. I know from direct experience that they sound the same. My experience with multiple versions of the same CDs, usually replacing single CDs with box sets editions, is that they sound exactly the same unless they are remastered. Perhaps they all used the same pressing plant.
Quote from: Todd on July 01, 2011, 06:35:52 AM
Covered by whom? Engineers who manufacture CDs, or audiophiles and other internet experts who claim there is a difference between CDs? If they meet red book specs they will sound the same.
The data meets redbook specs, but the quality of the pressing doesn't always allow the hardware to read the information properly. The error correction is stricter in recorded CD-Rs (per the spec), which makes it easier for the reading hardware to reconstitute the original. It is a myth that CDs are 100% accurate in getting the 0s and 1s out of the surface of the disc and therefore that they are a bit-perfect medium. If you google for audio cd error correction and redbook error correction you will get your info.
@petrarch: how does that relate to things like SHM's claims to make recordings "sound better"? The occasional missed 1 or 0 will be all but indiscernable.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on July 01, 2011, 05:50:17 PM
@petrarch: how does that relate to things like SHM's claims to make recordings "sound better"? The occasional missed 1 or 0 will be all but indiscernable.
"Sound better" is probably marketese for "more accurate". Ultimately, it might really be better, because the reader hardware can only do so much when it fails to read and interpolates. Interpolated audio prevents discontinuities in the stream from being sent out of the player (they are the nastiest sounding digital artifacts, and that's why most CDPs just output silence when errors occur) but it also destroys transients, harmonic structure and overall 'correctness' of the sound. Some sound editors out there allow you to do interpolation, it's a very educational exercise to interpolate samples of recorded music and see how the ear perceives it, even when the touch-up lasts less than 1/10th of a millisecond. It's like the perfect photograph, soiled by a little smudge.
Another misconception is that it is only the occasional 1 or 0 that is missed. Data is read in chunks (192 bits, I think) and therefore these can be misread as a whole, although the redundancy allows for a better isolation of the bytes that were misread.
Thanks, that POV makes sense.
The four Shm-cds that I have listened to so far all sound better, spatially, sonically, with more depth and clarity. Go to the Japanese website that I posted and find a Shm-cd that matches one of your own and make a comparison test.
Quote from: RJR on July 03, 2011, 06:44:11 AM
The four Shm-cds that I have listened to so far all sound better, spatially, sonically, with more depth and clarity. Go to the Japanese website that I posted and find a Shm-cd that matches one of your own and make a comparison test.
Have you compared SHM and non-SHM Japanese issues, or an SHM and a non-Japanese issue?
Another "new" japanese technology is "blu-spec" (sold at HMV Japan etc). What I like about it is that the Japanese generally seem to "re-master" old records before they put them out in blu-spec. As a result I've been getting lots of old Denon analogue remasters (Neumann's Dvorak, Smetana Qt's Dvorak etc etc). There is also a good deal of Szell from the fifties (rip-roaring Schubert 9, etc etc) and Ormandy from his prime.
However, I haven't bothered buying SHM or Blu-spec or XRCD where the original source was a digital tape because the supposed enhancement isn't worth it.
Quote from: Daverz on July 03, 2011, 01:28:44 PM
Have you compared SHM and non-SHM Japanese issues, or an SHM and a non-Japanese issue?
Yes, but not the same album so far. I compared the Kertesz Dvorak Ninth SHM-cd (SuperHighMaterial-Cd) with the Kubelik Dvorak Ninth. No contest. Kertesz 1 Kubelik 0. The Kertesz is quite good in other respects, by the way. I have listened to other SHM-cds and I must admit that they are not all equal in dynamic improvement at the same level as the Kertesz cd was. So I guess it all depends on the quality of the original master.
Also have Reiner Bartok Music for Strings, De Falla 3-cornered hat, Munch Beethoven 3rd, Mussorgsky Pictures (Ansermet) and Saint-Saens 3rd. Bartok not so great. Hopeless case, really. Hear some surface noise. Beethoven 3rd quite good. Saint-Saens, first movement. Sounds good. No comparison yet.
As I stated before you should hear a greater clarity of sound, more spaciousness in the stereo image and more dynamic punch, if all goes well.
Quote from: Todd on June 15, 2011, 06:41:03 AM
It's a "new" way to produce CDs:
"The high quality SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) format features enhanced audio quality through the use of a special polycarbonate plastic. Using a process developed by JVC and Universal Music Japan discovered through the joint companies' research into LCD display manufacturing, SHM-CDs feature improved transparency on the data side of the disc, allowing for more accurate reading of CD data by the CD player laser head. SHM-CD format CDs are fully compatible with standard CD players. Experience the high-fidelity audio quality of the SHM-CD format ."
[...]
About this 'improved transparency': the CD contains 1s and 0s, not subtle variations of analog frequencies. for an expert (and comprehensible) elaboration of the significance of this fact, I suggest obtaining (probably via download) a copy of the software application EAC (Exact Audio Copy). The documentation is adequate for the purpose.
I will only add that in my experience the great majority of CDs and CD-Rs I have ripped to my computer using EAC have not required error correction. That is also significant.
Quote from: Hilltroll73 on July 04, 2011, 06:54:33 AM
About this 'improved transparency': the CD contains 1s and 0s, not subtle variations of analog frequencies. for an expert (and comprehensible) elaboration of the significance of this fact, I suggest obtaining (probably via download) a copy of the software application EAC (Exact Audio Copy). The documentation is adequate for the purpose.
I will only add that in my experience the great majority of CDs and CD-Rs I have ripped to my computer using EAC have not required error correction. That is also significant.
:D Before Todd comes back to tell you, I will just note that any resemblance to awe that you may have seen in his post is purely a result of the sarcasm he uses to describe audiophoolery. :) 1's & 0's. That's it. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
Shostokovich Piano Trio - Mussorgsky 'Pictures at an Exhibition' arr for Piano Trio pt 14 - La Grande Porte de Kiev
Quote from: petrarch on July 01, 2011, 05:22:12 PMIt is a myth that CDs are 100% accurate in getting the 0s and 1s out of the surface of the disc and therefore that they are a bit-perfect medium.
I find it remarkable that anyone would think that CDs are accurate in getting anything out. That's the job of the CD player, not the CD. The CD merely needs to contain the data.
Quote from: petrarch on July 01, 2011, 07:35:06 PMInterpolated audio...also destroys transients, harmonic structure and overall 'correctness' of the sound.
What a load of crap.
Quote from: RJR on July 04, 2011, 05:31:40 AM
Yes, but not the same album so far. I compared the Kertesz Dvorak Ninth SHM-cd (SuperHighMaterial-Cd) with the Kubelik Dvorak Ninth.
It doesn't surprise me that the Decca recording sounds better than the DG recording.
I meant have you compared SHM and "standard" CDs of the same issue, for example this Kertesz 9th CD (is it the one with Vienna and coupled with the Wind Serenade?) I have the standard version of this Japanese issue. It would be interesting to compare the AccurateRip checksums.
The one advantage that Shm-CDs might possibly have is durability in comparison to normal CDs--in other words, they may not scratch as easily or otherwise suffer less from normal wear and tear.
But that does not justify the price difference in my mind. If worse come to worse (as it has in a few cases) I can always rip and burn a replacement CD.
Plus, however fantastic the audio quality of a CD may be, it has to be played on a CD player, and it's really the sound quality of the player and speakers that determines what we hear. A fantastically engineered recording will still sound rather cheap on a bad system--it won't sound as cheap as a worse engineered recording, but it will still sound not all that great.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on July 04, 2011, 12:32:42 PM
A fantastically engineered recording will still sound rather cheap on a bad system--it won't sound as cheap as a worse engineered recording, but it will still sound not all that great.
My experience with my less-than-awesome sound system is that it brings most recordings down to a similar level, i.e. a superaudiophile CD sounds little better than a restored recording from the 50s. I like this because it increases the relative importance of the performance, as compared to the sound quality.
Quote from: Todd on July 04, 2011, 08:44:48 AM
What a load of crap.
Try it with a sound editor before you rush to conclusions.
My stereo is not high end: A Luxman receiver, Dynaco speakers, CDs and DVDs played back on a $100 dollar Toshiba DVD player. The original Kertesz/Dvorak Ninth has very good sound, but the the SHM-cd is superior. No doubt about it. The timpani drum roll at minute two of the first movement sounds like rolling thunder, the woodwinds, horns and strings much clearer. It certainly is an improvement. Whether you want to pay $20 to $25 dollars for it is up to you to decide.
Of course, the original CD issue of the Kertesz/Dvorak wouldn't be hard to improve.
Quote from: RJR on July 10, 2011, 04:44:09 PM
My stereo is not high end: A Luxman receiver, Dynaco speakers, CDs and DVDs played back on a $100 dollar Toshiba DVD player. The original Kertesz/Dvorak Ninth has very good sound, but the the SHM-cd is superior. No doubt about it. The timpani drum roll at minute two of the first movement sounds like rolling thunder, the woodwinds, horns and strings much clearer. It certainly is an improvement. Whether you want to pay $20 to $25 dollars for it is up to you to decide.
So just to be clear, you're comparing the SHM and non-SHM CDs of this release?
(http://img.hmv.co.jp/image/jacket/400/08/7/9/994.jpg)
Quote from: Daverz on July 11, 2011, 08:50:19 AM
So just to be clear, you're comparing the SHM and non-SHM CDs of this release?
(http://img.hmv.co.jp/image/jacket/400/08/7/9/994.jpg)
Yes, I did.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 10, 2011, 07:57:10 PM
Of course, the original CD issue of the Kertesz/Dvorak wouldn't be hard to improve.
I believe the original CD release was this AAD release (AAD meaning, I believe, that mastering was done in the analog domain with digitization done only in the last step of the transfer to CD.)
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/eb/c7/98e662e89da0ce13722f3110.L._AA300_.jpg)
Which should be better because it's less digital! (It really is quite good IMO). I never really compared it to the "Decca 100 Best" (non-SHM) CD below until now (I bought the Japanese issue primarily for the Wind Serenade). The newer one does sound a bit clearer with a wider, deeper soundstage. In any case, it's a very exciting performance.
Quote from: RJR on July 11, 2011, 02:18:03 PM
Yes, I did.
Are you able to compare checksums? Different checksums doesn't necessarily mean there is an audible difference, but it would be interesting if they matched.
Quote from: Daverz on July 11, 2011, 04:35:00 PM
I believe the original CD release was this AAD release (AAD meaning, I believe, that mastering was done in the analog domain with digitization done only in the last step of the transfer to CD.)
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/eb/c7/98e662e89da0ce13722f3110.L._AA300_.jpg)
Which should be better because it's less digital! (It really is quite good IMO). I never really compared it to the "Decca 100 Best" (non-SHM) CD below until now (I bought the Japanese issue primarily for the Wind Serenade). The newer one does sound a bit clearer with a wider, deeper soundstage. In any case, it's a very exciting performance.
I like it too. A compelling performance.
Quote from: Daverz on July 11, 2011, 04:46:58 PM
Are you able to compare checksums? Different checksums doesn't necessarily mean there is an audible difference, but it would be interesting if they matched.
Checksums? Seen that word before but I don't really know what it's all about. Are you suggesting that I rip the two cds with EAC and see what the result is?
Quote from: RJR on July 12, 2011, 05:59:13 PM
Checksums? Seen that word before but I don't really know what it's all about. Are you suggesting that I rip the two cds with EAC and see what the result is?
Yes, EAC would produce checksums for each track. Though a difference in checksums does not necessarily mean an
audible difference. There is also software that will compare only the PCM part of the tracks, though I don't know what that would be for windows.
Quote from: RJR on July 10, 2011, 04:44:09 PMMy stereo is not high end: A Luxman receiver, Dynaco speakers, CDs and DVDs played back on a $100 dollar Toshiba DVD player. The original Kertesz/Dvorak Ninth has very good sound, but the the SHM-cd is superior. No doubt about it. The timpani drum roll at minute two of the first movement sounds like rolling thunder, the woodwinds, horns and strings much clearer.
Probably you get better mastering for your money. As so often.
Also: We have too many bit identical rips of different "normal" CDs - therefore read errors cannot be that much of a problem. Furthermore, never ever audible. Don't get me wrong: It's good to choose the best available medium.
Anyway I do not care, I don't buy physical media any more.
Quote from: Tapio Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on July 14, 2011, 08:36:46 AM
Probably you get better mastering for your money. As so often.
Also: We have too many bit identical rips of different "normal" CDs - therefore read errors cannot be that much of a problem. Furthermore, never ever audible. Don't get me wrong: It's good to choose the best available medium.
Anyway I do not care, I don't buy physical media any more.
Please explain to me what non-physical media might be? Or have you just decided to listen to the music of the spheres instead?
Although I am very sceptical about the audiophile experiences, the difference could not only the difference between 0's and 1's. In my opinion the error correction of the CD format is good enough to create an accurate datastream (if the CD is not damaged and the player works correctly). But the difference may come from the CD player's analogue stage also. When the digital pickup reads the disc the servo has to work continuously. If the disc has less surface irregularity the servo maybe has lesser work. In the ordinary CD players there is only one power supply. It provides electricity to the servo and the DAC too so maybe the servo affects the electric supply of the DAC. If the servo works other way the sound will change. (By the way: I don't have Shm-CD but I have seen it on Amazon. I didn't know what is it but now I found this topic. :) )
And what if the audio system has separate DAC and transport? I don't know. But people often hear what they want to hear. (Me too. :) )
Quote from: RJR on July 14, 2011, 03:28:24 PM
Please explain to me what non-physical media might be? Or have you just decided to listen to the music of the spheres instead?
It's pretty obvious to me that he means he only listens to digital audio files.
Quote from: Daverz on July 16, 2011, 02:12:07 PM
It's pretty obvious to me that he means he only listens to digital audio files.
Well, bully for him.
For myself, reproducing music digitally is akin to piecing something together, like a puzzle or a mosaic. Analogue reproduction is more like painting with brush strokes, or the play of the waves along the ocean's surface.
I'm playing an SHM-CD just now (and SHM-SACDs), which I bought solely because I
really, really wanted
the Mravinsky Tchaikovsky Semi-Cycle (http://a-fwd.to/4USUYQM) on three separate CDs, rather than 2 CDs with the Fifth split. (And I didn't want to rip my own copies, either.)
I have little intention to do a comparison, because I don't suspect there to be a particularly great difference to the regular CDs... and, more to the point if there IS a difference, I wouldn't be able to tell whether the different mastering might not be to blame or laud.
But having the darn things, I am interested in the hearing and the science behind it, anyway. And subjective differences in experience apart, there seem to be some misunderstandings what SHM-CDs are supposed to accomplish in the first place.
Quote from: RJR on June 30, 2011, 07:35:32 AM
Those of you with a good sound system should immediately hear the difference.
Quote from: Daverz on July 11, 2011, 04:46:58 PM
Are you able to compare checksums? Different checksums doesn't necessarily mean there is an audible difference, but it would be interesting if they matched.
Quote from: petrarch on July 01, 2011, 05:22:12 PM
The data meets redbook specs, but the quality of the pressing doesn't always allow the hardware to read the information properly. The error correction is stricter in recorded CD-Rs (per the spec), which makes it easier for the reading hardware to reconstitute the original. It is a myth that CDs are 100% accurate in getting the 0s and 1s out of the surface of the disc and therefore that they are a bit-perfect medium. If you google for audio cd error correction and redbook error correction you will get your info.
If I understand it correctly, the SHMaterial is supposed to make your CD Player's work easier by incorporating better materials that's a.) more reliable in production and b.) easier to read. (It was invented during the search for better light emitting LEDs; essentially it's a clearer plastic.) We all agree that the digital source going in is the same (theoretically... if the masters were identical; Japanese re-masterings are in fact often different but let's ignore that for a second), and therefore the digital source coming out should be the same, too. There cannot be a difference in the checksum because the SHMaterial doesn't change anything -- and even the most flawed CD, thanks to error correction, will reveal the original digital code
once it is burned successfully.
Three things to consider:
A CD Player reading the source in real time has to correct any mistake or blip it encounters. The claim is that if there's much of that going on, it can degrade the sound.
A recording that's been burned to a hard drive should theoretically sound superior to its source CD being played on a CD player. This is why hard drive players are said to beat even the finest CD players in Sound Quality.
A SHM-CD makes it easy for a CD Player to read the material and,
ideally, it could now sound as good as if you had burnt the CD (SHM or not) onto your hard drive and ran it through the same DAC.
This would also suggest that I don't follow RJR entirely: Wouldn't the SHM difference show up most prominently if you -- yes, had a good system: speakers, DAC, Amp that allow you to hear great detail, but in that system a CD player that was poor at correcting blips (= technical term! :)). The worse the CD player, the more an SHM-CD would matter.
That would lead us to the conclusion that a SHM-CD can never sound better than the same mastering ripped to a hard drive -- but that it is probably to sound as much (or some way towards that much) better as a hard drive played recording does over a spun CD. (However much that is or we are willing to believe it is.)
Oh, and those covers!
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91ptY0UBydL._SL1500_.jpg)
Tchaik. Sy.6
Mravinsky / Leningrad Phil
DG/SHM-SACD (http://a-fwd.to/4USUYQM)
SHM-CDs are old news; UHQCDs are where it's at for over-priced, marketing BS-driven reissues today.
There's BluSpec (I and II?) as well ...
Quote from: king ubu on April 25, 2017, 05:17:29 AM
There's BluSpec (I and II?) as well ...
Those are also a few years old, so something new was needed. I have but one Blu-Spec 2 release - Ikuyo Nakamichi's Mozart sonatas - and the recordings are in state of the art sound. But then, Ms Nakamichi is, in my experience, arguably the best recorded pianist in the world, and all of her old, Plain Jane CDs sound just as good as the new fangled technology release. And that's using Audiophile
®-approved gear, I should note.
I suspect the value, if any, is in the remastering. Prices seem to be in the same ballpark as conventional Japanese imports. I'm not going to seek them out, but I've seen worse audiophile boondoggles.
Quote from: Todd on April 25, 2017, 05:30:09 AM
Those are also a few years old, so something new was needed. I have but one Blu-Spec 2 release - Ikuyo Nakamichi's Mozart sonatas - and the recordings are in state of the art sound. But then, Ms Nakamichi is, in my experience, arguably the best recorded pianist in the world, and all of her old, Plain Jane CDs sound just as good as the new fangled technology release. And that's using Audiophile®-approved gear, I should note.
This is what you have?
[asin]B00DDWU6OC[/asin]
Man you got expensive taste !
Quote from: Todd on April 25, 2017, 05:01:15 AM
SHM-CDs are old news; UHQCDs are where it's at for over-priced, marketing BS-driven reissues today.
Oh, you aren't kidding (http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/feature/uhqcd_allabout). :-)
That said, it seems the advantages, if there are any audible ones, would be exactly the same as with the SHM-CDs: Relieving the CD Player and approximating Solid State Memory quality.
Quote from: SurprisedByBeauty on April 25, 2017, 07:04:40 AMThat said, it seems the advantages, if there are any audible ones, would be exactly the same as with the SHM-CDs: Relieving the CD Player and approximating Solid State Memory quality.
Unless there is objective, quantitative data available, from a third party, to support the notion that SHM-CD or UHQCD actually produce a better, more reliable physical end product, it's all marketing gimmickry. I can report that SHM-CDs I own and have ripped have behaved exactly like standard CDs in terms of rip speed, error correction, etc.
Quote from: Pat B on April 25, 2017, 07:00:14 AMI suspect the value, if any, is in the remastering.
Yep.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on April 25, 2017, 07:02:14 AM
This is what you have?
[asin]B00DDWU6OC[/asin]
Man you got expensive taste !
It was cheaper to import from Japan when it was new.