Where is the magic in a SHM disk?

right on. quick search for power required for a 780 nm wavelength (near infrared) semiconductor laser

 

If I read this correctly, that means if I buy a CD mastered by you or Diament, and I extract it to a hard drive and listen to it, the sound will be oversalted.

Personally, that's the only way I listen critically nowadays. Sounds good to me. Perhaps I just really like salt.

 

Thanks Steve.
If one of your masterings was manufactured using SHM based material, do you think that it is unlikely that it would sound any different than if the same mastering was manufactured using the Audio Fidelity gold process?

 

Hi autodidact,

Speaking only for myself, I never master for a format. Hence, there is no attempt to "compensate" for anything (as I don't hear such things somehow summing algebraically to achieve "neutral"). I master for the recording and the recording alone.

Note, this is just how I do it. Every engineer I've met and spoken with has their own approach.

If you extract a CD I mastered to your hard drive (in raw PCM format, such as .aif or .wav; I do not recommend any other format), you will, in my experience, only get a better "view" of the master I sent to the CD replication facility.

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

 

This is my experience, or at least this was my feeling, my best guess. I think it sounds better. I've never heard a master file to compare, so I have to just assume it is closer to the master, because it sounds better to me.

But the main thing is the mastering -- whether it is CD or ripped file. And I have learned to look for discs you have mastered, and Mr. Hoffman. (And Mr. Sax.)

 

I was thinking the same thing. If there is a benefit to the material used for a SHM-Disc that allow a more accurate reading, then that benefit should be evident on normal CDs that have been ripped to a hard drive. Since theres no laser trying to read anything.

Now Blu-Spec CDs I'm more curious about, since its not about the disc material, but rather the laser used to write the data being more accurate at writing all the information into a pit. Any of you have any thoughts on Blu-Spec CDs?

 

Yeah-Blue Spec seems to be a more noticeable improvement over ordinary cd compared to SHM-CD

 

I would have thought its the opposite, because there is less pit surface area for the red laser to aim at when doing a read. So more chance of error.
That said, I would say its about 25 years since a byte of data went astray on any fully functioning CD player playing any mint CD, regardless of technology.

 

Why would it be less? Blu-Spec CDs are not written on Blu-Rays if thats what you mean.

 

What?
With blue Spec CDs, a blue laser is used for recording the pits on the CD master,
Therefore the pits are smaller. Therefore the target that the red laser is aiming for on playback is smaller. So more chance of error.

 

Hmm thats the exact opposite of what Blu-Spec claims to do. There has to be more to it than that. I only have 2 Blu-Spec CDs, but I've never had any noticeable errors with them.

 

If you read the second part of my suggestion in my second last post, I suggest that its not much of a problem anyway.
"That said, I would say its about 25 years since a byte of data went astray on any fully functioning CD player playing any mint CD, regardless of technology. "

 

There is no problem for a laser to read those pits.

 

Totally agree. But statistically speaking I would say conventional CDs are more reliable because of the larger surface area of the pits.
Heres a test you can try. Play a Blue Spec CD in a 1982 player. See how reliable it is in this scenario.

 

Well to Sony's credit. they do admit when they're using a new master or a previously released one as the source. And they have released a hand full of sampler discs that allow for comparison between a normally mastered disc on one CD and a Blu-Spec on another.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001O77128/

I haven't been able to find any such openness on any of the SHM-CDs I own. Are the Universal Japan SHM-CDs from Jazz The Best series remasterings?

I have Agharta and Pangae by Miles Davis, which were taking from the 2006 DSD remasterings. But since I never heard those I can't compare. They are light years beyond the original 1990 issues...but thats not fair.

 

That's a very important point. To form an analogy, if regular aluminum CDs were prone to error, then it wouldn't be a viable medium from which to install software. Binary files (say, Microsoft Office) wouldn't install any better if it were distributed on Blu-Spec or SHM media. If the data is encoded properly on the CD, and the drive can read it, then the software will install. If it's not encoded properly or the drive is faulty, then it won't. In 24 years of collecting music CDs and 20 years of working in IT, I can't recall ever having encountered any faulty aluminum CD regardless of the type of data it contained.

If you could get a plant to copy photos from your digital camera to a SHM or Blu-Spec cd, it wouldn't make the colors brighter or the resolution finer. The digital data is what it is. If you take bad photos before transferring to media, then they'll be bad when they're read. If you take good photos, then they'll be good when they're read. If you photoshop your pics before copying them to CD, then those edits also come along when copied to any non-defective digital media that is manufactured to spec.

As others have mentioned, these days almost any cheap reader (transport) can properly read the data that exists on the disc regardless of the material.

I would argue that the analog domain is still as important as it ever was. Continuing with the digital photo analogy, the content of JPG files is bit for bit identical whether they're stored on CD, flash media, a hard drive, or even a floppy drive. They do appear very different, though, from printer to printer.

With all that said, I'm definitely willing to take the pepsi challenge. Some day soon, I'll try to order a SHM CD, extract it, burn it to a CD-R, and then AB the two. It won't be a blind ABX as my wife would definitely not participate in such shenanigans. I'm not claiming to have golden ears or nice equipment, but I'll be as objective as I can.

(Finishing the digital photo analogy, I would also make the argument that the pictures wouldn't look better on screen if my printer was connected with a gold USB cable, or if my card reader was traced with green marker, but I'm new here and I don't want to annoy everyone. I'm just one who enjoys good music and good recordings, and yes, I have a very modest system that I use for movies and music.)

 

It's not that. It's just that the SHM material allows better reading with less errors, which improves sound. Like I said, I prefer the regular aluminum CDs, because they sound like what we have always had. I believe CDs should have some errors to sound more analog and lifelike, as much as digital can. You cannot have this with SHM, or any other new CD playback functionality.

 

By saying that, "SHM material allows better reading with less errors," then are you implying that that standard aluminum CDs inherently contain errors? If so, what type of errors and how many are there on an average disc? Can you quantify this? Can SHM manufacturers quantify it? I'm skeptical, but intrigued.

 

The errors from a digital source wouldn't be the same kind of errors from analog tape. Can you explain how errors make things sound "lifelike"? I've never heard a skip or digital glitch during a live performance.

 

The SHM makes it sound less lifelike. More clinical, sterile, and processed. That is what I hear. It is just the effect that SHM produces by the laser reading that type of material. You may like that sound. I don't. Most people who can hear the difference in SHM do not like it. That should say something. I doubt we don't like something that does not exist. Come on.

 

I thought everyone knew what this stood for?

Super Heavy Metal of course!!!

 

Holy Diver,
With all due respect I don't think you have really grasped the concept of storing information in a digital format. Digital errors do not add coloration or reduce clarity or make the sound "more analogue".
May I suggest that you read some basic essay on sampling and digital formats.

 

Software like Exact Audio Copy lets you test audio CDs for errors. But I think that the main problem that affects sound is jitter.

 

But correcting errors and jitter with a certain material normalizes the sound which colors it. I like it uncolored, so I stand by my statements. I suggest you read up on SHM and what it does to the sound of a CD.