SHM-CD Format: Hype or Hope?, Metallica's New Album Options

[Axon]

A couple of incredibly bizarre threads over at sh.tv has uncovered hard evidence (some contributed by yours truly) that some SHM-CDs contain more clipping than their normal CD counterparts. On a LZ SHM-CD specifically:

Quite simply, the only difference between the SHM CD and the Marino master, as indicated by these samples, is an extra 0.6db of gain, and additional brickwall clipping.

There are also diverse examples provided of the SHM-CD digital content being exactly the same (or suspected to be the same from track peaks) as the normal CD counterparts. Even then, several individuals are adamant that SHM-CDs sound better than their normal counterparts (even with the ones with increasing clipping). There has been absolutely no evidence found of any SHM-CD having a higher quality digital master than its normal CD counterpart.

The manufacturing technology has not been shown to give no benefit under normal CD playback conditions. But if all you're going to do is rip it to your computer, there's provably no benefit to SHM-CD.

[WonderSlug]

I'd rather they spend time on better manufacturing techniques that yield real results.

For example, a better plastic that doesn't scratch as easily, or better substrates that won't separate or tilt (warped disc) after a period of time.

[ShowsOn]

I gave up on that thread around page 40.

[krabapple]

A couple of incredibly bizarre threads over at sh.tv has uncovered hard evidence (some contributed by yours truly) that some SHM-CDs contain more clipping than their normal CD counterparts. On a LZ SHM-CD specifically:Quite simply, the only difference between the SHM CD and the Marino master, as indicated by these samples, is an extra 0.6db of gain, and additional brickwall clipping.

You mean, the supposed virtues of the format are offset by the actual mastering? Shocking.

There are also diverse examples provided of the SHM-CD digital content being exactly the same (or suspected to be the same from track peaks) as the normal CD counterparts. Even then, several individuals are adamant that SHM-CDs sound better than their normal counterparts (even with the ones with increasing clipping). There has been absolutely no evidence found of any SHM-CD having a higher quality digital master than its normal CD counterpart.

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 21 2009, 17:26

[ShowsOn]

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

The scary one was the mastering 'engineer' Barry Diament's contributions to the thread where he refused to accept that when the WAV comparator in Exact Audio Copy says two WAVs are identical, that that would mean they are exactly the same mastering. He kept on saying the only way to be sure is to null the files after ensuring that the first samples line up.

I guess it proves that you don't need a degree in audio engineering to be a mastering 'engineer'.

[Seeking_Lossless]

Even on vinyl also that album still clip. It's impossible to get amazing sound of Death Magnetic in any format as the original master tape/or whatever also has been brickwalled to death.

[krabapple]

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

The scary one was the mastering 'engineer' Barry Diament's contributions to the thread where he refused to accept that when the WAV comparator in Exact Audio Copy says two WAVs are identical, that that would mean they are exactly the same mastering. He kept on saying the only way to be sure is to null the files after ensuring that the first samples line up.

I guess it proves that you don't need a degree in audio engineering to be a mastering 'engineer'.

IME Diament's a fountain of dubious 'information' and audiophoolery. And in the end he will *always* retreat to 'I hear it, and that's all that matters'.


And they worship him on SH.tv.


Btw, Diament makes available a 24/96 vs 16/44 comparison , that HA might be interested in . Hosted here:


http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

[WonderSlug]

Several individuals on Hoffman's forum are clueless jackasses as regards audio.

The scary one was the mastering 'engineer' Barry Diament's contributions to the thread where he refused to accept that when the WAV comparator in Exact Audio Copy says two WAVs are identical, that that would mean they are exactly the same mastering. He kept on saying the only way to be sure is to null the files after ensuring that the first samples line up.

I guess it proves that you don't need a degree in audio engineering to be a mastering 'engineer'.

Well, if he won't accept what EAC is telling him, maybe he'll accept what Windows tells him.

Compare the two WAV files by using Windows' "comp" command line executable.

Open up a Command Prompt and use:

comp first.wav second.wav



If comp returns a "Files Compare OK" then that means first.wav and second.wav are byte-for-byte exact duplicates.

[ShowsOn]

IME Diament's a fountain of dubious 'information' and audiophoolery. And in the end he will *always* retreat to 'I hear it, and that's all that matters'.

Yeah, he is one of those people that argues that CDs made from exactly the same digital master can sound different simply because they were made in different pressing facilities, even if the discs contain identical data. This usually cues a pointless 'discussions' about jitter.

I can't imagine discussing SHM-CD with someone who believes identical bits can produce varying sound (in a properly functioning player) will prove particularly fruitful.

I haven't used EAC for a long time (I Use dBpowerAMP ripper), but doesn't it have a setting to delete silent samples at the start of files to ensure that the files will line up perfectly when compared?

i.e. an otherwise identical mastering may include slightly different indexing that appears as digital silence just before the track starts?

This post has been edited by ShowsOn: May 22 2009, 14:10

[dev]

The propaganda; only thing i can think of, they propably put better mastered tracks to have illusion that there is superior quality thanks to CD, or they don`t even do that, and it`s normal master on better quality CD, maby it can last longer but 1 bit is a 1 bit!.

[hlloyge]

If comp returns a "Files Compare OK" then that means first.wav and second.wav are byte-for-byte exact duplicates.

They are on different sectors. Have you ever considered that?
I am battling with few audiophiles about basic scientific concepts, but to no avail - I've been told that I've walked into "the land of unknown" .

[Nick.C]

More like the "land of the unknowing" - I mean, an identical pair of bitstreams is just that, is it not?

This post has been edited by Nick.C: May 23 2009, 09:36

[uzernaam]

... My ones will be more singular, my zeros will be truly nothing.

Haha, somehow that phrase strikes me as really funny.

Yes, I have a very hard time believing that bits can be interpreted by the electronics as anything other than zero or one.

[jimmy69]

Holy moly! The couple of comments about more scratch resistant CDs gave me the best idea. Zagg invisible shield for CDs. Sounds awesome no. Oh and about the difference in sound quality. Why all the discussion? Digital is digital, a bit is a bit end of discussion

[Squeller]

Well, there's an Article in Stereo magazine (german language). http://www.stereo.de/index.php?id=613

They first searched for bit identical CDs (normal vs. shm cd) to avoid comparing different mastering. Well, that's good on the one hand, but on the other IMO they proved that they must sound identical. But in the listening test they heard clear differences, not surprisingly the SHM CD sounds better (english speakers, no need to translate. Some bullshit bingo attributes you already know from listening tests):

in den oberen Lagen entspannter, weniger glasig, beschwingter, gelöster und dreidimensionaler. Die Normal-CD wirkt dagegen wie eingeschnürt: kompakter und belegter.

That is beyond my logical thinking.

This post has been edited by Squeller: Oct 24 2012, 19:16