PDA

View Full Version : What about those japanese limited SHM pressings?



tWreCK
05-25-08, 12:14 PM
Anyone own any of them? They're supposedly made out of some super high grade transparent plastic that makes it easier for the laser to read accurately. They don't say if anything was done differently during remastering so i take it remastering is the same as EH versions. They're rediculously expensive (if you can get a hold of them) so I think I'll pass but I'm just curious if they sound any "better" than the usual pressings? Then we have the cute japanese mini-LP CD's...........

donniewn
12-30-11, 07:40 PM
oh yes they sound great.i have a few in my collection.as good as sacd.the doors first album is really good.well worth the money if you have a good system to play them on.

purple jim
12-31-11, 03:53 AM
From what I have read over at Steve Hoffmann Forums, there is no difference in sound between a regular and an SHM CD. It's just the quality of the material used which is more stable through time.

Purplz
12-31-11, 01:27 PM
Taken from another forum:



Think about a wave file which you might put on an Hard drive, a CD, a solid state disk, etc: it is always the same file even if the media is different! A CD is not a vinyl disc. In vinyl audio is recorded in an analogical way, it means that "the better is built, the better it will sound", but the CD is totally different.

QFT.

A bit of data is still a bit of data no matter how precious the material it's injected in is

trampledunderfoot
12-31-11, 02:16 PM
It reminds me of the whole lossless/lossy debate. Some people say they can hear a difference, others aren't able to.

For what it's worth, I did a close comparison of my non-SHM Zeppelin box-set versus a downloaded copy of the SHM-version. There was literally no sonic difference whatsoever. However, the proponents of the medium say you can only hear the difference (if even) through higher-grade equipment. Ripped off the disc and thrust into the digital world of the internet, SHM and non-SHM seem to be identical.

Sharpstat
12-31-11, 02:33 PM
There is a huge difference in sound with discs when comparing lossy (DVD) versus lossless (Blu Ray). I also hear a difference with CD's that were upsampled from 44khz to 96khz.

manfree
12-31-11, 02:44 PM
There is a huge difference in sound with discs when comparing lossy (DVD) versus lossless (Blu Ray). I also hear a difference with CD's that were upsampled from 44khz to 96khz.
With All Due Respect Sharpstat, You are wasting your time on the Internet, You should be a Super hero,
You obviously have "Super Hearing" and should be saving the World!
Sorry Man, But I find this VERY hard to believe, Bet you can also tell Stork from Butter!

Sharpstat
01-02-12, 02:08 PM
I've never considered myself a "super hero" although I was called a hero many times in the 29 years I was Firefighter/Paramedic risking MY life for people I never knew or sometimes didn't want me to! I know it's as bad as discussing politics or religion. I'm not debating the SHM non SHM topic, I've never heard them. My opinion is based on the latest format of Blu Ray audio compared to DVD audio.No computer speakers or headphones were used in the comparison.

MourningStar
01-02-12, 02:25 PM
There is a huge difference in sound with discs when comparing lossy (DVD) versus lossless (Blu Ray). I also hear a difference with CD's that were upsampled from 44khz to 96khz.
With All Due Respect Sharpstat, You are wasting your time on the Internet, You should be a Super hero,
You obviously have "Super Hearing" and should be saving the World!
Sorry Man, But I find this VERY hard to believe, Bet you can also tell Stork from Butter!Hey, with "... a huge difference ..." there is no need for 'Super Hearing". doh!

Sharpstat
01-02-12, 02:26 PM
Depending how old you are you may remember that this is just an attempt to carryover the idea from the LP vinyl days when they began pressing on heavier vinyl and better mastering of the product.Companies like Sheffield and their direct to disc process began the idea of better materials,better sound.Mobile Fidelity began trying to replicate what they had done so well on vinyl to the new CD format. The same companies plus other start up companies attempted to bring that same thinking to digital age and CD's which failed.I'm sure you remember the 90's and DVD Audio or the SACD from Sony? I never bought any myself. People today want convienience and portability. Ipods and such devices are carryovers from the Sony Walkman.

manfree
01-02-12, 03:58 PM
I also hear a difference with CD's that were upsampled from 44khz to 96khz.

It was that point i found difficult to believe, To my 60 yr old ears I find it difficult to differenciate between "High End" MP3 and Flac, espcially as the "Source" has it`s limitations,
Also, (Gulp) I shouldn`y Post when I`ve had a Drink! Sorry for any rudenessBS1 That`s Me!

MourningStar
01-02-12, 04:28 PM
It was that point i found difficult to believe, To my 60 yr old ears I find it difficult to differenciate between "High End" MP3 and Flac, espcially as the "Source" has it`s limitations, ...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/XiKano/EMOTSMILEY/gdpit_com_63508937_104.gif

Fenders Fingers
01-02-12, 04:44 PM
What's a "high end mp3"?

I have problems in understanding this !!!!!
Flac? You talking flac converted from 16 bit or 24 bit?

Does not compute, :-)

Playback system is all important WHATEVER is your pick of format.

MourningStar
01-02-12, 05:26 PM
... Playback system is all important WHATEVER is your pick of format.sorry, the resolution of one's hearing is the last word here - heh, heh ...

Fenders Fingers
01-02-12, 05:33 PM
sorry, the resolution of one's hearing is the last word here - heh, heh ...

what you hear is about what you play it on lol

manfree
01-02-12, 06:21 PM
C`mon Gord, It aint difficult to understand
Low bit rate (64) is used for spoken word
High bit rate (320) is used for quality music
My point was when the source tape was recorded on an internal mic casette recorder
It aint ever gonna sound good (16bit or 24bit) so you might as well have it as an MP3 file in high bit rate
as a Flac ie Lossless file, coz the results will be distinguishable to any well used ears!

Sharpstat
01-02-12, 10:42 PM
C`mon Gord, It aint difficult to understand
Low bit rate (64) is used for spoken word
High bit rate (320) is used for quality music
My point was when the source tape was recorded on an internal mic casette recorder
It aint ever gonna sound good (16bit or 24bit) so you might as well have it as an MP3 file in high bit rate
as a Flac ie Lossless file, coz the results will be distinguishable to any well used ears!




Now that makes sense!It seemed like you inferred in the initial posting that it all sounds the same. I'm referring to a good source to begin with.Crap in equals crap out.

MourningStar
01-02-12, 10:48 PM
Now that makes sense!It seemed like you inferred in the initial posting that it all sounds the same. I'm referring to a good source to begin with.Crap in equals crap out.so, I guess this means I can throw away my turd polish?

Fenders Fingers
01-03-12, 11:54 AM
Regardless of the format, a huge difference can be heard with differences of equipment.
Even MP3 will sound different (can't say better for thiis format in it's lowest form) with a simple change of ' phones.
Try it for yourselves. Better equipent is by design geared to bringing more out of the recording,
Yes, ears are the last in the line but just a little bit of info' for you. The size of your head also makes some differences to how and what you hear when playback it via two speakers. lol.

manfree
01-03-12, 01:59 PM
HeHe, You`re not saying you got a Big Head are you?