SHM CDs

[Prettybrokenspiral]

So much punch and instrument separation and clarity to this whole thing, exposing layers that were barely ascertainable before

That's exactly the way I felt when I bought the Japanese SHM-CDs of PHM, TDS and The Fragile about a decade back..

Especially The Fragile. Entire sections of that album were brought to life in ways I'd never heard before, even on quality headphones. I'm willing to bet I could play it right now and hear things I didn't on previous playthroughs..

[jmtd]

Isn’t SHM-CD absolute snake-oil?

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Absolutely! That’s why I buy them every time an album I love is released in SHM-CD. The Japanese are clearly not 10 years (at minimum) ahead of us technologically and my ears are totally not hearing things in these albums my original CD pressings are failing to define..

Of course, you may want to ask one of the professional sound engineers on ETS, who boast an extensive resume of impressive credentials and presume to know more about what constitutes super-high media. It’s not like I research this stuff beforehand or anything..

[botley]

Super-high is right.

[neorev]

There's lots of talk and agreement that CDs made in Japan sound better. It could be down to quality control and the pressing process. Perhaps smaller pressings in Japan means less quality issues. Could be different masters. Lots of variables.

By the way, I picked up a headphone jack to USB-C cable with built-in DAC off Amazon for my Samsung tablet that had a high rating, and, GODDAMN, did it make a difference! It was like night and day from the supplied headphone cable. The built-in DAC one sounds amazing. I am discovering new things in songs I've been listening to for years.

I did a blind test with my girl and she was like, "Oh shit! Wow!" when she heard the difference. She then made me give her my new DAC cable and buy a second one for myself.

[jmtd]

I finally got around to reminding myself what SHM-CD are. Yep definitely snake oil, sorry. If you can distinguish an SHM-CD from the same thing on a regular CD in a double-blind listening test with all else being equal, then either the master is different (all things are not equal) or your other CD is defective. SHM is only different at a level below the digital encoding. Once decoded you get a stream of red book-compliant stereo PCM at 16/44.1, just like any other CD.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Keep telling yourself that, jmdt. Whatever gets you through the night..

Just for shits and giggles, I actually pulled out and played my original CD copies of PHM, TDS and The Fragile and then played each one back to back with its SHM-CD counterpart immediately after on a legit home stereo set-up. And guess what? The SHMs sound noticeably better, still. No question..

Not even making this up just to argue or buck some goofus theory, either. They just..sound..better..

And the great thing is, it wasn't a waste of my time at all, because when is it ever a waste of one's time to gorge yourself on Nine Inch Nails music?

For even more funsies, just because the Nails SHMs sounded so good, I broke out my Nirvana SHMs and those sounded really awesome, too..

So if some people can swear by vinyl and refuse to release stuff on CD, and others can listen to vinyl and freak out the moment a hiss or a pop shows up and claim it's a shitty pressing, then that should make me free to enjoy SHMs more than their boring original CD counterparts too, in theory..

I already can't wait to get super high and listen to them again. The shit just sounds better. I would love to get SHMs of With Teeth, Year Zero or especially Hesitation Marks. Holy hell would I. Hearing is believing and I stopped assuming everything I read from bedroom audio elitists on the Steve Hoffman forums was gospel a long, long time ago..

[Leviathant]

Keep telling yourself that, jmdt. Whatever gets you through the night..

Just for shits and giggles, I actually pulled out and played my original CD copies of PHM, TDS and The Fragile and then played each one back to back with its SHM-CD counterpart immediately after on a legit home stereo set-up. And guess what? The SHMs sound noticeably better, still. No question..

Somehow the SHM CD thing passed me by. Hadn't heard about it until this series of contentious posts. Can you rip them to WAV files? If they genuinely sound different, it should be reflected in the digitized data. And maybe this should be its own thread.

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

Speaking of Steve Hoffman forums

11 page thread on SHM CDs and what people think over on the Hoffman forum

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-is-this-new-shm-cd.127465/

And a real doozy is the 21 page thread on the Hoffman forum

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/shm-cd-and-blu-spec-cd-what-does-steve-hoffman-think.216501/

Start talking about SHM CDs and it is bound to trigger people one way or the other

[Leviathant]

Speaking of Steve Hoffman forums

11 page thread on SHM CDs and what people think over on the Hoffman forum

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-is-this-new-shm-cd.127465/

And a real doozy is the 21 page thread on the Hoffman forum

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/shm-cd-and-blu-spec-cd-what-does-steve-hoffman-think.216501/

Start talking about SHM CDs and it is bound to trigger people one way or the other

Wow.

Asking about this was a mistake.

[botley]

Yeah, best to lock this and back away slowly.

[jmtd]

Just for shits and giggles, I actually pulled out and played my original CD copies of PHM, TDS and The Fragile and then played each one back to back with its SHM-CD counterpart immediately after on a legit home stereo set-up. And guess what? The SHMs sound noticeably better, still. No question..

That’s not a double-blind test. You’re proving the efficacy of the placebo effect, and the sunk cost fallacy at the same time (OR... they have different masters). Come back when you’ve done a double blind test. “Squishyball” might help you. I recommend the triangle (XXY) test.

Edit: I forgot that squishyball upstream has a bug in the XXY test. There’s a patch here https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=753776. We’ve applied that in the Debian package for some years now.

[Jon]

Somehow the SHM CD thing passed me by. Hadn't heard about it until this series of contentious posts. Can you rip them to WAV files? If they genuinely sound different, it should be reflected in the digitized data. And maybe this should be its own thread.

For The Downward Spiral, the SHM-CD (UICY-91220) mastering is identical to AMCY-674, MVCP-18, and UICY-2482 (discogs incorrectly lists this one as having 14 tracks).

[Camille]

I had three Prince SHM cd's. They did sound a lot louder than the originals, but I can't recall the sound quality being that good that it made me abandon those original copies. Nice thing for collectors.

[Prettybrokenspiral]

Somehow the SHM CD thing passed me by. Hadn't heard about it until this series of contentious posts. Can you rip them to WAV files? If they genuinely sound different, it should be reflected in the digitized data. And maybe this should be its own thread.

Ah well, it certainly wasn’t meant to get contentious, or even its own thread for that matter. I commented to one particular person (Shadaloo) and the next thing you know, the usual pseudo audiophiles are chiming in about something they’ve likely never even heard to begin with. The most vocal of which just got schooled on a similar issue by another poster in the Coil thread only about a week ago. It’s one thing to say “I’ve heard that SHM and didn’t think it was anything special”, but when I’m listening to it on high-end equipment and Grados and someone’s going to deduce what I’m hearing to something akin to a Pepsi challenge? lol nah..

It reminds me of that one guy who was stalking Billpulsipher here a few weeks ago, always talking about scoring films, and then starts talking about scoring films and it’s clear they have no idea what they’re talking about. I’m afraid you’re going to have to do a little better than that, you know..?

Anyway, this discussion got way more dramatic than it needed to. I own the shit and it sounds magnificent, and that’s all that should really matter to me, right? Next time I just won’t feed the trolls. As far as converting it to WAV, I would imagine you could, but I’ve never taken the time to or felt the need to. When I got the WAV and FLAC files for the Fragile Definitive back in 2017, that was fine enough for me. After all, it had Trent’s blessing..

[Leviathant]

the next thing you know, the usual pseudo audiophiles are chiming in about something they’ve likely never even heard to begin with.

[...]

Anyway, this discussion got way more dramatic than it needed to.

You don't say! ;)

As far as being its own thread, this was all in a vinyl thread, which wasn't a great fit. As someone who had never heard of SHM, the links to the Steve Hoffman forums were illuminating, but Jon's note about the mastering tells me what I need to know.

All things considered, I'm glad you enjoy what you've got dude. Don't let anyone spoil that for you.

[Erneuert]

For The Downward Spiral, the SHM-CD (UICY-91220) mastering is identical to AMCY-674, MVCP-18, and UICY-2482 (discogs incorrectly lists this one as having 14 tracks).

That de-escalated quickly.

[jmtd]

the usual pseudo audiophiles are chiming in about something they’ve likely never even heard to begin with. The most vocal of which just got schooled on a similar issue by another poster in the Coil thread only about a week ago.


You can call me all the names under the sun (although audiophile, in the context of this thread, is the height of irony) but it doesn’t change a thing about SHM. Levi has a point, though. I don’t want to spoil your fun. It’s probably best that you don’t do a double blind test after all.

[botley]

Yeah — as someone who has paid stupid money importing multiple Japan-exclusive pressings with one or two bonus tracks that I've listened to maybe a handful of times, I can say without question: the packaging sure is nice.

[neorev]

A post on Steve Hoffman from an engineer...

A friend sent me a bunch of 2-disc sets that contained one SHM CD and a plain "vanilla" version, one Blue-spec and a plain version, one HQCD and a plain version. My expectation s were not high as I figured these were marketing inventions. Then I listened.

Listening to Mile's Davis "Round Midnight" on one set, I started to think it went beyond marketing. I thought that like all too many other "comparisons" I've heard, there were actually two different masterings. The sonic differences were so obvious, I was pretty sure they were done by different engineers, with different EQ.

So, I set about to "prove" this to myself by extracting samples from both discs to the computer and running a "null" test. In a null test, the two files are synchronized - to the sample - and the polarity of one file is inverted. By mixing the two together, everything the files have in common, i.e., what is identical in both files, gets cancelled (or nulled). Only what is different between them remains.

Much to my surprise, what remained was dead silence - all the way down. To me, this proved the two files were identical. When listening from the computer, as I've found in all cases where I've heard differences from different pressings played in a CD transport or CD player, the sonic differences were gone.

This is what I've found when comparing CDs to the masters from which they were made. In all the years I've been creating CD masters (since January, 1983), I've never heard two from different plants that sound like each other and neither sounds indistinguishable from the master used to make it. To be clear, this has been my experience when the discs are played via a transport or player (*any* transport or player).

Extracting the data to hard drive removes the differences and all the results sound (to me) indistinguishable from the master used to make them.

So, my view is it depends on how you're going to listen. If you're going to extract the discs and listen via the computer, if the mastering is the same, a good extraction will sound identical to the master and there is no need for a "super" pressing. On the other hand, if you use a CD transport or CD player, the differences between different manufactured discs can range from subtle to (as in the case of the Miles Davis example I cited above) not at all subtle - actually quite obvious.

That's my experience anyway. As with anything in audio, I think it depends on a combination of the resolving capability of the system and the individual listener's sensitivities. Different folks have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound.



My personal feelings, music should've moved to Blu-ray a long time ago. So stupid to create a separate format if one that is already popular and can hold 24 bit audio exists.

[neorev]

SHM-BLU-RAY, where you at?!

[botley]

There is such a thing as SHM-SACD (uncompressed DSD, no CD layer). I can sort of see the argument for that, if you have an SACD player. And too much money...

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

I distinctly remember getting the Japanese version of Faith No More's Angel Dust album back in the day and thinking it sounded better than the American pressing. But that also may have been 13 year old me's way of justifying spending 60 dollars on a Japanese import CD for 1 bonus track

[neorev]

I distinctly remember getting the Japanese version of Faith No More's Angel Dust album back in the day and thinking it sounded better than the American pressing. But that also may have been 13 year old me's way of justifying spending 60 dollars on a Japanese import CD for 1 bonus track

You can find lots of posts of people saying Japanese CDs sound better. It could be down to quality control and making sure CDs are properly pressed. Who knows.

The quality of music recordings on compact discs is excellent. In the age of vinyl records, irritating clicks resulting from surface scratches were almost impossible to avoid. Modern recording media are largely free from this shortcoming.

But this is curious. CD music can be contaminated for many reasons: dirt on the disc surface, flaws in the plastic substrate, errors in burning on the recording, scratches and fingerprints, and so on.

Music is encoded on a CD in digital form as a stream of binary digits or bits. There are more than four million bits per second, so if one bit in 10,000 is in error (an error rate of 0.1 per cent) there will still be hundreds of errors every second. How then can we explain the high fidelity of the recordings? The answer lies in error-correcting codes.

The incoming audio signal is sampled 44,100 times per second. This allows us to hear frequencies up to 20,000 cycles per second, adequate for most purposes. Each sample is expressed in digital form as a string of 16 bits or two bytes (one byte is eight bits). The signal is broken into segments of 24 bytes. Then check bits are added to make it 32 bytes. These check bits are cleverly arranged so that it is possible not only to detect errors but to correct them.

Information rate
The error-correction system used for CDs is called the Cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon Code (Circ). The information rate is three out of four; that is, 75 per cent of the bits contain information and 25 per cent enable error detection and correction. This overhead is worthwhile, making all the difference between wonderful quality and intolerable contamination.

A typical CD may have as many as a million errors. Code correction is applied in two stages, extending each 24-bit string first to 28 bits, and then, using a complementary method, to 32 bits. The resulting “product code” is very effective. Errors tend to occur in local bursts; for example, a scratch may damage several adjacent tracks of the recording.

To counteract this, the bit strings are fragmented and distributed to different areas of the disc. Before we hear the recording, this interleaving is reversed, the errors are corrected and the digital stream is converted to an analogue audio signal. Then, thanks to a combination of technology and mathematics, we can relax and enjoy music free from distortion or surface noise.

Redundant information
Error-correcting codes have been around for more than 50 years. They were introduced by Richard Hamming at Bell Labs. He was so disturbed by the high level of errors in the old electromechanical computing machinery, he devised a method of adding redundant information so the exact position of any bit that was in error could be located and corrected.

Coding theory has blossomed in the digital age and is an active field of mathematical research today. We depend on reliable communication channels that transmit large volumes of data. This data must be compressed before sending, and accurately expanded on arrival. If it is sensitive, it must be encrypted, and inevitable errors in noisy transmission channels must be detected and corrected. Hamming’s wrestling match with punched-card equipment has led to a worldwide industry.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/high-fidelity-how-the-sound-of-cds-stays-error-free-1.2362987

[Merriweather]

SHM-BLU-RAY, where you at?!

I thought the whole point of SHM-CDs was that they were essentially CDs with the same coating that Blu-Rays use which was supposed to make the data on the disk be higher quality.


I distinctly remember getting the Japanese version of Faith No More's Angel Dust album back in the day and thinking it sounded better than the American pressing. But that also may have been 13 year old me's way of justifying spending 60 dollars on a Japanese import CD for 1 bonus track

They probably sound about the same, but the bonus track is a great addendum to the album. I was glad to pick up a used copy after many years of searching.

[neorev]

I thought the whole point of SHM-CDs was that they were essentially CDs with the same coating that Blu-Rays use which was supposed to make the data on the disk be higher quality.

I believe the SHM-CDs are slightly thicker. Apparently to absorb the laser that reads the data better.

[SM Rollinger]

I believe the SHM-CDs are slightly thicker. Apparently to absorb the laser that reads the data better.

That would explain why they sound better on a player but when ripped it's the same file.

[neorev]

That would explain why they sound better on a player but when ripped it's the same file.

It kinda makes me think of that Techmoan video on cassette tapes, where he showed tapes could actually sound better and as good as CD if music companies used slightly more expensive, better quality tape and playing it on a proper system with the right noise reduction. He showed you can get almost flawless playback with tape. But, instead, music companies and audio player companies use the cheapest materials to press music on and for playback for everyday consumers. And we all know with most consumer companies, it is a race to the bottom. The cheapest possible option, quality be damned. Of course, there are companies who focus on making a solid product out there. But it shows that the materials in which CDs themselves are made of, if subpar, can possibly have an effect on the reading of its data and playback. SHM-CDs are apparently designed material-wise to help reduce light scatter so that the lazer is absorbed better. It could be snake oil or it could actually be something with some merit, that not all CDs are created equal. Just like there are inferior vinyl pressings. But even the highest quality medium can't fix a shit and blown out master.

[jmtd]

That would explain why they sound better on a player but when ripped it's the same file.

How does it? When you rip it you get a stream of 1s and 0s. When a CD player decodes it, you get a stream of 1s and 0s, fed into a DAC. Where in the sequence do you think the difference is?

[Jon]

There is such a thing as SHM-SACD (uncompressed DSD, no CD layer). I can sort of see the argument for that, if you have an SACD player. And too much money...

Always keep around an old Sony player; my UBP-X700 and BDP-S6700 can both do SACD and DSD (and the 6700 has Super Bit Mapping).

[Jinsai]

there HAS to be a definitive way to test this though.... I am only spitballing ideas, but they're all conceptually valid to determine the difference in playback, and we don't need a double blind test to objectively identify the differences. I would imagine that this was a last-gasp attempt to resuscitate the physical CD format.