Led Zeppelin - new SHM Box from Japan.

The screen caps look identical except that oddly in the top clip, the peaks look just a little faint in comparison despite being the same volume level.

Anyway ... SHM ( I am presuming one of these clips is from the 'SHM' version) is clearly a difference that can be heard even when ripped to computer, making comparisons pretty easy here if people are interested.

You didn't say which clip was which. If the shorter clip is the SHM, I prefer it and think it helps a bit. If it is the longer clip, I find the quality to be a downgrade in this example.

 

Interesting, I never thought to look at waveforms in this way. I thought if the peak reaches the same point then they were the same. If the peaks are faint, does that suggest something in particular.

One of them absolutely is the SHM, the other is the original Marino mastering. I am refraining from identifying them until a number of people have had a chance to listen for themselves. For anyone who has listened and wants to know or guess at which is which, you can PM me. Otherwise, I will post which is which over the weekend.

 

This I raise a toast to.

 

I think it was just the monitor I have at my office. Now that I'm looking at them on my home PC I can't see any difference.

Anyway, the most significant thing here is that the difference is most definitely audible, despite these being the same. Hence, further confirmation that SHM is not "snake oil," but whether the process sounds better or not would of course be subjective, and perhaps vary on different CDs.

I have a feeling you will tell me that the longer clip is the SHM, and if that is the sonic "effect" the polycarbonate material is producing when these are pressed, it is not better to my ears. It is brighter, a bit more "crisp" and the signal sounds like it has less "give," if you will. I don't know how else to describe it except to say that it sounds more "sterile" to me and likely desgned to pull in sales from the "I can hear more clarity and detail, whoopdee wee" crowd.

I prefer softness in a digital signal, and the effect this material seems to be having is an effect not unlike light compression. Except here they don't need to pay engineers to add the compression, the data surface is adding that effect to whatever mastering is already licensed to them.

If it turns out the longer clip is actually the original CD, then I am quite impressed with SHM and what must be a "softening effect" in the shorter clip.

 

I just PM'd you the info, Jeff.

 

Marino/Page cd Remaster for Japan, Cat # AMCY-4008

I don't know if a '94 Japan cd has been used for comparisons, but here's
'Black Dog'...
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=VG54DTRG

 

Jeff,

If the files posted sound different then they must be different bits. Different bits mean different mastering. Different mastering means the difference has nothing to do with SHM vs ordinary CD.

If SHM magically changed the sound such that you could copy this SHM-CD and either put the bits on the internet or burn a CD and it still sounds as good, then SHM would not be needed by the consumer. We could just copy the bits off a "master SHM-CD" and press ordinary CDs.

Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying.

At the moment I'm still convinced that SHM is snake-oil.

Cheers,
Michael

 

Michael,

Look at the waveforms above, then download the samples and see what you think.

I don't want to get too wrapped up in this discussion as the masterings they are using mostly suck in the first place, so even if SHM does offer a small "softening" effect, it isn't of much benefit compared to standard CDs that I feel are better mastered in the first place.

Fwiw, here is the SHM "pitch" by Universal. I have to tell you that I suspect it is not impossible that this polycarbonate material would cause the extraction of data to produce a slightly different sound, and I think that's what we have here.

I have underlined the part which I feel is most telling:

"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."

 

With reading bits, once you get enough accuracy to reconstruct the exact input bits, you cannot improve accuracy.

There is error correction built into the CD standard so in most case the few reading errors are perfectly corrected.

So with SHM there seems to be three options:

1 - There is a reproducible measurable difference which has no current scientific explanation (and thus new science awaits).

2 - There is a difference in sound quality which lies within our current understanding. (I have not yet heard this reason.)

3 - It is snake-oil.

The first option is not impossible, but not very likely

I remain open to the second option, but so far would put my money on it all being snake-oil.

Cheers,
Michael

 

I downloaded the clips and burned them onto a CD-RW.

I just listened briefly, and it was not so easy for me to make out a huge difference (maybe because it was still early in the morning). I have a tendency to like clip #2 better.

I compared both clips to the CD single I have which has Immigrant Song and Hey Hey What Can I Do? (it comes in a brown paper-sleeve). This version sounds different from both these clips, and it has a clearly different mastering (lower in volume).

Was one of the posted clips manipulated digitally (i.e. normalized)?

Anyhow, here are two screen shots. The first one is from my CD single (same segment) and the second one is from clip #2 posted above.

By the way, I am guessing that clip #2 is from the SHM-CD.

Another thing that makes me wonder: Aren't the new SHM-CD's of Led Zep based on the 2003 Japanese releases which have the leves slightly raised compared to the 1993/1994 remasters? I don't see that level raise in these two samples, unless one of them was normalized. Maybe the level raise does not affect the Coda bonus tracks, because I don't think these were on the 2003 Japanese release of Coda, or were they? It could be that the level raise only pertains to the main albums.

 

At least in the early days, many CD's manufactured in Europe had clearly visible "defects" that Japan CD's did not have. I put the word in quotes because I cannot say whether they affect the sound. In my opinion, the Polydor pressings were the worst. I can cite the following:

* Incredibly thin discs, with razor sharp edges.
* Paint on the label side that would wash off with soap and water.
* Discs that were susceptible to "bronzing", eventually making the disk unplayable.
* "Pinholes" or gaps in the aluminum; easily visible if held up to a bright light.
* Center holes that were a little bigger than they should be, so that the disc did not sit securely in the jewel case.

There appeared to be better quality control with CD's manufactured in Japan. This may be ancient history, but there is some basis for the belief that the manufacturing process is better in Japan.

That said, I recently experienced a Japan first press P58 Electric Ladyland (coincidentally also Polydor?) that simply would not play on a couple of my players. Under inspection, the disc appears flawless, which is scary.

 

I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I am talking specifically about a quality of manufacturing that would make a disc sound better. I have seen differences in the appearance of discs, but if two CDs play without error and test as digitally identical, I find the idea that one sounds better because it was pressed in Japan to be suspect, at best.

 

Got it. I personally am not sure, but I do know that the last thing I want is a harsh mastering played back with greater clarity.

 

I'd have been inclined to agree with you more than you can imagine, but again, I suggest you simply download and then listen to the two samples.

Coincidentally, in the one SHM test I did where I compared Gentle Giant's Octopus on SHM to the standard CD from which its mastering originated, certain differences were apparent. But I am not sure these differences could be described as making the SHM CD "better." On some tracks the sound seemed a bit softer and less digital. On others a kind of stereo chorus effect almost seemed to exist, but these differences were minor enough where I wouldn't have trusted that a couple of sips of coffee between listens couldn't have caused imaginary differences. I did not analyze via waveforms to double check that no adjustments were made in mastering, and soon thereafter I scored a German vinyl copy of the album that trounced the CD mastering so badly that the subject of subtle differences between two CDs with massive top end boost became mute.

 

I have heard a few now Jeff and compared them against earlier masterings and your observation above is correct.

Personally I only have one in my collection and that is Keith Jarrett- Koln Concert. I have an original Japanese pressing, a Gold cd and the SHM disc.

They appear to be much clearer and cleaner through the mid range.

I wonder if they used the technology on a forum fav how it would turn out.

 

I'm not interested in which LZ CD sounds best because I am in the camp that thinks the BD original releases are the best.

For SHM to have a real effect I would need to play a real SHM CD and compare it with an identically mastered normal CD.

Playing two files off the internet says nothing about SHM.

If something has been done to one of the files to make it sound better than the other then the fact that we are comparing two files off the net proves that we do not need SHM, but can either download this improved quality or put it onto an ordinary CD.

There are many reasons why a SHM CD may sound different from other CDs, but the SHM process does not look like being one of them.

 

I have heard this SHM Led Zeppelin box.The sound is not good.

 

No, they were not digitally manipulated in any way.

I also compared the first track on the album proper "We're Gonna Groove" and the levels were not slightly raised there either. I'm guessing that all of the albums were not handled the same for the SHM release.

 

I agree, we can't fully hear the differences without hearing the two CDs in a CD player, especially because of the differences due to the CDs playing surface. However, we can compare the data on the two CDs. Having done so, I can say that the two samples do not sound exactly the same. Jeff and Roland have confirmed this. I assume that this means that the masterings are not identical.

To be clear, nothing has been done to the files, I am not trying to trick anyone. I don't see the point in trying to do a comparison with digitally manipulated samples anyway.

 

Hi George,

I did not mean to imply that you are trying to trick anyone.

One question I have not heard answered is how does the sound of a SHM CD sound compared to a burned copy of that disc?

So maybe the question for you is does the digital copy of the SHM track you posted sound the same as the actual CD?

Cheers,
Michael

 

I can't speak for the 2003 Japanese releases, but I do own the 2003 LZ mini-LPs from Europe and they have slightly raised levels compared to the crop-circle box sets, but only on a few tracks. One that stuck in my mind was Custard Pie, from Physical Grafffiti. It was nearly 3dB louder on the 2003 version. Everything else lined up in the waveform, so it looked very much as if someone took the Marino remaster of the song and ran it through a hard limiter with a 3db boost. However, other tracks were identical to the Marino crop-circle versions. It was really a mixed bag. As for Coda, I can't comment as that's the only mini-LP I didn't get around to picking up.

 

I am in that camp as well, but unfortunately Diament never mastered the bonus tracks from CODA. That's why I was interested in the SHM release of CODA.

 

Agreed, 100%.

Try to keep up if you would. These two samples clearly prove that this is not the case. However, I have done a side by side comparison of actual discs. The material they are using to make these discs does something to the sound, and this is proving to be an absolute, certified fact. It is not surprsing to me that a company as gigantic as Universal Japan would not issue a new technology with claims of improved sound where there was zero difference. The complaints would be beyond comprehension. Of course there is a difference. The problem is that the masterings they are using are mostly inferior in the first place, so the whole thing is ridiculous.

We already have one Baron Von Talbot aspiring to the ranks of utter nonsense, and that's more than enough for one thread, but thanks anyway.

 

This is absolutely untrue. I have downloaded the two samples. They look digitally identical, but clearly sound a bit different.

Don't sell this experiment short, George. Anybody with an understanding of digital audio on even the most rudimentary level would understand that these samples are entirely relevant.

 

Yes, I agreed with you earlier on these points. However, we were not listening to the CDs we were listening to the data stored on the two CDs via the samples. I see this as clearly two different things. So we heard the differences between the data, meaning the mastering must be different on these. The surface of the SHM and the fact that they are completely different pressings should lead to other differences as well, but this will only be revealed in a shoot out with the actual CDs in question.

I wasn't saying they weren't relevant. I just want to be clear about what is actually being compared. We were not comparing two CDs, we were comparing data from two different CDs. I think that if the CDs were compared, even more differences would have been found.