Led Zeppelin - new SHM Box from Japan.

The mastering is not different. These clips are digitally identical outside of a a 4 second difference in length.

EAC reports 1798 repeated samples.

This clearly, without question, proves that whatever they are using to press these discs does make a difference, and they are not lying about it. Simple as that, the end. Even when the data is extracted from the SHM surface to a hard drive, that difference is present. It's pretty amazing technology, actually. Whether the sound is "better" is a different matter, as I have repeatedly said.

And since most of these discs use masterings I don't care for in the first place, I'm going to check out of this conversation. Once people who are interested in audiophile type stuff but cannot even seem to understand the relevance of downloading and listening to a sample or people who moan about "graphs and waveforms" start to take over these conversations, I'd rather watch paint dry. It's a more productive use of time.

 

Maybe this has slipped by in this thread, but I find it rather interesting that the CD single I mentioned has a different mastering, and by that I mean not just a level difference, but a clearly unique mastering of the song "Hey Hey What Can I Do?".

By the way, upon first listening, I prefer the sound of my CD single, but that maybe could be attributed to the fact that I was comparing it to a CD-R.

Anyhow, I thought this song was only ever mastered once to digital, but now there are two different masterings.

 

I see. So the waveforms don't just look the same, they are the same. I don't know how to compare two samples digitally, so I assumed the difference was in the mastering. Thanks for confirming that they are absolutely the same mastering.

So the differences lie in the pressing and these differences can be observed by only comparing the data on the CD? Man, I have more to learn about this stuff then. I thought that pressing differences were not present when you just compared the extracted data.

 

With regards to SHM-CD to regular CD for the same mastering, I guess I can do my own comparisons soon. I have the Rhino set underway, and I also ordered the SHM-CD of "Coda" from Japan, so I will be able to do a thorough comparison in a few weeks.

 

Does the CD single version of HHWCID have a cold ending like the original 45, or does it fade out like the box set version?

 

That is not a whole lot when we have 44,100 samples per second. If these two samples sound different once ripped to hard-drive (I still have to do some more listening, since I "thought" I heard a difference, but I am not 100% certain), I think they have to be (slightly) different.

If you apply some gentle EQ to a wav-file, it could still (optically) look the same, and since the peak levels are 100% in both cases, you can't rely on those.

 

George,

Forget everything you know because this is new and uncharted territory. I am from the "two digitally identical CDs sound the same and that's pretty much the end of it" school of thinking, so this is new, but it doesn't change my mind about previous CDs and the waste of time and money I see when it comes to digitally identical CDs.

Let's talk only about SHM technology.

Obviously, what SHM does is similar to what it says it does: It is extracting some kind of a sound out of the disc and the material they are using is causing that sound to be a bit different, despite the waveforms being the same. It is truly remarkable in scientific terms but again, the question is whether the SHM sound is better than the sound of the standard disc with the same mastering. You still haven't said which sample is which but Roland I agreed that clip # 2 was better. It'd be great to get some more input but one of the frustrating things about SH.tv is that there are actually more people interested in threads about songs that start with the letter "A" than there are people interested in the latest sonic technology comparisons. I'm surprised more people haven't chimed in as your two samples are utterly fascinating, IMO. Such is life.

 

Right, this is why I was confused by what you said.

As for forgetting everything I know about this stuff, that's easy. I don't know much.

I am also surprised I didn't get more takers. Although I must say, usually when I post samples not to many people write about them, though a lot of people usually download them.

Anyway, I am very surprised to hear that these are the same mastering, for on my stereo one clearly sounds better than the other.

As I said earlier, I will post the identities of both samples over the weekend. Maybe that will generate more discussion. I do hope that you don't bow out though.

 

Does the box set have a fade-out???? I don't have it anymore. How about the "Complete Studio Recordings"? And the new Coda SHM-CD???

My CD single has the cold-ending, can't imagine any other ending.

On the CD single, the song runs 3:56.

 

How long is the single version? I will post the length of mine when I get home.

 

Hi Jeff,

This is interesting because I've sent lots of CD masters to dozens of different plants over the years and I've never heard pressings from different plants that sounded identical, even though they were both sourced from the very same master.

I've said this since I first started mastering for CD in early 1983. The output of every plant (if not every line in every plant) sounds different from that of any other and none sounds indistinguishable from the master it was made from.

In the past few years, with the best plants, we're starting to get really close but not to the point where they can't be distinguished from each other (often quite easily, to me) and certainly not from the master they're made from.

Perhaps this material will offer some new benefits. I won't know until I hear two disks made from the same exact source (and a good sounding recording at that), one using this material and one not using it.

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

 

Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you referring to a long fade-out during the chorus, or to a fade-out during the last second or two of acoustic guitar after the band already stopped the song?

On my CD single, there is a fade-out on the last second or so. That doesn't bother me at all, if you were referring to that. If there was a long fade during the chorus, that would really bother me.

 

I know you feel this way, Barry, and I have never ruled out the possibility for slight differences in digitally identical CDs. While I haven't heard anything that convinced me beyond some doubt that such differences exist, it is not an issue where I would wish to take an absolute stand one way or the other.

Personally, I have always felt that even if these differences exist, they are subtle, and somewhat insignificant when compared to tracking down the mastering one desires in the first place. As an example, I am content with the masterings you did of the Zeppelin CDs and the US discs sound as good as the Japanese discs of the same masterings to me. Still, the early Japanese pressings go for much higher amounts. A standard US WEA pressing of Zep I can be had for 5-10 dollars, whereas the same mastering issued in Japan might go for $40. Other than the "collector" factor which might have nothing to do with sonics in the first place, this seems a bit silly to me. That has always been my point. Where does the line get drawn between what is reasonable and what is obsessive? If one is able to buy discs without financial concern, then he is probably able to pursue different pressings to whatever extent he is interested, but I hate to see a new member join and ask what a good sounding version of Zep II is, only to be guided to a Japanese version that will cost him fifty bucks when you mastered these albums in the US and the very same digital masters were used throughout the world. Hence, spending $5 on Amazon would probably yield a copy of the Diament Zep II that would be to his liking and get him on the road to enjoying audiophile-type mastering quickly.

Every listener decides what is reasonable for himself, as we have discussed in the past, but again, I hate to see new members who might still just be curious about all of this "audiophile" stuff be made to feel that their only hope for hearing great sounding CDs is to track down expensive, elusive versions. While this can sometimes be the only alternative, I think we can probably all agree that in the case of some catalogs, and certainly as regards Zeppelin, it most certainly is not.

 

Hi Jeff,

Sometimes the differences are more than slight. This of course depends on the listener and what they're listening on. I've heard CD pressings that sound like cheap cassette copies (sans hiss) of the original CD master.

I would agree that mastering makes a larger difference. Pressing differences can be subtle in comparison. Despite this, to my ears they can also be musically and sonically significant.

I think it is good for all perspectives to be aired and any wise consumer will take them all in before reaching their own conclusions. One person's "reasonable" will be another's "excessive" and vice versa.

At the same time, I'm personally a bit wary when folks try to "protect" innocent newbies. I've seen posts attempting the same thing with regard to things like cables ("save your money, there's no difference"), etc. Perhaps unwittingly, these remain degrading to the folks they're supposed to be helping. Someone who decides to spend big $ on a particular pressing or a cable may be doing so for an item you or I would or would not find worth it but clearly, it is worth it to them.

I don't think anyone has a corner on audio or musical "truth".
As you said, "Every listener decides what is reasonable for himself..."

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

 

This isn't my point at all. My point is that if a member joins and asks what the best sounding version of Zep II is, there is a tendancy for some members to guide him to something like a first Japanese pressing while failing to even mention that said disc was made from the exact same digital master as the US edition pressed by SRC that they could probably buy for five bucks.

I think info like this should be pointed out, so as not have somebody thinking something ridiculous like this forum has discovered that the Japanese have an amazing stash of Zeppelin source tapes that are better than the rest of the planet. If one wants to argue that he has found he prefers the very rare Japanese 1st press of Zep II even though it stems from the same mastering you did and that was released in the US, that's totally different.

I guess some members probably own early Japanese discs and may not even know that in some cases (IE: Zeppelin, Yes) these discs have proven identical to their US counterparts that came a bit later, but how often this applies as opposed to people not telling the full story for some reason, I have no idea.

 

[Thinking out loud] Wouldn't the fact that the material on SHM discs is different come through on a digital copy of said content. After all, the purported advantage is that the data is read more 'clearly' with SHM. Thus, the results of said read should be available on the copy or not at all. You either get easier/clearer read data or not. Just MHO.

 

Thanks Jeff!

It took me buying a few "rare" $50 Japanese CDs to discover most are the same thing as the $2 US CD I already have. Those experiences have made me extraordinarily suspicious of buying Japanese CDs unless it's proven it is from a better source (and not digitally identical or just volume changed).

 

Good question. This is way beyond my understanding, but I'd love if one of our more experienced members could explain this to us.

 

Hi Jeff,

Now I understand. However, I feel the "failing" is not so much in the "to mention" on the part of some posters, as it is in the "to find out" on the part of the person asking the question.

To find out whether two pressings from the same master result in meaningful differences for their ears. (They absolutely do to mine.)

To find out whether the person "answering" their question has similar sonic values to their own. One person's sonic ecstasy is another's headache.

What I've found (and said in this forum many times) is that when you ask five people a question, you get at least six different answers. If folks want to stop asking after the first answer, isn't this their own call?

To be clear, in principal, I'm in full agreement with you. I see folks here touting Targets. To my mind, these are sonically beaten by almost any other pressing. I can understand a "collector value" or a desire to get a "first pressing" but I see no sonic advantage whatsoever. Yet we have members here who value these. Who am I to say?

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

 

Hi Metoo,

I'm always open for a new experience that changes my point of view but in the absence of such, I would say no.

Having done clean extractions of data from pressings that clearly sound quite different when listened to directly (although sourced from the very same master), I've found the extractions to be bit identical. So different pressings, made from the same master and containing exactly the same data will sound different but once the data is properly extracted, the sonic differences disappear.

At least that has been my experience for the past few decades, without a single exception. As I said, I'm always ready to hear something new and if it is different from my past experience, have no problem changing my perspective 180 degrees. But with regard to pressings and data extracted from them, I haven't heard it yet.

Not having heard an SMH disk or extracting data from it, I don't know. I would not even begin to spend the time though, without knowing absolutely that the SMH and non-SMH disks were sourced from the very same master.

Looking at waveforms and EAC peak readings is not to my mind, anything close to an adequate way of assuring two disks are indeed sourced from the very same master. I'd want a bit for bit cancellation - and a full cancellation, an absolute null. Any departure suggests different masters to me. (But then, there has been some debate on this forum as to what constitutes a different master. My own approach is very simple: If it is not exactly the same, bit for bit, with zero exceptions, it is different.)

I have yet to hear a different sounding disk result in different sounding extracted data when both are indeed from the same exact, unaltered master. Who knows? Maybe something new is at hand. Maybe.

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

 

I can agree here. And I must admit that sometimes there does seem to be an attitude by some newer members that the search engine is of little use. They'll just start a new thread on any topic of interest and expect the definitive answer to be broken down for them.

 

Barry, after you've done extractions from two different CD pressings and compared the two, have you found that the music sounds like the "good" CD or the "bad" CD?

For example, if you extraced the data from a USA-pressed Zep CD and a Japan-pressed Zep CD, which disc does the extracted music sound closest two, the US or the Japan?

 

Hi Shawn1968,

Well, for the specific example you cited, I always felt the SRC pressings sounded the most like the master I sent out. However, to be clear in terms of your main question, the extractions did not sound like either of the pressings, they sounded like the CD masters.

Remember, my ears have never heard any pressing from any source that sounds indistinguishable from the master from which it was made. This has been true regardless of transport/DAC combination. I believe it may well be a function of re-constructing the audio from the disk. Removing the disk and real-time re-construction of the audio from the picture, listening to properly extracted data from the same disks on the same playback systems and the problems go away.

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

 

Thanks Barry!

 

Hi Barry,

Should I understand from your statement above that the differences heard on different pressings of the same master disappear if the data is correctly extracted from the disc and played back, say, from a hard disk?

If so, the playback differences heard on, say, an SHM-CD and a normal CD of the same mastering would - if I understand you correctly - essentially disappear. Thus, what SHM-CD and, more recently Blu-spec CD add to the picture is making the medium (in this case the CD) a more transparent one.