What Is This New "SHM-CD"?

thats my take on it as well...

 

SHM-CD, reaaly worthwhile?

I had a look a couple of days ago to amazon Japan think about ordering the new Yngwie Malmsteen CD, Eternal Flame. I realized it was pressed with the new Super High Material CD system which is supposed to make CDs more resistant and adds more reflectivity.
The rest Yngwie Malmsteen albums released on the Polydor/Universal label seem to be remastered and pressed on the new system also.
Are they really worthwhile or it's just a sale argument to sale something new and more expensive?
Thanks in advance.

 

A bad mastering is going to sound bad no matter what the cd is made of, right?

 

Do a tag search here and you'll find numerous threads about SHM cds. The bottom line is that some people who have heard some of these discs think that they do sound better, even though they feature the same mastering as the standard cds already on the market. Others are on the side of it simply being a gimmick to sell the same titles again.

 

I have purchased a few SHM-CD's and find that some of the old remasters reissued in SHM sound a little better but not enought to warrant shelling out the big bucks. On the other hand I purchased some of the Led Zeppeilin Japanese 40th aniversary mini LP's and they sound fantastic! Botton line it all depends on what remasters are being used on the reissues!

 

I got the SHM-CD of Deep Purple In Rock and it sounds better than the EMI CD version by a little bit. And it's probably because the WB master tapes are in better shape (or less worn out), due to the fact Deep Purple In Rock wasn't as big of a seller in the US. Anyway, I'm happy to have the shorter version of Speed King just because I grew up with it that way.

I also got the SHM-CD of Fireball and it sounds the same as the WB version but perhaps a bit worse due to this "new technology" exposing the tape flaws.

 

I suggest you use the Search engine here. Search on the tag SHM and 15 threads show up. There's plenty of discussion.

 

Where's the search? I don't find it.

 

It's right where it's always been: in the menu bar under your name between New Posts and Quick Links. Do an Tag Search.

 

The Spooky Tooth-Spooky Two Japanese SHM-CD is excellent!

 

The SHM process is simply a new way of pressing CDs with better accuracy than regular CD masters. LCD panels have very small feature sizes, which helps in making CD glass masters. There is no reason to charge more. My guess is Victor (JVC) is using this process on all CDs made in Japan and gasp!, the USA at JVC Disc America.

BTW, Victor/JVC makes a lot of Universal Japan's CDs, as does Sony DADC.

Same general idea as Sony DADC going with Blu-Ray improvements to make CDs better.

They are simply trying to milk some money out of existing catalog.

There are two ways to make better sounding CDs:

1-Improve the CD itself. Most CD pressers got this down pat now, since DVDs and Blu-Rays are harder to make. JVC-Victor's SHM and Sony's deal makes it pretty much beyond what most players will have for variance.
2-Improve the mastering.

Crappy mastering on a perfect CD will not make much of a difference, hence why we all look for xxx pressing.

 

The Shm-cd of the Tony Visconti-mastered Electric Warrior (T. Rex) absolutely kills it's regular cd counterpart. Same mastering made with different materials -- blew my mind in eyes-closed comparisons. Same for Nilsson's Nilsson Schmilsson, both mastered by Vic Anesini. Other comparisons yielded the same results in varying degrees.
Stranger ... I'm using a Rega Saturn, which normally takes at least 5 seconds to "initialize" a CD, reads the shm discs in an instant ...

 

Keep in mind that if they used a clone of the original master that even IF it was exactly the same, there could/would be some variation. That said, perhaps the fact that it is a recent pressing may actually have something to do with it as well.

That said, I haven't heard one yet but I'm not going to pay good money until I'm convinced that it is indeed superior.

 

i know I know. I know. ... if the differences were so minor i'd never have commented.

 

I got the first 6 Led Zeppelins on SHM-CD. There's no buyers remorse on my part. There is a difference in sound when I compared them with my older copies (90's version). It's hard to tell if it's an improvement but I noticed the SHM-CD's are louder (just a little bit). Has anyone checked the wave forms to see the actual difference?

 

I'm amazed at how negative some people seem to be about SHM-CDs even though others have picked up on a noticeable audio improvement. I guess it's a very subjective thing.

Are Blu-spec CDs and SHM-CDs comparable?

I wonder how the SHM-CD-haters feel about Blu-spec CDs.

 

Does anyone have any of the Beck SHM titles? The listings for them (on Amazon) say that they are remasters. Can anyone vouch for this?

 

I dont hate 'em. I've bought a few myself, when cheaper formats weren't available. But in cases when I've been able to compare identical masterings, they sound exactly the same as regular CDs (or CD-R copies). I'm willing to believe that they scuff less easily, and the elaborate packaging they come in is usually nice, but that's not enough of an upside that I'm willing to go to the extra expense.

 

Great explanation,Thank you.

 

Those who cannot hear the differences between formats, pressings or masterings like to assume that no one else can hear the differences either. It provides them with a sense of equality (for lack of a better term).

By making these claims, they can pretend to be on even ground with those who have superior hearing. This has been going on since the analog vs. digital, MP3 vs. lossless, VHS vs. Beta debates.

Do what I do, nod your head, chuckle to yourself, and move on.

Paul

"If you can hear a difference, there is one. If you can't hear a difference, there still is one."

 

I have serveral of these. Some sound good, and some do not. Just like any other CD or record. There is a difference between the CDs with the new material and without it. They seem to have a higher presence. They are louder, too. Some are 24-bit remastered, like my Whitesnake-slide it in, which is great by the way, and some are not. You have to read to see which ones are remastered. Just because they are SHM does not mean they are. Also, I don't really care for the sound of the higher presence. It seems "too" perfect. Like it is too digital or something. Some CDs sound good, like my Whitesnake and Malmsteen's Rising Force, which sounds better than the same remastered non-SHM version. The SHM was made for his lead playing.

When I comapared the non-version with the SHM-version something was missing from the non-version. The SHM one sang more with his lead playing, but this was a rare upgrade in sound for me. Most SHMs do not sound right to me, but that is my opinion. And for anyone who says that these SHMs have no different sound, you are wrong, and I don't care who you are, Mr. Hoffman included. They do sound different, but whether or not they sound good to you is your opinion. The Sound is different, though.

 

I've got a few better terms: logic, science, and so on. And I prefer equality to smug superiority, thanks.

 

If they're remastered, as in the cases you're talking of, then obviously they'll sound different. Most of them aren't.

 

Oh, I could be convinced that it's not just a placebo effect. Well-documented double-blind testing, measurement of significant differences in sound output, that sort of thing. Hasn't happened yet. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that there are genuine audible differences between identically mastered discs played on your system. Why should we assume that the differences will be the same, or even exist at all, on somebody else's system?

 

Exactly. And, more to the point, why should the differences exist? If pulling data from both discs reveals that they contain the same content, isn't a player that produces different sounds from these discs doing something wrong? Why is such a flaw, existent or not, a good thing?