SHM-CD impressions

pmckeealaska

I'm sure many of my fellow Polkies have either heard of or have bought the new SHM-CD's. I have two myself now (Rush's Hemispheres and Moving Pictures) and have another one coming from Japan (Steely Dan's Aja on SHM-SACD). I'm interested to hear your impressions of these "new" CD's. Although I dont have my SACD yet, repeated listening to the Rush albums has been interesting. First off let me say that I'm a Rush fanatic and I know their music better than any other band except for MAYBE the Beatles. At any rate, I dont know if its my imagination, but these SHM-CD's sounded kind of tinny at first but with repeated listening they really seemed to have mellowed and they're the closest digital equivelant to vinyl I've heard so far. The more I listen to them the warmer they sound. I have also done lots of A/B comparisons with them and the 1997 remaster versions of both albums. The remasters are louder and the bass has more punch, but to me, the dynamics are better with the SHM-CD versions.

I'm very intertested to hear what others think about the SHM's that they own. Am I having auditory hallucinations? Are my ears jut getting used to the SHM's? Or is something else going on here?

strider

I had to Google what an SHM CD was (thought it was a Steve Hoffman Master) and found this thread started by Jesse.

pmckeealaska

Yes, I've seen and replied to some of the other threads about SHM-CD's but I started this thread to get peoples impressions about the sonic qualities of the medium, particularly if folks thought the qulaity of the CD's improved with more play time and/or listening.

As an aside, I just ordered the SHM-SACD of Who's Next as well from CDJapan. Looking forward to this one as its one of my all time favorite albums and I think its the best single piece of work the Who ever recorded.

F1nut

pmckeealaska wrote: »

I'm sure many of my fellow Polkies have either heard of or have bought the new SHM-CD's. I have two myself now (Rush's Hemispheres and Moving Pictures) and have another one coming from Japan (Steely Dan's Aja on SHM-SACD). I'm interested to hear your impressions of these "new" CD's. Although I dont have my SACD yet, repeated listening to the Rush albums has been interesting. First off let me say that I'm a Rush fanatic and I know their music better than any other band except for MAYBE the Beatles. At any rate, I dont know if its my imagination, but these SHM-CD's sounded kind of tinny at first but with repeated listening they really seemed to have mellowed and they're the closest digital equivelant to vinyl I've heard so far. The more I listen to them the warmer they sound. I have also done lots of A/B comparisons with them and the 1997 remaster versions of both albums. The remasters are louder and the bass has more punch, but to me, the dynamics are better with the SHM-CD versions.

I'm very intertested to hear what others think about the SHM's that they own. Am I having auditory hallucinations? Are my ears jut getting used to the SHM's? Or is something else going on here?

I'm glad you brought this up. You are not alone in your impression that the sound improves the more the disc is played. I have noticed that myself and have read about far too many other folks having the same experience to ignore it. I'm sure some will dismiss it as, you're just getting use to the sound. Ummmm....no, it's definitely not that. I cannot explain it, nor have I read about anyone else being able to explain it, but it is real.

I can offer some examples. The new SHM-SACD of Aja sounded good to me right out of the package, but I did notice the soundstage width was rather narrow. However, the more I played it, the wider the soundstage became and the overall sound got even better. Dire Straits S/T on SHM-SACD sounded thin and bright at first. It was so bad that I said I would never play it again. Then, I read about some folks that thought the same, but that after they played it numerous times it sounded really good. I decided to try my copy again...hmmmm, so I tried it again and again and now the damn thing sounds great.

Those SHM-CD's I commented about in the link that Ben posted, yeah the same thing. After playing them again and again they sound noticeably better than the standard Redbook copies I have. I have purchased many more SHM-CD's since I wrote that.

Thoughts, anyone?

headrott

How about the Blind faith SHM-SACD? I've only heard it once. Any changes the more you listen?

Greg

F1nut

Ya know it's funny, that one sounded so much better than any previous version I haven't listened for any changes. RT1 liked it so much when he heard it here that he ordered a copy as soon as he got back home.

headrott

I don't know Jesse. I wasn't overly impressed with it. Maybe it was my mood or my ears on the day I heard it. I will definately have to listen to it again. I may be deranged.

Greg

Ern Dog

I think this must be your 3 or 4th post about Rush. You must be a hard core fan. I like 'em too.

Now this is the first I've heard of these SHM cd's. Thanks for the heads up about them.

F1nut

headrott wrote: »

I don't know Jesse. I wasn't overly impressed with it. Maybe it was my mood or my ears on the day I heard it. I will definately have to listen to it again. I may be deranged.

Greg

Yeah, give it a few more listens and see what you think. I just finished listening to it again. Just more of everything good. The drums in "Do What You Like" are outstanding.

decal

Give your ears/brain some more time to digest the material.There's a lot of sound on hi-rez cds that you are not used to hearing.I hated the SHM "Let It Bleed" when I first listened,now it's one of my favorites.Just my opinion,yours may vary.Enjoy.

TNRabbit

I have two Donald Fagen SHM-CDs (The Nightfly, Kamakiriad) & my analysis from the first few listening session showed they sounded about 2 db higher in level & appeared to be compressed in dynamic range. I'll have to re-visit them & see if my first impressions were correct.

I've found in general that Regular Joes often find compressed recordings "more revealing" as the soft passages are closer in loudness to the louder passages.

Not that I lump Jesse in the "Regular Joe" camp~

dkg999

I couldn't find the links to the articles and threads, however there is a theory that a thin layer of particles is created on the surface of a disc when it is burned and that removal of that layer via polishing improves the read of the data. I think MFSL references this in some of the literature about their Shine-ola product. Maybe the SHM process leaves more of this residual layer of particles and multiple plays removes it?

pmckeealaska

Thanks Keiko! I'll be doing an A/B comparison of Moving Pictures tonight. I can tell you that the Hemispheres SHM definately benefitted from some 'burn in'. I'd recommend starting with that album first on SHM. After a few plays it sounds like vinyl. Just gorgeous!

eeagle

So does this mean I need to burn in my SHM-CD's before ripping to lossless flac for my server?

This would mean the laser in the player is some how affecting the media layer of the disc?

pmckeealaska

No idea. I refuse to acknowledge the download age! Yes, I know that makes me sound like an old man, but hey, I'm old enough now to be allowed to live in some sort of denial

Seriously, it would be hard for me to know whether or not you need to burn them in first. Some on here might not even think the whole burn in thing is real. All I can say i that by my ear, the SHM's really do benefit from repeated listenings over time. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

pmckeealaska

Dragged myself away from my Aja SHM-SACD to do a A/B comparison between my 1997 remaster of Rush's Moving Pictures and my new SHM-CD of the album. Since this is my first spin of the album I dont plan on doing a really detailed comparsion until I've played the SHM for a little bit due to previous mention about my percieved "burn-in" issue.

On first play however, it's clear to me that the 1997 remaster is louder than the SHM, but the bass on the SHM seems to have more punch and cymbals sound more detailed on the SHM as well. Unlike many on here, I actually like the louder remasters quite a bit, but I like the detail of this SHM so far. Again, much more listening to be done before a final judgement. If its at all like my SHM of Hemishperes, the SHM will come out the winner. Only time will tell. At any rate, I'm still glad I paid the extra $$ for the SHM from a collectors point of view if nothing else. I now have 3 different versions of Moving Pictures: my original early 80's CD, the 1997 remaster, and the new SHM. I really dont even plan on playing the original CD anymore except for maybe in the car. For me, it's just too damn quiet and you have to really crank it to hear anything.

F1nut

I actually like the louder remasters quite a bit

Ugh!

In that case, you are not going to like Who's Next.

pmckeealaska

Well, when I said I liked the louder remasters, I was speaking only about the Rush remasters. I dont know how I might like other remasters. I love the MFSL remaster of Rush's Permanent Waves and that certainly wasn't louder than the original. All the dynamics are still there. Hey, to each their own. I can't see myself not liking the SACD of Who's Next unless it's just a horrible remaster all around.

headrott

F1nut wrote: »

Ugh!

In that case, you are not going to like Who's Next.

Is the Who's Next SHM-SACD mastered at a lower level compared to the Rush 1997 remasters Jesse? I prefer things mastered at a lower level than a higher (near-clipping) level.

I am thinking of getting the Who's Next and Wheels of Fire (cream) SHM-SACD's.

Greg

F1nut

Oh no, it's excellent. Not loud and highly crankable!

Edit: I can't speak about Rush, never hear any of them.

pmckeealaska

Well, I haven't found the Rush remasters to be so loud that there's distortion at higher volumes. That kind of loud I most certainly do not like. F1, you should check out some of the MFSL Rush remasters. The two I own are fantastic.

F1nut

pmckeealaska wrote: »

Well, I haven't found the Rush remasters to be so loud that there's distortion at higher volumes. That kind of loud I most certainly do not like. F1, you should check out some of the MFSL Rush remasters. The two I own are fantastic.

Ok, I gotcha now. I thought maybe you were liking the loudness war kind of sound. My apologies.

Nothing personal, at all, it's just that I never got into Rush.

headrott

F1nut wrote: »

Oh no, it's excellent. Not loud and highly crankable!

Edit: I can't speak about Rush, never hear any of them.

I will have to get it then! Highly crankable is good!

pmckeealaska wrote: »

Well, I haven't found the Rush remasters to be so loud that there's distortion at higher volumes. That kind of loud I most certainly do not like. F1, you should check out some of the MFSL Rush remasters. The two I own are fantastic.

Even approaching that level is horrible. They are not loud enough to be close to distorting for sure, but I wouldn't want them to be. I just wanted to make sure the Who's Next SHM-SACD was not as loud or louder than the 1997 Rush remasters. But, if Jesse says it's highly crankable I am sure it's good!!:D

Greg

F1nut

Greg, it was mastered flat for the SHM-SACD. At first it sounded a little lifeless, then I cranked it up.......never sounded better, you'll love it.

headrott

Are you getting the Wheels of Fire SHM-SACD when it comes out? I think it's next week if I am not mistaken. It should sound phenominal! "As You Said" baby!! It should be rockin'!!:D

Greg

F1nut

I pre-ordered it along with some others. Some of the other have been delayed until December, so the way I ordered/paid and some special deals I received means that I will be waiting until December.

pmckeealaska

F1nut wrote: »

Ok, I gotcha now. I thought maybe you were liking the loudness war kind of sound. My apologies.

Nothing personal, at all, it's just that I never got into Rush.

I understand. Rush takes a little getting used to for some people and some NEVER get used to it!

As far as the remasters, thought they are remastered louder, what I like about them is the depth of the bass and drums. This was missing from the original CD's. The MFSL CD's are superior in my mind for overall dynamics and details though.

headrott

F1nut wrote: »

I pre-ordered it along with some others. Some of the other have been delayed until December, so the way I ordered/paid and some special deals I received means that I will be waiting until December.

Actually, December is the best month to listen to Wheels of Fire (IMO). It's kind of a cold, snowy light up the fireplace and listen album. Although I know what you mean, waiting to recieve it will be .

Greg

TrashyTrucker

F1nut wrote: »

... it's just that I never got into Rush...

We all will take in consideration of who you are here to us Jesse and forgive you anyways!
JK
Matt

pmckeealaska

Being a Rush fanatic, my greatest wish is that they would release their catalog on SACD or better yet, DVD-A. I don't need surround sound but their music would song amazing in high rez I think!

vc69

pmckeealaska wrote: »

Being a Rush fanatic, my greatest wish is that they would release their catalog on SACD or better yet, DVD-A. I don't need surround sound but their music would song amazing in high rez I think!

Snakes and Ladders on DVD-A is amazing.