Post by toronto July 27, 2008 (51 of 127)
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
Have I heard any? No. Do I need to? No.
Why not? Because, as you yourself profess, the discs are compatible with all CD players - this means that they are normal CD's but with a different covering than others. Because they are normal CD's, they have to comply with the Red Book dictates just as any other CD and so (the masterings burnt onto the discs being the same) the discs will contain identical information. This means that the discs must sound the same (assuming that one's player has even the most basic forms of error correction). So, for each individuals system, identical information on disc (and no scratches etc. on each disc) = identical information read from disc by players = identical information passed to speakers = identical sound. You may well BELIEVE that they sound different but then there are also people who (still) believe that the earth is less than 20000 years old!
FYI, asserting that SACD players are a rip-off on this site would probably be construed by most people here as flame-bait and, as such, one should expect a certain amount of robust scepticism to views that are allied to these posts. Also the site is not [financially] sponsored by Sony but they have redirected their own sites to here as Zeus/Stephen has done a better job than themselves!
You seem so worried about , SHM-CDs?
I have to question why? Wouldn't having better sound BE A GOOD THING???
YES , you do need to hear these CDs for your self BECAUSE you are talking OLD SCHOOL MASTERING TECHNOLOGY.
This is new technology. Just like the , LCD T.V. is , just like BLUE RAY is , just like SHM-CDs , are.
The older rules don't apply.
I have written that SACDs sound excellent. It was a rip-off to have to buy a SACD player. Why didn't they get their sound right to begin with???
Are you trying to tell us that all record companies are , HONEST? That SONY , has never abused the re-mastering label??? Even your own posters would not believe that.
I know. CD technology changes all of the time , TRUE??? Isn't that why , SACDs were invented in the first place = better sound technology than what came before???
WELL , here is your next generation of better sound technology and they are called SHM-CDs. UNIVERSAL , has just built a better mouse trap.
The only way to know is by hearing them. There is NO other way.!!!
And people also don't like being called liars , fools and delusional.
Don't believe me , what do I care??? I was just trying to help answer the question asked , here???
"WHAT ARE SHM-CDs?????????????????????????"
You are welcome!!!! Talk about being biased and close minded. GEZZZZZ!!!
|
|
|
Post by DSD July 27, 2008 (52 of 127)
|
|
toronto said:
I don't think that an average price of $22.99 American is to much compared to the cost of your average SACD.
SHM-CDs , are leap years ahead of MOFI and SACDs. They are compatible with ALL CDs players and they do not need a SACD player to hear them or anything else , except a normal CD player.
Toronto said "I don't think that an average price of $22.99 American is to much compared to the cost of your average SACD."
NO most modern SACDs retail for $16.99 to $19.99 and many can be had at excellent discount for example the Telarc and Chesky SACDs I buy all the time NEW for $13.99. The only SACDs that are priced that high are MFSLs, Analogue Productions, Groove Note, etc. which retail for $25.00 and can be had around $22.99 at discount. There are some expensive SACDs priced higher than $25.00 at retail I don't buy those!
I agree with Polly Nomial this is some kind of snake oil! No matter what one does to a CD it is only 16 Bit 44.1kHz sampling frequency which in my experience, even with audiophile recordings is too low for music. The SACD has 2,822,400 samples per second and frequency response extends to 100kHz versus only 20kHz for CDs. CDs have a 96dB dynamic range but SACDs have a 120dB dynamic range and that is across the entire audible range.
Toronto said "SHM-CDs , are leap years ahead of MOFI and SACDs. They are compatible with ALL CDs players and they do not need a SACD player to hear them or anything else , except a normal CD player."
Total and complete hogwash. DSD mastered CDs can sound better than other CDs but they are still CDs, to here what DSD can do you need an SACD player. A normal CD player is still a normal CD player, one needs an SACD player to experience the high resolution DSD tracks.
I have always hated CDs, I will always hate CDs. To me even the XRCDs, XRCD2's and XRCD24s all sound DIGITAL in a bad way, strident sting tone and all the other digital abnormalities which SACD from DSD or anlalog masters DO NOT have. And quite frankly I want CD to DIE and to die a very violent, agonized and slow dead to pay back for the all unnecessary suffering that they have inflicted on music lovers ears over the past 25 years! CD is a crime and SHM-CD sounds to me like a SHAM-CD offering listeners blind hope of deliverance from the maladies of digital sound. That relief is here and it is called SACD!!!!
In fact I want CD to totally disappear and all SACDs to be either single layer SACDs or dual-layer double play SACDs with two DSD layers. If CD dies there will be no reason to continue offering an unneeded CD layer!
I looked at the list of releases and it is all Universal music, labels such as DGG, Philips and London. Not the best sounding labels out there, I prefer Telarc PURE DSD, and other audiophile labels that make realistic purest recordings. If these were offered as SHM-CDs I sure this would reveal the true scam nature of this type of disc. I have no doubt they are better than CDs, but CDs are crap so that is saying nothing at! But SACDs they cannot touch because the CD format itself is crippled by extremely poor specifications and resolving quality.
I am a reviewer for PFO and I would gladly accept a free copy of a SHM-CD you think to can equal an SACD and I will review it but be prepared for it to be ripped to shreds in-print as I will report exactly what I hear. As far as buying it for $22.99 no way, I wouldn't even pay $2.00 for a CD from any record label!
Last but not least we don't need no phony wannabe high resolution crummy CDs on SA-CD.net!
Happy listening to SACDs from DSD and Analog masters,
Teresa
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok.
Will the information, providing the same mastering is used, on the SHM-CD's be the same as a "normal" RBCD? Yes.
Will the (unknowing) laser from a player read the same information then (assuming no manufacturing defects on either disc)? Yes.
Will the player pass on the same information? Yes.
Will they sound the same to any listener without some form of a vested interest in SHM-CD? Yes.
Are SHM-CD's a gimmick then designed to increase studio profits for no benefit to the consumer? Yes.
Should anyone with more sense than money avoid double/triple/...-dipping on recordings they already own? Yes.
Are SHM-CD's a genuine format in their own right? No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSD said:
...
I agree with Polly Nomial this is some kind of snake oil!
...
Thanks and great post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
toronto said:
YES , you do need to hear these CDs for your self BECAUSE you are talking OLD SCHOOL MASTERING TECHNOLOGY.
This is new technology. Just like the , LCD T.V. is , just like BLUE RAY is , just like SHM-CDs , are.
The older rules don't apply.
Umm, the very link you gave in post 44 actually states that it is the MANUFACTURING process that is different not the mastering!
So, yes it is new technology but sadly the older rules of the RBCD format do apply because that is all these discs are, so... No I don't need to hear the same tired, old format to know the limitations of which I already have many, many examples.
|
|
|
Post by Edvin July 27, 2008 (56 of 127)
|
|
But you haven't heard them, have you? There is nothing wrong with the RBCD format if it is in good hands. I have many excellent sounding cd's in my collection and if this SHM thing can enhance it further, why not. It is very tiring with all these opinions on things you know absolutely nothing about. Listen to the cd's and then decide.
And Teresa, still crazy after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by zeus July 27, 2008 (57 of 127)
|
|
toronto said:
This is new technology. Just like the , LCD T.V. is , just like BLUE RAY is , just like SHM-CDs , are.
Aren't they just CDs with different (albeit clearer) plastic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edvin said:
But you haven't heard them, have you? There is nothing wrong with the RBCD format if it is in good hands. I have many excellent sounding cd's in my collection and if this SHM thing can enhance it further, why not. It is very tiring with all these opinions on things you know absolutely nothing about. Listen to the cd's and then decide.
Edvin
No I haven't and don't yet see why I should double/triple dip given that the masterings used are widely held to be the same (perhaps inaccurately in some cases).
Now, we go back a few years and a few recordings apart, generally speaking we respect each other and I'd hate to fall out over this.
Perhaps you could educate me why a different plastic will matter to the (unknowing) laser of my RBCD player?
A convincing, scientifically sound explanation will provoke gratitude from me but loathing from my family and bank!
Regards
PN
|
|
|
Post by Lochiel July 27, 2008 (59 of 127)
|
|
zeus said:
Aren't they just CDs with different (albeit clearer) plastic?
This is my question - I was intrigued by the idea and hopeful with the Led Zep announcement, but I can't see how "clearer" plastic will make any difference whatsoever. The plastic on CD's now is clear and transparent - if the player can read and decode the digital signal from the laser, it's reading the entirety of the signal. The analogy that the plastic is some kind of filter to the signal seems preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by azure July 27, 2008 (60 of 127)
|
|
|
With the box set, I noticed that the Led Zeppelin albums will be sold separately, and that they are the 1994 Remasters.
They would also have to offer 24bit Remastering before I start "double-dipping."
In the case of "Ascenseur Pour L'Échafaud" it has been previously released as a "24 bit Remaster" and I was replacing the original 1988 release, which a friend "permanently borrowed."
|
|
