Thread: What is SHM-SACD?

Posts: 27
Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Post by rammiepie June 19, 2014 (11 of 27)
Espen R, I'm sure AP would have accessed the 3 channel masters if they were available and in usuable shape.

Post by Espen R June 19, 2014 (12 of 27)
rammiepie said:

Espen R, I'm sure AP would have accessed the 3 channel masters if they were available and in usuable shape.

Probably.
But maybe some legal rights prevented them...

Post by DSD June 19, 2014 (13 of 27)
rammiepie said:

And there's NO reason the Japanese couldn't produce a single layered multichannel and stereo SHM~SACD ...

Actually uncompressed multichannel wouldn't fit on a single-layer SACD since SHM-SACDs don't use DST lossless compression. They believe uncompressed DSD sounds better than losslessly compressed DSD (DST).

Those single-layer Sony multichannel SACDs used DST lossless compression.

SHM-SACD Specs:

SHM - Super High Material

Green labels - helps audio quality by lightening the burden on the servo mechanism for the player’s tracking head and to introduce fewer errors for the player’s error correction to handle.

Single-layer - Mark Levinson claims single-layer SACDs are sonically superior to hybrid-SACDs based on in-house tests he performed. Other listeners have also noticed a fuller, richer sound with single-layer SACDs.

Uncompressed DSD audio - I have never got to directly compare uncompressed and losslessly compressed DSD but I understand why they reject DST lossless compression as I prefer uncompressed PCM (WAV, AIFF) over losslessly compressed PCM (FLAC, ALAC) so there is no reason the same results would not apply to DSD.

Post by Disbeliever June 19, 2014 (14 of 27)
IMO error.

Post by Joseph Ponessa June 20, 2014 (15 of 27)
DSD said:

SHM-SACD Specs:
SHM - Super High Material
Green labels - helps audio quality by lightening the burden on the servo mechanism for the player’s tracking head and to introduce fewer errors for the player’s error correction to handle.
Single-layer - Mark Levinson claims single-layer SACDs are sonically superior to hybrid-SACDs based on in-house tests he performed. Other listeners have also noticed a fuller, richer sound with single-layer SACDs.
Uncompressed DSD audio - I have never got to directly compare uncompressed and losslessly compressed DSD but I understand why they reject DST lossless compression as I prefer uncompressed PCM (WAV, AIFF) over losslessly compressed PCM (FLAC, ALAC) so there is no reason the same results would not apply to DSD.

Thanks for the point-by-point summary. I found it a useful review.

Post by Iain June 20, 2014 (16 of 27)
terence said:

Can somebody please explain to me what exactly SHM-SACD is, as opposed to SACD pure and simple?

And if it is better, why is it?

You won't find any scientifically objective, peer reviewed reports of this technology.

What you will find though, are lots of accounts that are anecdotal and subjective in nature. Nothing there provides definitive proof that this technology is better than other competing technologies, however. It's simply a marketing ploy to get your money. Nothing more than that.

Recommend you save your money and continue to use what's been proven to work well.

Post by Lunna June 20, 2014 (17 of 27)
"I have never got to directly compare uncompressed and losslessly compressed DSD but I understand why they reject DST lossless compression as I prefer uncompressed PCM (WAV, AIFF) over losslessly compressed PCM (FLAC, ALAC) so there is no reason the same results would not apply to DSD."

Your ears are much better than mine. I have trouble discerning between FLAC/ALAC and WAV.

Post by AmonRa June 20, 2014 (18 of 27)
To answer the question of this thread: Humbug.

SACD is basically a DVD disk. Error correction is near perfect, for example in software delivery using DVD-R there can not be any errors or the the software would not work. SHM-SACD "inventors" play on the fears of audiophiles and audiophools, claiming to improve perfection, delivering less (no hybrid, less space) and charging more.

The idea of lossless compression is to pack data in a way that can be perfectly unpacked. Unpacked data is identical to the original, so if somebody claims that he hears a difference, he is lying or there is expectation bias at work: listening with eyes.

SHM-SACD is actually double humbug: Are there any modern pure DSD recordings published as SHM-SACD only? It seems they are mostly analog tape transfers which sound just as good on RBCD.

Post by stvnharr June 20, 2014 (19 of 27)
AmonRa said:

SHM-SACD is actually double humbug: Are there any modern pure DSD recordings published as SHM-SACD only? It seems they are mostly analog tape transfers which sound just as good on RBCD.

Yes it is truly true that the SHM-sacd's are mostly all old analogue recordings, some cherished and highly regarded and some not so cherished.
How the SHM's sound compared to rbcd requires an actual listening comparison. And I'm fairly certain that you have not done that.
While you rightly chide people for listening with their eyes, perhaps you listen without actually listening - because you just know.

I have a few shm-sacd's. I think they sound pretty good. However I kinda think they sound pretty good because of the new masters done by Emil Berliner, rather than the green, single layer, and clearer than clear plastic. Nevertheless they are only available as costly shm-sacd's.

Post by rammiepie June 20, 2014 (20 of 27)
Universal DID release a few DSD titles on SHM~SACD (Hiromi/Stanley Clarke) from the Heads Up label (and they DO sound superb) but I do agree that some of those analogue 'creakers' should never have been released on SHM~SACD (Velvet Underground should've stayed underground)!

Releasing all those analogue titles as 96/24 DVD~As would've have sufficed at a fraction of the cost.

Page: prev 1 2 3 next

Closed