Sfearical Sequence wrote:Flashpoint wrote:sorcerer wrote:So is it the story that these SHM CDs play in standard CD players and due to the way they are manufactured and recorded give a better sound quality ?
If so sounds interesting.
I am hoping what I wrote does not read that way. The SHM portion is just marketing and advertising folly the more common term for that is the word LIES. It's not like using better vinyl in making LP's, a CD or SACD is a merely storage medium for computer data used in dedicated devices. Sure it's a topic for debate but all who actually understand the technology agree it meaningless. This who do not have that knowledge of course will argue from a point of ignorance.
The selling point of these Tangerine Dream SHM's are the quality of the transfers from the UK master tapes and how Mr Froese's, et al music was not tampered with and was allowed to speak for itself.
Not all "SHM's" were done in the same manner as the Tangerine Dream's so please do not assume they were. Once again the SHM material has nothing to do with the sound quality, the well done transfers (remastering) from the pristine UK masters is what makes the difference.
So glad to see someone else say this. The only thing that SHMs could possibly offer in the way of an improvement
You are 100% correct.
Most post 2000
* CD players, even the low priced ones, and all SACD players perform plays by using read-ahead (buffering) not real time conversion. The data is read from the discs and buffered into memory for smooth uninterrupted plays. The only way in which errors such as reads/seeks, CRC, P1, P2, and jitter will affect sound is when the data is actually missing. This will results in skipping-silences or ear piercing digital noise or static. Anyone who says it will result in different EQ, Sound Stage depth, Volume levels, brittleness, thinness|absence of bass - one; does not understand the technology - two; thinks digital music is same as vinyl and is too stubborn to change their mind and admit they were wrong - three; has unknown reasons they are claiming differences (people are weird) - four; gullible to the point they will believe all the recording company marketing (very common for people to believe whatever they see advertised) - five;
not someone who's opinion on sound should be trusted.
A notation: older CD players may have issues with the SHM-CD's as the reflective layer is lower than that of a standard aluminum or a gold CD. Those players also may not plays CD-R's.
I do want to mention this new SHM-SACD of Rubicon to be is vastly better than the 2004 SACD at every level. The 2004 SACD sound's like a low end recording done from bad tapes compared to the new SHM-SACD. I am hoping every one here is able to get a copy before they all disappear and sell for $100 or more. Stratosfear is at the same sound quality level as Rubicon. Phaedra and Ricochet is only small bit behind Rubicon . There is a small technical issue with p2 of Ricochet in 2 short spots that I believe were on the original Virgin CD [the last disc made from the UK masters]. Seems to me it is an issue that is on the UK master tapes that was digitally corrected via computer for the Definitive remaster. Since these TD SHM's are pure unaltered transfers all that sound that is on the UK Masters in present on the CD or SACD. I see that as good thing. Those who do not may not want to purchase Ricochet. Does the issue exist on the actual overall master tapes , Mr Froese's estate now owns them. Mr Froese seemed to be against letting the record company's have possession of them. Nor can I blame him. Therefore it does not appear they will be used for any future remaster.