Thread: SHM-CD

Posts: 127
Page: prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 next

Post by Peter July 31, 2008 (101 of 127)
zeus said:

You may want to try copying your existing CD to high quality CD-R media at low speed. If your player is more susceptible to jitter (and doesn't re-clock the data) the burnt CD-R may realize some/most of the benefits you're hearing from SHM-CD. As you've noted it's still going to be a CD with all its limitations.

Interesting. I have a Yamaha CD recorder, CDR HD1500, and it has a high quality copy mode, where the copy is supposed to sound better than the original.

I feel sure that Yamaha themselves will provide evidence for the truth of this assertion.

Peter

PS In this high quality mode the maximum time for recording on an 80 minute blank is rather less than that. I do have two rhetorical questions about this:

1. Why aren't all CDs made that way?

2. If it does actually work should I burn all my shorter CD to CDR (this uses music CDRs) and achieve better sound?

Post by jakeroux July 31, 2008 (102 of 127)
Thanks for your observations, wolfE and Zeus.

As far as the numerous posts, aside from what appears to the usual camaraderie and bickering of those of us passionate about our music, based on my own experience, I suspect it can at least partly be explained as follows. I’m relatively new to the SACD and hi-rez world, having just started collecting and listening this year, and I love what I hear. In fact, if possible, I would make all my future purchases SACD or at least DVD-A (Blue-ray audio being barely past the gestation stage right now). However, since that is not possible due to the limited titles available, particularly for those of us who have not yet developed a robust taste for classical music, I am keenly interested to try to locate the best possible recordings of those titles not currently in a hi-rez format. And, since I value the experience, ears and gear of those active on this list, I figure who better to offer their observations on the matter. Off topic? certainly as it applies to the narrow interest of SACD as a media. However, I suspect most of us are interested not primarily in the “means” (the storage media) but the end result (the best sound possible). It may very well be time to wrap it up though, or at least move the discussion to a more appropriate forum. Thanks again.

Post by Windsurfer July 31, 2008 (103 of 127)
zeus said:

I fail to see why it merits 100 posts here.

It didn't but if you notice most of the posts really concerned someone's supposed erudition in the philosophy of science and said individual's need to display that erudition. The victim would not lay down and say "Uncle".

It entertained those of us who did not shake our heads in disgust.

Post by Dan Popp July 31, 2008 (104 of 127)
Peter wrote:

****It's not my job to provide you with Universal's evidence.

Peter,
It would be your job only if you had insisted that such evidence existed. In fact.

Post by DSD August 1, 2008 (105 of 127)
zeus said:

You may want to try copying your existing CD to high quality CD-R media at low speed. If your player is more susceptible to disc-related jitter (and doesn't re-clock the data) the burnt CD-R may realize some/most of the benefits you're hearing from SHM-CD. As you've noted it's still going to be a CD with all its limitations. I fail to see why it merits 100 posts here.

I'm shocked as well a CD is a CD no matter how you dress it up. I've have noticed CD-R copies sound better than the original and smoother but they are still CDs. This whole thread doesn't below on sa-cd.net is there no way to remove it?

The only way to get SACDs released is to buy SACDs. Don't buy CDs, don't download music unless it's free. If we all do this there will come a time when all CDs will have an SACD layer just so they can be sold. By buying CDs we are only hurting ourselves in the long run. If you really must have a recording and can't wait for the SACD I think it would be safe to buy the LP. But by buying their CDs you are giving recording companies an excuse NOT TO release SACDs because you'll buy the CD anyway. Think about it.

Zeus I haven't said in a while but great site, it is very useful in finding new SACDs I didn't otherwise know about. Thanks.

Post by Windsurfer August 1, 2008 (106 of 127)
DSD said:

The only way to get SACDs released is to buy SACDs. Don't buy CDs, don't download music unless it's free. If we all do this there will come a time when all CDs will have an SACD layer just so they can be sold. Buy buying CDs we are only hurting ourselves in the long run. If you really must have a recording and can't wait for the SACD I think it would be safe to buy the LP. But by buying their CDs you are giving recording companies an excuse NOT TO release SACDs because you'll buy the CD anyway. Think about it.

I said something like this more than a year ago and was met by jeers and sneers but no matter how you cut it what you said is true.

What should be added is that each of us NEEDS to enlist the support of others through introducing them to and selling them on the purchase of their own SACD equipment and encourage those others to carry the campaign on (2X 4X 8X 16X 32X etc) Six iterations of that would increase our numbers (and demand) 64 fold. With seven, we would increase our numbers by more than two orders of magnitude.

Post by Edvin August 1, 2008 (107 of 127)
So you will rather buy a third or fourth rate performance on SACD than a first rate performance on RBCD? To me that signals a not so big interest in music.

This community reminds me more and more of a sick cult or sect. Maybe it is time for every SACD enthusiast to commit suicide at a specific time.

Post by tailspn August 1, 2008 (108 of 127)
Edvin said:


This community reminds me more and more of a sick cult or sect. Maybe it is time for every SACD enthusiast to commit suicide at a specific time.

We're sick?

Post by rammiepie August 1, 2008 (109 of 127)
Windsurfer said:

I said something like this more than a year ago and was met by jeers and sneers but no matter how you cut it what you said is true.

What should be added is that each of us NEEDS to enlist the support of others through introducing them to and selling them on the purchase of their own SACD equipment and encourage those others to carry the campaign on (2X 4X 8X 16X 32X etc) Six iterations of that would increase our numbers (and demand) 64 fold. With seven, we would increase our numbers by more than two orders of magnitude.

The biggest problem in selling a format is the software and unfortunately, SACD, unless you are a diehard classical or jazz aficionado, offers very little in the form of pop music (and the majority of those are OUT OF PRINT). And the problem with multi-channel is that the "sweet spot" can only accomodate one listener at a time. And why this particular SHM-CD thread has run into 107 posts is that a lot of the released titles are very choice ones (especially the ECMs) and wishful thinking dictates "why couldn't they be SACD hybrids????????" At least, that's my rationale.

Post by azure August 1, 2008 (110 of 127)
Although I'm a keen supporter of SACD, my collection has a larger number of CD titles.
My purchase is based on performance, and then after that sound quality (if there is a choice).
I would not refuse to buy a CD, if there is no likelihood of a SACD release.
Surely one thread about this type of RBCD is not too much to ask.
I'm all for anything that improves the RBCD sound. that does not mean though this format or HQCD will offer dramatic results.
Like many here, I'm disappointed that the 80 ECM titles were not remastered and reissued on hybrid CD.

Page: prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 next

Closed