Classic Blue Notes on SHM-CD

[David Ayers]

I think there is more new recorded music out there than ever.

Although this thread is long, I get the impression that many of the folks on this board are doing no more than dip into these reissue series for titles they lack or to hear old favourites in improved sound.

[David Ayers]

And PS this is only recorded music we are talking about, which is a bit like collecting beer mats.

There's always actual musicians to go and hear - or you can even write or play some music yourself.

[Daniel A]

As for SHM being a hoax, I can attest to the fact that when ripping these CD:s to a computer with a software like EAC, which reads every frame multiple times until there is consistent data for a given number of consecutive reads, the ripping is generally faster than for the majority of common CD:s. This seems to indicate that there are fewer read errors from SHM CD:s. As a CD player only gets one chance to get it right a common CD theoretically puts more strain on the error correction circuit.

To what extent this difference is perceptible I don't know, and it doesn't matter much to me. However, I'm happy with the remastering of the SHM series.

David's point about optimal playback of digital files is of course valid. Strange as it may seem, having these pieces of plastic shipped from Japan is still the only option of having some of this music in uncompressed 16/44 in this part of the world, though. (Not to mention the bonus tracks of this series, which I believe that the "common" CD reissues with the same mastering are missing.)

[erwbol]

(Not to mention the bonus tracks of this series, which I believe that the "common" CD reissues with the same mastering are missing.)

That was also my conclusion.

SHM

regular CD

And the regular CD is already out of print only three months after its October 2014 release date.

[RiRiIII]

(Not to mention the bonus tracks of this series, which I believe that the "common" CD reissues with the same mastering are missing.)

That was also my conclusion.

SHM

regular CD

And the regular CD is already out of print only three months after its October 2014 release date.

Cdjapan very often shown titles as oop, while they are still readily available elsewhere;

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/artist_Sonny-Clark_000000000002020/item_Cool-Struttin-24bit-Rmt_5508885

The regular CD is oop also at hmv.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

As for SHM being a hoax, I can attest to the fact that when ripping these CD:s to a computer with a software like EAC, which reads every frame multiple times until there is consistent data for a given number of consecutive reads, the ripping is generally faster than for the majority of common CD:s. This seems to indicate that there are fewer read errors from SHM CD:s. As a CD player only gets one chance to get it right a common CD theoretically puts more strain on the error correction circuit.

You are falling into a common misconception about CD error correction. It's an error correction algorithm that is applied to every bit that is read from the CD all the time. There is no strain on the error correction circuits because they aren't working harder, they're working the same as if the CD had no errors. The bits go through error checking circuitry and if a bit needs to flip, it's flipped. If it doesn't need to be flipped, it isn't. There is no additional circuitry needed to flip these bits.

[David Ayers]

As for SHM being a hoax, I can attest to the fact that when ripping these CD:s to a computer with a software like EAC, which reads every frame multiple times until there is consistent data for a given number of consecutive reads, the ripping is generally faster than for the majority of common CD:s. This seems to indicate that there are fewer read errors from SHM CD:s. As a CD player only gets one chance to get it right a common CD theoretically puts more strain on the error correction circuit.

You are falling into a common misconception about CD error correction. It's an error correction algorithm that is applied to every bit that is read from the CD all the time. There is no strain on the error correction circuits because they aren't working harder, they're working the same as if the CD had no errors. The bits go through error checking circuitry and if a bit needs to flip, it's flipped. If it doesn't need to be flipped, it isn't. There is no additional circuitry needed to flip these bits.

Not sure about this. Yes a CD player has a 'circuit' but a PC? When I use EAC it takes much longer to process tracks requiring significant correction.

[Scott Dolan]

What's the difference between a CD player in a standalone casing, and a CD player in a PC?

And EAC has absolutely nothing to do with error correction. Error correction is done by the optical drive hardware. CD drives don't have the option of saying, "gimme a sec".

Lastly, unless the disc is dirty and/or scratched, there will no significant data errors.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[Daniel A]

As for SHM being a hoax, I can attest to the fact that when ripping these CD:s to a computer with a software like EAC, which reads every frame multiple times until there is consistent data for a given number of consecutive reads, the ripping is generally faster than for the majority of common CD:s. This seems to indicate that there are fewer read errors from SHM CD:s. As a CD player only gets one chance to get it right a common CD theoretically puts more strain on the error correction circuit.

You are falling into a common misconception about CD error correction. It's an error correction algorithm that is applied to every bit that is read from the CD all the time. There is no strain on the error correction circuits because they aren't working harder, they're working the same as if the CD had no errors. The bits go through error checking circuitry and if a bit needs to flip, it's flipped. If it doesn't need to be flipped, it isn't. There is no additional circuitry needed to flip these bits.

Sorry for not presenting it correctly. What I meant was that there's a limit to what the error correction can "guess" from missing/faulty bits. I didn't mean that the circuitry was literally under pressure. Whether the SHM/non-SHM difference is enough to ever make a real (audible) difference I don't know, but I doubt it (which is why I added "theoretically"). What I have observed, though, is that the SHM CD:s seem to be easier to read for the CD-ROM drive.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Daniel A

[David Ayers]

EAC takes longer to read problem data. That is because it keeps going back over it to get a correct reading. Can't help with the rest but that's just a fact.

[Scott Dolan]

EAC takes longer to read problem data. That is because it keeps going back over it to get a correct reading. Can't help with the rest but that's just a fact.

If it's a fact, then you should have no problem providing data for the rest of us to study.

Until then, it is either perception or opinion.

[Daniel A]

And EAC has absolutely nothing to do with error correction.

I'm not sure I get your point, but that's probably my fault.The reason I brought up EAC was that the ripping time is affected by how difficult a disc is to read, and that I have observed a general difference in ripping time between scratch free CD:s and SHM CD:s I've ripped.

[Scott Dolan]

I usually observe excellent ripping times with the majority of my CDs, with the occasional 2x troublemaker.

So what does it mean?

We can sit here and volley anecdotes all day, but it essentially proves nothing either way.

[Daniel A]

Actually, you initiated this sub-discussion by calling SHM a scam. Sorry for responding.

[David Ayers]

EAC takes longer to read problem data. That is because it keeps going back over it to get a correct reading. Can't help with the rest but that's just a fact.

If it's a fact, then you should have no problem providing data for the rest of us to study.

Until then, it is either perception or opinion.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/cd-ripping-software-roundup_Page-4

I can only assume you've never used EAC or you'd certainly have noticed.

[Scott Dolan]

Well, both you and Daniel have proven nothing.

I'm open to proof that EAC has shown SHM CDs to be more "error free" than traditional CDs.

Anecdotal "evidence" and a review of the technology really doesn't provide said proof.

[David Ayers]

That's not what I said, is it Scott? Why not just thank me for the link and for explaining what EAC does? If you read any account of EAC you will see that is how it works. If you use it you will see it do just that. It shows the speed of the rip and the percentage of success. Daniel is satisfied his SHM CDs ripped cleanly and quickly. Not all do, as you would know if you used it. That means they are well-manufactured. That's it. No-one is trying to 'prove' anything to you.

[Scott Dolan]

I've seen the speed of my rip on every single piece of software I've ever used to do so. From Nero all the way to iTunes.

As I stated before, which you obviously missed, most CDs rip quickly and cleanly, while some don't. I really don't care what program you are using.

Believe it or not, EAC didn't create ripping, nor does it have the market cornered.

You previously said: "EAC takes longer to read problem data. That is because it keeps going back over it to get a correct reading. Can't help with the rest but that's just a fact."

A fairly ridiculous statement as it pertains to every CD ripping program ever created. Again: every CD ripping program ever created. It's why some discs rip quickly, and others don't.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[David Ayers]

Hell is other people, right?

[erwbol]

List on page one updated with the help of .doc file Late provided.

[Scott Dolan]

Hell is other people, right?

Actually, it's folks who buy into nonsense because they heard it was true from someone who presented them with absolutely no evidence that it was, and don't have the time or the desire to investigate its veracity before passing it on to others as given fact.

[erwbol]

Hell is trolls derailing interesting discussion on the internet.

[David Ayers]

No-one here has endorsed SHM except to say that these SHM CDs seem to be good quality.

As far as I can gather, there has been a lot of work on the industry to improve the quality and durability of the CD material over the years. You think that is basically wasted effort, that's fine. When SHM was sold at a premium price, as SACD once was and occasionally still is, then it was logical to resist, as the likelihood of any SQ improvement was disappearingly small. But now they are sold so cheaply what different does it make? It remains the only way to obtain these new masters until the same masterings are re-issued as lower price standard CDs, which will also be fine, for sure. And these remasterings are good.

These SHMs cost less than $13 a shout. If to you that's a 'scam' then it is. To others it is just a bit of inexpensive fun, nothing to get exercised about.

[Scott Dolan]

No, the price is reasonable these days. I have absolutely no quarrel with that.

My problem was with you and Daniel insinuating that SHM CDs rip easier, so therefore they are more error free than standard CDs. Well, you seem to be insinuating it, but Daniel has explicitly stated it. Now, if that wasn't your intent and I am completely misreading your statements, I apologize. That's on me.

I guess the other confusing aspect being that you stated that EAC takes longer to read "problem data" as though that was an issue exclusive to EAC. That's the way all ripping software works. Now, as to the WHY, I've read many different reasons, but have never found consensus. I mean, why can I pull out a random disc and get a 20x rip while another gives me a painfully slow 4x rip? Hell, I had a three disc set where two of the discs ripped in a flash, and the third chugged along for nearly ten minutes!

Very bizarre. But certainly observable on any audio ripping program.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Scott Dolan

[sidewinder]

I think I'll wait until the holographic Blue Note reissues come out before upgrading any more !