Thread: SHM-CD

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

Post by Dan Popp July 31, 2008 (91 of 127)
Peter,
When SACD was introduced to the masses, those of us in the industry had already been aware of the technology for years. We first heard of it as "one-bit" or "Delta-Sigma" digital recording. Then we got reviews in major industry magazines of recordings captured with "DSD." There were even discussions on the pro forums of how one might edit the stuff, because many pro's like me were favorably disposed toward it. We saw DSD as a potential way out of the "I've got more bits than you" race.

By the time SACD became a consumer format, one could go online and read press releases, discussions, reviews, and even white papers on the technology. In English, German, Japanese, Dutch, and other languages.

Contrast this with the current state of SHM-CD, where the "true believers" such as yourself seem to be willing to buy first and ask questions later. Those of us who have tasted snake oil know it by smell. Those who think they can't be fooled, are being fooled already.

And BTW, thanks for your attempt at an etiquette lesson. It shows us all once again that you have nothing more substantive to contribute.

Post by Peter July 31, 2008 (92 of 127)
Dan Popp said:

Peter,
When SACD was introduced to the masses, those of us in the industry had already been aware of the technology for years. We first heard of it as "one-bit" or "Delta-Sigma" digital recording. Then we got reviews in major industry magazines of recordings captured with "DSD." There were even discussions on the pro forums of how one might edit the stuff, because many pro's like me were favorably disposed toward it. We saw DSD as a potential way out of the "I've got more bits than you" race.

By the time SACD became a consumer format, one could go online and read press releases, discussions, reviews, and even white papers on the technology.

Contrast this with the current state of SHM-CD, where the "true believers" such as yourself seem to be willing to buy first and ask questions later. Those of us who have tasted snake oil know it by smell. Those who think they can't be fooled, are being fooled already.

And BTW, thanks for your attempt at an etiquette lesson. It shows us all once again that you have nothing more substantive to contribute.

Again, Mr Popp, you have failed dismally to read what I have written.

Peter

Post by Windsurfer July 31, 2008 (93 of 127)
Dan Popp said:

Peter,

And BTW, thanks for your attempt at an etiquette lesson. It shows us all once again that you have nothing more substantive to contribute.

Phew! You certainly have a "puffed up" manner about you!

Post by Dan Popp July 31, 2008 (94 of 127)
Peter wrote:

Again, Mr Popp, you have failed dismally to read what I have written.

What I read (in your post #82) was an assertion that empirical evidence on the benefits of SHM-CD has been provided by the "purveyors". This you called a "fact." To make such a pronouncement, you would have to have access to the alleged documentation. You must have seen it, to know certainly that it exists. Yet you are apparently unable to provide this "empirical evidence" to us.

P.S. To Windsurfer: Wasn't it you who was dismayed when I used underscores to indicate italics for emphasis? Yet when I use capitals for emphasis, Peter pouts. I would think that you would be explaining this to Peter.

Post by Windsurfer July 31, 2008 (95 of 127)
What I am concluding from all of this, Mr Popp is that what you are full of is you!

Post by Peter July 31, 2008 (96 of 127)
Dan Popp said:

What I read (in your post #82) was an assertion that empirical evidence on the benefits of SHM-CD has been provided by the "purveyors". This you called a "fact." To make such a pronouncement, you would have to have access to the alleged documentation. You must have seen it, to know certainly that it exists. Yet you are apparently unable to provide this "empirical evidence" to us.

P.S. To Windsurfer: Wasn't it you who was dismayed when I used underscores to indicate italics for emphasis? Yet when I use capitals for emphasis, Peter pouts. I would think that you would be explaining this to Peter.

I quote myself: "For all the snake-oil which has been discussed, the purveyors do in fact provide their evidence."

I was clearly referring to all the snake-oil. The websites for green pens, and the like all provide their evidence for you or anyone else to criticise. As far as SHM-CD is concerned, as I pointed out to you in a previous post, it has been issued only in Japan, and that if you wish to have the data with the claims Universal makes for this process, all you have to do is ask.

I have not to my knowledge agreed that any evidence for any of these "improvements" holds water. Not even the green marker.

Do by all means have the last word on this....................If your reply contains your usual insults sarcastic underscores and shouting I shall ignore it. And do not be misled into imagining I was or will be pouting.

After all, you have no empirical evidence for that.

Peter

Post by Dan Popp July 31, 2008 (97 of 127)
Peter,
Your position seems to be that because anyone can provide some sort of "data" (real or manufactured) that poses as "evidence," therefore it is not important that purveyors provide evidence.

My view is the opposite: since it is so easy to provide some nugget of babble that may fool the gullible, a snake oiler providing nothing at all is a good indication that "there is no 'there' there."

"All you have to do is ask," you say. Yet I have asked. I have asked you. Repeatedly. And you can point to no link in English, can upload no scanned print piece, nothing. Either you have some evidence, or you do not. If you do, show us. If not, admit that your "fact" was a "fabrication."

As to your and Mr. Windsurfer's continued and laughable attempts at amateur psychology, "don't give up your day jobs".

Post by Peter July 31, 2008 (98 of 127)
Dan Popp said:

Peter,
Your position seems to be that because anyone can provide some sort of "data" (real or manufactured) that poses as "evidence," therefore it is not important that purveyors provide evidence.

****No it isn't my position.

My view is the opposite: since it is so easy to provide some nugget of babble that may fool the gullible, a snake oiler providing nothing at all is a good indication that "there is no 'there' there."

****That's my view, too.

"All you have to do is ask," you say. Yet I have asked. I have asked you. Repeatedly. And you can point to no link in English, can upload no scanned print piece, nothing. Either you have some evidence, or you do not. If you do, show us. If not, admit that your "fact" was a "fabrication."

****It's not my job to provide you with Universal's evidence. Please find it for yourself.

As to your and Mr. Windsurfer's continued and laughable attempts at amateur psychology, "don't give up your day jobs".

****Oh dear. Pointing out that that you're a hectoring bully isn't "amateur psychology" - we have the empirical evidence.

End of discussion.

Post by wolfE July 31, 2008 (99 of 127)
Since 7 years my favourite storage medium is the SA-CD. But sometimes I buy RB-CDs (maybe 2%) because of the music. Now that Universal abandoned SA-CD, because Sony was not more willing to support Universals' campaign financially, for example I buy old Decca operas when they are re-released in the Original series (96 khz, 24 bit). I love them and want to have them in the best sound quality. I hope that sometimes in the future Universal will give the rights to an audiophile studio like Polyhymnia and we will get them as SA-CDs. But my lifetime is limited...
So I ordered the SHM-Kleiber "Fledermaus" and received it yesterday. Here my first impressions of the comparison with the old version, same high-bit-remastering ("Original-image-bit-processing") and with the analogue LP: The SHM-version sounds clearer, the sound stage is deeper, the instruments and the voices have more body and details, in duets the voices are better focused. In sum: The new version is the better RB-CD. Now the bad news: The harsh sound of the string section is as harsh as before, no analogue-like feeling compared to the LP; when you listen longer, you become a bit annoyed and your wife and your pets have a tendency to cry and leave the house.
My conclusion beyond the emotional discussion above: I will buy some of the announced SHM-CDs, maybe some of my favourites of the ECM-catalogue, because the new manufacturing-technology leads to an audible improvement. But they are only better RB-CDs, no alternative to the SA-CD format. Never.

Post by zeus July 31, 2008 (100 of 127)
wolfE said:

My conclusion beyond the emotional discussion above: I will buy some of the announced SHM-CDs, maybe some of my favourites of the ECM-catalogue, because the new manufacturing-technology leads to an audible improvement. But they are only better RB-CDs, no alternative to the SA-CD format. Never.

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.

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

Closed