Post by amatala July 28, 2008 (71 of 127)
|
|
EVERYTHING in the CD world is influenced by Jitter: digital cables can sound VERY different, putting anti-vibration feet under the CD player (like the BrightStar Isonodes) does change a lot the sound of the CD player, even when using an external DAC (as mentioned in the article listed above, even if the DACs have jitter correction and elimination circuits, less jitter at the source means better sound).
So I do not see why not clearer plastic would not help to reduce jitter, thus changing the sound. The only question is: how does it change sound? Some digital cables and anti-vibration feet produce clearer sound, other produce smoother, more relaxed sound. I personally prefer smoother sound, closer to SACD sound. If SHM CD sound smoother, it might be worth a try, but if it produces clearer, more detailed sound, then it is not for me. In any case, I guess I have to listen to one of those SHM CD contraptions one day and get my own opinion...
|
|
|
Post by Daland July 29, 2008 (72 of 127)
|
|
amatala said:
EVERYTHING in the CD world is influenced by Jitter: digital cables can sound VERY different, putting anti-vibration feet under the CD player (like the BrightStar Isonodes) does change a lot the sound of the CD player, even when using an external DAC (as mentioned in the article listed above, even if the DACs have jitter correction and elimination circuits, less jitter at the source means better sound).
So I do not see why not clearer plastic would not help to reduce jitter, thus changing the sound. The only question is: how does it change sound? Some digital cables and anti-vibration feet produce clearer sound, other produce smoother, more relaxed sound. I personally prefer smoother sound, closer to SACD sound. If SHM CD sound smoother, it might be worth a try, but if it produces clearer, more detailed sound, then it is not for me. In any case, I guess I have to listen to one of those SHM CD contraptions one day and get my own opinion...
I was so foolish as to buy a couple of SHM-CDs (Brahms symphonies - Karajan, Wagner Ring highlights - Solti, Strauss tone poems - Karajan). While I noticed increased transparency (compared with the standard CD versions which I happen to have in my collection), the sound was not smoother or more relaxed. The sensuous string sections in Strauss (Zarathustra, Don Juan) did not sound lush, but harsh and metallic. I played some of the Universal stereo SACDs released only in Japan and found that the sound was much more pleasant and natural.
Others may gain a different impression, but I have lost all interest in SHM-CDs. At least they are cheaper than xrcds. But both formats are far removed from the quality of the analog master tapes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
audioholik said:
JVC invested a lot in the famous DAC K2 technology and K2HD/XRCD remastered CDs, and now the new plastic for CDs (SHM-CD) is a continuation of their strategy to keep CDs alive in the audiophile world, too bad that SACD don't have such a company:-((
How about Fine NF with their Extreme Hard Glass disc for CD/SACD?
See http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20061026/nandf.htm
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr July 29, 2008 (74 of 127)
|
|
amatala said:
EVERYTHING in the CD world is influenced by Jitter: digital cables can sound VERY different, putting anti-vibration feet under the CD player (like the BrightStar Isonodes) does change a lot the sound of the CD player, even when using an external DAC (as mentioned in the article listed above, even if the DACs have jitter correction and elimination circuits, less jitter at the source means better sound).
So I do not see why not clearer plastic would not help to reduce jitter, thus changing the sound. The only question is: how does it change sound? Some digital cables and anti-vibration feet produce clearer sound, other produce smoother, more relaxed sound. I personally prefer smoother sound, closer to SACD sound. If SHM CD sound smoother, it might be worth a try, but if it produces clearer, more detailed sound, then it is not for me. In any case, I guess I have to listen to one of those SHM CD contraptions one day and get my own opinion...
Anti vibration feet and clear plastic cannot correct timing errors at the data read interface, which is jitter, as defined in the digital world. However, as the word "jitter" is used in a normal context, as that of being small rapid movements, then anti-vibration feet can have some effect. The claim about clear plastic is that it reduces laser diffraction. BTW, other tweak products claim this as well.
The best way to reduce jitter and noise is with a precision clock and a low noise power supply.
Digital cables and separate dacs are another matter. Two digital interfaces and cable lengths introduce a whole set of small timing factors. However this is not an issue for sacd as there are no separate dacs for sacd.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp July 29, 2008 (75 of 127)
|
|
stvnharr wrote:
Anti vibration feet and clear plastic cannot correct timing errors at the data read interface, which is jitter, as defined in the digital world. However, as the word "jitter" is used in a normal context,
Steven,
I think the technical context is the normal context here, and to use the word "jitter" to mean something else is confusing and unnecessary. Jitter is a timing issue, and until you start moving the data, timing is a _non sequitur_. The reason clearer plastic will not help with jitter is that one has no bearing on the other.
P.S. Azure wrote: "There is nothing we can do about jitter at the analogue to digital conversion end." Well, what can be done about nothing? Jitter cannot exist until we start _moving_ a _digital_ signal. So unless we are now calling every recording gremlin "jitter," the process of A-to-D conversion cannot create jitter.
|
|
|
Post by jakeroux July 29, 2008 (76 of 127)
|
|
While I have found this thread interesting, there sure has been a lot of talk (up to 8 pages now), with very little empirical evidence offered (i.e. purchasing and listening to an actual SHM-CD – and my thanks to those few who have offered their observations).
I don’t think the point for most of us is a comparison of the relative merits of SACD vs. SHM-CD, because I think most of us know, both from a theoretical standpoint , and for those who have listened, an empirical standpoint that there is no comparison between a well-mastered disc of both, particularly a multi-channel SACD. I believe the main issue is, or should be, can anyone opine, based on what they actually hear, as to whether an identical mastering of the same material sounds any different on a SHM-CD than it does on a standard CD? This question becomes pertinent for those of us who are seeking the highest optical disc (vinyl being another issue and debate) quality possible for those titles not offered on SACD.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr July 29, 2008 (77 of 127)
|
|
Dan Popp said:
Steven,
I think the technical context is the normal context here, and to use the word "jitter" to mean something else is confusing and unnecessary. Jitter is a timing issue, and until you start moving the data, timing is a _non sequitur_. The reason clearer plastic will not help with jitter is that one has no bearing on the other.
P.S. Azure wrote: "There is nothing we can do about jitter at the analogue to digital conversion end." Well, what can be done about nothing? Jitter cannot exist until we start _moving_ a _digital_ signal. So unless we are now calling every recording gremlin "jitter," the process of A-to-D conversion cannot create jitter.
Dan,
I didn't intend for my post to be poorly written and confusing.
Your post was much better written, clearer, and said what I meant to say.
|
|
|
Post by azure July 30, 2008 (78 of 127)
|
|
Dan
I only read online that these new versions of RBCDs address jitter.
As for the extent (if any) that they achieve this is another question entirely.
I wish I had that knowledge base ;-)
It appears that all technical material on the subject is written in Japanese; Understandable considering they are aimed only at that market.
Once again I must emphasis that I would NOT compare these types of RBCDs with SA-CDs or hybrid CDs.
|
|
|
Post by azure July 30, 2008 (79 of 127)
|
|
Paul Winser said:
There is nothing we can do about jitter at the analogue to digital conversion end. This has happened in the recording process and the distortions introduced are there for good.
http://www.audiocraftersguild.com/AandE/cd-jitter.pdf
I only quoted the above statement to explain why I feel the actual mastering has more to do with any improvement in sound quality.
|
|
|
Post by azure July 30, 2008 (80 of 127)
|
|
Roger Nichols said:
IT WAS JITTER!!!
The plant used the correct master, cut the glass master at 1x, and as far as I could tell, did everything right. But the CDs sounded different… unless you played them on a $10,000 CD player.
I called Glen Meadows at Masterfonics (now Emerald) in Nashville. He told me that many of the producers in Nashville were having similar problems with CD pressings, so they did some tests. They sent master tapes to the JVC plant in Alabama on EXABYTE, 1630 and PMCD. They cut glass on two different systems, one of which was called the K2 system. The pressings done on the regular LBR sounded different than the original masters. The K2 glass masters (special low jitter system) sounded the same as the original masters. .
. . .Somehow the problem was in either the glass masters or the plating process afterwards that makes the stampers that press the CDs.
http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html
|
|
