Hi to All,
Last week I received discs from Japan and between them a cd from the Roxy Music series reissued in SHM and HDCD and one of the two that I love to listen to : Flesh and Blood, the second being Avalon ( that after hearing the former I ordered yesterday ).
After listenning to the disc I took another disc that a own for years being this manufactured in Holland by Virgin.Listenning to the later was a revelation comparing to the Japanese, the volume was low- but that was not the important difference, what was missing was dynamics, emotion in the words sung by Brian Ferry, the sounds from the instruments was flat- 2D- and missing , is like comparing a blurred fotograph against a 3D holographic picture.
I post my thoughts here because their relation to the equipment we all use - from integrated to 500 series- being the cd the input signal to the reproduction of music we all know the garbage in- garbage out axiom.
It's sad that the recording industry excluding Japan is treating in such desdain the work of musicians,maybe the only light in the tunnel are those producing the called classical music - and lovers of it including me can in the meantime buy recordings that are better treated than pop and rock music.
So my point is divided in two:
1. Investing in the hi-fi equipment is part of the equation- I like others want the best replay possible ,I plan next year to invest in a new NAC552, but also the best input signal is required.
2. The CD format isn't exactly dead: in Japan they are issuing cd's in shm, blue spec, blue spec 2- this two based on blue ray technology and the latest shm platinum - changing the reflecting surface from aluminum to platinum. I don't think that they are wishing to waist their money in gimics .
Best Regards to All,
Fabian
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by GraemeH
I judiciously hunt down (usually) first pressings of CD albums originally on vinyl as they are by far the least 'brick walled'. Yes they require the volume up a few notches but the dynamic range is so much greater. 'Seconds-Out' is a classic example.
If you can face the retentiveness, the Steve Hoffman forum is a useful resource to help you find the most highly regarded masterings of many cd's.
G
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by hafler3o
Originally Posted by Fabian Daniel Belger:
I don't think that they are wishing to waist their money in gimics .
Thanks Fabian, I read your post with interest!
What interests me more than the 'carrier' tech. or materials is where the source material came from to make the reissues, after all what you describe could be put down to artifice and processing in the Studio decades after the performance. As for gimmicks, gimmicks are there for us to waste our money on not theirs 
so the argument does not hold true.
For authentic SQ of Roxy please try and get hold of the 'flat transfer' box set "The Complete Studio Recordings", far far better and more natural (natural as in closer to the sound of the original, not boosted for the ear of the modern consumer, to make it sound like it could have been recorded today) and superior to the HDCD versions I owned for years (gimmicky!).
Please try and get to hear those as there's little chance I'll get to hear the Jap. versions, I have ONE (Kate Bush's 'The Dreaming') and that sounds particularly unremarkable / innocuous / uninvolved, and you can't accuse Kate of being unemotional vocally speaking!
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Fabian, indeed not all CD masters are equal, especially with tape transfers. I have many import CDs where I prefer the audio to its European CD master, and I understand the reverse also applies at times. It is I find largely a case of trial and error, but using word of mouth/keyboard on the web helps. If you buy used, the price and scarcity of a CD can also be a good indicator, especially with less well known titles.
PS what I find quite horrible is some of the processing done to 'tidy' up old vinyl transfers or tape masters of fifties and sixties recording including Motown. The end product can sound quite synthetic with wierd filtering effects (on a revealing system). I prefer the unadulterated transfer, it sounds so much better with a little crackle, hiss, saturation and tracking distortion.
Simon
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by hafler3o
Originally Posted by GraemeH:
I judiciously hunt down (usually) first pressings of CD albums originally on vinyl as they are by far the least 'brick walled'.
Indeed! From my own experience: REMs original Murmur CD sounds murky, sepia and undynamic on lesser systems, on good systems it sounds delicate, fragile and charming. Remastered version sounds "grown up" on lesser systems but an unhappy bloated mess on good systems.
So you pays your money...
As for the Garbage in garbage out axiom, many people use and think it 'digitally' but there is a lot more going on than Beginning / End! There is a multitude of "in the middle" bits too, hence the phenomenon of 'synergy' in products. I believe high quality hi-fi is "synergetic" with (as close to) original source material, principally because it needs less of a leg up than cheaper hi-fi.
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by Fabian Daniel Belger
Hi Kuma,
SHM stands for Super High Material , according to this the transparent plastic in the cd is more pure and allows the laser beam to read better the information.I own several SHM cd's and others - for example Led Zepelin non SHM that in comparison to the standard western issues from USA, U.K, Germany etc. are far better sonically produced the only problem is that they are pricey, but for me the import thing is quality and that they deliver.
You can find more about the offerings and specially about the Roxy Music cd's at CDJapan.jp.
I hope that I help you,
Best Regards,
Fabian
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by Harry
We have been, are and it seems ever will be at the mercy of the producer. That’s not likely to change and the advent of CDs has given many deaf engineers/producers the means to take the most diabolical liberties. I’m lucky because a lot of my collection spans the 50s to the 80s before most of the clipping and brick walling became fashionable. But it does put a consistent crimp on new purchases including reissues.
The CD has plenty of life left in it as a music storage medium but CD playback for me is dead and buried. The reason (in my ears) is that CD quality material sounds better streamed than played pack on a transport. While the ultimate enjoyment of any 24Bit material will, as music has always been, entirely dependent on how it is mixed and produced, higher resolutions have for me been much more enjoyably consistent. If you are wedded to CD playback I can see the appeal of HDCD, SHM-CD, BluSpec CD and their ilk, because I’ve been there myself. But streaming/USB at higher resolutions has pushed what is possible beyond such considerations.
I don’t have a single HDCD, BluSpec or SHM-CD that sounds better than the original UK release although they can sound different. Some of them enjoyably different. But not superior. The good news is that if you buy a first edition and wait a while, you can often double your money or better. I am slowly amassing 24Bit catalogues of some of my favourite artists. In situations where the musical enjoyment/sound quality is better to my ears than anything I have on CD (which at the moment is all of them) my Japanese CD imports are selling slowly but steadily and covering the cost of the 24Bit acquisitions. I am buying more CD box sets of late, for the DVD-As that come with them. I’ll still buy a physical disc over a download for a loved album.
What we will never overcome, regardless of playback medium and resolution, is a turd that cannot be polished. And we are waist deep in them.
Posted on: 04 August 2013 by J.N.
"I don’t have a single HDCD, BluSpec or SHM-CD that sounds better than the original UK release although they can sound different. Some of them enjoyably different. But not superior."
Amen to that Harry. I got sucked into the remastered and SHM CD buying spree and have a few. On a good system, they sound artificially pumped-up and louder. I prefer the original transfers I have on CD.
Similarly; I have a few Mo-Fi faves on CD. They have a certain analogue-like smoothness and 'niceness' about them, but sound somehow rounded-off and emasculated compared to the original transfers.
The strange irony is that many early CD transfers were superb, but the players (mid 1980's) simply weren't good enough to let us know how good.
Current popular recordings seem as a rule to be mastered and optimised for mp3 playback or radio, so are largely irredeemable in higher-bit-rate versions on a good quality system, capable of high resolution.
John.
