# SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) - any experiences?



## Luukas (Apr 1, 2016)

Hello everybody,

I just discovered that Universal Music Japan has re-released Leonard Bernstein's Deutsche Grammophon Sibelius and Mahler live recordings on so-called SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) format. As far as I know these were 44,1-kHz/16-bit origins that were remastered to higher resolution for SHM-CD reproduction. How these differs from the original CD releases? How about the sound, is it better? As an dedicated audiophile I have ceased to buy normal CDs but I have considered to give a chance for these because Lenny's passionate readings have been exemplary for me. Help me, please!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Maybe better in the hi-fi forum? Actually, I think I already made some of the same comments there.

I haven't bought any SHM-CDs, but I have bought several SHM-SACDs (jazz and rock) when they were offered at a reduced price. I bought them to benefit from high quality mastering and sources. All of the discs I bought were recorded in analog. And they sound good. From what I've read, though, I doubt I would pay the premium for a digitally recorded redbook release.


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

I have two SHM CDs, John Mellencamp and Miles Davis. From what I've heard from those two, SHM CDs are nothing special. But SHM SACD could be a different story.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

There's no real benefit to SHM CDs or SACDs from a physical perspective. It's just audiophool nonsense. Sometimes labels do master SHM CDs a little more carefully than they do normal CDs. Thus, there could be a sound benefit, but that won't necessarily be the case in every circumstance.

Upconverting 16/44.1 audio does nothing to improve the audio quality. If anything, it might make it worse. Like I said earlier, they may have mastered the audio better on these re-releases, but it's just that. Better mastering. Upconversion and SHM won't do anything.

I also dare to say that you're passing up on many awesome and inexpensive classical CDs by ignoring the CD format. Forget about what you've read on rock/pop forums about the CD format. Their world is totally different than ours in terms of recording and mastering. Classical labels have been doing CDs right for many years now and they sound great.


----------



## Luukas (Apr 1, 2016)

View attachment 94015

Mahler: Symphony No. 2 in C minor "Resurrection"
Barbara Hendricks & Christa Ludwig
The Westminster Choir & New York Philharmonic, Leonard Bernstein

Thank you very much for your helpful replies, guys! However, I have considered to buy this superb recording of Mahler's "Resurrection Symphony" as my first - and probably only - SHM-CD. It is available at CDJapan: http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/UCCG-90556. For me, Bernstein's broad interpretation was a key to this work. He managed to build great climaxes when required and especially the closing chorus did a great impression. Sadly the quality of the recording was somewhat flat and rough. I have heard that SHM-CD bypasses these errors creating smooth and beautiful soundstage with delightful separation of different instruments.


----------



## CDs (May 2, 2016)

Hopefully it gives you the sound you're looking for!
I see no harm in trying a new format. At worst you'll be out a little bit of money.
I know there are some good SHM SACDs out there. I might buy one of those in the near future.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Luukas said:


> I have heard that SHM-CD bypasses these errors creating smooth and beautiful soundstage with delightful separation of different instruments.


Deutsche Grammophon's recordings from the 1970s and 1980s had a reputation for sounding quite poor due to multi-miking and other miking/mixing related issues. It's possible that they have worked on these issues on later remasterings, but I can't really say for sure. It's entirely possible that there's a regular CD remastering that will sound just as good for less money, but I'm not really familiar with this recording to be able to say that.

Some people have said that records/CDs (rock/pop, but perhaps classical too) aimed at the Japanese market have a tendency to have a bit of a treble boost. I guess the Japanese have some sort of affinity for more treble. It's possible that some SHM CDs and SACDs have a treble boost mastered in, but I can't say that for sure. If they do, well, these recordings might be less accurate, but they might sound better if you like bright sounding recordings. Then again, you could just buy the regular CD and turn up the treble on your amp.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

_Let us know how you like the sound Luukas, I am interested in this one:_

​


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I had bought a few of the SHM-CDs from CD Japan, and also some 'Bluspec' discs from them . In all cases these were discs that I currently owned in red book CD, all being analog recordings. All the Japanese issues sounded much better than the original CD versions, but whether this was due to the materials of the disc or due to superior remastering jobs, I honestly don't know. 
I don't know if Japanese ears favor a 'tizzier' treble and thus a treble boost is applied during their remastering. If so, then perhaps I have some Japanese ancestry because I definitely prefer these versions. I also disagree with the comments made about upsampling. I didn't know what upsampling, or upconversion, was but many years ago my first external DAC offered upsampling and I immediately liked it. It frequently improves the ambience of recordings. They sound as if they are coming from a hall, with space between the players, and the listener sitting somewhere in the audience instead of 3 feet behind the conductor. Fwiw, I prefer upconversion to 176, and not higher, because above 176 the soundstage begins to sound more diffuse.
The comments about DG recordings are interesting. I always thought that their main issue was diffuse and flabby bass, particularly the Karajan recordings. I own the red book version of the disc that Luukas bought and I don't remember any particular problem with it, but perhaps tonight I'll re listen and I certainly would like to hear what he just bought as a comparison. Too bad Finland isn't a suburb of Chicago


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

I have regular and SHM-CD versions of Mahler's 7th by Claudio Abbado and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Although the SHM-CD sounds slightly different to the regular CD version, I'm not sure it could be said to sound any better. A little quieter if anything, although that may just be due to the mastering process.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Triplets said:


> I had bought a few of the SHM-CDs from CD Japan, and also some 'Bluspec' discs from them . In all cases these were discs that I currently owned in red book CD, all being analog recordings. All the Japanese issues sounded much better than the original CD versions, but whether this was due to the materials of the disc or due to superior remastering jobs, I honestly don't know.
> I don't know if Japanese ears favor a 'tizzier' treble and thus a treble boost is applied during their remastering. If so, then perhaps I have some Japanese ancestry because I definitely prefer these versions. I also disagree with the comments made about upsampling. I didn't know what upsampling, or upconversion, was but many years ago my first external DAC offered upsampling and I immediately liked it. It frequently improves the ambience of recordings. They sound as if they are coming from a hall, with space between the players, and the listener sitting somewhere in the audience instead of 3 feet behind the conductor. Fwiw, I prefer upconversion to 176, and not higher, because above 176 the soundstage begins to sound more diffuse.
> The comments about DG recordings are interesting. I always thought that their main issue was diffuse and flabby bass, particularly the Karajan recordings. I own the red book version of the disc that Luukas bought and I don't remember any particular problem with it, but perhaps tonight I'll re listen and I certainly would like to hear what he just bought as a comparison. Too bad Finland isn't a suburb of Chicago


Upconverting audio and expecting an improvement is like squeezing a stone and expecting orange juice to come out. Upconverting does not add anything since there's nothing to add. Now a possible explanation as to why your DAC sounds better at 176.4 is due to oversampling. The DACs built into CD players since the late 1980s oversample the audio usually at 4x or 8x due to the nature of filtering and the subsequent cleaner effects. It's possible that running the DAC at 176.4 is essentially running it at the same rate as a CD player oversampling at 4x. Your DAC may not do any oversampling if you tell it to run at 44.1. My guess is that is what is going on, but it's hard to say for sure without knowing how your DAC works. But, anyway, this is a totally different process than the record company taking 44.1 material, upconveting it, and then bringing it back down to 44.1. If anything, they are making it worse if they are upconverting it to something like 96 where dither would have to be used to bring it back down to 44.1.

It's not uncommon for people to like more treble or bass. A lot of the headphones made today are EQed to boost the treble and bass. Personally, I want classical music to be recorded and mastered to produce as natural of a sound as possible. I can EQ the sound myself to my liking using tone controls should I feel the need to do so.

DG was, at least for a while, a big proponent of multi-miking as compared to the "Decca Tree" type recording methods more commonly used. While good results could be had using that method, it needed careful mixing and mastering. I'm not sure if DG got any consistency in that regard especially when, as it was rumored, Karajan would insist that he be allowed to play the role of the audio engineer. Regardless, there were bad non-Karajan DG releases as well so I don't know how much blame Karajan himself should be given.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I have the same problem with Karajan Beethoven from the 70s. It sounds harsh, horrible.

On the other hand, the Berg box sounds fantastic. I wonder why this is.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I have the same problem with Karajan Beethoven from the 70s. It sounds harsh, horrible.
> 
> On the other hand, the Berg box sounds fantastic. I wonder why this is.


The Berg box was released in the mid-2000s so probably some of the works were remastered to sound better. Also, it looks like a lot of the performances in that box were recorded in the 1990s. DG fixed a lot of issues in the 1990s. Some were recorded in the 1960s, that may have been before DG's sound quality went south. Some of it was recorded in the 1970s, which was a dodgy era for DG, but not everything they recorded during that time was bad. They may have had different engineers using different methods depending on the situation.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Klassik said:


> Upconverting audio and expecting an improvement is like squeezing a stone and expecting orange juice to come out. Upconverting does not add anything since there's nothing to add. Now a possible explanation as to why your DAC sounds better at 176.4 is due to oversampling. The DACs built into CD players since the late 1980s oversample the audio usually at 4x or 8x due to the nature of filtering and the subsequent cleaner effects. It's possible that running the DAC at 176.4 is essentially running it at the same rate as a CD player oversampling at 4x. Your DAC may not do any oversampling if you tell it to run at 44.1. My guess is that is what is going on, but it's hard to say for sure without knowing how your DAC works. But, anyway, this is a totally different process than the record company taking 44.1 material, upconveting it, and then bringing it back down to 44.1. If anything, they are making it worse if they are upconverting it to something like 96 where dither would have to be used to bring it back down to 44.1.
> 
> It's not uncommon for people to like more treble or bass. A lot of the headphones made today are EQed to boost the treble and bass. Personally, I want classical music to be recorded and mastered to produce as natural of a sound as possible. I can EQ the sound myself to my liking using tone controls should I feel the need to do so.
> 
> ...


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Triplets said:


> Au contraire. Upsampling is like adding extra orange juice concentrate, to borrow from your analogy. When material is upsampled, the DAC is trying to guess what the missing gaps in the digital waveform will be, and then it adds what it thinks should be there. The algorithms for this must be pretty damn good, because the results are spectacular, imo. I understand from a theoretical practice why this may be abhorrent, but I listened to the upsampling before I had ever read anything about the process. Had I had time to develop a prejudice against upsampling before I had actually heard the results, perhaps I would have heard differently.
> I also would appreciate any reference you can give to support your assertion that Japanese remastering engineers favor treble boosting. I simply don't hear this


Here's an article from Stereophile magazine that discusses the nature of oversampling, upsampling, and filters. It's an interesting read and might explain what you are hearing on your DAC.

As for the Japanese treble boost issue, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the audio engineer Steve Hoffman. I'm not sure if he does any classical stuff, but he's renown for his work with jazz and rock music. You can read about him here. Anyway, he's been critical of Japanese mastering due to the treble boost as you can see in this post about XRCDs.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

For many years I was fairly active on the Hoffman site. I certainly posted in some of the SHM-SACD threads. Offhand I do not recall Steve posting in those threads (as opposed to the XRCD threads).

Unless the mastering was done by the same person, I would not assume that issues he had with XRCDs in 2003 carried over to SHM discs, released years later.

By the way, the general consensus on the Hoffman forum was that most of the SHM releases were quite good.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> Unless the mastering was done by the same person, I would not assume that issues he had with XRCDs in 2003 carried over to SHM discs, released years later.
> 
> By the way, the general consensus on the Hoffman forum was that most of the SHM releases were quite good.


Steve has been critical of Japanese masterings in other contexts as well. Here's a 2013 post from Steve talking about how Japanese mastering engineers don't have natural in their vocabulary and them wanting to manipulate the sound. Anyway, it's possible that SHM classical CDs are mastered more naturally, but I'd have to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis. And, of course, many people find a treble boost to be pleasing so many people may not have an issue with it even if it's there. A lot of people played back Dolby B cassettes without Dolby for the treble boost.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

The O.P. might want to search through the Hoffman site for more information on specific releases. The primary focus on the site is classic rock, but there are some knowledgeable people there, including some more knowledgeable about classical than I am.

In any event there are quite a few discussions of SHM releases.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I had an interesting experience last night. I was listening to the OPs disc in question, the CD version of the DG Bernstein Mahler2.
while listening to the first CD I thought not bad (I am referring to recording quality) but a little flatter soundstage than I would like.
When the CD finished and I went to put the Second CD on, I noticed that my DAC (Mytek Manhatten) was accidentally set at 96. I changed the upsampling to 176 for disc 2 and the difference was very noticeable, as if the platform for the Orchestra had enlarged 25%. Now the percussion was at the back, the brass to the left, and many small details such as the snap of bows on strings had a greater authority 
So Luukas I think that you will enjoy your disc, but how much of the improvement will be due to the materials in the disc I can't say


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Triplets said:


> I had an interesting experience last night. I was listening to the OPs disc in question, the CD version of the DG Bernstein Mahler2.
> while listening to the first CD I thought not bad (I am referring to recording quality) but a little flatter soundstage than I would like.
> When the CD finished and I went to put the Second CD on, I noticed that my DAC (Mytek Manhatten) was accidentally set at 96. I changed the upsampling to 176 for disc 2 and the difference was very noticeable, as if the platform for the Orchestra had enlarged 25%. Now the percussion was at the back, the brass to the left, and many small details such as the snap of bows on strings had a greater authority
> So Luukas I think that you will enjoy your disc, but how much of the improvement will be due to the materials in the disc I can't say


Practical question, is it worth the money they are asking?


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Here's a thread on an audiophile vinyl release of the recording from the Hoffman forum (including a comparison by one poster between that forum and this one).

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/bernsteins-mahler-2-on-dg-new-reissue-anyone-heard-it.333377/

I must add that any suggestion that Hoffman members don't care about the quality of performance does a huge disservice to most of those with whom I discussed classical recordings.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Triplets said:


> When the CD finished and I went to put the Second CD on, I noticed that my DAC (Mytek Manhatten) was accidentally set at 96. I changed the upsampling to 176 for disc 2 and the difference was very noticeable, as if the platform for the Orchestra had enlarged 25%. Now the percussion was at the back, the brass to the left, and many small details such as the snap of bows on strings had a greater authority


You definitely do not want to play CDs on your DAC at 96, 192, or anything like that. 176.4 is an even multiple of 44.1 and will downsample cleanly, but it's not a clean downsample from 96. I'm not sure how your DAC would handle dither on a downsample like that. 176.4 would be the equivalent of a 4x oversample on a regular CD player, but I'm not sure how your DAC handles oversampling. It may just use the upsampling settings for oversampling. The built-in DACs in many CD players now actually oversample at 8x.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Klassik said:


> You definitely do not want to play CDs on your DAC at 96, 192, or anything like that. 176.4 is an even multiple of 44.1 and will downsample cleanly, but it's not a clean downsample from 96. I'm not sure how your DAC would handle dither on a downsample like that. 176.4 would be the equivalent of a 4x oversample on a regular CD player, but I'm not sure how your DAC handles oversampling. It may just use the upsampling settings for oversampling. The built-in DACs in many CD players now actually oversample at 8x.


Do you personally have any experience with oversampling, or is it more of concept that just doesn't appeal to the point where you want to investigate? The first dac that I had that upsampled was the PS Audio Digital Linc III. As I mentioned before, I didn't buy it
for this reason, being ignorant of the concept. When I tried the upsampling options (which I think were 96, 176, and 192) I found them really appealing, and as time went on I realized the 176 was the best. I then read up on upsampling so that I could understand what was entailed. I have to admit that from a purist perspective it sounds like a strange concept, but by now I was a believer.
I eventually sold the DLinc in order to to buy the Oppp 105, and I used the 105 digital inputs as a dac. Afaik the Oppo doesn't upsample (if it does it must be buried in a submenu that I never discovered). When I then upgraded my dac to the Mytek I rediscovered the joys of up sampling and now I don'tthink that I would ever want to do without.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Triplets said:


> Do you personally have any experience with oversampling, or is it more of concept that just doesn't appeal to the point where you want to investigate?


Oversampling has been a standard feature on component CD players since the late 1980s. Early ones oversampled at 4x (176.4), but some newer ones oversample at 8x (352.8). So, anyway, I always listen to my CDs using oversampling, whether it be 4x or 8x depending on the player I use since I prefer to use the player's DAC to prevent any pre-emphasis issues. The DACs that come with many/most component CD players these days are really quite good.

Anyway, I can't say for sure because I'm not familiar with your DACs, but I wonder if they are using 176.4 _up_sampling as basically a 4x _over_sample with the subsequent digital filtering benefits. If this is the case, it's not an unusual procedure at all even if the terminology is odd. If your DAC does not oversample in addition to upsample, then you would absolutely not want to run it at under 176.4 unless there's an odd CD or two where it sounds better that way. I would avoid 96, 192, or anything that leads to an uneven division.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Klassik said:


> Oversampling has been a standard feature on component CD players since the late 1980s. Early ones oversampled at 4x (176.4), but some newer ones oversample at 8x (352.8). So, anyway, I always listen to my CDs using oversampling, whether it be 4x or 8x depending on the player I use since I prefer to use the player's DAC to prevent any pre-emphasis issues. The DACs that come with many/most component CD players these days are really quite good.
> 
> Anyway, I can't say for sure because I'm not familiar with your DACs, but I wonder if they are using 176.4 _up_sampling as basically a 4x _over_sample with the subsequent digital filtering benefits. If this is the case, it's not an unusual procedure at all even if the terminology is odd. If your DAC does not oversample in addition to upsample, then you would absolutely not want to run it at under 176.4 unless there's an odd CD or two where it sounds better that way. I would avoid 96, 192, or anything that leads to an uneven division.


I think We may not be talking about the same thing. Oversampling refers to the redundant reading of the pits on a disc. Upsampling, at least in my understanding, refers to a DAC essentially adding extra material to a digital waveform


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Pugg said:


> Practical question, is it worth the money they are asking?


Pugg, I think the answer would depend upon your DAC. If your current DAC-either contained in a cd player or an external unit--performs upsampling, and if the main advantage of these discs is due to upsampling in the remastering process, then I would say no.
If the improvement is due to the actual materials used--that is a different story


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Triplets said:


> I think We may not be talking about the same thing. Oversampling refers to the redundant reading of the pits on a disc. Upsampling, at least in my understanding, refers to a DAC essentially adding extra material to a digital waveform


No, I have it right. Read this for more information: http://www.podcomplex.com/blog/oversampling/


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Pugg said:


> Practical question, is it worth the money they are asking?





Triplets said:


> Pugg, I think the answer would depend upon your DAC. If your current DAC-either contained in a cd player or an external unit--performs upsampling, and if the main advantage of these discs is due to upsampling in the remastering process, then I would say no.
> If the improvement is due to the actual materials used--that is a different story


There's nothing physical about a XRCD or SHM CD that will yield better results. Does that mean that they won't sound any better? Not necessarily. As with any CD, it's all about the mastering quality. Treat these special discs like any other remastering that's done on regular CDs. Sometimes there's big improvements, sometimes there's improvements that are hardly noticeable, and sometimes the end result is worse than before. Different people may interpret changes differently so there's that too. But, anyway, the only way to evaluate these releases is to either preview them first or read reviews from people you trust.

With classical CDs, the regular remastering jobs done by the major labels on regular CDs have been pretty good. I'd be inclined to stick with the regular CDs unless you have read reliable reviews saying that the special remasters on SHM or whatever are better. With rock/pop/jazz music, things can be a totally different story since a lot of recent remasters by major labels with those genres have been quite bad. Fortunately, we have it pretty good in classical land I would say.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Klassik said:


> No, I have it right. Read this for more information: http://www.podcomplex.com/blog/oversampling/


The link you provided describes two types of what it labels oversampling--reading from the disc and then interpolation by the DAC. I have heard the latter process described as upsampling (Robert Harley, among others). For this discussion, let's just say 'DAC interpolation '. Anyway, in re reading your response, I guess that you do have experience with CDPs that do interpolation. Do you not like the results? At first I was assuming that your objections were theoretical.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Triplets said:


> The link you provided describes two types of what it labels oversampling--reading from the disc and then interpolation by the DAC. I have heard the latter process described as upsampling (Robert Harley, among others). For this discussion, let's just say 'DAC interpolation '. Anyway, in re reading your response, I guess that you do have experience with CDPs that do interpolation. Do you not like the results? At first I was assuming that your objections were theoretical.


It is a confusing thing, but I'll try to explain it. Oversampling does refer to multiple things, but generally in reference to a CD player it refers to the 4x or 8x increasing of the sampling rate for digital filtering purposes. This process does actually upsample to 176.4 in the case of 4x oversampling. However, audio can be upsampled beyond the oversampling stage as well and that would not be called oversampling. That would be called upsampling (confusing, huh?). While there are critics of oversampling and upsampling both, oversampling is much more accepted as a beneficial thing to do due to the nature of filtering (see the link I posted above). I suspect that this is what your DAC is doing, but I can't say for sure. What is referred to as upsampling is much less accepted as a beneficial thing to do. Some people say it helps, but most say it's useless and some will say it negatively affects sound quality due to added noise and jitter without any/much theoretical benefit.

Anyway, I hope that helps. If you ever look at a component CD player from the late 1980s or early-to-mid 1990s, you'll be sure to see it advertising 4x oversampling. This is the process I mentioned earlier.

Some people prefer DACs which do not oversample or at least give an option for it, but I find oversampling to be a beneficial process. It's beneficial for the filtering more so than the upsampling. I've heard early CD players which do not oversample and they just don't sound as good as an oversampling CD player. It's not a huge difference perhaps, but give me the oversampling. Of course, almost every component CD player made since the late 1980s has at least a 4x oversampling DAC built in.


----------

