SHM SACD's need to be burned in

Mceljo,in this particular case (SHM SACD of Aja only)there are specific sonic improvements that I have outlined that my audio friend will INSTANTLY hear.I think that a P01/G01 with the Gorb clock will offer the detail needed to confirm any change.The only question I will have for him is "does he like it now?" I stated that if he felt it was the same that wouldn't bother me in the least.I now enjoy this sacd very much.We both had a simular reaction to the sound quality when new and the lack of detail in both the high and low end of the frequency spectrum.
This is something I experienced and choose to share in this forum,and not in the least bit a scientific lab controlled experment.

Regards,

Folowup as promised earlier
Brought the now burnt in SHM sacd of Aja over to my audiophile friend last night along with a SHM sacd sampler we both just purchased.
For fun,I burnt in my sampler for about 24 hours and his remained unplayed.
The first thing was that he too heard the improvement in Aja to the point that he thought it very good digital (but not reference quality). He wasn't impressed with it at all the first time he heard it as previously discussed.
The second thing was that my burnt in sampler sounded better than his fresh one. The bass was tight and the resonances were clearer. The best way to discribe the differences between the two identical sacd's were if you changed your reading glass from a 1.25 to a 1.50.
The sampler comes with a second sacd that is identical but produced using normal material.It actually sounds better than both my burnt in sacd or the non burnt in one. I haven't a clue why they would do this. The SHM is cut higher so you have to use a spl meter but this was the biggest surprise of the evening.
I do not feel the shm's are worth the price and will not be buying anymore,but they are one of the few producing new sacd's these days.

Regards

Did you do any blind tests? Placebo and expectation can be strong with all of us from time to time.

Hi Mcejco,
It was apparent when listening to the two identical samplers.I did not load the player,so i wasn't aware of which SHM sampler was being used, but I knew which one I was hearing. The curious thing from a marketing point of view is why did they include a second sacd to compare the shm sacd with that sounds better!

Regards,

Is it possible that your player just does a better job with standard formats than it does with the SHM SACD format?