2. digital
  3. 1294786425

SHM SACD's need to be burned in

I recently purchased Aja on a SHM sacd. I have never purchased any single disc at this price,but the chance of aquiring one of my favorite albums on SACD made me go for it.
I was so excited the day it arrived. I warmed up my system for a half an hour and popped it in. WHAT A DISAPOINTMENT!
The bass was bloated and the highs rolled off. It was inferior to my two redbook copies sonically(MFSL ultradisc and 1999 remaster).
I went on various forums to see if others had the same opinion as mine. To my surprise what I gathered was that playing these SHM SACD's about ten times to burn in improves the sound. I didn't beieve it but I had the disc already so .....
I played it on repeat on my cdp for two days straight. I then warmed up my system the same way and expected little change.
Much to my surprise the base tighten up,the highs improved and the soundstage organised itself. If I hadn't heard this for myself I never would have believed it.The mofi wasn't in the ballpark anymore!
Anyone else with a simular experience?

Regards,
montejay
montejay OP
285 posts
 
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
mceljo
1,357 posts
 
Did you do any blind tests? Placebo and expectation can be strong with all of us from time to time.
montejay OP
285 posts
 
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,
mceljo
1,357 posts
 
Is it possible that your player just does a better job with standard formats than it does with the SHM SACD format?
montejay OP
285 posts
 
Mceljo,
I duplicated the same result on my system as my friend so I don't think that would be the answer.The non shm tester they provide sounded better than the shm.Two systems with different front ends produced simular results.
In regards to the 'burn in' of the shm sacds, I wouldn't judge there sq until they have been played numerous times.
That being said,I don't feel the price is justified based on the few I now own.

Regards,
More to discover