AAD, DDD - Digital snobbery in the 1980s
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- The Compact Disc appeared in 1982, and at a time when anything “digital” was the future, was marketed as the ultimate in sound quality. So, to help sell “pure digital” CDs, the Society of Professional Audio Recording Services, or SPARS for short, came up with a lettering system to show how “analogue” or “digital” were a CD’s contents.
To get early ad-free access to new videos, or your name at the end of my videos, please consider supporting me from just $1 or 80p a month at / bigcar
Link to my other channel - Big Car:
/ bigcar2
#littlecar
Erratum: Some streaming services have greater than CD quality, such as Tidal or Apple Music.
But also, for perfectionists like me, audio streaming services use Lossy Compression formats like MP3, M4A, OPUS, etc.
Don't get me wrong, when done decently it's difficult or practically impossible to distinguish between that and Lossless digital audio (like FLAC, from a CD) but it still drives me a little nuts on just the principle. Like that's one of the reasons I avoid Bluetooth audio too.
@@chainswordcs perfectionist...
@@chainswordcs Given he was talking about Tidal and Apple Music, who both have greater than CD quality lossless audio, I don't see how that's relevant.
For example, Apple Music can do up-to 192,000 samples per second at 24 bits per sample (raw data rate 1,152kb/s at 2ch), which is over 6.5x more data than the CD's 44.1khz/16bit 176.4kb/s. Not that it's humanly possible to hear anything above CD quality anyways...
The reason no one in their right mind will tolerate most digital recordings is simply the corporation's destruction of the dynamic range of the recordings, starting around 1995 and continuing through the present. People seek vinyl because the original dynamic range preserves the excitement and feeling of the music, and they will tolerate the pops and clicks, which, if you have time, can be removed.
I can't trust lossless audio via streaming period we need to know where the sound is coming from they can easily stream out a bogus quality version of the song for the sake of saving bandwidth
I was one of those geeky teens who looked for DDD on CDs. Good times.
Me too, we didn't know better
Actually, for me the AAD label meant a precious CD I must buy. I noticed in during the first decade of this century that those CDs were sold or traded in sites like ebay to a much higher price, especially the likes of The Beatles catalog from 1987.
Of course any of the recent remixed Beatles releases I'm sure thay'd be ADD.
Not owning CDs anymore? Nooooo! I never understood why people could get rid of media that contained music!!!! Started my cassette collection in '89, my vinyl one in '90 and my CD collection in '93. Still own every single one of them, some 35 years later!!! Yes, AAD CDs do sound better than DDD ones because they also do not suffer from the loudness levels that later CDs did. And yes, everyone now knows that even cassettes can sound a hell of a lot awesome when recorded on proper equipment and being well cared of. Long Live Analogue!!!
As I recall, our first CD was "The Nightfly" by Donald Fagan precisely because it was "DDD" and also because it was one of only a handful of CD releases. I say "we" because my (weathy) college roommate had the actual CD player with matching expensive stereo kit. I supplied the physical media music.
My favourite album - although I have it on vinyl!
Yes, and according to Fagen the digital mixing was a Nightmare 😱
Oh yes! In the early days I had to buy my CDs in a hifi store where they sold quality gear only. Here I could also listen to a CD before I bought it which other shops didn't allow as you had to tear open the shrink-wrap. One of my first CDs was The Nightfly which I still have. I purchased it because of the music, didn't even know it was DDD.
Also have that CD..
I only like one song from that album, the rest seem frightfully boring. But that one song is incredible. The future looks bright!
The vast majority of my CDs are in AAD format. I go out of my way to find them. I'm thoroughly convinced they sound better...
The third letter may be always "D" for compact disc, after all digital discs were copied off a digital master, but digital masters were also used for analog recordings like cassettes, so the third letter did not always have to be "A" for analog media. "DDD" audio cassettes were a thing despite that the final product was an analog recording. See more here: th-cam.com/video/t9Xe4V75z_Y/w-d-xo.html I have a couple of dozen cassettes from The Masterpiece Collection with classical music recordings, most of them are marked with "DDD".
Nice video, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's interesting that, according to blind listening tests, most people could not hear the difference between SACD standard audio CD. It seems that the Red Book standard, and probably stereo records had already approached or exceed the limits of human hearing back in the 1970's, all good for music collectors until the 'loudness war' ruined the sound quality of most pop and rock CDs from the late 1990's, those early silver discs are often worth significantly more.
Sssshhh... you are ruining the marketing ploy to make people believe that sample rates higher than 16-bit/44.1Khz are worth it. Even DVD's minimum rate (16-bit/48Khz) is overkill. The only real advantage of SACD was surround sound, but there is a big debate about whether people even want surround music. Also, sending SACD surround sound to home cinemas was problematic (the SACD player had to convert it to Dolby Digital, which most SACD players didn't).
I have some sacd and dvd-audio from 2000 - 2009.
Yeah, SACD was definitely overkill. The only reason for recording at higher bit/sample rates than standard redbook CDs was to allow for more manipulation of the sound during mixing and mastering without introducing audible artifacts.
Can someone briefly explain the technical aspects of the “loudness” characteristic that is ruining the quality of digital music recordings? Much appreciated.
@@BMags1 In a word, Compression. This may need a bit more explanation than I think you were looking for.
Compression is a production technique that reduces the dynamic range of a sound, the difference between the loudest parts and the softest parts. Normally, compressing a sound makes the louder parts softer, and the soft parts louder. This was commonly used to make certain instruments or vocals stand out more in the mix, or to make the sound "fit" on a particular medium, like vinyl, without distortion or dropouts.
The first step in getting someone to buy your music, is to make them notice it. The easiest way to get someone to notice it (especially when it's being played in a noisy public place like a bar or club) is to make it louder. The easiest way to make it louder is to turn up the volume; but there's a limit to how high a volume ordinary speakers can handle. That's where compression comes in.
Instead of the normal way of using compression, producers started using it to just make the softer parts louder, and keep the loudest parts as loud as they could. This made the whole piece of music "feel" louder overall, and made it more attention-grabbing. Pretty soon, everyone was trying to make their music "louder" to catch the attention of listeners more; and that was how the "Loudness War" started. Music recordings kept getting louder and louder.
The problem with just pumping up the loudness like that is that eventually you stop being able to hear the music clearly. It starts to all mush together and sound muddy, nothing stands out, and it becomes very tiring and unpleasant for the human ear to listen to. It's like having someone constantly shouting into your ears, instead of talking normally. So the loudness became more attention-grabbing, but the music started sounding really terrible.
Part of the reason why the SPARS codes were abandoned (at least temporarily) is that unscrupulous record companies would simply lie and emblazon old analog recordings with the "DDD" logo, and there was no enforcement to crack down on this misleading advertising.
This was especially true with the large, inexpensive collections of classical music on CDs that started appearing in the late '80s, which also often lied about which orchestras actually recorded the music on them. These discs claimed to be "DDD" even though some of the tracks were even copied from old records, and you could hear the pops and clicks!
And nowadays the opposite has happened, with Mobile Fidelity (MoFi) producing "100% analog" vinyl records for over a decade that were actually made from digital recordings. But even the golden-ears, digital-hating audiophiles couldn't tell the difference!
Great to find you here, your take on whatever it's being commented is always insightful.
Somehow the same can be said with 4K DVD's many of them aren't even 4K . Many Blurays are poor VHS transfers etc... Also the many promises that a DVD offered was all lies at the end only to sell the product better and fool people .
@@defiraphi "Many Blurays are poor VHS transfers" Did I really read that? I mean, it's so ludicrous you must have been drunk or on dope when writing that.
@@BilisNegra
I said many not all when the blurays were new they didn't did any efforts to digitalise the content similar to the DVD's many of the older movies were only VHS transfers too with no bonusses and a poor selection menu . Not to forgot how the side marketing who sold illegal DVD's and Blurays ( Netherlands, China to name a few countries ) to get a quick buck without quality . Seems some people has forgotten the start of how easy it was to copy movies there weren't those enforced copyright laws and anti-piracy on a DVD or Bluray .
@@defiraphi I've never had Bluray but the number of DVDs I've got that have some kind of flaw in them is remarkable. My pet hates include jerky movements from the wrong frame rate and warbling in the audio or out of sync audio even from things which are claiming to be the ultimate remastered versions!
Feels like this should be a Techmoan video! Interesting departure from your usual 4 wheels based vids, but informative and entertaining as always :)
Well, I do watch a lot of his videos!
I am a car guy and a music guy. I worked in car business and now in music business. So great to see this. Also that it started with a Dutch CD, as it is a Dutch invention. I knew a bit about this. but you taught me some new stuff! I knew we always searched for DDD or at least ADD, and now I'm this old school tube amp bass player....
CD was a joint project of Sony and Philips, so half Dutch.
It was a Dutch invention.
@@Rudolf_Edward Similar but competing systems were being developed by both Philips and Sony at the same time in the 1970s. In 1979 the two teams agreed to cooperate, and set up a joint task force. They published the CD Red Book in 1980 which defined the format.
I guess it's tempting from a Dutch perspective to think that the Dutch invented it all, but that wouldn't be accurate.
@@Rudolf_Edward I remember clearly that it was a collaboration between Philips and Sony. Also, the technology would never have had enough market presence to become standard without Sony's backing. There was another competing development in this technology that was just as good, but didn't make it because it didn't have enough backing.
@@gotham61 Got to agree here. Even being Dutch ;-) , I know first hand it was a joint development and simultaneous lab work done in Japan and in Eindhoven. I worked in the NatLab in '93 and got to see some folks that developed the things and also got a tour around the (defunct) labs as they kept it as kinda "museum". I feel very fortunate to have seen that, as now everything is gone.
“Music was an event, rather than that something you put on while you’re doing something else.” I couldn’t agree more. Good music isn’t the paper on a room’s walls - it is the room itself.
Remember when the family got the first CD player, my mum pointing out the letters saying they're looking for DDD CDs. As an annoying 10 year old I recall saying that the stuff they buy had already been recorded in analogue anyhow.
You've only got to listen to "True Love Ways" on "From the Original Master Tapes" CD by Buddy Holly to realise that a recording from '58 can pretty much outperform "all-digital" recordings when recorded and mastered properly (I remember being given a demo of this against a Jamiroquai song - both of which were really good, but head to head the production quality was day and night.
Proper studio gear has been ahead of consumer stuff for years, but it all depends on what you're playing and who was twiddling the knobs where.
Spot on!
How does comparing Buddy Holly to Jamiroquai even make sense?
@@KariKauree it was a demo of audio equipment, where you'd often have a selection of tracks to showcase stuff. This particular demo was also to highlight that when a track was recorded didn't necessarily matter. If the equipment and know how was good, it's fine.
It wasn't comparing the output of the artists, just the production, if that makes sense
@@simonrussell4986 "Head to head the production quality was day and night" as you yourself said... of course it makes a difference whether a pop track was recorded in 1958 or 1998, in multiple ways. I don't understand what you're trying to say 🤔
@@KariKauree I'm saying that the earlier recording sounded much better. That it was possible to record to a very high quality back then, if you knew what you were doing
That's nuts. Why would I get rid of my CDs just because they're not the latest and greatest technology now?
They sound loads better than any streaming service, and they’re physical copies! Plus, a well-mastered CD sounds better than most new LP releases!
@@5roundsrapid263: They may sound better than streaming because they're less compressed. But the streaming services' copies are physical copies too; just not that we have our own of (discrete). And those that _don't have "loudness war" mastering_ sound better than ANY vinyl release.
Very interesting, never noticed those letters before :) Just quickly checked my CD's and found Samantha Fox - Touch Me CD from 1986 with ADD marking and couple of Synthesizer Hits & Digital Melodies CD's from late 80's with DDD markings on them :)
Wow, it's hard to believe that CDs came out already four decades ago, right when the Commodore 64 did! It's also hard to believe that we already had this reasonably high-resolution audio quality at a time right when the Sound Interface Device (SID) chip of that same computer was so much less capable than this! But it seems to me like most people didn't really get a hold of CDs until about 4 years later.
Commodore also became a video cd player at its end and could play mp1 and cc64 games but was way behind nintento and sega . Philips DCC compact cassete player had the sae didtal format - Nothing that wold be bad even today with the invention of lossless mp3 and efunct mpc like mp3 pro which were pulled of the market by - buy them and kill the format
While I was looking for a good CD player at the time I used a DDD compilation disc to compare players. Think it was a Naxos title, lots of orchestral, classical music.
My first DDD CD - and still a superb album - Dire Straits Brothers in Arms. 1985.
I remember these markings from my first CDs and hadn't really noticed that they'd fallen into disuse.
I started buying CDs in the late 80s. I had been put off by the high price but was finally persuaded when Deutsche Gtammophon (part of PolyGram) announced that their new releases wouldn't be in any other format and I assumed that others would follow suit.
At the time, DDD often was a badge of quality, at least in sound quality, because it meant a recent recording, mastered using modern methods.
Many labels were reiussing their back catalogues on mid-priced CDs and weren't always taking much care in doing it. AAD or ADD discs were often excellent but there were some with badly compressed sound and the original tape hiss audible. This was very obvious, even on my very basic Sony Discman.
If you collected classical CDs, the Penguin Guide was an absolute must as it covered these issues.
I still have all my CDs but rarely play them now. I refuse to get nostalgic about LPs or cassettes but do miss the way that spending money on a physical format led me to value my music more.
I'm old enough to have had 8 track, LP, cassette and CDs of a lot bands. I purchased my 1st CD player in '87 and was absolutely flabbergasted by the quality of the sound. The music was so clean there was music in songs I'd never heard before. Jump ahead 11 years and I purchased my 1st DVD, Hell Freezes Over, by The Eagles. Again I was absolutely flabbergasted but by the visual quality along with the audio quality. I have never heard of these AAD or DDD standards before, never looked for them, I just listened to the music and judged for myself. Thanks for the video, I learned something today.
Hearing a CD for the first time was a revelation for me too. It's hard for younger people to understand just how much better it was.
I used to hunt out DDD CDs. One of the best was Introspective by the Pet Shop Boys. One of my favourite albums to this day!
Cameo's "Word up!" is also a DDD Compact Disc :)
Thanks for the nostalgia on this long forgotten taxonomy. I still got a classical CD with a big red warning label on it, saying that it only should be played on high end stereo equipment, otherwise the hifi will be destroyed. Guess what happend to my low end stereo? Nothing! 😂
I remember the Vancouver band (artist?) Delerium feeding the audio of one of their albums through some sort of tape process to "warm" up the sound. Not sure which album that was, but it was sometime around 15-20 years ago now.
It's a fairly common practice even today. There are loads of digital plugins that emulate tape saturation.
Some of the best trance tracks ever produced were remixes of Delerium IMO. The Svenson and Gielen Remix of "After All" is particularly good if you're into that kind of thing, but it's music for partying hard.
@Matthew McRee I attempted a remix of that song back in 2003. It was the first time I got to hear the isolated bassline and I learned a lot from it..
Always informative. I learnt something today. Cheers
My first DDD disc was Sting - Nothing Like The Sun.
Yes, this was a big thing back then. Brothers In Arms by Dire Straits was the show off Album back then. And the Digital albums definitely sounded better back then because the analog albums were often mastered from mastering tapes that had some generations on their back. After a while new releases of iconic analog albums were made from their their master tape and sounded so much better.
Brothers in Arms was actually DAD. It was mixed on a custom Neve 8078 analog console.
@@5roundsrapid263 So, the CD cover lies? it says DDD. I want my money back!
Does the middle letter refer to the summing/mixing process (i.e. the mixing desk) or the storage of that mix (2-track analogue tape or binary data) ?
Brothers was the only DDD in my circle, still own it if it's worth a few quid.
Working in a record store at that time, I experienced this ridiculous snobbery first hand!
Dark Side of the Moon with AAD on the label is by far the best CD version. It's just a direct re-master into digital, with no one messing around with the mix. That goes for all pre digital recordings. AAD everytime.
I also have a huge LP collection starting from the 60s. I do not have pops or scratches on my records as I looked after them, and now own an ultrasonic cleaner.
I enjoyed your video, I'm not trying to be nasty.
The biggest major problem with current (steaming) music is that the vast majority is so heavily "dynamically compressed." This lowers the level of extremities within the sound. The reason for this is that it makes it play louder and louder tracks are streamed over quieter ones. Oh yeah, and even if you pony up the money to get it on CD, the CD's audio will be just as dynamically compressed, so don't expect something great there either :(
I didn't even know this marking was a thing and I was a kid in the 90's, when this was used. But that's probably we still had more cassettes back then than CDs. And when we had CDs, it was already 2000's and vast majority of those were discs with burned MP3s.
Vids like this really put a lump in my anorak.
My AR speakers bought in 1988 still proudly proclaim "Digital Monitoring System" on their fronts, whatever that means. It is just ordinary two way speakers.
Excellent video more of these please 🙏
Wow, never ever spotted this even though I’m still a fan of using CDs - but then I only really got started in the mid-90s 😮
Interesting topic, thank you! I've learned as an electronic music producer that analog or hybrid mastering is the best thing today.
Great video! I was working in record retail when the CD appeared and there was immediately a craze for DDD. So many customers passed on great recordings of the past on CD in favor of new digital recordings. It was frustrating for those of us who knew that the older recording often sound very good on CD and they were now minus clicks and pops of the LP era. Another thing inf favor of AAD or ADD CDs is that they tended to be less expensive that full digital CDs, so those of us who were upgrading our LP collections to CD had a great time. I still think CD is the way to go for music. CDs I bought in the 80s almost always still work and sound fantastic.
This got me curious as to whether Eastern Bloc countries also got in the digital craze. Sure enough - my Klassische Trompetenkonzerte CD from East Germany reads "Digital - Aufnahme, Digital Recording, Enregistrement numerique", while my Czechoslovak Mendelssohn CD reads "Stereo ADD" and the Soviet Alexander Sitkovetsky - Zello reads "ADD".
I remember looking for a DDD cd back in the day. The first one I had was Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms. I couldn't tell the difference and most of my favourites were AAD.
Dire Straits were the poster boys for CD's and digital recording. Nowadays you see comments on how the vinyl reissues are the real sound the listener is looking for. They probably weren't around in the eightys.
@@mankepoot9440 Maybe they have ears for it while older people don't
Interesting and you remember it that way, I remember it being the analogue was more "real" than digital recording . Strange how much it all changed then
There is a fullness sound that I believe the ears can pick up on and I guess it comes down to listening to a quality analog or digital media systems. Opinions aside, we all hear differently, and although the supply chain do indeed play a role in influencing what you buy, if you find an analog or digital system that works for you and your happy, then stick with it and do not let others convince you of being discontent. I like both mediums.
@@zhrob1 I was talking about the 80s, I remember getting my first cd player in 84 and it was so clear the sound but I never replaced any of my vinyl as loved the clicks and pops , I do remember their being an attitude of cd is better because it's clearer and no clicks althou we were sold CDs as being ever lasting , I remember on TV watching them giving a baby a cd to bang on their table , then the organisers wiped it and played to show them being indistructable
5:40 That caption was so much on point. My exact thoughts. It's all the more absurd these days with vinyl releases of new albums, virtually all of them recorded and mixed in a DAW running on macOS or Windows. Oh, and a dedicated mastering for vinyl maybe, yes. But done on the same gear, only with different settings!
not only that but almost all record cutting lathes employ a digital delay, so nearly all sound on vinyl has been through a A/D D/A process and it's been this way since the early 80s. Prior to that they used tape delay but the machines were expensive, large and maintenance heavy which led to them being replaced.
Rec & mix yes usually digital, but it seems the most valued mastering these days is analog or hybrid. This is my experience as an electronic music producer (producer here means: not mastering engineer but everything before it).
0:07 Wow! That's Bernard Haitink conducting Concertgebouworkest Amsterdam (now called Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra in English or Koninklijk Concertgebouworkest) in 1985 & '86 (released in 1987), playing Beethoven's Symphonies 5 & 7. One of my all time favourite Philips discs. Thank you for your very mention.
Excellent video,I'm a huge fan of your other channel !!!!!Obsolete formats and details are always interesting!!!!
The main reason consumers preferred DDD over ADD was because the vinyl masters had a roll off bias to tone down bass waves for LP's. They were light in the bass. Digital does not have the physical limitations inherent of vinyl.
That’s done in the cutter, not in the master.
@@hepphepps8356 that is what I am saying.
@@hepphepps8356 btw, there is software you use to prep the riaa eq to the cutter. For free!
As I recall McCartney in 1982 released his album Tug of War. It.was a digital recording.
I make my own CDs because I *ABSOLUTELY INSIST* on *AUTHENTICITY* in the songs I put on my CDs. I want to get hold of classic hits of the 1950s to the 1980s and I chase stereo mixes when and wherever I can get them, but they *MUST* be the same recording that first appeared on 45rpm singles/EPs or LP albums. *I UTTERLY DESPISE SOUNDALIKE VERSIONS!* But far too many commercially-issued CDs, even from the major companies kept turning up in shops with those *UTTERLY DESPECABLE* soundalike versions that I just gave up buying commercial-issue discs.
Since late last year I have decided to go back to buying Music on Physical Media for better quality and actually have the Albums, EPs, and Singles in my collection and not have the risk of them getting removed from my library
Dire Straits Brothers in Arms was the only DDD in my CD collection. Thought I'd accidentally clicked on Techmoan channel. 😉
The irony was that true DDD didn't really exist until the advent of digital consoles and digital audio workstations in the mid to late '90s. The signal would through an analogue console such as Neve or SSL
I made it a point to purchase a DDD as my very first CD in 1986. It was Beethoven's 9th on EMI. My 2nd and 3rd CDs were Dark Side of the Moon and Zeppelin 4. It's hard for me to imagine the appeal of vinyl today. Vinyl is not "warm" at all.
there are many single vowel adjectives to describe vinyl, rich, open clear , but not warm
@@Grimwriggler There's a lot that goes into how a record actually ends up sounding, from cartridges and styli to the phono stage and how all that interacts with the tonearm. By "warm" people usually mean rolled off with a degree if distortion, and vinyl is certainly conducive to that especially if the various components are chosen to encourage it.
I only have have a pretty basic setup built around a vintage turntable, but I don't think it sounds bad at all next to my CDs as long as the record is in shape. I'm not in any way a vinyl snob either, to me the appeal is mostly tactility of the medium. It makes the experience a bit more substantial, encourages you to sit down to listen the entire album, and it's a nice way to support a few of my favourite artists.
CD's still rock.
Vinyl is king, and is now back to being the best selling music medium
1:34 I’m sorry you’re mistaken, the letters don’t signify the type of equipment it was actually mixed on but the type of equipment the mix was recorded to. An analog multitrack recording mixed through an analog audio console who’s mix was recorded to a digital recorder would be ADD, even though it was actually mixed analog.
I'd like to see a return of use of the SPARS code on all recordings (including downloads) with one addition: The adoption of the letter "M" (meaning "Mixed Analog and Digital") to the code. "M" would indicate that an album contains both analog and digital recordings and/or mixes since an album can contain both. The track list could use a marker (such as an *) to indicate which tracks are digital and which are analog.
I consume music in nearly all it's formats. I stream when I want to hear random music. My entire CD collection is ripped and stored on both my computer and my phone. I still buy CDs from my favorite artists and bands. Finally, for the really special albums, I buy them on vinyl. People should consume music how they want, not just because the majority of people do it a certain way. You are right though, it's more of an event and experience when you listen to vinyl records. I feel the same way about books. I have a Kindle, but for my favorite books, I buy the hardback edition and keep in on a bookshelf.
hahahaha - yes I fell for DDD too! My son is now an AAA nerd, with an expensive record deck and new pressings of obscure LPs - where did I go wrong? 😂
IMHO it's all a bit "Emperor's new clothes". Music on CD sounds awesome, especially with a nice amp & speakers. I can't hear any improvement from anything else.
@@LittleCar Yes - especially for me now I'm older and my ears aren't as sharp as they were 🙂
Are you sure it's you that's gone wrong?
I don't get this modern vinyl thing. Collecting old records or old record players, fine. But making new ones? It's like making a new car with points and a carburettor.
Nice little video. If you decide to more videos on audiophile topics I might even subscribe til Little Car as well. Judging from your CD collection you have what it takes. 🎶🙂💿👍
I wish we could get a labeling method or mark of quality for modern AAC/mp3 files to discourage terrible encoding practices that cause lead to clipping and compression, unnecessary percussion warble etc.
A 320 Kbps mp3 is practically indistinguishable from wav. Even 256 Kbps mp3 is very close and probably not noticeable. 96 Kbps AAC is roughly equivalent to 256 Kbps mp3 with 128 Kbps AAC being equivalent to 320 Kbps mp3 but even a properly encoded 64 Kbps AAC can sound better than well engineered FM stereo. I don't know why people get so stuck on vinyl as the newer formats are superior in every conceivable way. What people like about LPs isn't the format imho its they way they were mastered. An AAD CD should sound identical to its vinyl counterpart if recorded from the same master and played back with the RIAA sound curve used on phono inputs.
I don't think it was entirely snobbery; for the first several years CDs were a lot more expensive than LPs, and most people already had turntables with the best specs and styluses they could afford. At first there wasn't much advantage to analogue recordings on CD media, so why pay a lot more money for them? It made more sense to selectively spend on DDD recordings until they eventually became standard, by which time A/D conversion had also improved.
5:18 Oh no! The first SACD (super audio compact disc) jointly developed by Philips and Sony was released in May 1999. Many people (including those with audiophiliac tendencies) didn't realise their very existence until some time as late as 2002, because not many recordings were released on that new format, let alone the price tags. Here in Japan, though, quite a few classical music aficionados still prefer to buy Super Audio CDs. I'm one of those folks.
I know I certainly looked for DDD.
Then I started chasing DVD-A and SACD. Still have them along with a player.
It’s kinda dusty now.
I worked in the classical room at a Tower Records in the mid-80's and we had several repeat customers basically acquiring DDD releases exclusively. I don't recall which publication they were referencing at the time but they were effectively using it as a shopping list, completely shunning better performances/recordings on the SPARS code alone.
Funny that you should reference Karajan/Berlin: Berlin Philharmonic w/ HvK released box sets of Beethoven's symphonies three times (that I could fine). The last series from the mid-80's which was certainly DDD is truly lacking. I was lucky enough to find a pristine box set of LP's from the mid-70's series used for next to nothing and it's a far more satisfying listening experience (and not exclusively due to the CD vs LP factor).
Another reminder of getting old! 😂
But never mind, I didn't care much about AAD or DDD. Most of the CDs I bought where analog recorded anyways.
Real audiophiles were interested in SACD and DVD-A but 99% of the public weren't. Streaming wasn't around 40 years ago. That was much later with Mark Cuban and friends.
I knew this when those CD's came out. I have a Motley Crue dr. Feelgood CD that has a little DDD label.
Oh, so that is what those letters mean.
I always just thought AAD means "Analog Audio Disc" and DDD means "Digital Data Disc".
I mean, there is some crackling and hissing in streaming, because there are compression artefacts, and there are streaming services offering CD quality audio. Tidal even offers master quality audio for many songs on their higher tier.
I looked for the DDD or ADD for sure. On a standard AAD, the noise floor would be between 55 and 65 db. With a DDD recording, it would be the noise floor of the microphones or mixing board, often 80+ db.
Tape sourced CDs could have dropouts, phase issues, all kinds of things that DDD recordings didn't have. Obviously the performance and the quality of the mix mattered most, but to this day I wish we'd have more albums mixed from their analog multitracks to a digital master with no changes in settings from the original analog mix... in other words, not a remix of the LP, but a true re-master.
Instead, we get digital limiting that makes albums louder and louder but less and less dynamic...
I would re-purchase many albums if they would say they followed the original master notes and compared their mix to the analog final master to make a digital mixdown from old analog multitracks. Grab an CD you like of Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven for example and crank up the last few words sung by Robert Plant... and listen to all that tape noise!!! It's absolutely awful.
I don't mind data compressed recordings to a point, especially for casual listening, but for serious listening, I really want 24 bit, digitally downmixed masters. (I'm clearly in the minority.)
Grab an CD you like of Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven for example and crank up the last few words sung by Robert Plant... and listen to all that tape noise!!! It's absolutely awful.
Or the intro to Immigrant Song. You can hear what sounds like the layers of tape noise coming in on top of each other before the guitar riff starts
Lord, I do remember this. “Audiophiles” insisting on DDD, or they wouldn’t buy the disc. As if the music didn’t matter.
It's really all about the quality of the recording and mastering. If high quality microphones are well placed in a good room, capturing audio on magnetic tape can result in just as thrilling a recording as a fully DDD recording.
With that said, I am a classical nut (with plenty of Karajan recordings) and the very best recordings I own from an audio standpoint are indeed DDD, generally post-2000. Check out Emerson Quartet's Beethoven String Quartet No. 7, or Shostakovitch Symphony No. 7 by Dresden Philharmonie/Michael Sanderling. You will hear things you would never hear from an AAD (or AAA) recording.
Dire Straits Brothers In Arms Compact Disc had to be DDD.
analogue - warmer sound to human nature ,pure thick natural sound just suddenly magical happen .all of a sudden
"Warm" sound is second harmonic distortion actually, a defect.
i remember first listening to CDs in 1986 . i had a garrard zero turntable at the time and was totally underwhelmed by CD so i have just stuck with vinyl with my half decent set up. i still have my Garrard
3:18 There are several reasons why one recording of a work is held in higher regard than another. Whether the performances were recorded with analogue mikes or digital ones is only one. If a CD produced from an analogue recording sold better, that doesn't imply that analogue recordings are all better than digital ones.
I never paid much attention to the three letters, just the music on it
I don't how this can be termed as snobbery. Unlike the snobbery with vinyl.
In my opinion, the quality of a master is more important than buzzwords like Hi-Res/DDD/MQA/etc.
And in some cases, the remasters found on streaming services are victims of cultural vandalism, namely a ton of Michael Jackson songs.
As an audiophile I have to say that he's much too dismissive of digital just being 'new' and 'futuristic'. Digital was and is better. Tremendously so.
Even before CDs came out my brother had a high-end stereo system, direct drive turntable, expensive cartridge, metal tape capable servo-controlled cassette deck etc. And I very quickly learned the serious limitations of vinyl. I mean, you're dragging a diamond across bumps of plastic. It's essentially the same as when Edison invented the thing.
So when I first heard about how CDs were gonna work I couldn't wait. And the very first time I pressed play on a CD player I was astounded. Pure, clean sound that just instantly sprang from your speakers!
And I quickly read about the three letter code and what it meant. And it took quite a while for full digital (DDD) recordings to start appearing. In fact it took the better part of a decade. Except for classical music. And I immediately discovered that classical CDs that weren't DDD were utter garbage. I mean unlistenable. I eventually threw some out when I got DDD replacements.
Anything recorded before 1983 will always be AAD or ADD because there weren't really any digital recording studios. Some very famous classic albums were originally released as AAD in the 80s like all the Beatles stuff. And it sounded terrible. It had to be remixed (a lot of the Beatles stuff wasn't even stereo) and remixing is an extremely involved and expensive process. But when these were re-released in box sets in the 90s they were well worth the wait. Saying that digital was just a futuristic marketing ploy is very very incorrect.
Let me be clear. Because your sense of smell is very ethereal and almost virtual, it is the sense most linked with memory. In the same way your sense of hearing, music especially, is most linked to your emotions. Theater of the mind and all that.
That's why the phrase 'warmth of vinyl' is the biggest, most asinine, most fundamentally obvious lie ever told. It is absolutely no different than saying you prefer to watch a film on a VCR instead of a 4K Blu-ray because you prefer 'the warmth of VHS'. It is all in your head, get over it already..
Personally, I want music in multiple formats; streaming (Pandora) or locally stored MP3s on my phone for use in the car (where ultimate fidelity takes a massive back seat due to all the compromises inherent in a vehicle traveling at highway speeds, that isn't a $500k Rolls Royce), and vinyl or a very high quality digital source for use at home when I want the Experience of Music.
5:13 "Digital was seen as a precise, robotic sound, lacking passion." Precision is a good thing! If you want passion in a performance, listen to the music!
Interestingly, it looks as though Joe Jackson’s Body and Soul album was one of earliest DDD recordings issued on CD. Which is odd, because my copy is on vinyl! Still sounds amazing though!
ABBA 'The Visitors' 1982 was one of the first DDD CDs released.
I really don't have much preference in how I hear my music so long as I can listen to it. I have an old Fisher 125 stereo from 1968 that has a better BSR turntable with a metal platter and pickering V-15 moving magnet cartridge along with it's pickering styli and enjoy it, but I also have an Audio Technica usb lp60 I use with my modern Onkyo TX-8220 and use it as well as an old Pioneer 6 disc cd changer and a pioneer dual cassette deck that are both from about 1989. Heck, I even play a 30gb microsoft Zune loaded with tunes and shows from the 1930's to the '50's through an AM transmitter and broadcast them to my restored radios, from a 1928 Radiola 60 to a 1933 Philco 18 Highboy, a 1939 RCA K80, a 1948 FADA 790 and a 1960? Magnavox FM01. Even have a wind up Brunswick phongraph player from around 1917 for a large collection of shellac 78's. All of them have their pros and cons. I remember the AAD ADD and DDD discs, but I never put much stock into a DDD being somehow better just because it was all digital. I'm sure the first CD I bought was AAD, being the soundtrack from "Imagine" but I enjoyed it every bit as much as I would have even if it had been DDD I'm sure.
I have always thought that was common knowledge. Probably the usual mid-to-late-fifties-year-old fallacy: we grew up with DDD CD's and stopped caring at some point because at the end of the day it doesn't really matter if we enjoy the music.
thank you
analogue - short length, narrow eq, mono bass
digital - unlimited length, unlimited eq, stereo bass
😀
.
Enjoyed this -- it's hard to explain the SPARS codes to younger listeners. But, at 3:05, the "Eroica" shown isn't the 1977 you're discussing -- it's the "Bicentennial" version, from circa 1963.
Thanks for the correction Steve.
The one in the following shot is the 1977 recording though. I think Karajan kept recording the Beethoven symphonies purely to keep up with the latest technology.
I’ve got my 1987 Beatles AAD CDs of please please me, Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road!
My non-knowledgeable view of it from back then was not that digital was 'better then analog in sound quality, but converting digital to digital was lossless but analog to analog and analog to digital involved information lost, thus each step of those letters recording>mixing>mastering were opportunities to lose info if that step contained analog, thus the more D's the better.
I have an NHS issued Wellbeing relaxation cassette tape that claims it's ADD from 1996 - even though that's technically impossible. My theory is they issued the same thing on CD and just copied the notes over
Even I know those letters. They aren't seen much anymore.
Oh man - I remember all this!!!
The warm sound of analogue, placebo for your ears.
Turn the mid up on the amp, or try a cd player that isn't the cheapest one in the shop (they don't al sound the same), that walkman playing through a mic socket is never actually going to sound good.
I bought many CD with "DDD" ratings. In most cases they don't sound any better than ADD or even AAD. In some case they actually sound worse. Now it seems that we have come full circle with analog snobbery. $100.00+ for a UHQ analog vinyl "limited edition re-master".
The problem is the rematered versions, they are 99% worse quality than the earlier version because of the ipod-generation with hearing disability in the mastering process. Also known as the loudness-war
In London Ontario Canada, in the 1980s and early 1990s there was a Classical Music focused CD store called The Madrigal, and my parents had, just having splurged on their first compact disc player, and accompanying clean modern hifi amplifier, very much picky about whether or not, say, an album of chorale music was ADD, AAD or DDD, and had no idea what any of it meant except that the employee at the Madrigal had explained to them the could expect better audio, the more Ds were on it.
Nowadays the cargo culting over analog is just as stupid as cargo culting over digital. There's nothing wrong with digital audio children. But people these days really like to do analog summing and analog outboard EQ and compression even on digital mixes, to get some much wanted "analog warmth" back into their mixes.
Who remembers headphone manufacturers branding their products as 'CD compatible' in the 80s? Presumably in order to convince gullible schmucks to throw away their old, 'incompatible' headphones and buy new ones.
Reminds me of 2000s speakers and headphones that were branded made for iPod but we're also just regular 3.5mm jack.
Or CD to cassette converter so you could play a CD in your Diskman, but wanted to listen while driving. Through the 8 amp car radio and cracked, provided by the lowest bidder, speakers.
I remember these codes, I remember thinking the more Ds the better, and I remember when CDs were exciting. Now I'm more into lossless streaming, high quality cassettes and the occasional record. How times change. I have heaps of CD's but I rarely play them.
I use the SPARS code to determine if the vinyl version of an album is worth buying. If an original recording is DDD, then the vinyl version doesn't likely have any sonic benefit over the CD. If the CD is AAD, though, the vinyl version may have its own mastering that gives a different sound. So, unless they're cheap or very special pressings, I don't generally bother with vinyl known to be or otherwise marked as "DIGITALLY RECORDED" since the CD version is likely better.
IT is atually very useful especially the mixing and mastering some modern vinyls are made directly from mixes intended for digital medium can sound really bad on vinyl and the inverse is also true.
I am nowadays for fun demixing mono recordings with ai and remixing it in stereo. Usually the original mix is AAD, but how should te remix be called? AAD -D DDD perhaps?
You missed the entire purpose of the AAD/DDD codes. Maybe you corrected yourself later in the video which i didn't watch entirely, but you missed it. The entire purpose of the codes was because real audiophiles were searching for ways to eliminate the dreaded TAPE HISS in recordings. Even with Dolby or other noise suppression, recording on analog tape adds tape hiss which is surface noise. Then when you master on analog tape you add more tape hiss to the final product. No noise suppression system can prevent that. So audiophiles were looking to find out which recordings we recorded and mastered digitally. That resulted in the AAD, ADD, and DDD codes. There were even a few DAD recordings released. (I'm like WHY?) So there you go. It wasn't a marketing gimmick. It was wanted by the audiophiles buyers.
The reality is - most people's ears can't even detect the goddamned differences.