It’s all in the mastering like someone pointed out. Telarc were the most dynamic cd recordings I have heard DDD with no compression. Do not get carried away with AAD vs DDD since I have heard good & not so great in both.
I agree - Glenn Miller - “In The Digital Mood” - No joke, this is an awesome example of early 3M - 32 track digital recording and mixed to the J.V.C. Digital Audio Mastering System. NO DAW or Pro-Tools. Interesting early digital recording of the original Glenn Miller arrangements. Very flat EQ. Very little Compression. The very first CD I owned that was coded DDD. Sounds awesome…but there is some “stiffness” in the high-mids I could do without.
I used to buy classical music on CD in the 90s, and the main drawback of AAD for me was the background noise. Classical music often contains quiet passages and silence, so any noise caused by the recording process can be highly noticeable and distracting. DDD (obviously dependent on the quality of the recording/production etc.) could provide the most crystal clear rendering without the distraction of hiss, dynamic range limitations, clipping, and whatever other inferior traits carried over from the original analogue recording. On some DDD recordings I own, with a pair of headphones on it truly feels like being in the same room as the performance. This is not to say that analogue recordings don't have character, warmth etc., and I have some wonderful AAD classical albums (and some mediocre DDD ones). But I will always hold digital in higher regard for this genre.
Audiophiles from 30 years ago would think you're crazy. They wanted full-digital (DDD) recordings, and anything analog was considered inferior. In fact, that's the entire reason why SPARS codes were created, because audiophiles felt cheated to pay good money for a CD only to discover that it was not made from a digital recording! And ultimately there was no enforcement, so plenty of discs just lied and claimed to be DDD even when they were made from analog recordings. So that's part of why the SPARS codes eventually disappeared.
Highly enlightening. I had a huge collection of AADs that I foolishly replaced from the late 90s onwards, only to be spending my time tracking down copies of them all over again.
I have many early 80's and 90's latin cds and they sound wonderful. All AAD and the wave forms are not clipped or hard limited. When people describe CD or digital as sounding harsh, cold or brittle, they are actually describing the results of the loudness war. They are describing hard limiting. A proper AAD CD with no hard limiting should be the CD's that are compared to vinyl when tests are conducted.
Bravo! Exactly! Also over processed mixing/editing etc can kill quality in digital...hence the need of the second A even though I must admit there are also excellent ADD because properly done.
Do you have some examples of latim albums that have the AAD letters? I wouldn't be surprised if most salsa albums are AAD, since they generally sound amazing even on Spotify.
@@anadialog I'd put a Track 3 which would be a ℗ 2016 *Apple Digital Master* (Formerly Mastered for iTunes), obviously it's a ADD because Apple is always digital, it sounds like 2003 Remaster but with the same volume as the AAD; I know it's a 256kbps AAC, but the *MASTER* is *PERFECT!!!!*
AAD combined with quality engineering is absolutely the best I’ve ever experienced in the realm of the CD lineage performance. My 80’s original CD crystal like masters are the absolute best. My sound system doesn’t tell me otherwise. ;)
Ozzy Osbourne - Diary of a Madman is a fantastic hard rock AAD CD. the spars code is not on the disc or label on the original pressings. it only says "Digitally Mastered Analog Recording" on the bottom right corner of the cover.
I still buy a lot of CDs when I can find them cheap, but I'm always looking for the 80's to about mid 90's ones before they started cranking the volume and killing the dynamic range.
My first CD player came in 1988, the Gradiente CDP-380RC. Now it is said to be a Yamaha system locally assembled by Gradiente, I had no idea back then, but I loved how my first CDs (all AAD) sounded. And you'd love it too, it played hooked to the AUX 1 of the living room (my dad's) Sony STR-6055 with Grado speakers. What was not to love?! Cheers!
Laura Branigan's Touch from 1987 is one of the best sounding CDs I've ever heard, there's no mention in the CD or the case/liner notes if it's AAD or ADD though, but it sounds fantastic. Great album too, she's criminally underrated.
Laura did have a big, beautiful voice, reminiscent of many stars that hailed from that region of the world. BUT, even she admits that she never really ''found my sound.'' I can't count the times I've seen wonderfully talented people hamstrung by their producers and record companies. Even with Touch, I don't think her marvelous voice was truly allowed to shine...starting with all that overdone reverb.
@@anadialog Not all ADD/DDD discs sound bad, look at Spyro Gyra's Stories Without Words, an all-digital recording (NO ANALOG process was used during recording/mixing/mastering), it's also from 1987 and it sounds amazing!
@@JnL_SSBM I've got a couple of EMI ADD CD's with 20 bit processing, and they sound great to me. And Faith by George Michael is also DDD and is considered one of the best sounding CD's ever. There probably are some AAD's that sound like garbage because they used the wrong tapes or a damaged source.
In the 80's transfering an analog tape to digital was done at OVU (on the analog deck) to -18dBfs or -20dBfs on the digital recorder, that was the norm and the bset recommed way to do it. Using this method give you about 20dB of headroom on the CD. (BTW the digital medium at that time used for mastering was a SONY BVU 3/4 Inch VCR where the PCM digital audio signal signal was recorded as a video signal.) When CD palyer begin to equiped every car, there were too much headroom (remember that the car amplifier at that time was not very efficient ) and mastering beging to get higher and higher to please the driver. After in mid nineties the usage of DAW ( Digital Workstation) with rock music did the rest to destroy the dynamic headroom and we end up with disk mastered with less that 3dB of headroom...even with 1 dB of headroom. So yes go an buy those CD mastered before 1995 and rip them. The album that Fremer was mentionning was Roxy Music Avalon ( one of the best mixing session on earth) but the re-issue CD was done with a safety copy on DAT that nobody knows where it come from...so, never trust a record company to store your masters...
Digital dynamic compression is so that they can raise the sound of weak sounds. but all at the same Without raise the volume on the highest sounds. but it seems that they also turn up the volume to maximum, perhaps so that it is on the verge of cutting all the time. This should have a negative effect on drum sounds for example
I agree. I was fixated on getting remastered CD's but now it's all about early 80's discs. They have a cool aesthetic, but annoyingly the old CD jewel cases had a lot of tabs and nubs that dented the booklets.
I'm now going throught he process of ripping to FLAC all my CDs (including some early 80s ones). It was time to as storage is cheap and codecs have improved. Keeping the disc and artwork but chucking the cases. What I have noticed is the number of discs that are failing. CD rot. Some are worse than others. Some you can see how many holes are in the CDs if you hold them up to the light. A few refused to rip. These were meant to be "indestructible" and tolerate scratches. Never was the case. If you have an old collection, I'd recommend checking them regularly for failures.
In conclusion, it's all either done right or wrong in mastering. The medium isn't the problem. Of course we have to consider the player for CDs, needle/cartridges for vinyl, the electronics in either, then the amp and finally the speakers. Now I would love to see the same comparison done to vinyl. Those made in the 60s, 70s and 80s have to be quite different than the 2020s. While browsing through my old vinyl records, I did notice a couple of 70's albums were recorded originally in digital. Things were moving digitally back then. Overall, this was enjoyable and a good background on how records/CDs were made from start to finish.
If you follow a well respected music forum, as I did for at least ten years, the early CDs are often preferred but it's on a case by case basis and that's where the experts at the forum come in. One possible downside to early CDs is that, the most recent media had been cassettes and in many cases, the cassette duplication master (with additional eq etc) was used (because it was easier to find in the vault) for CD mastering instead of the original master tape. I don't know if the titles were ever documented but it was prevalent.
In many cases the LP master was used. Which ended up sounding like crap because the EQing for vinyl is vastly different. So many of these early CDs sounded way inferior to the vinyl counterparts. So the main issue here is which analog master they used when they decided to put the album out on cd.
I agree. To your point, the latest "remixes/remasters" don't always sound better, just different. Pink Floyd Animals is a prime example...my 1st gen CD is my preference. My favorite AAD recording is the 1984 CD version of Foreigner's 1st album.
The 2018 Remix of Animals brought that album back to life. It’s “clearly” superior to the all that came before it. Especially when it comes to the drums.
I am not sure how it's done, but what I love about some of the older CD's is how they were able to add the spaciousness into the sound. Like Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Al Stewart, Jean-Michael Jarre, Beatles, etc.
@@anadialognot only less processing but less ‘tracks’ per mix. Now it’s standard for every song to have anywhere from 100-150 individual tracks. That’s ridiculous on a sonic level because you’re just competing for space. One of billie eilishes songs has something like 75 vocal tracks. Each one just ever so slightly different. Compare that to something like a Diana krall song. It’s more than likely just one or two vocal tracks.
As you say, the loudness war probably made the biggest difference on this test, so an even better test of AAD vs ADD would be with tracks where the compression is roughly equal...do you know of any tracks that would meet this criteria?
I agree but the problem is that when they decided wether to follow AAD or ADD the next version came several years after along with further compression. We need to find an early AAD and a new version in ADD released shortly after, then we can add data to the test. Any suggestions?
i'm not so sure you're right on dire straits brother in arms it said DDD . and it was produced in 1985. . And from what I've read, digital recording at the time was quite expensive.
I use the dynamic range database webpage to find the best sounding CD's. Nine times out of ten anything before 1998 will have the best dynamics. Cheers!
I have about 1500 CD'S. I have been getting them since the beginning. I keep hearing this AAD argument and most of the time there is little to no difference. I heard no difference between the 2 recordings and if I had to choose I would have chosen the 2003. But I am getting older I know my hearing has changed so maybe that's a factor why these recordings sounded the same to me.
The vocals tend to be pushed out front on more recently mastered records. I prefer and spotted the older Police cd immediately because it sounded richer with the vocals better integrated into the band’s sound. Great video presentation!
I have a few AAD live classical recordings, many of which were originally recorded in the late 1960s, which sound very rich and "warm". Possibly recorded on valve (tube) equipment.
AAD CDs were the reason I quit vinyls and gradually cassettes too. They were my wildest fantasy come true: no hum from a tonearm, no clicks and pops, no surface noise, no skips. Crystal clear, free of intermediate process that altered the sound, no compression. There were terrible mastering s, of course. The Beatles first AAD CDs were not great, some were so low in the volume I couldn't listen to them in my Discman (Peter Gabriel 4). The industry has learned nothing and we may not see a CD rebirth because of how easy is to get a digital archive and store it in your computer. Physical media is appealing, and vinyl is becoming the most popular at the moment.
Can't agree more! Just few weeks ago, I was wondering why my Chris De Burgh's "At The End of A Perfect Day" CD sounded so nice, I found out that its SPARS code is AAD. Then I sorted out all my AAD CDs and spent 2 weeks of AAD listening. All the 36-All-Time-Greatest-Hits sets from Timeless Music are AAD CDs, I always go back to listen to its releases of "The Ventures", "The Brothers Four", "Neil Diamond", and now I know why, I can feel the artist's emotion, soundstage is wider. I compared the same songs with those in Neil Diamond's "In My Lifetime" SBM (Super Bit Mapping) collection, although the SBM version sounds clean, the vocal on AAD version sounds more realistic. Then I ordered 2nd hand Gordon Lightfoot 36 All-Time Favorites CD set (AAD), it is a big Wow !! The sound of guitar is sparkling on few recordings, much better than those digitally re-mastered CDs. I now eBay some Reader's Digest CD collections, they all are AAD CDs, look forward to listening to them. And the last, I am gonna subscribe Surfshark.
Good video. New things learned. A potential problem with AAD is excessive tape noise (3 Dog Night - Hard Labor, Dr Hook - Sloppy Seconds). A potential problem with ADD is criminal levels of compression (Too many examples to list). I would argue that ADD potentially can be better if the engineer receives an electric shock whenever s/he attempts to add compression.
Great video Guido and I couldn't agree more. For years I've been out there picking up AAD CDs in the second-hand shops they just sound better and you've outlined why beautifully in this video. One of my latest finds was a Robert Cray album midnight stroll.
Do SPARS codes also apply to vinyls? The recent MoFi vinyls wouldn't be something like like AA(D)A, with an intermediate digital step between Mix and Master?
They were born for CDs (apart from AAA obviously put they put that in order to make things clear) but they should adopt them and many have said after MoFigate
Thanks for the run down. Just searched a random pile I have and as far as AAD’s go; Depeche Mode Violator, Pearl Jam Ten, GnR Use Your Illusion II, and Nirvana Unplugged are on the top of the list.
Track 2 sounded better having better bass,smoothness and depth while the first audio track has more treble and slightly harsh sounded which is common in modern .mp3 soundtracks heard through media players,Car stereos,etc.. I hope they don't stop CD manufacturing since its replaced by Amazon music,Spotify and internet radio service. Glad you brought this topic in your channel.
You are so right. I remember going into the stores, and immediately turning the CD that we wanted on the back to see if it say AAD or DDD that was the big thing because what was explained to us was that the longer it stayed in analog the better the sound would be. It's funny how we go through these transformations and it's almost always around the $$$$. The first change I remember was that the only difference was the sounds removed were ones that "human beings couldn't hear anyway." Must be easier and cheaper to do it in digital probably takes more man hours to do analog stuff. And now we don't know what we really have at all. Because like you said they faced out that letter code on the rear of the jewel case.
That’s not true, I’m 56 so I grew up throughout this era and I distinctly remember everyone thinking that the longer it stayed in the digital domain the better it sounded. The idea that it was from the “old analog era“ was a stigma, it of course wasn’t true, but that was what consumers thought. I love hearing these younger people pontificating about things they weren’t even alive for, it reminds me that the best archaeologists can offer are opinions and personal interpretations on things they weren’t around for rather than things they know for certain.
The one truly outstanding CD in my fairly large collection is a 1985 Philips DDD recording of the 1812 Overture conducted by Esa-Pekka Salonen. I can hear the orchestra turning over the sheet music and light rain falling on the opera house roof at one point. I bought it on the same day as my brand new Philips CD150 CD player as a tester and was totally blown away. My second favourite sonically is Al Stewart's Last Days of the Century album from 1988 which I believe is AAD.
One of the big problems of early digital was the Sony master editor (DAE-1100) for the for the PCM 1610 & 1630 systems had an un-dithered fader. The 16 bit truncation would chill the sound if it was used.
Funny how these codes were common knowledge back in the late 80s and early 90s. We as teenagers sought to always get the ones closer to the DDD coding since it was believed D was better. It wasn’t until the early 90s with folks like Lenny Kravitz and Pearl Jam started making a movement towards the analog realm that analog started pushing back.
Great video! I have those same Police discs, and also recently bought a set of remastered Police albums on CD from 2019 called "Every Move You Make", which sound great. For me, though, the Police sounded best on vinyl! I have been buying CDs since 1983, and I have many of those AAD discs, which still sound great today. Pink Floyd CDs released in the '80s sound great as well; "Dark Side Of The Moon", "Wish You Were Here", and "Animals" are great AADs. Thank you for covering this topic, because it is so important, especially for younger Music/Audio enthusiasts. Molto Bene!!
Fantastic explanation! I’ve many 1st brazilian press aad. Listening on 88s sony cdp m35. They sound awesome! The remastered ones looks like im listening with loudness
How do you rate the Magnovox D 8880 boombox? I have it from 1988 my first CD player. I think it sounds great still. People were blown away when I played my first CDs, The Doors, Pink Floyd, The Beatles. HDCDs sounds great on it, they are much louder at the same volume as the AAD ones from the 80s
The best is usually the earliest due to the crazy mastering of these days. But, as we said, there are terrible early editions. I don't know that CD so I can't tell, but you should find an early one for cheap and cross your fingers
I've heard the argument that back in the analog days, mixing and mastering engineers were usually career professionals, often older and more experienced who delivered exceptional results. However, once digital became viable, the operators were often tech bros who didn't have the depth of experience or passion for music itself.
I have been collecting early CD pressings again as the remastered versions are too loud and sound to compressed. Great video and lecture. Dire Straits are an other example, the early CDs are superb but the 1996 masters are too compressed, loud and attack the ears. You can hear it very clearly.
Anybody know the answer to this: Is there a way to tell good AAD's from bad AAD's without listening to them (while shopping, for example). Is there a date range, etc. to look for?
The Police AAD track sounded way more dynamic. The only AAD cd I have is Suffocation "Breeding the spawn" E. U. version, drums and bass on that sounds amazing.
There were several digital recording systems that came along at the very end of the 70s. The best sounding ones are SoundStream and 3M. Both recorded to digital tape at 16-bit/50kHz. This is in contrast to the Sony PCM-16xx series which only did 16/44. I recently ran across an excellent sounding CD from 1983 which was recorded on a 3M system: Maiden Voyage by Art Farmer. (No spars code but either DAD or DDD). IIRC Telarc was using those early digital systems as well. I wanted to provide a counter to the blanket “all digital sux” arguments that some may have. There is good digital out there if you look for it. And I completely agree many of the earliest AAD CD’s can sound great too… before all the incessant remastering and the loudness wars.
I just looked through about half of my CD collection. Most don't have and kind of SPARS code, and of the ones that do, maybe less than a dozen were AAD and most of them were jazz recordings. Do you have to Google the CD # or recording company to find out how the un-marked ones are recorded? A lot of my marked classical discs seem to be ADDs, but they're still a joy yo listen to. One question. I just listened to (and ripped to thumb drive) a 2-disc Fantasia soundtrack from a collector's edition (numbered with a certificate)- I've only watched the VCR tape once. I noticed that the sound keeps wavering from side to side. Could this be a defect in the disc or just how the original analog recording sounded when they were re=mastered?
Great and interesting info! Very noticeable and surprising difference in the sound demoed discs. I have quite a few older CDs, and I will have to take another look and see if I can find some hidden gems in there LOL. Thanks!
there's a misconception here. AAD means 1: analog recording MEDIUM (for example: analog reel tape). 2: analog mixing MEDIUM (analog 2 track tape). 3: after eq and compression in mastering, latest spars code letter implies the MEDIUM in which that mastering session was recorded (usually Sony PCM-1600 series before 1987, and DAT and other mediums later on). so in essence, an ADD CD is not a "modern mastering type CD" where the original mixes where passed through a "look ahead digital mastering limiter" like Waves Ultramaximixer L1 and L2 for example. ADD means: analog recording medium, digital mixing medium, and digital mastering medium (always digital in CD). modern ultracompressed mastering have nothing to do with SPARS Code.
No misconception. Clearly analog or digital are always going to be tied to a physical machine, NOT medium, the recording machine for the first A and the type of console for the second, and the third the type of recording machine adopted, always analog or digital. In order to be practical I used the words recording, mixing ans mastering which are human actions, clearly tied to the type of adopted machine. What I said the video is that the third letter is not tied ro the medium, meaning it does not mean the physical CD (medium).
@@anadialog for the second letter, you said that is the console (digital or analog), well, digital consoles began to appear in comercial studios around the 90s being Neve Capricorn console one of the firsts in Abbey Road. so, in the 80s, a digital console was maybe a prototype, and very price restrictive. an example of that is "brothers in arms", recorded on sony dash machines and mixed onto 2 track sony machines too, with an analog console. spars code for that CD: DDD
When we first started getting CDs in the late 80's, we had a Denon player and only one CD that had the de-emphasis show up on the display. We never figured out what it did, or could tell the difference. It was the 1985 James Bond Themes CD by Ed Starink, since it was electronic music, we just thought it sounded clean anyway.
Nice video, I do have one comment. Many of the aad CDs of old in a rush to get something to the market just simply used the analog Master they had and in some cases the bass had been eq-ed out of it for the vinyl master. I have lately been in the process of taking these CDs out of my collection and replacing them with newer remastered versions that actually have bass.
I only have PC speakers with subwoofer but the guitar has a bite with the digital and is smooth with the AAD. It's a similar mix but the analogue is like a smooth whisky.
Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" was recorded in DDD in 1985. I guess it was the first album ever to be recorded in DDD. It is outstanding! I have a lot of AAD albums. Most of them are great!
Indeed there are great examples of DDD and in fact it’s an early release. Newer releases with digital mix and mastering just crush out the soul from the recordings.
SPARS was used during the first years of CD to make clear how it was made. Eventually everything turned DDD even though there are reissues or new productions that don’t follow a full digital chain. Unfortunately the answer is no. There are some lists but they are incomplete. A good idea is to check on Discogs how the SPARS classified the first edition and MAYBE the reissue followed a similar pattern but be careful because due to copyright issues almost al albums have been remastered several times, increasing the compression decade after decade.
Follow on comment about CDs, data rot and M-Discs: M-Disc is considered an archive quality medium and is intended for deep-time preservation of data. It is a very expensive and slow to write medium. The upside is that the data will Never decay! A complex but very good option is to up-convert from CD format to DVD or BlueRay audio and then burn to M-disc in that format. That also gives a Much longer play time so music collections can be put on each disc and not just a single album. That helps with the cost-per-recording math.
In the beginning of the CDs, they used for reissues the same production masters they used for the original vinyl issues. Such CDs are the closest thing to the original vinyl issues, but without hiss, crackles and distortion of worn vinyl of the original pressing. They should be punished for the new so-called remasters, because they alternate the original intention of the creators.
A dead giveaway between the two tracks is easy to spot (listen for). Listen to the backing hiss. Digital mixers often mute as much of the noise/hiss as possible when possible. For example: when Sting is not singing, the (very) faint background hiss is a bit less. Once he starts to sing, you hear the hiss increase slightly with his voice. A dead giveaway of digital mixing. The analog mixes typically do not do this. Each time the voice starts/stops and as the volume/level of the instruments changes... so does the backing hiss ever so slightly. The background noise/hiss is consistent on AAD. Listen carefully.. while some can not hear the noise transitions on the ADD version (myself and some other audiophile pals do)... MOST will certainly notice the overall slightly higher level of hiss on the AAD version. I personally perceive a strange transition artifact each time the voice starts and stops (as the hiss increases and decreases). Which seems (to me) to be a tad "muffled" overall - while the AAD version (with slightly more overall hiss) has a more open/airy sound (not only directly due to the hiss, but also because there is less restriction being placed on the voice and backing tracks). Not to say I can always hear this, but in most cases.. I personally DO notice it.
Also worth noting... you need good sound equipment to hear this. Some good high-quality headphones (not the cheap earbuds most have) or a decent hi-fi system. Be sure to CRANK IT UP a bit! You will hear the noise floor. Also listen to his OTHER video (where he compares the 2 versions of Animals).. the transitions are not as noticeable, but the overall background hiss IS certainly more audible in his FIRST track (the AAD). Again, this lack of auto-muting (of the higher frequencies, to cut the noise floor) opens up the overall sound a bit more. More spacious and airy sounding IMO. I will admit, however.. the re-mix/re-master of Animals is a damn good one. It is hard to fault either one. Extremely high quality and first-class CD's regardless of which one you get.
Im (1 year) late here lol, but I have a 1999 remaster of The Doors in AAD CD which sounds terrific. Yes, its more loud than the original copies, but the quality (at least to me) is superb!
Yes, i remember the DDD tale back in the 90s when going through friends CD collections, an A on the code was seen a gaslight technology. But the idea is sound, every conversion is basically a loss of information.
I have a aad master of puppets 1987-1989cd and its the best most beautiful album ive ever experienced it totally 🤯 i sat there listened to 2 times in a row in one sitting feels like you're sitting in the room with the musicians vastly superior than even Qobuz
That’s what I am talking about! Here is the following chapter you this insane mastering trend: th-cam.com/video/YnSR1yZuIZ4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tGRzXLUeLIapatTR
Good demo. To me the ADD track soundstage was flat and the higher frequencies tinny especially Sting's vocals. The AAD track sounded had more dimensionality to the instruments and vocal - they sounded more rounded and the soundstage not flat...it had more depth in a word it was natural.
Well...that depends. For clasical music DDD is by far the best encoding. But it seems that classical music is kind of ignored by everyone talking about music around here.
@@ZeusTheTornado I absolutely agree. But also I doubt that most 20 years old consider themselves audiophiles or consider of any importance the difference between SPARS codes. 😉
Hi Guido I remember I hearing that they just slapped stuff onto cds in the 80’s to capitalise. I bought all the remasters thinking they’d be better but a lot aren’t, Pink Floyd are one of the few bands where you can’t really go wrong with any master. Have you heard the remix of animals and do you like it? It’s my go to version now and great video as usual
Unfortunately no, it depends if a new mix was done and if it was digital or not. Also new albums were released in that period and mixed directly in digital so no AAD ever existed…
I choose to listen to the SACD layer of all police albums. I do have several CDs that are AAD and they sound good however. I usually go where the best mastering takes me, between CD, SACD, VINYL and Hi Res Audio.
My experience has been sacd sounds better when comparing cd played on the sacd player. Try to compare it with cd played on a pure 44.1 CD player. It might surprise you
Depending on the pressing plant possibly PDO then some discs may start to shed the silver layer and then they will not ever play again so I would not purchase CD albums on the Philips label if it was pressed at a PDO plant better albums can be had from plants not associated with PDO.
I have an early cd where you can hear the needle drop at the beginning. It was an official release and clearly was not transfered from the master tapes but from a vinyl. Maybe that's why some early cd's don't sound that good. Also, I don't think that early converters were inferior to today's. In consumer electronics maybe but for mastering plants and studios, I don't think so. I'm not an audiophile, but I'm a mixing and mastering engineer. I love both digital and analog, I have never understood the "which sounds better" debate. Whenever I get back a cd copy from the factory of the master I have sent them, I can compare it back to back and it's always the same. I consider this a great advantage because it's exactly the sound the artist and the producer intended to create. Hardly the case with vinyl. So, how do you know which sounds better? Where you in the room when the final master was aprooved? Masterring wise, yes, it is the heart of the issue but is it "better" or just "different"? These people who did the loud masters, were they deaf?
I agree that old DACs have still something to say as I showed for example with the Marantz CD 94 MK II with the TDA1541 single crown converter. I was referring to the fact that in the very beginning they were releasing CD players with 14bit DACS! Ans clearly that not all of them were good.
I thought Track 2 sounded much better. I was surprised that was the AAD. Fun fact: Cowboy Junkies, The Trinity Sessions circa 1988 was recorded on DAT. It was mastered for DDD CD and vinyl. I don't know whether it was DDA to vinyl or DAA. I have both the 1988 CD and vinyl. I played back both on a top dollar system once: all Burmester electronics, Immedia turntable and tonearm, Lyra Parnassus cartridge. What was striking about the vinyl is this: the church ambiance charged and pressured up the listening room when the track cued up before the singing began. I could feel the low level sonics on my ears and person. It was not vinyl noise; it was the recording of the church ambiance, a blackness of a live space. I could hear the shape of the church space. Spaces are never truly dead quiet; they have a life of their own. In one track, a car motored off into the distance and one could hear it on the vinyl, the rounded burbling of its exhaust. The CD totally stripped out the church ambiance. The motorcar was reduced to prat-prat noise with no sense it was motoring off into the distance. There was no sense of the church space. The silent background was a dead background, a dead space devoid of life. In all the arguments of CDs vs Vinyls, nobody really talked about the silence of the background. Remember, the Trinity Sessions was recorded on DAT. Yet, the analogue master captured the ambiance whilst the digital master stripped it out completely.
Clear and understandable. I started collecting CDs when they were sold on a single rack. I always do a comparison from the original to the remastered. Not all sound bad. Would it be beneficial to introduce the new materials used in CD that can be purchased from Japan. No VPN required 😎🎵🎵👍
I know this wont exactly be a perfect fix, but wouldn't it be cool if they started making dacs that have an optional filter to pull down the compression a bit? Yes you'll still hear its not perfect if its baked in, but it could make compressed albums more listenable
Id like to find software that would allow a clone stereo track twice to make PCM 6 channel stereo on Bluray discs. then no need to upmix or process anything on my amp.
When cds first came out, the players did not have good sound. Hard brittle highs, edginess, bleached tone colors and some new distortions we never had the displeasure of meeting or hearing before. Digital distortions that sounded a lot meaner than analog distortions. About a decade later when lps were being discontinued, and it wasn't a matter of choice anymore, for people wanting newly released music. That's when it really started to sting. For any music/audio hobbyist old enough; this was like deja vu. Back around 1964 the tube amps and tube sound that people used and were used to for many decades, these people had solid state amps thrust upon them; and their solid state sound. What's interesting and even amazing is basically the same thing happened as when the introduction of cds happened. People used to a smooth pleasant sound back in 1964 with tubes, and 1984 with lps, both had thrown upon them something new. Something bright sounding, hard and brittle in the highs, thin sounding with hardly any body to the sound. In both cases the sound went from just fine, to harsh and less natural sounding and involving, and also less warm. If you ever listen to early transistor sound, it has an amazing similarity to early digital sound, in every bad sense of the word. Bad digital sounds very similar to bad early transistor sound. Because enough people liked and preferred tubes and enough people like and prefer lps, both tubes and lps made a comeback in the marketplace. When people have perfectly fine sound they don't want it taken away from them, and be force fed something harsh. Of course now, if you have really good digital playback equipment, someone would be hard pressed to tell if what they're listening to is analog or digital. Not just similar, not just close, but really hard to tell apart. Transistor amps are the same way. The best of them have no harshness or spatial limitations. Tube amps might give themselves away with slight microphonics and an overly generous amount of warmth. The LP might give itself away with an occasional tick or pop or some mistracking or hints of stress on challenging peaks at times. But digital still has a negative connotation to some. We heard its faults before it grew up, and some diehards didn't even give it a fair listen decades later, thinking they just "knew" it and all its flaws. The less digital the better as far as cds go? I don't know about that. I think its more the competence and judgement of those involved in its process, from recording to public release.
I love the DAC in my Philips CD600 cd-player which has the DAC chips Philips TDA1543 DAC and Philips SAA7220 stereo interpolating filter, combined with the Philips CDM-4/19 transport. It sounds much better than any modern generic compact disc capable player of any sort out there today.
Back in the mists of time when we were undergoing the digital revolution from vinyl to CD all the "experts" were extolling the virtues of digital over analogue- superior sound reproduction, no hiss, no clicks pops etc. It was widely believed that DDD CDs were THE best quality sound. Any A in the chain was regarded as a weakness, inferior. That was very much the official line. Of course many people jumped off the analogue cliff into the digital domain- selling off their entire vinyl collection at knockdown prices. They looked down their noses at "yesterday's outdated technology"- Analogue = Bad, Digital =Good. Of course there was a lot of marketing and sales hype from record labels and hi-fi manufacturers and stores who were desperate to cash in on the big shift to digital. I made the shift to digital CDs but I would never part with my vinyl- why on earth would anyone? Now 30+ years later fashions and fads have changed- many have abandoned their CDs and adopted streaming services, looking down their noses at folks who still play CDs- anything sound familiar? CDs now available at knockdown prices but like vinyl there does appear to be a new found appreciation and love for the CD. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Fashions and fads come and go, for many it's tribal and they can only deal with binary choice and whatever format they chose they find it necessary to diss the other format and those who use it. There is of course a rather large group that tends to get overlooked- those of us, sensible folks who live in a multi format world where vinyl, CD and streaming happily coexists- each has its benefits and disadvantages in place and time. At the end of the day the quality of recording, mixing and mastering are the most important elements- the source- of course your system is a vital link in the chain and the ultimate par of your chain are YOUR EARS! No one else hears the music the way that you do. It's all subjective- personal taste is paramount.
Question , where do u find code? more recent CDs dont even list the codes anymore. For example the reissue of Led Zeppelin Cd Albums; i unfortunatly bought only say Digital Remastered? no ADD code nothing? could be DDD or ADD who knows? Is there way to check?
New subscriber. Great video. ⭐😃. I immediately grabbed my New York Dolls CD since it sounds so great to my ears. Sure enough: AAD. Cal Tjader Fantasy Records CDs (Black Orchid, Mambo With, and Latino!): AAD. Most of my Classical and Jazz CDs sound fab - I don't know their SPARS codes, but I will check on them. They are mostly what I buy second hand for a buck. Glad I found your channel. I am now on the hunt for AAD CDs so I can investigate further. Lots to learn! 👍. How fun! - Heather
Hola Guido,creo que la respuesta para estos tiempos sería AAD de 24 bit,imagínate al sonido análogo con la dinámica digital!quisiera saber también que opinas de los cd de música clásica,las reediciones son casi siempre en ADD,grazie mile ciao🙂
As I thought, Track 1 is worse sounding not necessarily because it is ADD, but because it's hyper compressed and and brick wall limited at the mastering stage. Even though you've normalised it, some of the high-end dynamic will have been chopped off, so regardless of the gain being turned down to meet that of the 1991 version, those dynamic peaks are now entirely missing from the audio.
My first CD I ever bought was Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, I believe it was chosen by Philips to push their CD player sales and that is DDD and it's superb. No loudness war issues on that one. I'll take that over any AAD, but of course with the older recordings, that is not available.
Brothers in Arms is actually a DAD production. No digital consoles existed at the time. This has also been confirmed by the original co-producer Neil Dorsfman: www.analogplanet.com/content/brothers-arms%C2%A0%C2%A0-45rpm-mobile-fidelity
@@anadialog Indeed... I also obtained the SBM version now, which is as he intended it to sound apparently. Also I have the Hybrid SACD/CD version and I think even the CD layer on that one already sounded better than the SBM version, odd enough. I am still waiting for the XRCD2 version of that album. Not sure what mastering they took for that, but he other XRCD CD's I have heard are absolutely stunning in sound quality. 4 different CD's of the same album, call me crazy 😛
@@anadialog You seem to misunderstand what the A and the D really mean - or you seem to have some misconceptions how music is recorded mixed and mastered. It‘s the medium not the process when it comes to this code. Brothers in Arms was recorded on a digital Sony DASH Multitrack recorder - the recording console however was an analog Neve. It was mixed on an analog Console and the stereo mix was recorded onto a 2 Track digital recorder. Neil Dorfsman said in one interview, he recorded it to DAT, but as far as I know DAT didn‘t exist at that time. So I guess it was an U-MATIC Video Tape Recorder with a Sony PCM Processor. This Tape was then given to a Mastering Engineer (I guess it was Bob Ludwig who was THE man in the 80ies) who most likely used all analog compressors, EQs and limiters during his process. But he recorded his mastered tracks also with a digital tape recorder. So Brothers in Arms is a DDD Recording because NO ANALOG RECORDING MEDIUM was ever used. Digital Mixing Consoles in record production where a thing of the late nineties - the grew out of fashion really quick. Most high end productions however where mixed on analog SSL oder Neve consoles until about 15 years ago - and in the last 20 years most of these productions were recorded with protools and the output of the mixing console was routed back to protools. Analog consoles are still used today, but mostly for recording and not mixing. The whole mixing process however is done mostly within DAWs today. Some analog oder digital outboard equipment is still often used. Many mastering engineers use lots of analog outboard still today - so the digital mix still gets converted back to analog, then gets processed by analog EQs, compressors etc. And finally gets converted back to digital. The process of recording, mixing and mastering is still a wild mixture of analog and digital. What‘s essentially gone is the analog recording medium. Tape machines a rarely used today. We have two beautiful analog tape machines in our studio but we are no exception.
Thanks Guido, an interesting and educational lesson for me! I love CDs and used to be an avid collector in the 80s. But then I stopped buying them. Would now like to start buying CDs again. Can you recommend any online sites (globally) where I can buy them? Thanks again.
I went through a bunch of my old CDs to look for the SPARS codes. Most of the labels didn't use the code. The few that did were pretty consistent. A&M, Electra, Polydor, Geffen...
Small point, from Wikipedia, "Since CD is a digital medium, it must be produced from a digital master - therefore the last letter of the code will always be D." So the only combinations you will EVER find on a CD are AAD, ADD, DAD or DDD... Great video BTW!
Ciao Guido, è curioso che Giulio Cesare Ricci (fonè) abbia detto in diverse interviste che un "vinile" dovrebbe nascere AAA mentre un CD DDD. In effetti il Sig. Ricci usava in contemporanea (già dagli anni '80) un master su Tape(studer) e uno su PCM1630.
Ha perfettamente senso, sulla carta. Per me i CD DDD e AAD ecc. possono essere ottimi però, mettendo in fila tutte le mie esperienze di ascolto, quelli che partono da analogico sono solitamente quelli piú riusciti.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
It’s all in the mastering like someone pointed out. Telarc were the most dynamic cd recordings I have heard DDD with no compression. Do not get carried away with AAD vs DDD since I have heard good & not so great in both.
Early DDD could sound very good. Something hapoend along the way that make today's DDD sound absolutely horrible
I agree - Glenn Miller - “In The Digital Mood” - No joke, this is an awesome example of early 3M - 32 track digital recording and mixed to the J.V.C. Digital Audio Mastering System. NO DAW or Pro-Tools. Interesting early digital recording of the original Glenn Miller arrangements. Very flat EQ. Very little
Compression. The very first CD I owned that was coded DDD. Sounds awesome…but there is some “stiffness” in the high-mids I could do without.
Fun fact: the first CDs were AAD. Nowadays vinyls are DDA.
that is so true
Yup
Very true, nice catch lol
You got me there, what is even sadder many are more pleasant than DDD straight to your streamer
What's a vinyls?
I used to buy classical music on CD in the 90s, and the main drawback of AAD for me was the background noise. Classical music often contains quiet passages and silence, so any noise caused by the recording process can be highly noticeable and distracting. DDD (obviously dependent on the quality of the recording/production etc.) could provide the most crystal clear rendering without the distraction of hiss, dynamic range limitations, clipping, and whatever other inferior traits carried over from the original analogue recording. On some DDD recordings I own, with a pair of headphones on it truly feels like being in the same room as the performance.
This is not to say that analogue recordings don't have character, warmth etc., and I have some wonderful AAD classical albums (and some mediocre DDD ones). But I will always hold digital in higher regard for this genre.
Audiophiles from 30 years ago would think you're crazy. They wanted full-digital (DDD) recordings, and anything analog was considered inferior. In fact, that's the entire reason why SPARS codes were created, because audiophiles felt cheated to pay good money for a CD only to discover that it was not made from a digital recording! And ultimately there was no enforcement, so plenty of discs just lied and claimed to be DDD even when they were made from analog recordings. So that's part of why the SPARS codes eventually disappeared.
Yes I remember that! I also mentioned it in the video...my highly regarded conosseur friend made me feel stupid with the DDD claim...
@@anadialog let it be a lesson to all: never make someone feel stupid for what their ears are telling them.
Highly enlightening. I had a huge collection of AADs that I foolishly replaced from the late 90s onwards, only to be spending my time tracking down copies of them all over again.
Me too. Buying into the "remastered" craze has been a loss leader in many cases.
jäpp loudn€$$ wärez -?- @@stevenpettinga7400
I have many early 80's and 90's latin cds and they sound wonderful. All AAD and the wave forms are not clipped or hard limited. When people describe CD or digital as sounding harsh, cold or brittle, they are actually describing the results of the loudness war. They are describing hard limiting. A proper AAD CD with no hard limiting should be the CD's that are compared to vinyl when tests are conducted.
Bravo! Exactly! Also over processed mixing/editing etc can kill quality in digital...hence the need of the second A even though I must admit there are also excellent ADD because properly done.
It may be aliasing that's causing the problem. It took a while for them to figure out they needed a low pass filter in front of the ADC.
Do you have some examples of latim albums that have the AAD letters? I wouldn't be surprised if most salsa albums are AAD, since they generally sound amazing even on Spotify.
@@gars129 Los Bukis, Liberacion ect...
@@anadialog I'd put a Track 3 which would be a ℗ 2016 *Apple Digital Master* (Formerly Mastered for iTunes), obviously it's a ADD because Apple is always digital, it sounds like 2003 Remaster but with the same volume as the AAD; I know it's a 256kbps AAC, but the *MASTER* is *PERFECT!!!!*
AAD combined with quality engineering is absolutely the best I’ve ever experienced in the realm of the CD lineage performance. My 80’s original CD crystal like masters are the absolute best. My sound system doesn’t tell me otherwise. ;)
Glad I bought many 80s CDs from charity shops
Ozzy Osbourne - Diary of a Madman is a fantastic hard rock AAD CD. the spars code is not on the disc or label on the original pressings. it only says "Digitally Mastered Analog Recording" on the bottom right corner of the cover.
I still buy a lot of CDs when I can find them cheap, but I'm always looking for the 80's to about mid 90's ones before they started cranking the volume and killing the dynamic range.
It's not just dynamic range they screwed up. It's a lot more than that. Computer distortion from what I heard
My first CD player came in 1988, the Gradiente CDP-380RC. Now it is said to be a Yamaha system locally assembled by Gradiente, I had no idea back then, but I loved how my first CDs (all AAD) sounded. And you'd love it too, it played hooked to the AUX 1 of the living room (my dad's) Sony STR-6055 with Grado speakers. What was not to love?! Cheers!
Laura Branigan's Touch from 1987 is one of the best sounding CDs I've ever heard, there's no mention in the CD or the case/liner notes if it's AAD or ADD though, but it sounds fantastic. Great album too, she's criminally underrated.
Yeah, it's a great album and a great mastering
If it's 87' it should be AAD
Laura did have a big, beautiful voice, reminiscent of many stars that hailed from that region of the world. BUT, even she admits that she never really ''found my sound.'' I can't count the times I've seen wonderfully talented people hamstrung by their producers and record companies. Even with Touch, I don't think her marvelous voice was truly allowed to shine...starting with all that overdone reverb.
@@anadialog Not all ADD/DDD discs sound bad, look at Spyro Gyra's Stories Without Words, an all-digital recording (NO ANALOG process was used during recording/mixing/mastering), it's also from 1987 and it sounds amazing!
@@JnL_SSBM I've got a couple of EMI ADD CD's with 20 bit processing, and they sound great to me. And Faith by George Michael is also DDD and is considered one of the best sounding CD's ever. There probably are some AAD's that sound like garbage because they used the wrong tapes or a damaged source.
In the 80's transfering an analog tape to digital was done at OVU (on the analog deck) to -18dBfs or -20dBfs on the digital recorder, that was the norm and the bset recommed way to do it.
Using this method give you about 20dB of headroom on the CD.
(BTW the digital medium at that time used for mastering was a SONY BVU 3/4 Inch VCR where the PCM digital audio signal signal was recorded as a video signal.)
When CD palyer begin to equiped every car, there were too much headroom (remember that the car amplifier at that time was not very efficient ) and mastering beging to get higher and higher to please the driver.
After in mid nineties the usage of DAW ( Digital Workstation) with rock music did the rest to destroy the dynamic headroom and we end up with disk mastered with less that 3dB of headroom...even with 1 dB of headroom.
So yes go an buy those CD mastered before 1995 and rip them.
The album that Fremer was mentionning was Roxy Music Avalon ( one of the best mixing session on earth) but the re-issue CD was done with a safety copy on DAT that nobody knows where it come from...so, never trust a record company to store your masters...
Thanks for explaining that!
Digital dynamic compression is so that they can raise the sound of weak sounds. but all at the same Without raise the volume on the highest sounds. but it seems that they also turn up the volume to maximum, perhaps so that it is on the verge of cutting all the time. This should have a negative effect on drum sounds for example
I agree. I was fixated on getting remastered CD's but now it's all about early 80's discs. They have a cool aesthetic, but annoyingly the old CD jewel cases had a lot of tabs and nubs that dented the booklets.
Indeed, it's the equivalent of ring wear of Vinyl records covers.
I'm now going throught he process of ripping to FLAC all my CDs (including some early 80s ones). It was time to as storage is cheap and codecs have improved. Keeping the disc and artwork but chucking the cases. What I have noticed is the number of discs that are failing. CD rot. Some are worse than others. Some you can see how many holes are in the CDs if you hold them up to the light. A few refused to rip.
These were meant to be "indestructible" and tolerate scratches. Never was the case.
If you have an old collection, I'd recommend checking them regularly for failures.
@@GilBrunel-ty5dw this happened to me with Todd Rundgren CD's made by the DISCOVERY disc plant
In conclusion, it's all either done right or wrong in mastering. The medium isn't the problem. Of course we have to consider the player for CDs, needle/cartridges for vinyl, the electronics in either, then the amp and finally the speakers.
Now I would love to see the same comparison done to vinyl. Those made in the 60s, 70s and 80s have to be quite different than the 2020s. While browsing through my old vinyl records, I did notice a couple of 70's albums were recorded originally in digital. Things were moving digitally back then.
Overall, this was enjoyable and a good background on how records/CDs were made from start to finish.
If you follow a well respected music forum, as I did for at least ten years, the early CDs are often preferred but it's on a case by case basis and that's where the experts at the forum come in. One possible downside to early CDs is that, the most recent media had been cassettes and in many cases, the cassette duplication master (with additional eq etc) was used (because it was easier to find in the vault) for CD mastering instead of the original master tape. I don't know if the titles were ever documented but it was prevalent.
In many cases the LP master was used. Which ended up sounding like crap because the EQing for vinyl is vastly different. So many of these early CDs sounded way inferior to the vinyl counterparts. So the main issue here is which analog master they used when they decided to put the album out on cd.
I agree. To your point, the latest "remixes/remasters" don't always sound better, just different. Pink Floyd Animals is a prime example...my 1st gen CD is my preference. My favorite AAD recording is the 1984 CD version of Foreigner's 1st album.
The 2018 Remix of Animals brought that album back to life. It’s “clearly” superior to the all that came before it. Especially when it comes to the drums.
@@Bozlee22 The original is my preference. As with all things audio, YMMV.
Was Foreigner's Agent Provocateur done in analog? That album seems to use a combination of analog and FM synths.
I am not sure how it's done, but what I love about some of the older CD's is how they were able to add the spaciousness into the sound. Like Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, Al Stewart, Jean-Michael Jarre, Beatles, etc.
Less processing!
@@anadialognot only less processing but less ‘tracks’ per mix. Now it’s standard for every song to have anywhere from 100-150 individual tracks. That’s ridiculous on a sonic level because you’re just competing for space. One of billie eilishes songs has something like 75 vocal tracks. Each one just ever so slightly different. Compare that to something like a Diana krall song. It’s more than likely just one or two vocal tracks.
I prefer the older CDs to the new remastered CDs of the same album in alot of cases.
As you say, the loudness war probably made the biggest difference on this test, so an even better test of AAD vs ADD would be with tracks where the compression is roughly equal...do you know of any tracks that would meet this criteria?
That would be a real comparison.
I agree but the problem is that when they decided wether to follow AAD or ADD the next version came several years after along with further compression. We need to find an early AAD and a new version in ADD released shortly after, then we can add data to the test. Any suggestions?
You have to stop with these videos. You are making cheap CDs expensive. The AAD thing was an audiophile's secret cheat code for the best CDs.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Es verdad,conozco un sitio donde venden cd de los 80,Segunda mano,la respuesta para estos tiempos es aad 24bits!sería genial!
👍 Thanks
@@wilfredovela9047cual es el sitio porfi?
i'm not so sure you're right on dire straits brother in arms it said DDD . and it was produced in 1985. . And from what I've read, digital recording at the time was quite expensive.
I use the dynamic range database webpage to find the best sounding CD's. Nine times out of ten anything before 1998 will have the best dynamics. Cheers!
Indeed!
Good video. One of my fav AAD CD’s is Dokken Back for the Attack. I always wondered why it sounded so good. Then I saw the AAD SPARS code.
Yes. That Dokken CD has good tone.
I have about 1500 CD'S. I have been getting them since the beginning. I keep hearing this AAD argument and most of the time there is little to no difference. I heard no difference between the 2 recordings and if I had to choose I would have chosen the 2003. But I am getting older I know my hearing has changed so maybe that's a factor why these recordings sounded the same to me.
You won’t. It’s all snake oil.
The vocals tend to be pushed out front on more recently mastered records.
I prefer and spotted the older Police cd immediately because it sounded richer with the vocals better integrated into the band’s sound.
Great video presentation!
AAD are the best CDs for multiple reasons and you outlined them all well on this video!
I have a few AAD live classical recordings, many of which were originally recorded in the late 1960s, which sound very rich and "warm". Possibly recorded on valve (tube) equipment.
AAD CDs were the reason I quit vinyls and gradually cassettes too. They were my wildest fantasy come true: no hum from a tonearm, no clicks and pops, no surface noise, no skips. Crystal clear, free of intermediate process that altered the sound, no compression.
There were terrible mastering s, of course. The Beatles first AAD CDs were not great, some were so low in the volume I couldn't listen to them in my Discman (Peter Gabriel 4).
The industry has learned nothing and we may not see a CD rebirth because of how easy is to get a digital archive and store it in your computer.
Physical media is appealing, and vinyl is becoming the most popular at the moment.
Can't agree more! Just few weeks ago, I was wondering why my Chris De Burgh's "At The End of A Perfect Day" CD sounded so nice, I found out that its SPARS code is AAD. Then I sorted out all my AAD CDs and spent 2 weeks of AAD listening. All the 36-All-Time-Greatest-Hits sets from Timeless Music are AAD CDs, I always go back to listen to its releases of "The Ventures", "The Brothers Four", "Neil Diamond", and now I know why, I can feel the artist's emotion, soundstage is wider. I compared the same songs with those in Neil Diamond's "In My Lifetime" SBM (Super Bit Mapping) collection, although the SBM version sounds clean, the vocal on AAD version sounds more realistic. Then I ordered 2nd hand Gordon Lightfoot 36 All-Time Favorites CD set (AAD), it is a big Wow !! The sound of guitar is sparkling on few recordings, much better than those digitally re-mastered CDs. I now eBay some Reader's Digest CD collections, they all are AAD CDs, look forward to listening to them. And the last, I am gonna subscribe Surfshark.
Thanks for sharing your experience!
Good video. New things learned.
A potential problem with AAD is excessive tape noise (3 Dog Night - Hard Labor, Dr Hook - Sloppy Seconds).
A potential problem with ADD is criminal levels of compression (Too many examples to list).
I would argue that ADD potentially can be better if the engineer receives an electric shock whenever s/he attempts to add compression.
😂
Great video Guido and I couldn't agree more. For years I've been out there picking up AAD CDs in the second-hand shops they just sound better and you've outlined why beautifully in this video.
One of my latest finds was a Robert Cray album midnight stroll.
Do SPARS codes also apply to vinyls? The recent MoFi vinyls wouldn't be something like like AA(D)A, with an intermediate digital step between Mix and Master?
They were born for CDs (apart from AAA obviously put they put that in order to make things clear) but they should adopt them and many have said after MoFigate
Thanks for the run down. Just searched a random pile I have and as far as AAD’s go; Depeche Mode Violator, Pearl Jam Ten, GnR Use Your Illusion II, and Nirvana Unplugged are on the top of the list.
Nice collection!
Violator is a killer sounding CD!
Violator might be one of the best sounding CD’s I own.
Track 2 sounded better having better bass,smoothness and depth while the first audio track has more treble and slightly harsh sounded which is common in modern .mp3 soundtracks heard through media players,Car stereos,etc.. I hope they don't stop CD manufacturing since its replaced by Amazon music,Spotify and internet radio service.
Glad you brought this topic in your channel.
You are so right. I remember going into the stores, and immediately turning the CD that we wanted on the back to see if it say AAD or DDD that was the big thing because what was explained to us was that the longer it stayed in analog the better the sound would be.
It's funny how we go through these transformations and it's almost always around the $$$$. The first change I remember was that the only difference was the sounds removed were ones that "human beings couldn't hear anyway."
Must be easier and cheaper to do it in digital probably takes more man hours to do analog stuff. And now we don't know what we really have at all. Because like you said they faced out that letter code on the rear of the jewel case.
That’s not true, I’m 56 so I grew up throughout this era and I distinctly remember everyone thinking that the longer it stayed in the digital domain the better it sounded. The idea that it was from the “old analog era“ was a stigma, it of course wasn’t true, but that was what consumers thought. I love hearing these younger people pontificating about things they weren’t even alive for, it reminds me that the best archaeologists can offer are opinions and personal interpretations on things they weren’t around for rather than things they know for certain.
I have Pearl Jam's Ten in AAD from 1991. Sounds superb. Also Temple of The Dog!
I have both as well, also from that era. Gotta give them a spin again to enjoy the music and the AAD and properly mastered sound!
The one truly outstanding CD in my fairly large collection is a 1985 Philips DDD recording of the 1812 Overture conducted by Esa-Pekka Salonen. I can hear the orchestra turning over the sheet music and light rain falling on the opera house roof at one point. I bought it on the same day as my brand new Philips CD150 CD player as a tester and was totally blown away. My second favourite sonically is Al Stewart's Last Days of the Century album from 1988 which I believe is AAD.
One of the big problems of early digital was the Sony master editor (DAE-1100) for the for the PCM 1610 & 1630 systems had an un-dithered fader. The 16 bit truncation would chill the sound if it was used.
Funny how these codes were common knowledge back in the late 80s and early 90s. We as teenagers sought to always get the ones closer to the DDD coding since it was believed D was better. It wasn’t until the early 90s with folks like Lenny Kravitz and Pearl Jam started making a movement towards the analog realm that analog started pushing back.
Great video! I have those same Police discs, and also recently bought a set of remastered Police albums on CD from 2019 called "Every Move You Make", which sound great. For me, though, the Police sounded best on vinyl! I have been buying CDs since 1983, and I have many of those AAD discs, which still sound great today. Pink Floyd CDs released in the '80s sound great as well; "Dark Side Of The Moon", "Wish You Were Here", and "Animals" are great AADs. Thank you for covering this topic, because it is so important, especially for younger Music/Audio enthusiasts. Molto Bene!!
Fantastic explanation! I’ve many 1st brazilian press aad. Listening on 88s sony cdp m35. They sound awesome! The remastered ones looks like im listening with loudness
How do you rate the Magnovox D 8880 boombox? I have it from 1988 my first CD player. I think it sounds great still. People were blown away when I played my first CDs, The Doors, Pink Floyd, The Beatles. HDCDs sounds great on it, they are much louder at the same volume as the AAD ones from the 80s
A boombox with HDCD!? How cool!!
@@anadialog No the boombox is before HDCD, however it still responds to them. The sound differences are very noticeable.
Should i go for Marillion - Misplaced Childhood 2017 remaster? Or the 1998? Or the 1985 ADD?
The best is usually the earliest due to the crazy mastering of these days. But, as we said, there are terrible early editions. I don't know that CD so I can't tell, but you should find an early one for cheap and cross your fingers
I've heard the argument that back in the analog days, mixing and mastering engineers were usually career professionals, often older and more experienced who delivered exceptional results. However, once digital became viable, the operators were often tech bros who didn't have the depth of experience or passion for music itself.
Seems the results are giving you credit
I have been collecting early CD pressings again as the remastered versions are too loud and sound to compressed. Great video and lecture. Dire Straits are an other example, the early CDs are superb but the 1996 masters are too compressed, loud and attack the ears. You can hear it very clearly.
Anybody know the answer to this: Is there a way to tell good AAD's from bad AAD's without listening to them (while shopping, for example). Is there a date range, etc. to look for?
I don't thinks so...only empirically
The Police AAD track sounded way more dynamic. The only AAD cd I have is Suffocation "Breeding the spawn" E. U. version, drums and bass on that sounds amazing.
There were several digital recording systems that came along at the very end of the 70s. The best sounding ones are SoundStream and 3M. Both recorded to digital tape at 16-bit/50kHz. This is in contrast to the Sony PCM-16xx series which only did 16/44. I recently ran across an excellent sounding CD from 1983 which was recorded on a 3M system: Maiden Voyage by Art Farmer. (No spars code but either DAD or DDD). IIRC Telarc was using those early digital systems as well. I wanted to provide a counter to the blanket “all digital sux” arguments that some may have. There is good digital out there if you look for it. And I completely agree many of the earliest AAD CD’s can sound great too… before all the incessant remastering and the loudness wars.
I just looked through about half of my CD collection. Most don't have and kind of SPARS code, and of the ones that do, maybe less than a dozen were AAD and most of them were jazz recordings. Do you have to Google the CD # or recording company to find out how the un-marked ones are recorded? A lot of my marked classical discs seem to be ADDs, but they're still a joy yo listen to. One question. I just listened to (and ripped to thumb drive) a 2-disc Fantasia soundtrack from a collector's edition (numbered with a certificate)- I've only watched the VCR tape once. I noticed that the sound keeps wavering from side to side. Could this be a defect in the disc or just how the original analog recording sounded when they were re=mastered?
You can try using record scanner: th-cam.com/video/y6aLJum40T0/w-d-xo.html
For the other question, I don't know!
Great and interesting info! Very noticeable and surprising difference in the sound demoed discs. I have quite a few older CDs, and I will have to take another look and see if I can find some hidden gems in there LOL. Thanks!
You got to be kidding me very noticeable difference in the sound😅 especially playing through TH-cam
there's a misconception here. AAD means 1: analog recording MEDIUM (for example: analog reel tape). 2: analog mixing MEDIUM (analog 2 track tape). 3: after eq and compression in mastering, latest spars code letter implies the MEDIUM in which that mastering session was recorded (usually Sony PCM-1600 series before 1987, and DAT and other mediums later on). so in essence, an ADD CD is not a "modern mastering type CD" where the original mixes where passed through a "look ahead digital mastering limiter" like Waves Ultramaximixer L1 and L2 for example. ADD means: analog recording medium, digital mixing medium, and digital mastering medium (always digital in CD). modern ultracompressed mastering have nothing to do with SPARS Code.
No misconception. Clearly analog or digital are always going to be tied to a physical machine, NOT medium, the recording machine for the first A and the type of console for the second, and the third the type of recording machine adopted, always analog or digital. In order to be practical I used the words recording, mixing ans mastering which are human actions, clearly tied to the type of adopted machine. What I said the video is that the third letter is not tied ro the medium, meaning it does not mean the physical CD (medium).
@@anadialog for the second letter, you said that is the console (digital or analog), well, digital consoles began to appear in comercial studios around the 90s being Neve Capricorn console one of the firsts in Abbey Road. so, in the 80s, a digital console was maybe a prototype, and very price restrictive. an example of that is "brothers in arms", recorded on sony dash machines and mixed onto 2 track sony machines too, with an analog console. spars code for that CD: DDD
When we first started getting CDs in the late 80's, we had a Denon player and only one CD that had the de-emphasis show up on the display. We never figured out what it did, or could tell the difference. It was the 1985 James Bond Themes CD by Ed Starink, since it was electronic music, we just thought it sounded clean anyway.
Nice video, I do have one comment. Many of the aad CDs of old in a rush to get something to the market just simply used the analog Master they had and in some cases the bass had been eq-ed out of it for the vinyl master. I have lately been in the process of taking these CDs out of my collection and replacing them with newer remastered versions that actually have bass.
I convert them into wav and re EQ the bass back. Then u can convert them to cd, flac, AAC. This you can save money from buying remaster.
Nice work. Very easy to understand. Thanks so much!
I only have PC speakers with subwoofer but the guitar has a bite with the digital and is smooth with the AAD. It's a similar mix but the analogue is like a smooth whisky.
Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" was recorded in DDD in 1985. I guess it was the first album ever to be recorded in DDD. It is outstanding! I have a lot of AAD albums. Most of them are great!
Indeed there are great examples of DDD and in fact it’s an early release. Newer releases with digital mix and mastering just crush out the soul from the recordings.
Question, the cds that do not have spars code on them, how do you identify them? Is there a way to plug the cd in the internet to find the soars code?
SPARS was used during the first years of CD to make clear how it was made. Eventually everything turned DDD even though there are reissues or new productions that don’t follow a full digital chain. Unfortunately the answer is no. There are some lists but they are incomplete. A good idea is to check on Discogs how the SPARS classified the first edition and MAYBE the reissue followed a similar pattern but be careful because due to copyright issues almost al albums have been remastered several times, increasing the compression decade after decade.
Follow on comment about CDs, data rot and M-Discs:
M-Disc is considered an archive quality medium and is intended for deep-time preservation of data.
It is a very expensive and slow to write medium.
The upside is that the data will Never decay!
A complex but very good option is to up-convert from CD format to DVD or BlueRay audio and then burn to M-disc in that format. That also gives a Much longer play time so music collections can be put on each disc and not just a single album.
That helps with the cost-per-recording math.
In the beginning of the CDs, they used for reissues the same production masters they used for the original vinyl issues. Such CDs are the closest thing to the original vinyl issues, but without hiss, crackles and distortion of worn vinyl of the original pressing. They should be punished for the new so-called remasters, because they alternate the original intention of the creators.
A dead giveaway between the two tracks is easy to spot (listen for). Listen to the backing hiss. Digital mixers often mute as much of the noise/hiss as possible when possible. For example: when Sting is not singing, the (very) faint background hiss is a bit less. Once he starts to sing, you hear the hiss increase slightly with his voice. A dead giveaway of digital mixing. The analog mixes typically do not do this.
Each time the voice starts/stops and as the volume/level of the instruments changes... so does the backing hiss ever so slightly.
The background noise/hiss is consistent on AAD. Listen carefully.. while some can not hear the noise transitions on the ADD version (myself and some other audiophile pals do)... MOST will certainly notice the overall slightly higher level of hiss on the AAD version.
I personally perceive a strange transition artifact each time the voice starts and stops (as the hiss increases and decreases). Which seems (to me) to be a tad "muffled" overall - while the AAD version (with slightly more overall hiss) has a more open/airy sound (not only directly due to the hiss, but also because there is less restriction being placed on the voice and backing tracks).
Not to say I can always hear this, but in most cases.. I personally DO notice it.
Also worth noting... you need good sound equipment to hear this. Some good high-quality headphones (not the cheap earbuds most have) or a decent hi-fi system. Be sure to CRANK IT UP a bit! You will hear the noise floor.
Also listen to his OTHER video (where he compares the 2 versions of Animals).. the transitions are not as noticeable, but the overall background hiss IS certainly more audible in his FIRST track (the AAD).
Again, this lack of auto-muting (of the higher frequencies, to cut the noise floor) opens up the overall sound a bit more. More spacious and airy sounding IMO.
I will admit, however.. the re-mix/re-master of Animals is a damn good one. It is hard to fault either one. Extremely high quality and first-class CD's regardless of which one you get.
Yeah, my Pink Floyd The Wall and Dark Side are AAD (also gold CDs…I’ve wondered if that’s real or gimmick soundwise).
Im (1 year) late here lol, but I have a 1999 remaster of The Doors in AAD CD which sounds terrific. Yes, its more loud than the original copies, but the quality (at least to me) is superb!
There is no late with these videos! Always checking and the comments and discussion always on! Thanks for sharing that!
Great track choice. So Lonely is one of my fave Police songs!
I buy 4 new cd in Europe and any of them got the letter’s … so how can I know how it was copied?
Get early CDs...from mid 80's to early 90's.
Yes, i remember the DDD tale back in the 90s when going through friends CD collections, an A on the code was seen a gaslight technology. But the idea is sound, every conversion is basically a loss of information.
Exactly!
Processing never makes something better...
I remember the first UK Beatles CDs in 1987 had to have stickers put over the AAD on the back because they were actually ADD. Or was it vice-versa?
I have a aad master of puppets 1987-1989cd and its the best most beautiful album ive ever experienced it totally 🤯 i sat there listened to 2 times in a row in one sitting feels like you're sitting in the room with the musicians vastly superior than even Qobuz
That’s what I am talking about! Here is the following chapter you this insane mastering trend: th-cam.com/video/YnSR1yZuIZ4/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tGRzXLUeLIapatTR
Good demo. To me the ADD track soundstage was flat and the higher frequencies tinny especially Sting's vocals. The AAD track sounded had more dimensionality to the instruments and vocal - they sounded more rounded and the soundstage not flat...it had more depth in a word it was natural.
Yes.
AAD is the best encoding for CDs. I like that I can buy them for $1 to $3 bucks - second hand.
Well...that depends. For clasical music DDD is by far the best encoding. But it seems that classical music is kind of ignored by everyone talking about music around here.
@@AlexandruBurda Classical music becomes a more niche thing as years go by, I doubt you'll find young people in their 20's that listen to classical
@@ZeusTheTornado I absolutely agree. But also I doubt that most 20 years old consider themselves audiophiles or consider of any importance the difference between SPARS codes. 😉
@@AlexandruBurda True, I agree
Hi Guido I remember I hearing that they just slapped stuff onto cds in the 80’s to capitalise. I bought all the remasters thinking they’d be better but a lot aren’t, Pink Floyd are one of the few bands where you can’t really go wrong with any master. Have you heard the remix of animals and do you like it? It’s my go to version now and great video as usual
I haven't, I am a little too purist! But maybe I will...
@@anadialog you’ve got to listen to it once. It really does sound great,thanks for the reply.
The AAD didn’t have the sibilance that the SACD did.
Is there a date where I can be sure the CD is AAD? I see older cds for sale but without the AAD sign on them. Are all cd’s before a certain date AAD?
Unfortunately no, it depends if a new mix was done and if it was digital or not. Also new albums were released in that period and mixed directly in digital so no AAD ever existed…
great video I always heard a difference. It's good to put a identity to each type of cd. Thank you
I choose to listen to the SACD layer of all police albums. I do have several CDs that are AAD and they sound good however. I usually go where the best mastering takes me, between CD, SACD, VINYL and Hi Res Audio.
Well of course, the SACD sounds better. Not always but in this case it does.
My experience has been sacd sounds better when comparing cd played on the sacd player. Try to compare it with cd played on a pure 44.1 CD player. It might surprise you
Love the few SACDs that I have.
Great explanation of the processes and differences! I remember the first DDD I’d ever got was from Sting! Great video
Depending on the pressing plant possibly PDO then some discs may start to shed the silver layer and then they will not ever play again so I would not purchase CD albums on the Philips label if it was pressed at a PDO plant better albums can be had from plants not associated with PDO.
I have an early cd where you can hear the needle drop at the beginning. It was an official release and clearly was not transfered from the master tapes but from a vinyl. Maybe that's why some early cd's don't sound that good. Also, I don't think that early converters were inferior to today's. In consumer electronics maybe but for mastering plants and studios, I don't think so. I'm not an audiophile, but I'm a mixing and mastering engineer. I love both digital and analog, I have never understood the "which sounds better" debate. Whenever I get back a cd copy from the factory of the master I have sent them, I can compare it back to back and it's always the same. I consider this a great advantage because it's exactly the sound the artist and the producer intended to create. Hardly the case with vinyl. So, how do you know which sounds better? Where you in the room when the final master was aprooved? Masterring wise, yes, it is the heart of the issue but is it "better" or just "different"? These people who did the loud masters, were they deaf?
I agree that old DACs have still something to say as I showed for example with the Marantz CD 94 MK II with the TDA1541 single crown
converter. I was referring to the fact that in the very beginning they were releasing CD players with 14bit DACS! Ans clearly that not all of them were good.
I thought Track 2 sounded much better. I was surprised that was the AAD. Fun fact: Cowboy Junkies, The Trinity Sessions circa 1988 was recorded on DAT. It was mastered for DDD CD and vinyl. I don't know whether it was DDA to vinyl or DAA. I have both the 1988 CD and vinyl. I played back both on a top dollar system once: all Burmester electronics, Immedia turntable and tonearm, Lyra Parnassus cartridge. What was striking about the vinyl is this: the church ambiance charged and pressured up the listening room when the track cued up before the singing began. I could feel the low level sonics on my ears and person. It was not vinyl noise; it was the recording of the church ambiance, a blackness of a live space. I could hear the shape of the church space. Spaces are never truly dead quiet; they have a life of their own. In one track, a car motored off into the distance and one could hear it on the vinyl, the rounded burbling of its exhaust. The CD totally stripped out the church ambiance. The motorcar was reduced to prat-prat noise with no sense it was motoring off into the distance. There was no sense of the church space. The silent background was a dead background, a dead space devoid of life. In all the arguments of CDs vs Vinyls, nobody really talked about the silence of the background. Remember, the Trinity Sessions was recorded on DAT. Yet, the analogue master captured the ambiance whilst the digital master stripped it out completely.
Clear and understandable. I started collecting CDs when they were sold on a single rack. I always do a comparison from the original to the remastered. Not all sound bad. Would it be beneficial to introduce the new materials used in CD that can be purchased from Japan. No VPN required 😎🎵🎵👍
How can those bottom examples of Audacity sound print (loudness wars) be even listenable? They look completely blown!
I know this wont exactly be a perfect fix, but wouldn't it be cool if they started making dacs that have an optional filter to pull down the compression a bit? Yes you'll still hear its not perfect if its baked in, but it could make compressed albums more listenable
Try JAZZ SAMBA ENCORE! Stan Getz & Luiz Bonfa AAD on Verve, most selections are also composed by Bonfa.
Id like to find software that would allow a clone stereo track twice to make PCM 6 channel stereo on Bluray discs. then no need to upmix or process anything on my amp.
When cds first came out, the players did not have good sound. Hard brittle highs, edginess, bleached tone colors and some new distortions we never had the displeasure of meeting or hearing before. Digital distortions that sounded a lot meaner than analog distortions. About a decade later when lps were being discontinued, and it wasn't a matter of choice anymore, for people wanting newly released music. That's when it really started to sting. For any music/audio hobbyist old enough; this was like deja vu. Back around 1964 the tube amps and tube sound that people used and were used to for many decades, these people had solid state amps thrust upon them; and their solid state sound. What's interesting and even amazing is basically the same thing happened as when the introduction of cds happened. People used to a smooth pleasant sound back in 1964 with tubes, and 1984 with lps, both had thrown upon them something new. Something bright sounding, hard and brittle in the highs, thin sounding with hardly any body to the sound. In both cases the sound went from just fine, to harsh and less natural sounding and involving, and also less warm. If you ever listen to early transistor sound, it has an amazing similarity to early digital sound, in every bad sense of the word. Bad digital sounds very similar to bad early transistor sound. Because enough people liked and preferred tubes and enough people like and prefer lps, both tubes and lps made a comeback in the marketplace. When people have perfectly fine sound they don't want it taken away from them, and be force fed something harsh.
Of course now, if you have really good digital playback equipment, someone would be hard pressed to tell if what they're listening to is analog or digital. Not just similar, not just close, but really hard to tell apart. Transistor amps are the same way. The best of them have no harshness or spatial limitations. Tube amps might give themselves away with slight microphonics and an overly generous amount of warmth. The LP might give itself away with an occasional tick or pop or some mistracking or hints of stress on challenging peaks at times. But digital still has a negative connotation to some. We heard its faults before it grew up, and some diehards didn't even give it a fair listen decades later, thinking they just "knew" it and all its flaws. The less digital the better as far as cds go? I don't know about that. I think its more the competence and judgement of those involved in its process, from recording to public release.
Nice input thanks! Yes, there are several similarities...
I love the DAC in my Philips CD600 cd-player which has the DAC chips Philips TDA1543 DAC and Philips SAA7220 stereo interpolating filter, combined with the Philips CDM-4/19 transport. It sounds much better than any modern generic compact disc capable player of any sort out there today.
Back in the mists of time when we were undergoing the digital revolution from vinyl to CD all the "experts" were extolling the virtues of digital over analogue- superior sound reproduction, no hiss, no clicks pops etc. It was widely believed that DDD CDs were THE best quality sound. Any A in the chain was regarded as a weakness, inferior. That was very much the official line. Of course many people jumped off the analogue cliff into the digital domain- selling off their entire vinyl collection at knockdown prices. They looked down their noses at "yesterday's outdated technology"- Analogue = Bad, Digital =Good. Of course there was a lot of marketing and sales hype from record labels and hi-fi manufacturers and stores who were desperate to cash in on the big shift to digital. I made the shift to digital CDs but I would never part with my vinyl- why on earth would anyone? Now 30+ years later fashions and fads have changed- many have abandoned their CDs and adopted streaming services, looking down their noses at folks who still play CDs- anything sound familiar? CDs now available at knockdown prices but like vinyl there does appear to be a new found appreciation and love for the CD. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Fashions and fads come and go, for many it's tribal and they can only deal with binary choice and whatever format they chose they find it necessary to diss the other format and those who use it. There is of course a rather large group that tends to get overlooked- those of us, sensible folks who live in a multi format world where vinyl, CD and streaming happily coexists- each has its benefits and disadvantages in place and time. At the end of the day the quality of recording, mixing and mastering are the most important elements- the source- of course your system is a vital link in the chain and the ultimate par of your chain are YOUR EARS! No one else hears the music the way that you do. It's all subjective- personal taste is paramount.
Oh I remember I was so excited as a 17 year old in 1988 when I saw my first DDD on one of my CDs. Lol.
Question , where do u find code? more recent CDs dont even list the codes anymore.
For example the reissue of Led Zeppelin Cd Albums; i unfortunatly bought only say Digital Remastered? no ADD code nothing? could be DDD or ADD who knows? Is there way to check?
Only old CDs (80's, and some early 90's) somewhere on the rear and /or the disc itself
You are so right, thank you! 😊 And you have a good hearing too!
My copy of Cause Of Death by Obituary is AAD 👍
New subscriber. Great video. ⭐😃. I immediately grabbed my New York Dolls CD since it sounds so great to my ears. Sure enough: AAD. Cal Tjader Fantasy Records CDs (Black Orchid, Mambo With, and Latino!): AAD. Most of my Classical and Jazz CDs sound fab - I don't know their SPARS codes, but I will check on them. They are mostly what I buy second hand for a buck. Glad I found your channel. I am now on the hunt for AAD CDs so I can investigate further. Lots to learn! 👍. How fun! - Heather
Welcome!!
Hola Guido,creo que la respuesta para estos tiempos sería AAD de 24 bit,imagínate al sonido análogo con la dinámica digital!quisiera saber también que opinas de los cd de música clásica,las reediciones son casi siempre en ADD,grazie mile ciao🙂
AAD a 24 bits sería overkill y una pérdida de tiempo, las cintas magnéticas que contienen los masters no pasan de los 13 o 14 bits.
As I thought, Track 1 is worse sounding not necessarily because it is ADD, but because it's hyper compressed and and brick wall limited at the mastering stage. Even though you've normalised it, some of the high-end dynamic will have been chopped off, so regardless of the gain being turned down to meet that of the 1991 version, those dynamic peaks are now entirely missing from the audio.
A couple of my fave AAD are Doobie Brothers - Toulouse Street, Grand Funk - We're An American Band
Stranger in town by Richie sambora is aad , it sounds fantastic so does get a grip by sheepskin also aad
This video is excellent! A very educational lesson on CDs. I learned a lot!
My first CD I ever bought was Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, I believe it was chosen by Philips to push their CD player sales and that is DDD and it's superb. No loudness war issues on that one. I'll take that over any AAD, but of course with the older recordings, that is not available.
Brothers in Arms is actually a DAD production. No digital consoles existed at the time. This has also been confirmed by the original co-producer Neil Dorsfman: www.analogplanet.com/content/brothers-arms%C2%A0%C2%A0-45rpm-mobile-fidelity
@@anadialog Indeed... I also obtained the SBM version now, which is as he intended it to sound apparently. Also I have the Hybrid SACD/CD version and I think even the CD layer on that one already sounded better than the SBM version, odd enough. I am still waiting for the XRCD2 version of that album. Not sure what mastering they took for that, but he other XRCD CD's I have heard are absolutely stunning in sound quality. 4 different CD's of the same album, call me crazy 😛
@@anadialog You seem to misunderstand what the A and the D really mean - or you seem to have some misconceptions how music is recorded mixed and mastered. It‘s the medium not the process when it comes to this code. Brothers in Arms was recorded on a digital Sony DASH Multitrack recorder - the recording console however was an analog Neve. It was mixed on an analog Console and the stereo mix was recorded onto a 2 Track digital recorder. Neil Dorfsman said in one interview, he recorded it to DAT, but as far as I know DAT didn‘t exist at that time. So I guess it was an U-MATIC Video Tape Recorder with a Sony PCM Processor. This Tape was then given to a Mastering Engineer (I guess it was Bob Ludwig who was THE man in the 80ies) who most likely used all analog compressors, EQs and limiters during his process. But he recorded his mastered tracks also with a digital tape recorder. So Brothers in Arms is a DDD Recording because NO ANALOG RECORDING MEDIUM was ever used. Digital Mixing Consoles in record production where a thing of the late nineties - the grew out of fashion really quick. Most high end productions however where mixed on analog SSL oder Neve consoles until about 15 years ago - and in the last 20 years most of these productions were recorded with protools and the output of the mixing console was routed back to protools. Analog consoles are still used today, but mostly for recording and not mixing. The whole mixing process however is done mostly within DAWs today. Some analog oder digital outboard equipment is still often used. Many mastering engineers use lots of analog outboard still today - so the digital mix still gets converted back to analog, then gets processed by analog EQs, compressors etc. And finally gets converted back to digital. The process of recording, mixing and mastering is still a wild mixture of analog and digital. What‘s essentially gone is the analog recording medium. Tape machines a rarely used today. We have two beautiful analog tape machines in our studio but we are no exception.
Thanks Guido, an interesting and educational lesson for me! I love CDs and used to be an avid collector in the 80s. But then I stopped buying them. Would now like to start buying CDs again. Can you recommend any online sites (globally) where I can buy them? Thanks again.
Amazon is certainly the best place to start, but also discogs and eBay. I personally love to go to used record fairs and find hidden jewels.
Not sure how you record your sound but the quality is outstanding. The content is top notch of course as well.
Why thank you so much! A good mic, good preamp and a good interface!
I went through a bunch of my old CDs to look for the SPARS codes. Most of the labels didn't use the code. The few that did were pretty consistent. A&M, Electra, Polydor, Geffen...
Small point, from Wikipedia, "Since CD is a digital medium, it must be produced from a digital master - therefore the last letter of the code will always be D." So the only combinations you will EVER find on a CD are AAD, ADD, DAD or DDD... Great video BTW!
Clearly that is obvious, but I also said this in the video 6:52
Ciao Guido, è curioso che Giulio Cesare Ricci (fonè) abbia detto in diverse interviste che un "vinile" dovrebbe nascere AAA mentre un CD DDD. In effetti il Sig. Ricci usava in contemporanea (già dagli anni '80) un master su Tape(studer) e uno su PCM1630.
Ha perfettamente senso, sulla carta. Per me i CD DDD e AAD ecc. possono essere ottimi però, mettendo in fila tutte le mie esperienze di ascolto, quelli che partono da analogico sono solitamente quelli piú riusciti.