View Full Version : 'AAD' vs. 'DDD' CD test
{Discussion moved from the music room}
Hi Alex,
Sorry Marco, busy day today, so not had the chance to respond.
Yes, I did play it again (at twice the volume :eyebrows:) and I do indeed agree that it is a good recording - very "tight" with plenty of warmth. However, (here's where the fisticuffs start ;)) I've got plenty of modern recordings that have similar attributes - though I would suggest that they are all "proper" recording artists/producers. To take your point, I do agree that a lot (most) of what is today called "pop" has been over produced, and tailored for ipods and computer speakers, but I don't necessarily agree that just because it is recorded in the digital domain it is crap... Suggest you move this to a separate thread before you kick my ass! :lol:
(Actually, the worst sounding CDs I've got are those that were recorded before CD came along, and then were just transferred "straight" to digital... (I presume) - bass light, far too much etched treble...)
No worries, dude :)
Re: the bit in bold... It's not that all-digital recordings are crap - far from it; some are very good indeed, but rather that to my ears the best sounding CDs by a country mile (other than the cream of the audiophile discs currently produced) were those made during the mid to late 80s, which used to be marked as 'AAD', and were produced from an analogue source.
The Electribe 101 album was one of the last of those.
If you're struggling to discern the unique sonic characteristics these discs have (and it *is* unique) compared to all-digital recordings, fair enough. However, I'm sure that if you listen more carefully you'll definitely be able to hear the difference.
What I'd suggest you do if you have time this weekend, just as a bit of fun, is look out, say, a dozen mid to late 1980s 'pop' CDs (I presume you have some?) marked 'AAD' and the same amount of 'pop' CDs from all-digital recordings made today, which are 'DDD', but are no longer marked as such, and then report what you hear in a thread in 'Digital Expressions'.
Would you do that for me? I'm sure that people would find the results interesting, and I'd value your opinion.
If after listening to the CDs you genuinely 'get' where I'm coming from, it'll be invaluable experience for you during any 'analogue vs. digital' debates in future :cool:
Marco.
Interesting that and at last we may actually agree on this :ner:
I get the feeling that from the Punk era for around ten to fifteen years, many contemporary recordings seemed to be done with as little messing about as possible, the sound, irrespective of the recording techniques used, having a "freshness" and sense of life that seems missing in many recordings today. Compression, if carefully added, seemed to intensify the sonics, rather than slugging all the life out, as so often happened before and since. Furthermore, some of the 12" singles from that era were cut with the limiting removed and the bass-light LP mixes were abandoned. A great example to show (if the CD discs are available) is "Peekaboo" by Siouxsie & The Banshees, the CD singles with the 12" mixes on sounding tons better to me than the anaemic (by comparison) LP versions.
That Electribe 101 album is superb on a good wide-range system, my mates then Krell Apogee Duetta-Sig system bringing it to life. My big ATC's weren't bad at doing this either, but I haven't yet played it on the Spendors.
The thing is, studios had to change their gear every few years to remain competitive and I reckon that some really good mixing consoles and desks were abandoned for the latest thing - and some of those early digital desks were hideous I understand. Hopefully this has changed a bit now and the main "problem" is the tw@ts instructing the engineers using them, dictated to by record companies.........
P.S. I believe the classic Trevor Horn mid 80's productions (Yes, Grace Jones, Frankie...Hollywood) were all digital, yet sounded amazing to me at the time.
Hi Guys, I will indeed have a go over the weekend if I can get the chance, but weekends tend to be pretty busy so I don't usually get much time to properly listen to music so it may have to drift into next week. In the meantime Marco, suggest moving the off topic stuff we have created in here to the separate thread you mention in Digital Impressions, and then others can comment, and perhaps join in the experiment? Could be fun!?
Now moved, as requested!
Good idea, Alex. I would ask as many people to participate in this little test as possible, as the consensus of opinion on this subject would be most interesting :)
So, folks, have you got any old 'AAD' marked 'pop' CDs from the mid to late 80s? ('audiophile' ones aren't really of interest for this test, as they're generally good regardless).
If so, compare the overall sound/recording quality of them to current all-digital 'pop' CDs or downloads (can you hear the unique sonic/musical qualities of the analogue source and mastered CDs or not?), and let us know what you think, and which you prefer and why! :)
Incidentally, it was Alex telling us he was listening to Electribe 101's 'Electribal Memories' on CD in the music room which prompted this thread and my initial comments (and You Tube link) below:
G-LGcUAQWZo
Superb late 80s/early 90s electro-dance music!
Doesn't she sound rather like Heather Small from M People?
Also, listen to how good that CD is, sonically, as it was recorded from an analogue source, and as such is detailed, rich and organic sounding, with huge dynamic range - miles away from the all-digital tonally 'etched' and 'shouty' compressed to hell modern monstrosities of most commercial music!
Marco.
P.S Dave, I'll comment later on your post - just off out with Del for lunch in Chester!
I have a bee in my bonnet at the moment about how studios record music, I think digital is part of it, especially as it facilitates "constructed recordings", ie where individual instruments, vocals or samples are laid down and then mixed into a pseudo performance. Much of what is produced today has never been a real musical event. Where's the interplay between musicians? Where's the natural ambience? Play a good old recording (for sure many weren't) and then a modern recording. I find the musical experience really very different - much more meaningful somehow with older recordings. I find this is especially so with jazz but not only jazz. Also the difference is much more obvious with vinyl, possibly because my record deck is considerably better than my red book replay. Maybe I need to downgrade my deck.....
Me and a couple of friends looked/listened/debated this a couple of years ago.
I think I’ve one of my friends still has the CD list we used to make the comparisons.
What I do remember was Bop Till You Drop by Ry Cooder, one of the early all digital productions, kicked the whole debate off when I said I didn’t think it sounded as good as some of the AAD CD’s.
I must confess, I’m not terribly good at discerning such things by quick A-B swap. I find subtle sonic differences easier to detect through extended listening, at least a complete album.
The conclusion we came to was unless you had two recordings from the same studio produced with the same equipment it was impossible to say exactly what the likely cause of any differences perceived was.
I believe there is an audible difference on enough CD’s to make one wonder, but have never been able to describe adequately what it is I hear or attribute it to. There are so many variables that I would hesitate to categorically state all DDD recordings have this sound and all AAD have another.
In the 70's, we had many BBC engineers dropping odds and ends in for us to listen to and it was also fortuitous in that we had employees from studios and mastering facilities in the west end of London as clients, also bringing in the odd track or three - that's how I got the tapes I had...
Analogue masters from this era often have this "mutli-mono" effect, as that's basically what they were, but in the 80's, I think that overall reverb was added to make the sound of newer albums "blend" better.
The thing is, what kind of reference do you use when re-mastering? Some of the important albums have had the original artist supervise the release on CD and often this has worked well. Marco and I have had a sort of disagreement regarding Thomas Dolby's "The Flat Earth," where my smaller speakers reproduce the increased bass over the vinyl with no problem, but Marco's Tannoys, with vastly increased clarity and extension reproduce it too much (and with overall gain reduced IIRC). This may be because teensy-weensy nearfield monitors were used in the mastering, or, the gain was reduced to maintain dynamics and the increased bass level perhaps.
I was going to make a thread about it, but the 2003 Hybrid album - Morning Sci-Fi - is a perfect way to show the generic differences between valve and solid state I reckon. It is, I suspect, a full digital recording and mix, yet via the Quad II's, there's a genuine sense of 3-D with things happening in front and behind other strands in the mix. Switch to the Crowns, which admittedly, haven't been used in months, the treble sharpens, the bass gets a tad more powerful, yet the mid seems curiously "flat" and almost grainy in perspective by comparison, which disturbed me as I hadn't noticed this before. Maybe I should turn the D-60's on and leave them connected to the BC2's for a couple of hours before listening to them again.
Something else for discussion in another thread perhaps, but as most of us have half-decent turntables, I think we're all being spoiled by just how good vinyl can be. I got the Pro-Ject Debut II going today, without the lid attached, and found everything rather shrunken by comparison to the Thorens/Decca - less bass power, smaller and flattened mid and one-note treble (well, it is the bottom model OM3e cartridge that's fitted) and there's also more surface noise and drive-harmonics in the mid, the TD125 offering almost silent backgrounds with no motor vibration coming through at all, even compared to my Dual 701, which is a fine direct drive model. The Debut pees all over a later Dual 505, by the way, I found it much cleaner and purer in quality.
I'm rambling - apologies. I think it's more to do with the production of 80's albums rather than pre "DDD vs ADD/ADD or even DAD. One mastering engineer I've read up has a valve buffer for some masters he digitises, as the deliberately added warmth can improve the finished digital result. I believe Doug Sax (Mastering Lab) has done similar and of course the Beatles' catalogue has had all sorts done to them in a DAD remastering (from what I've read)
Ali Tait
26-11-2010, 17:07
Marco,what album are you talking about here? Electrbal Memories?
Ali Tait
26-11-2010, 17:10
In the 70's, we had many BBC engineers dropping odds and ends in for us to listen to and it was also fortuitous in that we had employees from studios and mastering facilities in the west end of London as clients, also bringing in the odd track or three - that's how I got the tapes I had...
Analogue masters from this era often have this "mutli-mono" effect, as that's basically what they were, but in the 80's, I think that overall reverb was added to make the sound of newer albums "blend" better.
The thing is, what kind of reference do you use when re-mastering? Some of the important albums have had the original artist supervise the release on CD and often this has worked well. Marco and I have had a sort of disagreement regarding Thomas Dolby's "The Flat Earth," where my smaller speakers reproduce the increased bass over the vinyl with no problem, but Marco's Tannoys, with vastly increased clarity and extension reproduce it too much (and with overall gain reduced IIRC). This may be because teensy-weensy nearfield monitors were used in the mastering, or, the gain was reduced to maintain dynamics and the increased bass level perhaps.
I was going to make a thread about it, but the 2003 Hybrid album - Morning Sci-Fi - is a perfect way to show the generic differences between valve and solid state I reckon. It is, I suspect, a full digital recording and mix, yet via the Quad II's, there's a genuine sense of 3-D with things happening in front and behind other strands in the mix. Switch to the Crowns, which admittedly, haven't been used in months, the treble sharpens, the bass gets a tad more powerful, yet the mid seems curiously "flat" and almost grainy in perspective by comparison, which disturbed me as I hadn't noticed this before. Maybe I should turn the D-60's on and leave them connected to the BC2's for a couple of hours before listening to them again.
Something else for discussion in another thread perhaps, but as most of us have half-decent turntables, I think we're all being spoiled by just how good vinyl can be. I got the Pro-Ject Debut II going today, without the lid attached, and found everything rather shrunken by comparison to the Thorens/Decca - less bass power, smaller and flattened mid and one-note treble (well, it is the bottom model OM3e cartridge that's fitted) and there's also more surface noise and drive-harmonics in the mid, the TD125 offering almost silent backgrounds with no motor vibration coming through at all, even compared to my Dual 701, which is a fine direct drive model. The Debut pees all over a later Dual 505, by the way, I found it much cleaner and purer in quality.
I'm rambling - apologies. I think it's more to do with the production of 80's albums rather than pre "DDD vs ADD/ADD or even DAD. One mastering engineer I've read up has a valve buffer for some masters he digitises, as the deliberately added warmth can improve the finished digital result. I believe Doug Sax (Mastering Lab) has done similar and of course the Beatles' catalogue has had all sorts done to them in a DAD remastering (from what I've read)
Dave,agree about the 12" singles,I remember having a 12" of She Sells Sanctuary by The Cult and being totally floored by the bass I heard on the crappy music center I had then. Sounded great!
Marco,what album are you talking about here? Electrbal Memories?
Yes, that's the one I was playing/posting about, Ali.
Ali Tait
26-11-2010, 18:50
Ta!
Well this discussion has died a death, eh? :lol:
Alex, fancy waking things up a bit by telling us of your findings last weekend, presuming you got a chance to do some comparisons? :)
If not, please try and do so soon, as I'm interested in finding out what people's thoughts are on this.
I believe it will provide some indication as to how much progress, if any, has been made in terms of the recording quality of today's 'pop' music on CD or downloads, compared to the standard of the former in the 80s, a few years after CD was invented, when I believe that overall standards were at their highest.
I take the point about the influence of production quality regardless of what type of equipment the recording was made on, and agree, but there's definitely more to it than that.
I'd like people to try and identify the unique 'sonic signature' the analogue equipment used to produce an 'AAD' CD imparts on the sound, compared to the average all-digital produced pop CDs or downloads today, and in what way this makes many music recordings sonically superior.
Come on guys, pull yer fingers out, and let's have some input! :cool:
Marco.
Ali Tait
01-12-2010, 09:00
I ordered the cd Marco, but it's not turned up yet.
Nice one, mate. I'll be interested in what you think.
For me, the recording quality of the Electribe 101 album is almost as good as that of Eric Bibb albums, which with its valve influences, are one of my chosen references in terms of sound quality. And the music's bloody good, too! :)
Marco.
Ali Tait
01-12-2010, 09:19
Look forward to it if it's that good Marco.Those Eric Bibb albums sounds great.
I know. I believe that they're produced using valve microphones and mixing desks, and could've also been born from an analogue source. Incidentally, I think the point Clive made earlier about musical interplay between musicians in a studio, and the reasons for the success of such (or not), is very valid.
Progress eh? ;)
Marco.
Ali Tait
01-12-2010, 09:45
Yes,they are recorded "live" in one take with no EQ or compression whatsoever,and no mixing afterwards,with valve mics and mixing desk. Anyone interested should check them out. The label is Opus3.
Yup. And does that not also say something, I wonder, in terms of the point I'm trying to make on this thread regarding the sonic superiority of many 'AAD' discs? ;)
Yes, the recording process itself is important, but so is the gear used to make it!
Although of course I wouldn't consider Eric Bibb albums as necessarily being representative of typical 'pop' CDs today.
Incidentally, anyone who's got a decent vinyl set-up and sound card, and uses Audacity to copy vinyl albums (produced from an all-analogue source) to CD will know exactly what I'm getting at here......!
Marco.
Ali Tait
01-12-2010, 09:56
No,not typical,though no reason more mainstream stuff couldn't be recorded this way!
I have Fleetwood Mac "Tango in the Night" which is the very first cd i bought and as far as can remember it is AAD (i can't find the Cover at the moment), it still sounds very good to me maybe a bit thin sounding if i'm being critical if you know what i mean, i love the Eric Bibb Stuff as well complete with pops and crackles, all very well recorded.
I tell you what it did do and that was to record a Keb Mo cd direct onto my Revox Reel to Reel, that sounded mighty fine giving a very nice anologue sound and so it should
Ali Tait
01-12-2010, 10:11
Yes,I have a hi res Keb Mo which sounds superb.
"Tangle" in the Night is an interesting one. the jangling sequences at the start of "Everywhere" were very difficult to reproduce properly on many Philips 1541 based machines, most sounding grainy and jumbled on this section of the track...
Not got round to this yet - sorry Marco - could we have a few more suggestions (I'll try Tangle in the Night :lol:) of good AAD recordings? (As I don't keep the jewel cases with my CDs it is hard to tell) - from memory, the Fleetwood Mac album was fairly rubbish on CD compared to the vinyl copy but I'll revisit that at least.
Hi Alex,
'AAD' discs were also usually marked as such on the disc itself :)
Do you like Donna Summer (when you have a wee boogie around the house with 'avatar' - lol)?
If so, check out the first albums she released on CD. Those were 'AAD'. There's a greatest hits one that is particularly good, featuring the classic 'I feel Love', which sounds absolutely stunning!!
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
14-01-2013, 00:40
From The Grave
I reckon there could be some interesting discussion and discoveries to be had from some adventures around this topic.
Anyone heard the recent Neil Young with Crazy Horse album 'Psychedelic Pill' on vinyl & compared it to the CD? The vinyl is all analogue, I think.
I missed this thread the first time around. I have a fair few AAD CD's and some modern poppy stuff so I will give them a listen tomorrow and will report back in due course... ;)
Yeah, I don't think Alex could be arsed comparing, so we never really got anywhere with this the last time! ;)
Nice one, Dave. I'd be interested to know what you think :)
Marco.
freefallrob
14-01-2013, 10:06
I used to be fascinated by the DDD etc thing back in the day, I used to be quite disappointed when it wasn't mentioned on the CD.
I have the original Jean Michel Jarre - Zoolook CD which is DDD, I was always impressed with the sound on that, I think he used the best stuff he could at the time, but I also like Fleetwood Macs CD's.
I think digital done well is good and so is analogue, they both need to be done well.
An early start for me so here goes: Firstly, I do not have as many AAD CD's as I thought which is a shame. I have obviously replaced them over time as they perhaps got lost, mauled by hungry CDP's, used as coasters by the kids etc, etc. All is not lost however as I have discovered two confirmed AAD disks and a probable, based on its age and astounding SQ.
First up is Level 42 and more specifically their first album which is self-titled. My copy is a German pressing - Polydor - 821 935-2 (Discogs (http://www.discogs.com/Level-42-Level-42/release/1512805))
http://s.discogss.com/image/R-150-1512805-1303858553.jpeg
I will be comparing track six (Love Games) with a digitally remastered and shorter version of the same track which can be found on the compilation album, The Very Best Of Level 42 - Polydor – 559 373-2 (Discogs (http://www.discogs.com/Level-42-The-Very-Best-Of-Level-42/release/2554507))
http://s.discogss.com/image/R-150-2554507-1327153123.jpeg
Conclusions: Absolutely no comparison. The AAD master is head and shoulders better than the ADD version of the track. Initially the shorter ADD version of Love Games grabs your attention as it is louder and more compressed which does lend it some immediacy but once the initial gloss is out of the way the ADD version shows itself to be less open and dynamic with none of the sense of ambient space present in the album version.
I am ashamed to admit that today was the first time I have listened to the self-titled Level 42 album since I picked it up from ebay for 99p nearly nine months ago and I really enjoyed it :)
I will get around to listening to the other CD's later on today ;)
Rothchild
14-01-2013, 18:13
Sarm West was an early adopter for digital, Trevor Horn says that 'Two Tribes' was the first digital number one (recorded on a pair of Sony digi 24 track machines), they also had a Fairlight digital sampler (which was silly money, even by today's standards).
But, judging by this somewhat disturbing picture, there was still plenty of analogue gear, the desk looks like a Neve to me but somewhere in my mind I think I remember that he was known for using SSL, anyway:
http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/mar05/images/horn6redferns.l.jpg
via: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar05/articles/trevorhorn.htm
So my question is, how far down the line does conversion to digital have to happen for something to be considered AAD or DDD, Surely DDD only exists in terms of electronic music created with digital synths connected digitally to a digital recorder? Anything with performances of 'real' instruments in a room can at best be ADD (what with pianos and guitars being analogue and all).
What if you record a band through an analogue mixer with analogue effects (compression, eq etc) inserted in the signal path and record them to a digital 'tape' machine, what's that? Many folk these days operate 'hybrid' studios, where the tracking is done via a mixer to a computer but the mixing itself is done in the computer, or where the tracking is done straight to the computer but the mixing is done with a range of analogue outboard gear that signals are d/a converted, sent to for processing and the a/d converted back in to the computer. How does one draw a line?
I'm a bit puzzled about the UB40 comparison? Surely the master comes from the same place (probably originally a 24track analogue tape machine) it's been digitised to go on cd but the newer one is post 'loudness wars' and has therefore been unnecessarily touched up (aka had the nuts limited off it) in post before release.
I'm guessing it's less about signal chain and more to do with how 'far' from the master any itteration or version is and how many (and how much) 'touching up' it's had in the meantime?
attilio7
18-01-2013, 16:17
But, judging by this somewhat disturbing picture, there was still plenty of analogue gear,
http://media.soundonsound.com/sos/mar05/images/horn6redferns.l.jpg
what disturbed you most the gear or the short's :lol:
Rare Bird
18-01-2013, 17:25
Well The keyboard you see with the nice wood cabinet is a 'Synclavier II' which is early 1980's, however that on it's side behind him is a Sequential Circuits 'Drumtracks' they came out around 1984..So i'm guessing at mid 80's shot..
Rothchild
18-01-2013, 22:30
Well The keyboard you see with the nice wood cabinet is a 'Synclavier II' which is early 1980's, however that on it's side behind him is a Sequential Circuits 'Drumtracks' they came out around 1984..So i'm guessing at mid 80's shot..
Yup, the picture is 1984.
The shorts are the disturbing part, most of the gear I'd give limbs for.
Interestingly later on in the article Trevor Horn says that he can't really hear the difference between stuff made 'in the box' against stuff made through an analogue mixer, the bit that really matters to him now to gain accuracy is the room he's mixing in.
Peter Stockwell
27-01-2013, 11:16
I just bought a wodge of those "early" CDs, and they sound way better than I thought at the time. I've been comparing the Genesis 2007/8 remasters with the 1985/1986 CDs.
I can't see why they bothered to remaster, all you get is CDs that are 9dB or so hotter. Honestly I think the Modern vs old CD is another symptom of the Loudness Wars.
Back in the day, there wasn't the headroom now offered by 24 bit for any tweaking or other editing that needed to be done, so any severe dediting would be audible. I also think that mastering engineers used to be deliberately over-cautious with the levels, since clipping peaks are horrible in the digital domain. Quite often, it's perfectly ok to "normalise" the levels without compression and this often boosts the level. So many CD players can sound weedy on low level signals and just turning up the volume control doesn't make it better. This may be different on modern players, but is something I recall from past years on the popular budget to mid priced players.
I'm not a huge Genesis fan, but Trick Of The Tail is a favourite of mine. I have an original blue-label CD as well as the remastered one from ten or more years ago. The latter to me is rather better, either because the tapes were an earlier generaltion (Charisma/Virgin had copies to make the records from according to one of the band when interviewed), or because the mixer-editor used in the fresh transfers was better. Either way, the sound is better on the later offering to me. I also heard a track from "Selling England..." yesterday on radio 2 ffs, and the extra clarity on this was startling (may have been the remixed edition for all I know).
ADD-DDD whatever, IT'S THE MASTERING that's the most important, and I wonder how much necessary tweaking is done on the analogue domain in any case, as any extra distortions are seemingly more benign to our hearing?
ADD-DDD whatever, IT'S THE MASTERING that's the most important
Yes, yes and again yes.
To emphasise this, go back to a previous period and look at how much we enjoy some of the classic recordings from the 50s.
Nearly all suffer from very obvious technical issues - tape squash, noise, limited peak headroom, and above all quite gross speed instability (flutter) which manifests as cracked piano tone, wiry strings and fizzy (aka textured/detailed in audiofile parlance ;) )top end. This flutter, caused mainly by the tape machines of the day, is massively higher in magnitude than the jitter we seem to obsess over today in digital systems.
Yet we enjoy these performances hugely
That's because the performances are of course in many cases excellent, but also the mastering is a cut above the norm today. We can debate the reasons why, but much of the problem is likely the need to master today for portable audio used in noisy environments, be that the car or iPod user on a train.
Rob
Rare Bird
30-01-2013, 16:13
Dave:
I bought all the Genesis Japanese Hybird 'SACD' upto 'Wind & Wuthering', 'Selling England' sounded good but 'Trick Of' sounded unbearably bright to me, i sold that straight away. However i'm wanting to sell the lot but people won't give me enogh for em so they may aswell stay packed away in a box.. The 'Nursery Cryme reveals something in the recording i nevr heard before, it irritates me, i cannot be doing with things like this..
Its very very hard to listen through the gross differences in mastering loudness and compression between two issues of the same track, and focus on the tonal warmth that's often found on a recording with the 'AAD' SPARS code. There are equally fine 'ADD' and 'DDD' recordings out there, and if things were on an equal playing field we would truly be debating minutiae.
Mastering is many times more important than the recording method. For instance, some exceptionally fine classical recordings are 'DDD', but the fairly recent efforts by Ben Harper to record in an 'AAD' technique were disappointing, to say the least.
They are two extreme examples, but they show that there is no absolute truth.
Has anyone read Bob Katz' 'Honor Roll' (http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html) of uncompressed masters? It's a very useful resource, though by no means exhaustive.
As his list will show (if you buy some of the recordings), great sound is often found on AAD discs, but that's not because the are AAD; it's more to do with the time they were produced, or the production values of the mastering engineer (or those he was allowed to apply).
(BTW, one 'AAD' disc I have always loved is Weezer's 'Blue album' (no title). Its got some wonderful tonal qualities for a rock album.)
Although the AAD CD's I mention earlier in the thread (I've found I own two more since, both being classic Rick Wakeman albums) sound excellent I am leaning towards the belief that a good recording is just that, regardless of how it has been obtained and mastered. How else could albums such as Nils Lofgren Live, along with many others, transcend the limitations of Spotify and still sound utterly amazing?
Rothchild
04-02-2013, 15:02
Has anyone read Bob Katz' 'Honor Roll' (http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html) of uncompressed masters? It's a very useful resource, though by no means exhaustive.
Some good points, a good recording (of a great song) trumps the method used many times over (indeed a bad recording of a great song often trumps a good recording of a bad song!)
Just a point of pedantry here though, the honour roll doesn't present 'uncompressed' masters it presents 'appropriately' compressed masters and helps the listener to begin to understand the difference between dynamic range control and absolute volume. It's also a good way to begin to get your head around Mr Katz's 'K-Metering' system, which adapts the traditional cinema standard of linking certain meter ranges with particular SPLs (cinema's don't have a volume knob per se so films are made to a defined standard of volume so that they don't have to recallibrate the sound each time they put a new reel in, this is part of what 'Dolby certification' means).
K-20 is broadly equivilent to 'cinema' sound, in that the meters are set so that '0' on the meter is 20dB below the actual clipping point of the converter (0dBFs with 20dB of headroom) to do this the amps are callibrated so that a -20dBFS RMS pink noise signal will generate 83dB (Cweighted Slow) actual SPL in the room.
Once your room and your volume control are callibrated then you actually have a real world reference to be able judge exactly how loud something is. I found it a revelation for mixing but it's also an interesting exercise for listeners too.
That's a good point, and I stand corrected. :)
Some folks are still missing the point here... Yes, the quality of the mastering is crucial on any recording. No argument there.
However, the point I'm making is that, on early 'AAD' CD recordings, I can readily identify the sonic effect of the use of analogue equipment (the 'AA' part of the recording process), as opposed to digital, when listening to the end results produced!
For that reason only, for me, the difference between the sound of an 'AAD' and 'DDD' recording, mastering excluded, is as clear as a very clear thing, and I'd feel confident of being able to identify the difference blindfolded, in a suitably revealing system.
That's it in a nutshell!! :exactly:
Marco.
Rothchild
04-02-2013, 20:52
Marco, could you hightlight a recording that's generally available for which there is an AAD and DDD version so we can compare the differences ourselves? I humbley suggest that there isn't one, people record with what they have (be that analogue or digital) and make the record they're making. (they are unlikely to have recorded it to both analogue and digital multitrack and made the same mixes)
Apart from a few exceptions (White Stripes (Toerag recordings), Dap Tone and, I believe, the latest Kate Bush stuff ) it's fairly easy to tell if it's recorded to analogue or digital. If it's before about 1984 it's probably analogue (probably the whole chain up to getting it on CD) if it's between 1984 and about 1990 then that where you need the listening skills, as it could be either and post 1990 (and not withstanding the non-exclusive list above) it's probably been tracked to digital (albeit through analogue microphones and pre-amps).
So yeah, I probably am missing the point, sorry! But I'm just trying to get my head around this definition.
Mr Kipling
04-02-2013, 20:55
When I was a young 'un I was forever playing a couple of Billy Fury singles on my mother's Ferguson valve radiogram. One of which was " I'd Never Find Another You". The other was "Give Me Your Word". The sound of them were burnt into my memory along with a number of others.
In the 'late 90s I got a Billy Fury cd which came out in the mid '80s which had on it "I'd Never Find Another You". When I played it it essentially sounded the same as my memory of it, more-so than the deck I was using at the time. A cd sounding pretty much the same as a 45 on an old valve radiogram with ceramic cartridge (or my memory of it) did seem a tad bizarre. About four years ago I got a new REMASTERED disc that was a collection of his hits and which also had the same track on it. This time it sounded bright, thin and gutless, as did the rest of the tracks. And both are Decca items. Then again, look at The Beatles cds. Compare the originals with the remastered versions. I wouldn't waste time listening to the originals.
Like so many things in life, cd sound quality is just a lottery. Modern pop can sound good and here's some. On earphones using my mobile the Stephanie Kirkham track is just a constuct of images.
P.S.
The thing that has always, always (always) puzzled me is why/how country music (American) always consistantly sounds good in terms of production and end sound quality, when compared to pop. Here's an example. Not that good here, but a whole lot better on cd.
oLprAUar11U
u0_IYmxakL0
sFWUei9_pzU
Hi Marc,
Marco, could you hightlight a recording that's generally available for which there is an AAD and DDD version so we can compare the differences ourselves?
I know where you're coming from, but that's not the point.
I can dig out, say, 20 'AAD' CDs I bought in the late 80s, and 20 CDs I've bought, produced today, which of course will all be 'DDD', and the early ones, even though the albums concerned will have been mastered differently, have an intrinsic 'sonic signature', which I can instantly detect and discern as being attributable to the analogue equipment and processes used in the recording chain (based on my experience of analysing this effect).
I really don't find the difference difficult to detect at all, and could probably demonstrate it to others. Maybe that's a project for one of the workshops at the forthcoming AoS show? :)
Marco.
Rothchild
04-02-2013, 21:24
Do you mean 20 cds of the same album? If so then this is the effect of remastering and doesn't adjust the fact that they were originally tracked to analogue.
If so this is about mastering and re-mastering and that more often than not the 're-master' offers nothing of value over the original version (indeed often re-mastering is detrimental to the quality of the record)
If they're different records then I'm not sure that we can reliably know what was in the recording chain (it becomes much like playing 'guess the microphone') so the assertion that a contemporary recording is better or worse sounding because it's analogue / digitally tracked becomes a matter for pure speculation. Hell, even Trevor Horn says he can't reliably tell the difference these days! Unless the listener doesn't know but the 'tester' does know what was in the chain then there's not even the begining of a valid test.
Of course none of this gets in the way of being able to say 'I enjoy x more than y' but it doesn't provide any technical grounds for understanding why.
Do you mean 20 cds of the same album?
Nope, different albums. Anyway, I know what I can clearly hear and need no technical explanation to explain or prove it.
It's not a matter of just enjoying the 1980s 'AAD' CD recordings more - to my ears the sound quality is intrinsically different from that produced on CDs (or other digital recordings) today.
Those 'AAD' CDs sound just as different to me from today's offerings, as a TDA1541 DAC chip does compared with a Sabre or Burr-Brown - and the sonic variances are similar! ;)
If you choose to disagree or disbelieve me, that's fine :)
Marco.
Rothchild
04-02-2013, 21:55
I'm neither disagreeing nor disbelieveing, just observing that the fact that one hears a difference is not reliably connected to knowing the reason that the difference is there. It could be the media that the multitrack was taken down to but it could also be whole plethora of other factors too.
Sure, but my experience tells me that what I'm hearing is right, for the reasons I've outlined, and I'm satisfied with that :)
YMMV.
Marco.
Mr Kipling
04-02-2013, 22:08
Well you could say the AAD ones have a more 'analogue' sound (by definition they are more analogue) sounding warmer, less hard and less overtly detailed. The obvious example is Dire Straits. Brothers In Arms was their first DDD cd and it sounds totally different to their previous ones.
Exactly! And *some* of that difference will have be down to the equipment used, not just the mastering process, or any other items/elements in the recording chain.
It's the same with late 1950s recordings on vinyl, produced with all-valve analogue equipment, and the best of today's recordings on vinyl, often produced via a multitude of solid-state digital processes.
Both can sound superb, but in an ENTIRELY different way!! ;)
Marco.
I agree! Precision vs fluid.
Mr Kipling
04-02-2013, 23:44
I still don't think the differences between the two are as relevent as mastering. Going back to The Beatles first issue cds, their sound quality was widely commented on (and criticised) at the time. And yet at the same time bootleg stuff was coming out on cd which sounded preferable. The Ultra Rare Trax volumes were cited as examples.
When Jimmy Hughes Reviewed Brothers In Arms in Hi-Fi Answers he said its sound would divide opinion. I wasn't a fan of it. I did get the single So Far Away years later and was rather surprised at how good it sounded on vinyl.
I still don't think the differences between the two are as relevent as mastering
I do agree. The mastering is still ultimately more important, but I also think that some people are dismissing the significant influence that the equipment used in the recording process had on the final sound heard, which played a big part in why early 'AAD' recordings on CD, when done well, sounded the way that they did.
Clive nails it:
I agree! Precision vs fluid.
Thing is, sometimes such 'precision' (I would hesitate to call it that) can sound too 'squeaky-clean' and rob the sound of natural warmth. One frequently encounters this effect when comparing the BEST digital recordings with the BEST analogue ones (note the significance of the word "BEST"), and that effect also raises its head with 'AAD' vs. 'DDD' recordings on CD.
Marco.
Mr Kipling
05-02-2013, 07:56
I would have to say that very good digital can sound like very good analogue. The trouble is you virtually never get to hear it with pop material. Listen to the Shelly Poole track.
Thing is, sometimes such 'precision' (I would hesitate to call it that) can sound too 'squeaky-clean' and rob the sound of natural warmth. One frequently encounters this effect when comparing the BEST digital recordings with the BEST analogue ones (note the significance of the word "BEST"), and that effect also raises its head with 'AAD' vs. 'DDD' recordings on CD.
Marco.
Just trying to find the best wording. If not "precision" then how about "tight"?
BTW, I agree mastering is incredibly important. What happens with AAD vs DDD is that it's not hard to become tuned in to the difference and when you do that you really do notice the difference very easily. Well, some of us do anyway.
Rothchild
05-02-2013, 09:02
Just to chuck another variable on the pile here, since the 'golden age' (mid 70s) the number of 'proper' studios with real nice sounding rooms, committed to technical and artistic excellence has dwindled and along with it has the quality of recordings.
Yes, the Beatles only had 4 tracks but they were the best 4 tracks that money bought, not the equivalent of a £60 Chinese made condeser mic in a back bedroom.
I contest that the demise of 'proper' studios has had as much of an impact on what you're hearing as the medium used to capture the performance.
Brothers in Arms is an interesting example as it's an early pointer to the fact that one does have to work differently in digital, it sounds like that because the engineers used their best analogue recording techniques, many of which were unsuitable for the media being used (people used to play all sorts of tricks with the top end to play off between keeping the highs crispy (in the face of the fact that most tape starts to roll off at 15-18kHz) whilst keeping hiss to a minimum.
Just to chuck another variable on the pile here, since the 'golden age' (mid 70s) the number of 'proper' studios with real nice sounding rooms, committed to technical and artistic excellence has dwindled and along with it has the quality of recordings.
Don't get me started, there are indeed lots of reasons. A big one for me is that bands often don't play together when recording. How can you get interplay between musicians when then play their instrument individually wearing phones?
From The Grave
I reckon there could be some interesting discussion and discoveries to be had from some adventures around this topic.
Anyone heard the recent Neil Young with Crazy Horse album 'Psychedelic Pill' on vinyl & compared it to the CD? The vinyl is all analogue, I think.
Almost treated myself to that whilst christmas shopping. Waited in case it was bought for me... hope it's still available!
I've just found an AAD recording from a charity shop I think. First time I've listened to it.
David Sylvian - Brilliant Trees.
Sounds excellent actually ! Very 80s. Recorded 83/84 Virgin Records. £1.50 I think.
Never heard of him but went by the photo and the 80's-ness. was one of those risk purchases that turned out very well.
Edit: Ah... He was in Japan. Thought I recognised his voice.
Anyway, hearing the difference between AAD and DDD is surely just a much vaguer version of recognising the signature sound of the limiter used or desk or microphone that a studio geek might be able to do.
It's nothing more than that. Analogue equipment I think does have a definite style of sound to it in general and digital equipment does too, even if that style of sound is a lack of the analogue sound..
Still, it's hard to separate out the sound of the gear from the fashionable,intentioned choice of sound of each recording era by the artist, not to mention the limitations of recording techniques of each previous era upon the sound. You can't go back to '84 for example and offer them the sound of 00's DDD and see if they would actively choose the sound of DDD, which they may well might to get a sound they couldn't get with the analogue gear, striving for something new.
And can we say for sure that modern DDD recordings aren't made to sound as they do simply because the artists and engineers have become so used to a certain sound via influential contemporaries' CDs that subconsciously they just fall into the trap of replicating the same signature sound?
What I'm trying to say here is that perhaps it is perfectly possible to replicate the AAD sound via DDD but simply that no-one is actively striving to do so.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.