Printable View
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.
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Kipling
Clive nails it:
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.Quote:
I agree! Precision vs fluid.
Marco.
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.
Just trying to find the best wording. If not "precision" then how about "tight"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
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.
Precisely! :)
Marco.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothchild