'AAD' vs. 'DDD' CD test

[Marco]

{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 ) 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!

(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

Marco.

[DSJR]

Interesting that and at last we may actually agree on this

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.

[Alex_UK]

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!?

[Marco]

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:



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!

[Clive]

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.....

[Welder]

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.

[DSJR]

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]

Marco,what album are you talking about here? Electrbal Memories?

[Ali Tait]

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!

[Alex_UK]

Marco,what album are you talking about here? Electrbal Memories?

Yes, that's the one I was playing/posting about, Ali.