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.

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?

Me too. Buying into the "remastered" craze has been a loss leader in many cases.

jäpp loudn€$$ wärez -?- @@stevenpettinga7400

Glad I bought many 80s CDs from charity shops

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.

Yep. This whole AAD is better is pure snake oil.

I think it's more down to AAD CDss using flat transfers of the original master tapes for albums pre digital recording. Within the 2000s and today alot of classic albums are being "remastered" but all they are doing is adding more bass and or making it sound louder artificially. I think AAD is not the magic thing it's made out but It does repersent the fact that you can make great audio for classic albums by just giving people a pure flat transfer much like say the Beatles 1987 CDs post sgt peppers onwards abbey road for example sounds much better on the 1987 cd than it does on the 2009 cd which digitally added more bass and rose the higher end to make it sound brighter Even DDD ADD or even DDA ETC ETC can sound increidble look at dire straits with a DDD mastering and it sounds incredible probably because the didn't in its original release eq it to sound louder , add more bass etc etc

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!!!!*

It's not just dynamic range they screwed up. It's a lot more than that. Computer distortion from what I heard

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.

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

Yes. That Dokken CD has good tone.

You got to be kidding me very noticeable difference in the sound😅 especially playing through KZfaq

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

Indeed!

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.

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.

Thanks for sharing your experience!

As you may have noticed it is the only Gorman I haven't covered (among the famous ones). That is because I am not a big fan of the format. I did do a detailed video on DSD: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m9tlfJCrnMyamac.html

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.

Welcome!!

YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I still love them too......;

You won’t. It’s all snake oil.

Nice collection!

Violator is a killer sounding CD!

Violator might be one of the best sounding CD’s I own.

Tell us your finds (if you feel like it)!

Keep us updated!

@Stephen Buck I have Klipsch klf20 and rb81 in my main system and Digital Phase AP4 in another room

😂

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?

Thank YOU Nick!

That’s what I am talking about! Here is the following chapter you this insane mastering trend: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j9SDhZSqv9utimg.htmlsi=tGRzXLUeLIapatTR

I have several video where I do that, including the Dark Side of the Moon: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l9Kdl9t6nJyof6s.htmlsi=qUHY0zypkatW1nIp

Unfortunately no, no list. At least I didn't find one...

Exactly!

Processing never makes something better...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

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.

Why thank you so much! A good mic, good preamp and a good interface!

Agreed on all points. My Japanese DSOTM is my personal favorite way to experience that album. I also love Sonny Rollins “Saxophone Colossus” on the Jazz Classics label. Mono never sounded so glorious.

Indeed! Prices are really god, maybe I didn't mark that enough in the video!

@@anadialog Your videos are fantastic. Please keep up the great work!

Seems the results are giving you credit

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.

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.

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.

Indeed!

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

😂

Hmm. I'm pretty sure that Brothers In Arms was recorded & mixed digitally. I believe it was famous for that, although it was not the 1st rock LP recorded that way.

That was a digital album. Nothing analog about it.

DDD a digital recording