SPARS code AAD: When CDs sounded best
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2022
- Is it true that the very first CDs (AAD) sounded bad? Discover the most analog of all compact discs!
SPONSOR: Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/anadialog - Enter promo code ANADIALOG for 83% off and 3 extra months FREE
Test AAD vs ADD:
Track 1 & 2 (normalized & not normalized): u.pcloud.link/publink/show?co...
Pre-emphasis list: www.studio-nibble.com/cd/inde...
More Ana[dia]log groove:
INSTAGRAM: / ana.dia.log
FACEBOOK: / anadialog1
TWITTER: / anadialog
#cds #compactdisc #cd 
Видеоклипы
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
AAD are the best CDs for multiple reasons and you outlined them all well on this video!
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
There’s no one better than the other. It’s all in the mastering.
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
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!!!!*
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!
Great explanation of the processes and differences! I remember the first DDD I’d ever got was from Sting! Great video
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.
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!!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 RUclips
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.
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
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!
I've still got a bunch of AAD CDs that my dad bought in airports during the early nineties.
Lots of classical music, and all sounded great, but there was one Chopin disc which _really_ stood out. 👌😎
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. 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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
I have Pearl Jam's Ten in AAD from 1991. Sounds superb. Also Temple of The Dog!
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!!
Nice work. Very easy to understand. Thanks so much!
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.
Very well explained as always. Two of my favourite AADs are The Blue Nile 'A Walk Across The Rooftops' and Genesis 'Foxtrot' (Virgin/Nimbus).
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I still love them too......;
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 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.
great video I always heard a difference. It's good to put a identity to each type of cd. Thank you
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.
Great video! Also I would like to see a video talking about the SACD (Super Audio CD's ), you give interesting information and arguments :)
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: ruclips.net/video/eu5I-z7f6is/видео.html
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.
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.
Hi Guido, great video! Exactly the opposite 🙂 I think that the first (end of eighties) serious digital copies of analog recordings sounded best in AAD! The first CD's mixed digitally from analog recordings sounded terrible. I still look for AAD CD's today when vinyl is no longer available or is absurdly expensive. Of course, this does not apply to fully digital recordings 😉
This video is excellent! A very educational lesson on CDs. I learned a lot!
Terrific explanation of the formats and thanks for the great tip to use Audacity to visualize compressed audio. Going through my collection I did find several CDs with an AAD Spars code (for instance my Beatles Revolver CD), but many do not show a Spars code anywhere on the CD or media cover. Have you found a resource to look up the Spars code for a CD, or do you assume with no code it's DDD media?
Unfortunately no, no list. At least I didn't find one...
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?
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.
I have the Who Quadraphenia on aad and it's one of my favourite CDs . Great video
Thanks for doing this, Guido. I immediately preferred sample #2 of The Police. It had more clarity, low end, mids, etc. Just all around better, imo. Got it right the 1st time. 👍🔊😊🎶
Thank YOU Nick!
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.
😂
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.
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.
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: ruclips.net/video/YnSR1yZuIZ4/видео.htmlsi=tGRzXLUeLIapatTR
Thanks for the video , how are you enjoying the Marantz Cd94 ? I bet it sounds 'smooth' but yet detailed also
I love it but I admit that I prefer it with the May...a new very strong contender just walked in...soon reviewed on the channel!
@@anadialog nice ! I just reviewed my Monster Sansui G-8000 2nd biggest reciever ever made by Sansui such a lush n rich sound - dropping bi-amping video nexted audiolab/ Iota 😆
Great video, thank you for explaining all this about CDs.
Great track choice. So Lonely is one of my fave Police songs!
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.
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.
I remember in a video a while back, you mentioned AAD CDs I did prefer the second one and I just got a copy of Queensryche Rage for Order AAD CD this week I have been looking for the early cds since I saw your first video talking about this thanks for the info
Keep us updated!
@Stephen Buck I have Klipsch klf20 and rb81 in my main system and Digital Phase AP4 in another room
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.
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.
Thelma Houston - I've got the music in me is great (in all formats). Three Blind Mice CDs are some of the best. Thank you for the very informative video.
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
You are so right, thank you! 😊 And you have a good hearing too!
Nearly every CD I own is AAD. I started replacing almost every vinyl LP I owned when the first generation Phillips CD player was released. I bought one and couldn’t believe how good it sounded. I’ve been on several vinyl only type audiophile sites and forums touting how good AAD CDs and SACDs sound as compared to vinyl (with its background scratch and hiss at best). Yes vinyl has some warmth in the upper-mids that CDs do not…but the background scratch and hiss are not worth it!!! I love Blu-rays or SACDs in stereo a
😮 ort 192k.
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.
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.
BGO Records from the UK does a lot of remasters that are AAD - quite happy with their releases :)
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.
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: ruclips.net/video/y6aLJum40T0/видео.html
For the other question, I don't know!
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!
The Hot Spot, the best AAD CD out there........
Agreed with the Jazz Classics label, they sound great and have many awesome titles. Also, anytime I see a Verve CD I definitely pick it up. Ella and Louis is an excellent example. Most recently I picked up a 2nd pressing of the Sony Japan mastering of DSOTM. I got it for only twenty bucks because the auction site seller did not know what it was, so many great bargains out there if you are patient.
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!
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...
Beautifully thorough explanation thanks Guido. This has never been explained before in all my time of collecting CDs since 1989 in Australia. Now I understand why my old CDs still sound so good and unless they were "dull" (like the early Jethro Tull and Stevie Wonder) CD transfers, I never figured out why they thought the remasters were necessary. This is brilliant stuff! Perhaps you could explain why some of those were so dull, when the Vinyl at the time was so satisfying...maybe we just didnt over-diagnose the recordings.
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
Thanks for sharing. Driving to amoeba music tomorrow and picking a bunch of AAD cds.
Tell us your finds (if you feel like it)!
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
Yeah, my Pink Floyd The Wall and Dark Side are AAD (also gold CDs…I’ve wondered if that’s real or gimmick soundwise).
I think AAD CD's can sound very good too. For me the best sounding versions of the first three Who albums are the late 80's Canadian budget MCA CDs and same for Who's Next too. Sometimes a flat transfer is all you need. 70's Genesis albums suffered on vinyl cause they were too long and suffered again in later reissues from being needlessly remixed, the 80's CD pressings made most of them sound perfect.
Great video man! love old cds!!
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 realy enjoying your videos,, a place to learn and refresh audio things with easy way.. !
I would love to hear more samples that you have comparing the mastering!
I have several video where I do that, including the Dark Side of the Moon: ruclips.net/video/almdxI76DOw/видео.htmlsi=qUHY0zypkatW1nIp
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Whoa! That comparison. Firstly, I rarely listen to analogue. Primarily, it's streaming, or cassettes/minidiscs created from digital sources. And I have old, worn out ears. When I listened to the first track I thought that sounds 'authentic'. Then I heard the second track and it seemed more 'round' (I don't know the audiophile term), with more bass (which I like) but not as much of the high-end trippy high hat. I assumed that the first track would be the older recording, but I was wrong. Edit: On balance, I prefer the first one which is newer. I guess I'm so used to digital that I prefer it.
I've never compared tracks like that because I don't have golden ears, they're more like wooden ears really. But I could tell the difference, which surprised me. Please don't turn me into an audiophile, I'm nerdy enough as it is! :D
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.
Might be a stupid question, but does this buffering apply to solid state devices like sd card or ss hardrive?
What do you mean? I think you are referring to another video I made. From what I understand It's like RAM memory of a PC.
@@anadialog I thought you mentioned the buffering when reading a disc from the cd-rom drives in new Cd players.
@@anadialog Maybe I misunderstood but you mentioned how the new cd-rom drives buffer and cause interpolations.
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
Does each and every cd that I have in my collection indicate which of these label the recording, mixing and mastering techniques used e.g. AAD?
I wish they did!
I’m sure you can find out with a little research.
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
A couple of my fave AAD are Doobie Brothers - Toulouse Street, Grand Funk - We're An American Band
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.
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...
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.
AAD CD, Dire Straits - Money for Nothing, sound very good
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