4 ms·

Early CDs were labeled as to the processes used, a 3 letter code As and Ds, so: AAD == Analog recording, Analog mastering, Digital media ADD == Analog recordi

Early CDs were labeled as to the processes used, a 3 letter code As and Ds, so: AAD == Analog recording, Analog mastering, Digital media ADD == Analog recording, Digitally re-mastered, Digital Media DDD == Digital recording, Digitally re-mastered, Digital Media This is known as a SPARS Code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code Your dad's friends should have imported from Japan --- they were big on Jazz, and a lot of my Jazz CDs have spines labeled in Japanese on one side and English on the other.

Projectiboga 8mo ago
Late 80s or early 90s there was also a DAD type, which often sounded really good. From that Wiki link- In practice, DAD was very rare, as many companies (especially the well-known classical music labels) used digital tape recorders (which were not prohibitively more expensive than analog tape recorders) during the editing or mixing stage.
- WillAdams 8mo ago
  I don't know if I have such a CD --- do you have an example which is noted as sound markedly better than other editions? (I'd especially be interested in a DAD disc which sounds better than an updated DDD disc)
  - Projectiboga 8mo ago
    My CDs are in storage, and I never did an A/B comparison with any later remasters.
BoingBoomTschak 8mo ago
Why did you write "re-mastered" instead of simply "mastered" for ADD/DDD?
- WillAdams 8mo ago
  Because most of my CDs are older and had previously been released as pure analog, so that's how I think of them, and that's where my experience is --- fair point though, putting parentheses around (re-) would have been better.
steve1977 8mo ago
Close, but not quite. The first letter was the recorder used for initial recording, say a Studer A800 as an example of an analog multitrack or DASH as an example of a digital one). The second letter was the recorder for the mixdown, i.e. usually some 2-channel system like an analog ATR-102 or Studer A80 or a digital DAT. The third letter was the recorder for the master, which for CD by definition was always digital. In the early days usually a Sony U-matic, which funnily enough was an analog video tape format which got reused for digital audio (and is the reason for the odd 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD). Edit: The code was actually always considered a bit meaningless. For example, you could record on a digital DASH, but mix on an analog SSL console and print the mix to a digital recorder. That would have been a DDD CD. On the other hand, you could record on an analog A820, mix on a digital Studer desk, print the mix on an analog A80 and that would have been a AAD CD. So, two codes indicating "pure" digital or "pure" analog, even though both processes used both technologies. Or record on a ADAT and mix on a Yamaha 02/R, which would have been DDD but probably sounded worse than the AAD recorded on a Studer analog tape ;)
- dylan604 8mo ago
  > Sony U-matic 3/4" tape and was the only tape format that had the take up reel on the left.

Projectiboga 8mo ago

Late 80s or early 90s there was also a DAD type, which often sounded really good. From that Wiki link- In practice, DAD was very rare, as many companies (especially the well-known classical music labels) used digital tape recorders (which were not prohibitively more expensive than analog tape recorders) during the editing or mixing stage.

WillAdams 8mo ago
I don't know if I have such a CD --- do you have an example which is noted as sound markedly better than other editions? (I'd especially be interested in a DAD disc which sounds better than an updated DDD disc)
- Projectiboga 8mo ago
  My CDs are in storage, and I never did an A/B comparison with any later remasters.

BoingBoomTschak 8mo ago

Why did you write "re-mastered" instead of simply "mastered" for ADD/DDD?

WillAdams 8mo ago
Because most of my CDs are older and had previously been released as pure analog, so that's how I think of them, and that's where my experience is --- fair point though, putting parentheses around (re-) would have been better.

steve1977 8mo ago

Close, but not quite. The first letter was the recorder used for initial recording, say a Studer A800 as an example of an analog multitrack or DASH as an example of a digital one). The second letter was the recorder for the mixdown, i.e. usually some 2-channel system like an analog ATR-102 or Studer A80 or a digital DAT. The third letter was the recorder for the master, which for CD by definition was always digital. In the early days usually a Sony U-matic, which funnily enough was an analog video tape format which got reused for digital audio (and is the reason for the odd 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD). Edit: The code was actually always considered a bit meaningless. For example, you could record on a digital DASH, but mix on an analog SSL console and print the mix to a digital recorder. That would have been a DDD CD. On the other hand, you could record on an analog A820, mix on a digital Studer desk, print the mix on an analog A80 and that would have been a AAD CD. So, two codes indicating "pure" digital or "pure" analog, even though both processes used both technologies. Or record on a ADAT and mix on a Yamaha 02/R, which would have been DDD but probably sounded worse than the AAD recorded on a Studer analog tape ;)

dylan604 8mo ago
> Sony U-matic 3/4" tape and was the only tape format that had the take up reel on the left.