[IPodPJ]

As I sit here listening to Dark Side of The Moon on my Denon AH-D5000, I was just thinking about this:

AAD CDs:
(analog recording equipment, analog master, transfer to digital media) recordings can sound so much better than
ADD (analog recording equipment, digital mastering, digital media) or
DDD (digital recording equipment, digital mastering, digital media) CDs.

Dark Side of the Moon is one example, but there are much better. Bela Fleck & The Flecktones record in all digital (DDD) and they sound incredible, too. But there is an element to analog which just sounds much more natural. It's not compressed.

Which types of CDs do you prefer? Ones that are AAD, ADD, or DDD?

I don't have the money for a good vinyl rig, so I'm stuck with the highest quality mastered CDs I can get.

Edit: Or you can prefer AAA, but that would only be available on a vinyl record obviously, as the last "D" stands for the digital media it is being played back on, such as a CD.

 

[bigshot]

I prefer recordings that are well performed and well recorded. How it was recorded makes no difference to me. The best recording I ever heard was an LP. It sounded just as good when I transferred it to CD. I've heard great digital recordings too. Format doesn't matter.

See ya
Steve

 

[Lord Mike]

Performance takes preference over AAD, ADD or DDD for me.

I have yet to hear a better performance of Tchaikovsky's Violin in D Major than that conducted by Eugene Ormandy with David Oistrakh on strings. it's AAD but it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the piece. Just did a tally of my classic CDs and most are ADD or AAD.

 

[MonolithTMA]

The way this site distracts me, you'd think I had ADD. As to the sound. I agree with the previous posters. Good performances are the best, regardless of format. Heck I used to have a CD that I transfered from cassette because I couldn't find it in any other format! I put up with tape hiss because I liked the performance.

 

[Bizzel]

The quality of the mastering makes a much bigger difference to the sound quality than the recording method ever will, in my experience at least. I've heard AAD recordings decimate DDD recordings and equally vice-versa.

 

[Leporello]

The best sounding classical recordings in my collection are DDD. Some of them were even recorded on dreaded early digital (Bach's Trio Sonatas by Koopman on Archiv, for example)

However, there are also very impressive ADD recordings (Debussy / Haitink on Philips Duo and Varese/Boulez on CBS).


Regards,

L.

 

[markl]

Knowing the recording medium (analog or digital) will tell you nothing about how good a CD will sound.

 

[Duggeh]

Dark Side Of The Moon sounds good because its a frickin' awesome album. As far as sound quality in itself goes, its really pretty poor compared to loads of albums with lesser content, AAD, ADD or DDD.

 

[Roam]

No preference. It's all in the hands of the recording, mixing, and mastering engineers.

 

[bigshot]

Dark Side of the Moon is a particularly overproduced album. When you have a lot of overdubbing and signal processing going on, the result is bound to be unrealistic and diffuse. The best recordings I've heard are the simplest.

See ya
Steve

 

[Dr.Love]

As far as Classical music is concerned, DDD from Telarc sounds very nice.

 

[bigshot]

Living Stereo AAA sounds great too.

See ya
Steve

 

[ozz]

one of the best recordings i have is brothers in arms its ddd. iwish they
were all done this good.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Love /img/forum/go_quote.gif As far as Classical music is concerned, DDD from Telarc sounds very nice.

Yes, they do. I have quite a few Telarc Digital albums. Most are the soundtracks from famous composers, conducted by Erich Kunzel and the Cincinatti Pops.

 

[sejarzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dark Side of the Moon is a particularly overproduced album. When you have a lot of overdubbing and signal processing going on, the result is bound to be unrealistic and diffuse. The best recordings I've heard are the simplest.

x2.

While the SACD of DSOTM reveals a lot of detail that I never heard from the LP or the original CD version, it also reveals more of the hiss and artifacts of the processing chain.

I love Telarc's discs--maybe the older ones even more than the newer ones--not because they are DDD, but because I think that minimal miking/no compression/no EQ technique renders the most realistic reproduction of an orchestra.

I'd say that in general, performance is first, the mic placement/mixing second, with the DDD/AAD/ADD issue a distant third in overall importance.