Conference napalm::heavy_metal

    
    I agree with ya all the way......  New to new, old to new,
    whatever..... the recordings vary greatly as far as sound quality.
    No matter if it's AAD or ADD.  I do have several DDD and they are
    consistant as far as sound quality.  Not too many DDD recordings
    though...
    
    
    -Tunes-

I think it's also a matter of CD manufacturing origin, CD player and headphones.
For me, Anthrax's PoT sounds quite fine. Metallica's AJFA sounds crisp but I
don't like the mixing. My worst sounding new CDs are Faith No More's "Epic"
(too much high range) and Savatage's "Gutter ballet" (excessive high range and
.. hiss). Crimson Glory's "Transcendence" is poorly recorded and this is sad
because it's an excellent album.
Slayer's last and Forbidden's last are also well recorded and produced.
Queensr�che's "Empire" is top class but "The warning" is less well recorded (the
title song itself).
Uriah Heep's "Demons and wizards" is also top class especially when you think it
was recorded in 1972 (they have been careful with the sound quality since the
begining). Old Deep Purple sounds like from a box (but I like the songs).
Rush's "Moving pictures" is also top class.
The headphones are much less tolerant for poor sound quality than the 
loudspeakers (but what a satisfaction when it souns ok).

Sorin

    I think it is due to different sound/studio/recording engineers that
    everyone uses.  Unfortunately, we're subjected to their ear's personal
    taste.
    
    You can throw all the technology you want at it, but the engineer does
    the mix.
    
    Mike

    
    	I also noticed Savatage's "Gutter Ballet" to be very hissy,
    	like background noise.
    
    	And a nit ... Metallica's AJFA is ADD, not AAD.
    
    							GTI
    

    I agree wholeheartedly, Paul.  I don't think the new technology helps 
    THAT much.  Whether a recording sounds good or not seems to be almost
    totally the result of the producer/engineer. Like you said, the "ear of 
    the beholder" so to speak.
    
    >    	And a nit ... Metallica's AJFA is ADD, not AAD.
    
    Looking at those CD inserts with your magnifying glass again, Shawn?  8-)
    
    -Stevie D

    
    	Nope, I just happen to remember that it's ADD.
    
    							GTI
    

    wait until they come out with the BMF format!  The name says it all ;-)

    As an interesting little aside, I have noticed that most, if not all,
    recent Opera recordings are DDD.  I suppose that it is pretty important
    to get consistant quality from classical recordings, whereas the heavy
    bass sound of most HM albums kind of makes it redundant.  Just an
    opinion.
    
    I agree with Sorins opinion on FNMs album though, it is awful when you
    tape it and play it in the car HI-FI (with permission of course (^8*).
    I also agree with his opinion of Demons and Wizards, great sound
    quality, it is a pity that Very 'eavy, Very 'umble doesn't have the
    same quality.
    
    
    Ga-ZAZ

    
    	Well, opera and classical music actually need a very clean
    	recording method due to the quiet passages in the music.
    	There's not always something happening musically on an op-
    	era or classical recording, so you don't want to hear the
    	AAD-induced static .
    
    	DDD provides for a "noiseless" environment.  But this isn't
    	always the case.  I have a DDD Bach disc, performed by some-
    	one [Otto somebody?], that has an annoying "hum" in the back-
    	ground.  I'm not sure if it's a recording flaw, or if it's
    	just the harmonics from the organ.
    
    							GTI
    

    
    Thanks for the technical info Shawn.  I am not as informed about these
    matters as I would like to be!  Time the great enemy (^8*.
    
    
    Ga-ZAZ

    Ax-cuse-a me, but WTF are AAD, ADD, and DDD?
    
    \|\|\FESS|\|\|\

    I'm no expert but it is to do with how this stuff was recorded...
    
    Diredt to Digital - through Analogue tape - etc.... Someone in here is
    bound to have a cd with them!
    
    Bonzo

    A = analog  D = digital
    
    can't remember what the 3 are though!
    
    
    
    GAZ

             From COOKIE::CD, note 392.7...
    
    There are three steps in making a multitrack recording, all can be
    either analog or digital. 
    
    The first step involves the multitrack recorder. Basically the music is
    assembled on a number of tracks.
    
    From the multitrack master a two track master is made. It is basically
    a mixed down copy of the multitrack master.
    
    Finally, from each master recording, pressing master copies are made for 
    the duplication effort. These copies are usually tailored to the medium 
    being produced. For example, there would be different pressing master for lp
    than for CD (one of the big problems with early CD's was they weren't).
    
    AAD means the record company has the two track master and made a
    digital pressing master from it. It may or may not have been remastered
    for the CD medium.
    
    ADD means they have the original multitrack master and made a digital
    two track master from that, and then made a digital pressing master
    from the digital two track master. There is a good chance that this 
    has been digitally remastered for the CD medium, but there are no 
    guarantees.
    
    DDD of course is digitally recorded and processed throughout.
    
    CdH
    

More simply - the three letters stand for recording, mixing, and mastering.

All CDS have to be digitally mastered, so the third letter will always be
"D".

For example, you can have AAD (analogue recording and mixing), ADD (analogue
recording with digital mixing), and DAD (digital recording with analogue
mixing).

alan

    and don't forget DDD...
    digital recording with digital mixing..

    ...