Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    First, I would guess that it *does* have more to do with the
    recording company than the artist.
    
    Second, you're getting your terms mixed up. ADD is a digital
    master, not an analog master.
    
    --- jerry

    My theory:

    The majority of the releases on CD are re-releases of earlier
    recordings.  These recordings were made before the advent of the
    digital technology (or the CD boom - take your pick).  From what
    I've seen, most of the newer releases are available digitally mastered.    

    Very few recording studios are equipped for multitrack digital
    recording and mixing, and those that are are very expensive compared
    to studios with analog equipment.  The use of digital recording,
    especially by pop/rock artists, will grow over time but it takes
    relearning and commitment.

    Sheffield's newer recordings employ:  direct-to-disk lathes, digital
    recorders, and analog recorders.
    
    They make the CDs from the analog recordings because they feel they
    sound better.  Several other companies hold the same view.
    
    Mark

    re .3:
    
>   relearning and commitment.
    ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
    
    And most pop/roc labels have neither.

    
    	re: .1
    
    	Jerry,
    
    	You said I had my terms mixed up, and ADD is a digital master.
    	Are you sure? I thought ADD was analog master, digital mix,
    	and digital media (1st letter = master, 2nd = mix, 3rd = media).
    
    								   Mike
    

    re:.6
    
    First letter is the type of deck the tracks were recorded on.
    Second letter is the type of deck the songs were mixed on.
    Third letter is the type of deck that the master tape was put
    	together on.
    
    So, ADD, means that the tracks were recorded on an analogue deck,
    mixed on a digital deck, and mastered on a digital deck.
    
    There is no letter for the medium, since compact discs are
    always digital. What happens when digital tapes hit the consumer
    market, I don't know.

    I think the mix-up comes from the rather confusing term of what
    a master is. Basicly, a master is the tape that the CDs/LPs/cassettes
    are copied from (things are a bit more complex than this; if anyone
    wants to give a step-by-step description of the process, feel free,
    I'm not up to it).
    
    --- jerry

    Some CD's, usually older material, are quite likely made from
    the original analog master, so their SPARS code would be AAA.
    But you'll probably never see this code printed on a CD, since
    it's pretty much an admission on the part of the company that
    you're getting an inferior product. Many companies just choose
    not to put a SPARS code on their CD's so the consumers will not
    know one way or the other. Unless it says something on the CD
    that would imply otherwise, such as "digitally remastered" or
    "all digital" or something like that, it was *probably* made
    from an analog master.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .8    Be careful about refering to analogue masters as "inferior".
    
    	      So far I have not heard a digital mastered session that
    	      was as musically natural as analog.
    
    	      What you really want to say about analog masters is that
    	      they are not a devoid of background hiss as your typical
    	      DDD.  Calling them inferior is a sweeping generalization
    	      with which I STRONGLY disagree.
    
    	Walt

	I agree with Walt.  I don't think that "analog" per se is inferior
	in any way.  Some of the recordings made at 30ips on a good Ampex
	or Studer machine are incredible.

	The advantage of the CD is now we can take advantage of this quality
	at home.  I don't disagree (or agree) with the people who argue that 
	the analog system including the LP sounds better.....what I don't 
	like is the fact that LP's don't hold up, and seem to be subject to 
	a lot of quality problems.  I have been in high-end stereo shops that
	mark their demo records according to how many times they have been
	played -- after about 10 plays the LP is "shot".  I don't want to 
	have to do this, and that is why I am all for the CD format.

	I have incredible all digital CD's and I have terrible ones.  I also
	have incredible analog (recorded) CD's and I have terrible ones.

	The real point is that I enjoy listening to music, and cannot limit
	my choice of music according to the way it was recorded.  The 
	care of the people making the recording have so much more to do with
	the final result than the method.
	
		DENNIS

    I can't argue with .10 but I do take issue with .9 and his use of
    "natural" regarding analog recordings.  I'm tired of hearing "warm"
    and "natural" as applied to analog and "sterile" and "harsh" applied
    to  digital.  Simply because we are used to analog recordings, we
    can't necessarily say that they are more "natural", just more
    "familiar."
    
    Climbing_off_of_his_box,
    Gary

    I didn't mean to start a digital/analog war here. If you've seen
    my various opinions on certain CD's here and there throughout the
    conference, you'll note that one of my favorites is Dave Brubeck's
    TIME OUT, which is assuredly an analog recording.
    
    In addition, let me re-iterate that I'm talking about the *master*,
    not the recording. If CBS (I don't mean to pick on them, I just
    want to use an example) pulls an analog master tape from the vault
    to create a stamping master for the CD, chances are better than
    even that the resulting CD won't sound as good as if they took the
    mix-down tapes and made a new, digtital master tape with which to
    create a stamping master. This is regardless of how the original
    recording was made.
    	Remember, any time you make a copy of something, you lose
    information. Digital copying loses less information than analog
    copying. Thus, it follows that digitally mastering from the mixes
    is going to lose less information than analog mastering.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .11
    
    Maybe my reference to natural should be qualified to something like:
    compaired-to-my-experiences-at-live-concerts.   I have heard some
    pretty impressive stuff done thru digital mastering. My trouble
    is, I get the same sense that I used to get when listening to analog
    thru MLAS and ARC stuff in the late '70s. The ARC stuff just sounded
    more like my live experiences.   
    
    Nowadays, I find the difference negligible between the best tube and 
    solidstate, so either my listening has gone to hell or the solidstate 
    stuff is really better (compaired-to-my-experiences-at-live-concerts)
    than it was.
    
    You are right about the Digitally mastered stuff being "different"
    than analog - trouble is, it is also "different" from my sense of
    live in ways that cannot be easily explained.   Maybe if I found
    just the right playback equipment, I would change my mind.
    
    Walt