Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    There are numerous discussions of the SPARS code elsewhere in this
    file, and there's probably even an explanation somewhere in the booklet
    of the disc you're looking at.
    
    Basically, each of the 3 letters can be 'D' for digital or 'A' for
    analog.  The letters refer to three steps in the process: recording,
    mixing, and mastering.  For compact discs, the 3rd letter is always
    'D'.  Older recordings can be either AAD or, if they've been re-mixed
    on digital equipment, ADD.  Many newer recordings are DDD.  DAD is
    probably rare, since most people would not mix a digital recording on
    analog equipment, if the final medium is digital.
    
    -pd

Be aware that just because a CD is DDD doesn't always mean that it is 
a great recording.  There are other variables to throw in, such as how the
microphones were arranged, the quality of the original source, the quality
of the mixing, and the performance itself.

I've heard some AAD and ADD CDs that are amazingly crisp and a delight
to hear.  Some of my most enjoyable CDs are in this catagory.  And
by the same token, I've listened to (and traded away) CDs listed as DDD 
that sounded awful.  So don't let anyone sway you by insisting that DDD 
is absolutely best you can buy.  It helps, but its not always the best.

AAA

    
    The TELARC series of digitally mastered recordings are FANTASTIC
    in sound quality. TELARC (like GRP and a few others) specializes
    only in fully digital CD's (all DDD). As mentioned, DDD does not 
    necesarily insure high quality, and depend on many other factors.
    However, I have several TELARC CD's - and have found them all to
    be superb.
    For those who're looking for a great (and very affordable) classical
    sampler CD, TELARC has four volumes, each with over 60 minutes of
    selected pieces from their catalog. Can usually be found for $10
    or so. A great buy (if you don't mind "samplers").
    
    

    I have seen CDs that say 'Digital Recording' on the cover and then
    elsewhere AAD or ADD. Can anyone explain this? Or is it just a mistake
    (or worse, purposely misleading)? Surely anything that says Digitally
    Recorded must at least be DAD and more likely DDD?
    
    Richard
    Basingstoke UK.

    I agree with .3, the TELARC series CD's are fantastic. The one that
    I have is titled "TIME WARP" and contains various pieces from movies
    including 2001, Alien, Star Wars, and the like...The pieces are
    fantastic...The only CD's that I've heard that are similar in quality
    are the Windham Hill recordings. These are ADD labeled and are  
    real nice CD's.  
    
    Thanks for the information.
    
    
    Mike

    re: Telarc - I think there will be a fifth sampler available
    soon.
    
    re: Digital, non-Digital - A CD is digital by the fact that it
    is not an analog media.  If you saw an AAD or ADD that said it
    was digital, then that is the game they are probably playing.

    re:.4
    
    As Alan said, it's possible that the company is taking avantage
    of the ambiguity of the phrase "digital recording".
    
    On the other hand, mistakes are made. At least one of the Rickie
    Lee Jones CD's from Warner's (I believe it's MAGAZINE) has the
    standard Warner's disclaimer about it being recorded on analog
    equipment and so may reflect "imperfections" in the recording (i.e.
    hiss). But, in the liner notes, it mentions that the album was
    recorded with a digital tape recorder.
    
    --- jerry

    Interestingly enough, the one CD that springs to mine which tells
    lies concerning its recording technology is Warner Brother's release
    of Randy Newman's 'Life at the Top'.
    
    Richard

Re: .3 et al.

Telarc stuff does indeed sound great.  Technically.  

The problem is that even with the best technology and the best recording
engineers and the best hall in the world, you can't make up for inferior
performances.  Telarc's favorite conductors are *terrible* in their
handling of even the most ordinary classical repertory.  

The Robert Shaw Messiah is *dismal* and his Poulenc Gloria and Orff
Carmina Burana are equally poor.  Friends who own other recent Shaw 
recordings are just as unimpressed with him as I am.

And Erich Kunzel is flashy for pops, as in Time Warp and Star Tracks,
but his readings of what I will provocatively call *real* music leave
much to be desired.


Re: several, non-digital digital.

Watch the labeling.  I have the EMI 2-disc set of Sir Thomas Beecham's 
Delius recordings.  The back liner says DDD.  Obviously wrong -- these 
recordings were all made during or before 1963.  I also have the 
Nonesuch disc of the Boston Symphony Chamber Players' Brahms string 
quintets.  Again, the back liner says DDD.  The disc itself says AAD.

This comment isn't intended to disparage non-DDD recordings.  Many of my 
favorite discs are ADD or AAD.  Within reasonable standards for sound 
quality, the performance is more important to me.

- Dick

    Well, to each his own.  I agree with Mr. Binder that the Cincinatti
    Pops stuff is not very good, but I emphatically disagree about
    the Robert Shaw / Atlanta recordings.  You will find no better
    chorus *anywhere*, and most of what he records makes important
    use of the chorus. I personally can't think of *any* recording
    of Carmina  Burana that I could call great art, but that's a limitation
    of the piece itself (or of me, depending on your viewpoint).
    
    
    Anyway, I'd recommend his recordings of:
    Poulenc Gloria & Stravinsky Symphony of Psalms (same disk)
    Brahms Deutsche Requiem
    Beethoven's 9th Symphony (not on Telarc, not as well recorded, but
    			who cares?).

    His Verdi Requiem is also pretty good.
    
    			George

    
    
    re. Last couple. 
    
      As is usually the case, what started out as SPARS Code stuff ended
    up music reviews. Simply stated, it can be said that the all
    digital labels will offer "cleaner" sound than the non-digital labels,
    regardless of the artist or composer.
    
      Problem is....some of the major labels refuse to SPARS code their
    releases. One of these is Columbia and it's subsidiaries; another
    is Warner Bros and some of it's subs. In order to have an idea of
    what's what, I recommend subscribing to one of the Wayne Green rags
    from New Hamster...either the "Green CD Guide," or "CD Now" or even
    "Compact Disc, Digital Audio Review." Most of the reviews will state
    whether the disc is fully digital or not. With Telarc and GRP, it's
    their best selling point...guaranteed all-digital (DDD).
    
      Probably one of the best examples of a disc done AAD is Streisand's
    "The Broadway Album," which is so clean sounding, you'd almost swear
    it's DDD. Being into 50's/60's music, about 1/3 of my cd collection
    (about 150 now) is oldies compilations. Some labels I trust are
    Original Sound (home of the original "Oldies But Goodies" sets),
    Rhino (who generally use 1st generation analog masters), MCA (the
    1st 10 volumes - 5 discs - of their "golden hits" series are remastered
    by Steve Hoffman), and JCI (the firm who did the original "Baby
    Boomer" series on lp....all white jackets, have now gone CD). You
    begin to discover quickly who to trust and who not to. That's why
    there's so many used CD shops around (and our own CDSWAP conference).
    Once a "new" CD convert gets over the neat electronic cleanliness
    of CD compared to hearing records for years, buys usually turn to
    what you like, rather than what sounds best. It'd be nice to have
    both of those, but sometimes, due to the analog master, it's
    impossible.
    
    Anyway...have fun with your newly discovered format !!
    
    				The Cruiser
    
    
    
   

    re: .9
    
    Have to second .10 and stand up for Robert Shaw - I'd hate for anyone
    to miss his recording of the Brahms Requiem, just on .9's blanket
    pan.  That is a sublime performance, and on my equipment anyway,
    can't complain about the recording either.  For what it's worth,
    I haven't seen a published review of it that wasn't a rave.
    
    I do like .9's point that there are some great-sounding non-DDD
    buys out there.  A case in point is the old Cleveland Orchestra/George
    Szell recordings of the Dvorak Slavonic Dances.  I picked up an
    incomplete collection of them on cd (sorry, the label escapes me)
    for real cheap - around $5, I think.  Since it was so cheap, I bought
    a complete set, DDD all the way, done by the Scottish National
    Orchestra.   Guess what - the 20 year-old recording SOUNDS better
    than the new DDD cd.  Never mind the performance (I didn't expect
    to improve on that), the old recording sounds just as crisp in the
    percussion and brass, and a LOT lusher in the strings.

Re: .10 and .12

Okay, since the big guns have been brought to bear, I offer specific 
comments on Shaw's Poulenc Gloria and Brahms Requiem.  First, let it be 
understood that I do not fault the Atlanta Symphony or Chorus.  The 
chorus is outstanding.

Poulenc:

The performance is bright and disciplined.  Too much so -- the sense of 
the music is often missed, as in the Gloria section, which is supposed 
to be moodily reverent.  Shaw's demand for precisely clipped elocution 
destroys the prayerful attitude.  The brightness works in lighter
sections, but overall there is too much precision and too little
artistic freedom.  The soloist, Sylvia McNair, is disappointing; she is
very uneven, with a voice that is alternately rich and childishly thin. 
More than 25 years ago, I bought the Pr�tre recording on Angel, with
Rosanna Carteri as soloist and recorded under the personal supervision 
of Poulenc on the day after the European premi�re of the work; and this
recording is now available on CD.  Listen to it, and you'll understand
why I don't think Shaw cuts it. 

Brahms:

A fine performance, but again very disciplined -- that rigidity is a 
hallmark of recent Shaw recordings.  There is less imagination than I 
like; Shaw just doesn't convey the sense of what the music is all about.
And the very clarity of the recording takes away from the dark dignity.
This is not a fault of digital recording per se; I have the Haitink
version, also digital, and it is dignified and mysterious.  The
Klemperer version is better yet, but it wasn't available when I ran out
of patience and sprang for the Haitink. 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Note, already in progress.

    
    I must stand up for the Atlanta.  I have music by most orchestras
    both domestic and foreign in both LP and CD.  I have no complaints
    about the Atlanta at all.
    
    I have all of Previn's Telarc CDs.  Not a bad one in the bunch.
     
    Jim
    

    Although I haven't heard all that many DDD compact discs, the *best*
    one, by far and away, that I have heard is Dire Straits' "Brothers
    In Arms".
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    Well, it had to happen someday...
    
    We have all seen AAD, ADD and DDD disks, right???
    
    I just got one that is marked (get this) DAD !!!!????
    
    As in...recorded on digital multi-track, mixed to *analog* tape,
    then digitally mastered.
    
    ?????????
    
    The CD is the last from Greg Brown, "One More Goodnight Kiss" and
    is on Red House records out of St. Paul, MN.  The SPARS code is
    listed on the disk itself, the back covber and the insert.  It is
    either total perversity or a very nagging typo!!
    
    

    Typos seem to be quite commonplace on CDs.  Steely Dan's "Pretzel
    Logic" says AAD on the box, but ADD on the disc itself!  The Talking
    Heads' "Stop Making Sense" has liner notes saying a digital recorder
    was used, but also has the disclaimer saying "This recording was
    made on analog equipment...."  I'm sure this has been said before,
    but I think these ratings should be taken with a grain of salt.
    There are some AAD recordings which are *very* well recorded, even
    some from the 70's, and there are some DDD discs which sound pretty
    bad.  The only real test is giving a listen to it - but it is true
    that that little three-letter code greatly affects our perceived
    value...
    
    			Steve

    re: .16
    
    Yes, there is such a thing as a DAD disc, and you guessed what it
    is.  I have several of these, and they are all quite nice.  One
    in particular (some Haydn quartets by the Salomon Quartet on hte
    Hyperion label) sounds just as clean as any Telarc I've ever heard.
    While I believe in truth in advertising, don't judge the quality
    of a recording by the SPARS code.  I have heard some truly awful
    DDD discs on good labels, and some astounding ADD, AAD and DAD discs
    on little known labels.
    
    B

    I don't think Brian was *judging* the disc by the SPARS code,
    just expressing surprise that a recording would be made on a
    digital recorder, but mixed on an analog one. While there's
    certainly no reason why that can't happen, it is rather surprising.
    
    --- jerry