Description

This article is from the Classical music FAQ, by Gabe M. Wiener gabe@panix.com with numerous contributions by others.

16. Will a "DDD" recording always sound better than "ADD" or "AAD"? What do those codes mean anyway? (Classical music)

In the early days of the CD, the Society of Professional Audio
Recording Services (SPARS) [pronounced "sparz" not "sparse"] developed
a three-letter coding system to distinguish between the types of
recording equipment used at different junctures of the making of a CD.
The D indicates digital equipment, and the A indicates analog
equipment.

The first letter indicates the type of equipment used in the initial
recording. The second letter indicates the type of equipment used for
mixing and editing. The third letter is superfluous. It indicates
the type of equipment used for mastering, which in the case of a CD
can only be digital.

Many people use the SPARS code as a barometer of the sound quality of
a CD, and this is a wrong thing to do. The SPARS code doesn't, nor
was it ever meant to, reflect the actual quality of the CD. Between
digital and analog recorders, neither intrinsically sounds better than
the other. A recording made on a good Studer A820 fitted out with
Dolby SR will generally sound better than a recording made on a cheap
Sony TCD-D3 DATman, though the DATman will sound better than many
cheap analog systems.

In the end, both analog and digital systems have the ability to sound
great or to sound awful. It all depends on the type of equipment and
the skill of the engineer operating it. Many modern DDD recordings
are so carelessly made that they don't sound nearly as good as analog
recordings made 20 years ago. Then again, a good DDD can sound
*excellent*, as can a good analog recording. You get the idea.

Of course, neither method of recording says anything about miking.
Even if the engineer uses the best digital equipment, if the
microphones are not placed properly, the recording won't sound very
good, and a good mic technique recorded to a walkman will in all
likelihood be more aesthetically pleasing.

There is also confusion over what rubric should apply to a particular
recording. What about classical recordings made straight to two-track
and thus don't need any mixing? What about digital recordings mixed
through an analog console versus digital recordings mixed through a
digital console? Why should a 40-year-old reissue get the same AAD
rubric as a carefully-made analog recording produced using Dolby SR?
The code did not evolve with the technology, and is hopelessly
outdated.

 

Continue to:

• prev: 15. What's the point of having a conductor? Can't professional musicians keep time by themselves? (Classical music)
• Index
• next: 17. What is "authentic performance practice"? (Classical music)

Share and Enjoy

Tags

music, classical