Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

Yeah you'll learn fast, as you've seen.

The explanation page is very annoying indeed, more so if the disk itself
is then not labeled accordingly. Sometimes, with a two page folder, it
also prevents other, usefull info, not to be easy accesible. I rip off
the page for a lot of record...unless there is info on it's back.
                            
Hein.

Not only does it make the useful information hard to get at, but it is
often EXCLUDED so they can put that stupid thing!  I wouldn't buy a piece
of audio gear if the case had reviews all over it saying how wonderfull
its new technology was.

RE: .0

I, too, find it annoying when I get no liner notes whatsoever, but a full
page explaining how wonderful the CD digital audio system is.  On the other
hand, some labels are doing really well with the liner notes.  Elton John's
MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER CD contains the full muti-page liner notes from the
original album release--current LP releases of the album don't have the big
liner notes booklet insert.

I'll be really glad when everybody converts to AAD/ADD/DDD notation so that
we'll finally know for sure what we're getting.  Perhaps the worst sham is
"digitally mastered" appearing on a CD.  ALL CDs are digitally mastered,
of course....

--PSW

Pardon the ignorance, but:

	Why is a CD by definition digitally mastered?  Can't you take
	sound off any old tape and put it on your CD and sell it?  I
	presume here that the master that is claimed to be digital is
	the first storage medium used to record the live performers.

And could somebody define the abbreviations used in .1?  I haven't gotten
'em on liner notes yet.  Thanks.

EJF

re:.4

As to the code, the first letter refers to the type (analog or digital) of
tape deck used to *record* the session. The second letter refers to the type
of deck used to *mix* the recordings. The third letter refers to the type of
deck used to create the master.

It's quite possible that a record company could take the same analog master
used for the LP/cassette and use it for the CD. I'm sure that it's being
done by some companies, and these will most likely be the ones most resistent
to using the coding scheme. If you get a really noisy CD, it most likely
was made from an analog master.

--- jerry

RE: .4, .5

The situation cited in .5, where the same analog master as for LP or cassettes
is used for the CD, shows up as AAD (analog recorded, analog mixed, digitally
mastered) under the 3-letter nomenclature.  The third letter is always "D"
for CDs because the final tape used to produce the dies from which the CDs
are stamped (if that's the right word for the process) is always digital.

--PSW

re:.6

Then why would they bother having a third character in the code if it
is always the same?

The second letter is the mix, the third the master. They are not the
same, and there is no reason that a digital master *has* to be used to
make a CD. Could you provide a source for your statement?

--- jerry

Re .6	I would assume that the 3 letter code can be applied to all media,
	CD, vinyl, tape, VCR recording, etc.  Since a CD is digital by
	default, the master will be a "D" always.  With the digital tape
	decks, the mastering could be "A" or "D".  
							-- Geoff

	P.S.  What about digital LPs?

The letters refer to the original recording, the mix-down master, and the
final distribution medium.  Hence for CDs, the third letter is always "D".
A digital LP would be designated DDA.  Frequently,  original analog material
is re-mastered, using digital signal processing techniques to attempt to
eliminate some of the tape artifacts.  In that case,  the CD should be marked
ADD.  This is true even if the original analog material was already
mixed/mastered. 

Here's how Digital Audio describes the code:

	The code represents a standard proposed by the Society of
	Professional Audio Recording Studios (SPARS), which many
	record labels have adopted.

	The first letter identifies the nature (analog or digital)
	of the recorder originally used in the recording process.
	The second and third letters pertain to recorders that
	the music was mixed to and mastered to, respectively.

	For example, a disc with an "ADD" code would indicate an
	original analog recording, mixed and mastered to digital
	recorders.

I have noticed some London recordings coming out with the designation
ADRM. This is not supposed to be a SPARS code, they put it in the upper
left at an angle, where they put the words "digitally recorded" on their
digital albums. I could not find anywhere on the album exactly what ADRM
stood for, but from the description, I am guessing Analog Digitally
ReMastered. In other words, ADD in the SPARS code. Does anyone know if
this is correct? The albums are all reissues of things that were recorded
in analog. Does anyone know if remixing was done? i.e. are they AAD or
ADD?

re:.8,.9

As Steve pointed out in .10 (and I pointed out earlier), the last character
in the SPARS code does *not* refer to the medium, but the type of recorder
used to make the master tape. This is the *tape* master, not the *disc*
master, so it can either be analog or digital.
	If you don't believe me, try reading the explanation of the SPARS
code that comes with many CD's.

re:.11

First, digital remastering only guarantees an AAD disc; the recording would
have to be digitally remixed to get an ADD code.

The only London CD I have currently is OUT OF OUR HEADS by the Rolling
Stones. It has a "Digitally Remastered" banner in the upper corner, but
an AAD code on the disc, which indicates that a remix was not done.

--- jerry

Now here's a challenge.  I just purchsed the RCA CD of Glenn Miller's music.
On the back of the box was the following disclaimer


"While every attempt has been made to reproduce these tracks to the highest
quality, it should be remembred magnetic tape had not been invented at the
time of the original sessions. Therefore, some original surface noise remains"

re:.13

Funny you should mention that. I just happened to notice that disclaimer
this morning when looking at that CD in a store. I found it amusing.

--- jerry

re.13 & 14:

Well, I bought that Glenn Miller disk and (fortunately!) it had a
physical problem in one spot and I was able to return it.  The
NOISE on that disk was INTOLERABLE!  I've got 15 year old LP's
of some of his music that is far better.  

					- John

I was looking at a new Kitaro disk last night.  On the front it said
"digitally mastered" in prominent letters.  The back of the package was
covered with an explanation (in 4 languages) of what the 3-letter codes
meant.  So I turned the package around again and looked for the code.
Ah, there it is down in the corner: "AAD".

RE: .16

Yup.  It was the ambiguity of, and abuse of, the phrase "digitally mastered"
that prompted the 3-letter codes in the first place.  The Kitaro disc is
a case in point.

--PSW