Sugar, I rarely buy new classical performances because of the wealth of excellent and inexpensive back catalog remasters, but the few I have purchased have all been DDD recordings. I have commented before that Decca "legends" EMI "recordings of the century" RCA "living stereo" and other CD remastered series have stunning sound, they really know what they are doing now, and at mid price and lower I kick myself for all the money I wasted in the 80s buying full price inferior versions of these remasters. These are the best of times for classical audiophiles.......Sam
ADD Analog to Digital best for Classical
We all have the perpetual debate of whether Analog as in LPs is better then digital. I have found that most of my favorite classical recordings have the code "ADD" on the cover. For those not familliar with the codes on the CD cover, the A on the left means it was recorded using analog equipment. It was mixed using digital equipment (the D in the middle) and the final product is also digital (the D on the right). This is very common with historic recording reissues since they came before digital technology. I have now discovered to my surprise that many of my favorite new classical CD recordings that were recorded during the last 10 years are also ADD. Many of these are on the EMI label. They sound more natural (analog ??) than a pure digital CD. I assume it is easier to make a pure digital recording since the master material does not have to be converted to digital like an analog master does. I wonder if EMI and some other labels are making analog masters on purpose because they like how they sound also. Even analog recording equipment is better than 20 years ago when digital first arrived. So why not use it. What are the thoughts and experiences of other classical lovers out there ???
3 responses Add your response