Every vinyl to CD re-release I've gotten from Deutsche Grammophon likewise is coded ADD. In both classical and jazz, I have a gut feeling that digital remixing involves a little bit more effort and care than AAD. Maybe there are more opportunities for 'enhancement' with a digital mixer. It could be that by going back one more step to the unmixed masters the engineer has more 'there' there to start with. Either way, when I'm selecting a CD to play, and I am reminded by the label that it's ADD, a little smile crosses my face. I know then it's gonna have a little extra kick or intimacy recording wise. Cool post Sugarbrie!
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 ???