When did albums start having a full digital workflow start to finish? (Without a digital to analogue to digital conversion during the mixing)

[Mr. Afternoon]

I have a few LPs that indicate they were digitally recorded, but obviously they are analog media. I don’t recall that there was any discussion of clock rate or bit depth on those discs.

I have many optical discs that are AAD, because they are digital distributions of an analog recording and mix.

I don’t recall seeing any DAD indicators, but of course, it’s possible. There are producers who feel that a pass through analog tape adds something desirable to the finished product. YMMV. Old multitrack session tapes could certainly be used in an ADD distribution.

What was the first DDD? I have no idea.

Michael Jackson's Dangerous had TWO SPARS codes on the OG CD, IIRC. AAD and DAD, depending on the track.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Are we considering albums recorded direct to 2-channel? Because I think some classical ones were made in the 70s...

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Not saying anything is a lie - it's a different interpretation of what was happening at the time - this is all about the mixing console situation.

If it can be proved that the Digital Multitrack was connected directly to a digital mixing desk and then mixed down to a digital (DAT?) tape - then yes that would be a truly digital workflow.

But 1981??

Here ya go.

https://www.hifinews.com/content/donald-fagen-nightfly-sidebar-production-notes

Production Notes
The Nightfly was recorded and mixed entirely on 3M Digital 32-track and four-track machines at Village Recorders in Los Angeles, and at Soundworks and Automated Sound in New York. Yet Donald Fagen had begun working with digital systems earlier than 1982.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Here ya go.

https://www.hifinews.com/content/donald-fagen-nightfly-sidebar-production-notes

Production Notes
The Nightfly was recorded and mixed entirely on 3M Digital 32-track and four-track machines at Village Recorders in Los Angeles, and at Soundworks and Automated Sound in New York. Yet Donald Fagen had begun working with digital systems earlier than 1982.

It still doesn't say what the mixing console format was - when I first worked with Digital tape machines they still had A-D and D-A converters - I don't recall mixing consoles having digital inputs until much later - or even the digital tape machines having digital outputs originally!!!

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Incidentally - the first album I was involved with that was designated DDD was 'Presto' by Rush.

Recorded onto a Mitsubishi 32 track digital machine and mixed onto DAT.

But recorded and mixed using SSL analog consoles.

I think the first DDD CD I owned for my very first CD player was 'Security' by Peter Gabriel. That was definitely mixed on an analog console.

Yes I suspect the definitions have altered over the years - but these are facts.


below - Presto notes from Discogs

 

[KG10]

Incidentally - the first album I was involved with that was designated DDD was 'Presto' by Rush.

Recorded onto a Mitsubishi 32 track digital machine and mixed onto DAT.

But recorded and mixed using SSL analog consoles.

I think the first DDD CD I owned for my very first CD player was 'Security' by Peter Gabriel. That was definitely mixed on an analog console.

Yes I suspect the definitions have altered over the years - but these are facts.

Did you hear much difference between the multi tracks and the stereo master from the conversion from digital to analogue to digital?

Also was the dat master 44.1k or 48k?

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Did you hear much difference between the multi tracks and the stereo master from the conversion from digital to analogue to digital?

Also was the dat master 44.1k or 48k?

It just sounded cleaner and more accurate to the original sources than the previous analog tape recordings. Good AD and DA converters. but all 16 bit.

DAT was 44.1k and 16 bit of course.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong - just embracing latest technology at the time.

Oh - and just to add to the story - the DAT tapes would have been passed back through analog outboard kit in the mastering process before being digitised again for CD!!

 

[KG10]

It just sounded cleaner and more accurate to the original sources than the previous analog tape recordings. Good AD and DA converters. but all 16 bit.

DAT was 44.1k and 16 bit of course.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong - just embracing latest technology at the time.

Oh - and just to add to the story - the DAT tapes would have been passed back through analog outboard kit in the mastering process before being digitised again for CD!!

For the first part wore you talking about how the digital mutitracks sounded or how digital stereo masters compared to analogue ones?

I expect professional grade AD DA converters would have sounded much better than consumer ones at the time. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they even rival todays ones too.

As for this:


"Oh - and just to add to the story - the DAT tapes would have been passed back through analog outboard kit in the mastering process before being digitised again for CD!!"

Didn't the dat decks have digital out or was the mastering process also in the analogue domain?

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

For the first part wore you talking about how the digital mutitracks sounded or how digital stereo masters compared to analogue ones?

I expect professional grade AD DA converters would have sounded much better than consumer ones at the time. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they even rival todays ones too.

As for this:


"Oh - and just to add to the story - the DAT tapes would have been passed back through analog outboard kit in the mastering process before being digitised again for CD!!"

Didn't the dat decks have digital out or was the mastering process also in the analogue domain?

That is my point - back then (and even these days) mastering engineers trust their analog outboard processing (and veeery expensive!) devices!!

My point has just been that the original DDD label was purely referencing the physical recording formats - not the actual recording and mixing processes.

 

[KG10]

That is my point - back then (and even these days) mastering engineers trust their analog outboard processing (and veeery expensive!) devices!!

My point has just been that the original DDD label was purely referencing the physical recording formats - not the actual recording and mixing processes.

Ah ok

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

I expect professional grade AD DA converters would have sounded much better than consumer ones at the time. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they even rival todays ones too.

Yes they were all high grade Apogee converters - smooth and natural...... (and expensive!!)

 

[KG10]

Yes they were all high grade Apogee converters - smooth and natural...... (and expensive!!)

Forgot to ask

Was the digital multitrack recorded at 44.1k or 48k?

 

[DuncanS]

Incidentally - the first album I was involved with that was designated DDD was 'Presto' by Rush.

Recorded onto a Mitsubishi 32 track digital machine and mixed onto DAT.

But recorded and mixed using SSL analog consoles.

I think the first DDD CD I owned for my very first CD player was 'Security' by Peter Gabriel. That was definitely mixed on an analog console.

Yes I suspect the definitions have altered over the years - but these are facts.

If I remember correctly the SSL desks (amazing and expensive bits of kit) had compressors which were quite difficult to get out of the signal path - I might be wrong, it was 30+ years ago! I was doing my PhD and needed to earn some money so I ended up going up to London to work in a studio for a few weeks as their 'boffin' was going on holiday and they needed 'cover'. In another twist I was designing in Solid State Music mic pre-amp ICs into my PhD project which I believe were also used on the very same SSL desk the studio was having fitted.

 

[kfbkfb]

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/A...g-Engineer/80s/Recording-1985-02.pdf#page=124
^^^
Neve Digital Sound Processing (DSP) consoles...


https://www.discogs.com/release/6293310-Byron-Olson-Orchestra-Manhattan-Digital-Broadway
(I bought this album [probably read about it in Digital Audio mag]. the brass instruments on song 7 are very impressive sounding, I plan to listen to this CD in fake surround soon [and will report on how it sound in the fake... thread])


Kirk Bayne

 

[LuvMyQuad]

That is my point - back then (and even these days) mastering engineers trust their analog outboard processing (and veeery expensive!) devices!!

My point has just been that the original DDD label was purely referencing the physical recording formats - not the actual recording and mixing processes.

Got it. I didn't know that.

 

[Quadmon]

I have a few LPs that indicate they were digitally recorded, but obviously they are analog media. I don’t recall that there was any discussion of clock rate or bit depth on those discs.

I have many optical discs that are AAD, because they are digital distributions of an analog recording and mix.

I don’t recall seeing any DAD indicators, but of course, it’s possible. There are producers who feel that a pass through analog tape adds something desirable to the finished product. YMMV. Old multitrack session tapes could certainly be used in an ADD distribution.

What was the first DDD? I have no idea.

I have a few LPs that indicate they were digitally recorded, but obviously they are analog media. I don’t recall that there was any discussion of clock rate or bit depth on those discs.

I have many optical discs that are AAD, because they are digital distributions of an analog recording and mix.

I don’t recall seeing any DAD indicators, but of course, it’s possible. There are producers who feel that a pass through analog tape adds something desirable to the finished product. YMMV. Old multitrack session tapes could certainly be used in an ADD distribution.

What was the first DDD? I have no idea.

I know this is one of the first, if not THE first.

 

[Quadmon]

I know this is one of the first, if not THE first.

Better pic

 

[knifeman]

I agree with @IMachine.
I remember a big deal being made out of Brother's In Arms being the first DDD when it was released

But when I Googled the question, "what was the first DDD cd"

September 5, 1982: Peter Gabriel releases his fourth studio album (titled Security in North America and Peter Gabriel IV elsewhere). When released on CD in October 1984 it becomes the first full-digital DDD release. It was recorded on Sony's Mobile One digital studio and mixed to a Sony PCM-1610.

That's the one I thought of when I saw this thread. The label wasn't shy about advertising it either; my copy has a diagonal band on the cover insert saying "full digital recording".

 

[seoman27]

I had 'A secret wish' in mind of Propaganda (1985)
Trevor Horn must be involved anyways

 

[lukpac]

Far be it from me to debate a music insider, but when I read this explanation, it seems pretty clear that DDD means a full digital path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code

Not at all. From the article:

"The main limitation of the code is that it only covers the type of tape recorder used, not taking into account other equipment used in the production of the recording. For example, during the mixing stage (the middle letter in the code) many DDD recordings may have actually been converted from digital to analog, mixed on an analog mixing console, but converted back to digital and digitally recorded, thus earning it a D in the relevant part of the code. In addition to this, many recordings have effects or parts of different recordings added on to them, creating more confusion for the code."

And note the letters refer to the type of recorder used, not the entire production chain.

To add further ambiguity, the middle letter refers to "mixing/editing". And those might not be the same. A good example is Matthew Sweet's Girlfriend. It's listed as ADD, which would imply mixing to digital. However, it was actually mixed to analog; it seems that the middle D referred to editing, such as the fade-up at the start of the title track, which isn't present on the mix. AADD?

There's a good reason SPARS codes were finally dropped.