All information in these pages is copyright (c) 1989-2003 by Roger Nichols.
All rights reserved. Permission for personal reference only, and may not
be reproduced by any method without written permission.
DDD vs DDD-DDD
by Roger Nichols
Have you ever really figured out what the little "DDD" label on
the CD booklet is supposed to mean? Well, originally the first "D"
was to designate whether the original multi-track machine was digital "D"
or analog "A". The middle "D" was for mix-down to a
digital machine, while an "A" in the middle was for mix-down to
an analog machine. The final letter was for the process used to master the
CD itself. The record companies thought that since a CD is always digital,
that the last letter has to be "D". Well, wrong again zero-one
breath.
The last letter in the three-letter identifier is for the process through
which the final mix goes on its way to the CD master. If you play back your
digital tape through an analog mastering console on its way to the Sony
1630 CD mastering machine then the last letter should be "A".
If you play back your digital tape in the digital domain through a digital
console and then to the 1630, having never gone through an analog conversion,
then the last letter should be "D". Also, if you mixed to analog
tape but mastered through a digital console, (converting to digital before
the console instead of after) the last letter should be "D".
With this method used correctly, the choices should be:
Multi-track Machine Mix Machine Mastering Console
A=Analog A=Analog A=Analog
D=Digital D=Digital D=Digital
This means that the Ricki Lee Jones album and the Michael Franks album that
Walter and I recorded should have been labeled "DDA". We recorded
the album on digital multi-track machines and mixed it to the Mitsubishi
X-86HS at the 96kHz sample rate. When it came time to master these albums
we were faced with a choice. The digital output of the X-86HS is 48kHz,
not 96kHz, thereby giving up the extra resolution available because of the
higher sample rate. Using the analog output of the machine means that the
audio passes through two extra conversions, once through the D to A convertors
of the X-86HS and another through the A to D convertors of the Sony 1630.
We played the tapes back both ways, and came to the conclusion that the
music sounded better when we used the analog outputs and the analog mastering
console for any final adjustments. This method of producing albums; digital
multi-track, digital mix machine and analog mastering console would mean
that we should have labeled the CDs "DDA". The record company
wouldn't do it. They said that since the CD was digital they were going
to make it "DDD". Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
"DDD-DDD"
So what are we going to do now that there are totally digital consoles?
What will we do when there are digital microphones? If the three-letter
code is for the benefit of the consumer who apparently cares about the digital-analog
family tree of the recording process, then shouldn't we start including
the extra letters at least as place holders for the new technology?
The chain should be; "Mics", "Recording console", "Multi-track",
"Mixing console", "Mix machine", "Mastering console".
This means that the Ricki Lee Jones album would be "AAD-ADA".
The only two digital domain links in this chain would be the multi-track
machine and the mix machine. Everything else was analog; the microphones,
the recording console and the mixing console. Yamaha did some recordings
of Michael Ruff using their DMR-8 digital eight-track with built-in digital
domain console. The only time any of the signals were analog was at the
microphones. This album would be labeled "ADD-DDD". The console
during both recording and mixing would be digital.
The only thing left to figure out is what to do if mixed modes are used
during an album. What happens if some tunes are recorded on analog machines
and other tunes are recorded on digital machines? How about mixing some
tunes to digital and others to analog? Maybe some cuts sounded better playing
back through the analog convertors of the digital machine while others were
transferred through the digital mastering console? What happens when you
lock up two multi-tracks, one digital and one analog? Many artists like
to cut basic tracks on two-inch 16 track machines and then do all the other
recording digitally. Maybe the "As" and "Ds" could be
different colors depending on the mixture of analog or digital, or how about
upper case versus lower case letters?
I think the Donald Fagen album, when it gets done, must be labeled "AD-Ad-ddDaD-Ad-D-D"
All the microphones were analog, sorry to say, although some sounds were
created digitally in samplers and synthesizers and transferred to the multi-track
directly in the digital domain. The console for recording was analog most
of the time, but we did combine digital outputs from sampling machines through
digital consoles on the way to the multi-track. We also pre-mixed tracks
through digital mixers back to the multi-track. The multi-tracks were always
digital. We did, however use all of them at one time or another. Most of
the time we transferred data from one to the other in the digital domain.
Every so often we would have to make the transfer of a track through the
digital convertors so the signal was actually analog for 20 microseconds.
During the mixing stages the console will probably be analog, although by
the time we get ready to mix there may only be digital consoles. The mix
machine will most definitely be digital. The mastering console will also
be digital. We are going to start using the new labeling on our albums.
If you have any additions or comments please let me know.
I have to go now, Donald just said that he though that the optical transfer
between the two digital machines sounds better with the lights off in the
control room. I wonder if the deli around the corner still has any of that
hemlock soda left.
Return to EQ index