Early CDs were labeled as to the processes used, a 3 letter code As and Ds, so:
AAD == Analog recording, Analog mastering, Digital media
ADD == Analog recording, Digitally re-mastered, Digital Media
DDD == Digital recording, Digitally re-mastered, Digital Media
This is known as a SPARS Code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_code
Your dad's friends should have imported from Japan --- they were big on Jazz, and a lot of my Jazz CDs have spines labeled in Japanese on one side and English on the other.
Close, but not quite.
The first letter was the recorder used for initial recording, say a Studer A800 as an example of an analog multitrack or DASH as an example of a digital one).
The second letter was the recorder for the mixdown, i.e. usually some 2-channel system like an analog ATR-102 or Studer A80 or a digital DAT.
The third letter was the recorder for the master, which for CD by definition was always digital. In the early days usually a Sony U-matic, which funnily enough was an analog video tape format which got reused for digital audio (and is the reason for the odd 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the CD).
Edit:
The code was actually always considered a bit meaningless.
For example, you could record on a digital DASH, but mix on an analog SSL console and print the mix to a digital recorder. That would have been a DDD CD.
On the other hand, you could record on an analog A820, mix on a digital Studer desk, print the mix on an analog A80 and that would have been a AAD CD.
So, two codes indicating "pure" digital or "pure" analog, even though both processes used both technologies.
Or record on a ADAT and mix on a Yamaha 02/R, which would have been DDD but probably sounded worse than the AAD recorded on a Studer analog tape ;)
> Sony U-matic
3/4" tape and was the only tape format that had the take up reel on the left.
Late 80s or early 90s there was also a DAD type, which often sounded really good.
From that Wiki link-
In practice, DAD was very rare, as many companies (especially the well-known classical music labels) used digital tape recorders (which were not prohibitively more expensive than analog tape recorders) during the editing or mixing stage.
I don't know if I have such a CD --- do you have an example which is noted as sound markedly better than other editions? (I'd especially be interested in a DAD disc which sounds better than an updated DDD disc)
My CDs are in storage, and I never did an A/B comparison with any later remasters.
Why did you write "re-mastered" instead of simply "mastered" for ADD/DDD?
Because most of my CDs are older and had previously been released as pure analog, so that's how I think of them, and that's where my experience is --- fair point though, putting parentheses around (re-) would have been better.