Tim-I know you know better than to say something this stupid and I hope you are kidding. I know that you know that I was referring to the all of the Beatles CDs when they were first released around 1986. Of course the Beatles didn't make any digital recordings, but their master tapes sure were converted to digital files and made into CDs.
Yeah, I was just fooling around. What's truly amusing and has been revisited in this thread, is the fact that "Brothers in Arms," an audiophile touchstone for many, was an early DDD. You can like or dislike Brothers in Arms; it's a bit lush for my tastes. But all the things early digital gets accused of on audiophile forums - harsh, edgy, fatigueing, brittle, analytical, yadayada: It is none of those. Not even close. Warm, expansive, rich...lush...I think I already said that. Of course it had Knopfler and Neil Dorfsman, and on its way to a 24-track digital Sony, Brother in Arms went through a Neve 8078. That certainly didn't hurt. As memory serves, it even sounded good on vinyl.
The point is that it wasn't early digital recording and reproduction technology that sucked. It was early digital recording and reproduction executionthat sucked. If anything demonstrates that it is B i A. Though there are many jazz, classical and new age recordings that demonstrate it as well.
Tim