Download all soundwaves and frequency spectrums pics here: www.dropbox.com/sh/tem1vxrdza8lbgt/AAAb_ZQxXPaICmPleuhzT41ka?dl=0 To download the high-res rips check the video description above!
Yes, much better this time with the level matching. I also agree that in this comparison the vinyl did have that something special that made it sound a little more musical than the high-res digital master.
After listening carefully with my trusty high-res headphones (I really like them) I found vinyl to be the best. It looks more dynamical, and the drums seems to be more punchy. Love your videos, keep on with them!
Very interesting. I honestly didn't expect to hear much of a difference between the vinyl and the hi-res file, but I have to agree the vinyl sound MUCH better to me. I put them side by side and the vinyl version sounds noticeable more dynamic and detailed. In the intro I could pick out the acoustic guitar strums easily on the vinyl version, but in the high-res it sounded a bit muffled due to lack of dynamics. The separation of the instruments simple sounds more natural on the vinyl version. I'm personally not to concerned about the frequency range, because I honestly can't hear any difference between the CD version and the 96Khz file and my hearing doesn't go much beyond 16 Khz anyway. But It does indeed seem that they used a different master for the vinyl version, as it is noticeable less brick-walled sounding. The cassette versions both sounded less accurate and detailed than the digital versions, and certainly less detailed as the vinyl.
Considering you propension/admiration for digital this comment does you honor! I would like to add that it is true, the high-res version in this case is not that different from the CD but in other cases the difference is night and day. A strong manipulation of the file probably impoverished the final result.
@ANA[DIA]LOG Actually I'm a fan of analog recordings :) But I do always try to be as free from bias as I can (nobody is truly free of bias of course). So if I can't hear a difference between a HiRess file and a CD or between vinyl and CD etc, I will just call it as it is for me. In some cases I find that CDs (particularly if the source was analog tape) sound wonderful. But in other cases they sounds like crap :D But it's the same really with other formats like vinyl. Sometimes it sounds just outstanding, but other times it's riddled with problems. Ah well, it keeps it interesting. I hope you have a nice night, and Happy New Year!
I bet nobody can hear the difference between high res and cd quality.. if so one has to prove it in double blind test. And always with a cd quality copy that is made of the high res file. I would love to see an honest test! If you can do that I would be blown away!!
I agree the vinyl is the most accurate sounding I think and then after that I prefer the metal tape copy. Maybe a bit more punchier sounding that the vinyl.
I only really noticed the drums really kick in on the vinyl which seemed to have more punch and sound the most natural to me. Definitely prefer the vinyl version. Thanks for doing another comparison vid. 🎶🔊🙂
I guess they don't hear our complaints about the "loudness wars"! I guess they don't care! Unfortunate! I agree about the vinyl, it's the best for me! Maybe the drop off has something to do with the natural "surface noise" of the vinyl!
The Dynamic Range database shows the digital versions with a DR of 6 and the vinyl at 10. The latter is not ideal but is sufficiently better than the digital DR to be audible even through UA-cam played to my computer speakers. I have only listened to the hires version on Tidal and find the sound bombastic, which is typical of many recent highly compressed albums from Beck, Sleater Kinney, Bruce Springsteen, Bon Iver etc. But thanks for the heads up and will definitely now check out the vinyl version.
I am glad to hear that but recently that system was criticized and I am not that sure that we are seeing the true dynamic range...measuring analog media with digital software seems to be inaccurate...I will investigate this in the future! Here is a video on the issue: ua-cam.com/video/n-AE9dL5FG8/v-deo.html
@@anadialog I watched the video you mentioned. I can see what the gentleman means, however many of today's digital re-issues are definitely brickwalled to the original analogue vinyl records. I only started buying original vinyls because of I can hear the crushing of the dynamics. One example was Voyage's Fly Away album 1978. I had it on cassette originally. Brought the Disco Recharge CD that came out in 2012. The CD hurt my ears, even when I turned down the volume. I then brought a decent 1980's Sony record deck and then brought an original vinyl version. Using the said dynamic meter, the vinyl got 15db vs the CD with 7db. By reducing the volume of the CD with my wave editor to same volume of the vinyl, I can see the tops of the peaks are all cut off. My ears didn't complain with the original 1978 vinyl. The CD makes great beer coasters :) Also someone here also mentioned vinyl reissues vs the original vinyl. I have the Who's Who Are You album. I brought the reissue first, it was a lot quieter than the original, so have increase the volume to listen to it, so the vinyl noise and crackles are more noticeable. If I can go back in time, I would tell my younger self to buy my music on vinyl not on cassette. I would be a lot happier guy now :)
Great video. It's hard to say which one has the best sound quality, despite the great vinyl and tape dynamics vs the scratchy digital highs. Have you ever seen a free vst plugin called SPAN by Voxengo? It could precisely show you the sharp cut on high frequencies and also the dynamics compression. You could easlily tell which media has more volume compression. I watched your video with the plugin monitoring the sound and found out that the CD has slightly more volume compression than the others, while the tape has the best dynamics. But unfortunately it also shows that youtube cut the high frequencies after 16kHz for your entire video. :/
Heard an interesting presentation from Mathias Boede at the Ascot 2019 Hi-Fi Show regarding the different sound of vinyl. It went like this, imagine a Seismograph recording an earthquake, if you look very closely at the peaks and troughs you will notice it takes a finite time to transition, cutting a vinyl master is similar. Apparently this 'smoothing/distortion' is responsible for the magic that makes vinyl more agreeable to the ear.
30 years ago he made a digital recording and converted it into several formats including cutting a lacquer with the aim of determining which was closest to the original. To his surprise vinyl sounded best but he had no idea why. Only recently when discussing this issue with the designer of the Spiral Groove did he realize what was happening. Direct metal recording for example are more cd like due to metal being used rather than lacquer due to the difference in cutting transition.
I like your videos but I'm unsure about the above 22KHz metric for judging audio. Great to see how much better that metal tape was than the retail one. Thanks for sharing
I listened to this on Qobuz a couple of weeks ago at 96/24 and I liked it. The cassette version seemed quieter (muffled?) - not as bright. I too have to go with the vinyl version. I'll take a vinyl over the other versions any day. I compared the files you uploaded and I could hear the difference even better. The vinyl sounds more natural, uncompressed, and mastered a bit better. The Hi-Res file sounds great, but I do hear the brick-walled compression. Why can't they just normalize them after they're mixed and leave the brick-wall compression out of the equation? At least this one isn't as bad as some I've seen.
Tell you tomorrow when my chord qutest dac should arrive 😁 rels have been setup and the new hiquphon tweeters installed, have a great 2020 thanks, Jim.
Why did you not do a graph of the LP dynamics? As you did for the download version. Because sometimes record labels do not compress (loudness) as much for the LP release as they do for the download release. An you said it your self that the LP felt more dynamical in your comments. I am a believer in that of course that not even the hires download is as good as it could be. And it as a final mastering steps the record label compress (ad loudness) for the hires and then release it to us. Therefore I do not believe that we get a high resolution copy from the recording session AND that is why the LP is not mastered form THAT hires compressed download, as you say! (yes the LP is mastered form a digital source but not from that compressed download) The record label has the uncompressed digital files and for the LP they don't need to compress/loudness that version when they do the mastering for the LP. So you see it is a pity that you did not investigated the compression/loudness level between the LP and the Hires. You could digitalize the LP and in the links in dr.loudness-war.info download MAAT DROffline software and measure for your self and see which one has the most dynamics. (But use the WHOLE track when doing so) Happy new year!
@Optimize Sorry for the late response! Here you can dowload all soundwaves and frequency spectrums: www.dropbox.com/sh/tem1vxrdza8lbgt/AAAb_ZQxXPaICmPleuhzT41ka?dl=0 The problem with the Dynamic Range DB is that MAYBE it is not so reliable. My doubts arise after I have see this video ( ua-cam.com/video/n-AE9dL5FG8/v-deo.html ) although I am not fully convinced. In fact, I will do a video in the future on this topic.
I love all the work you done here. We MUST though try these in our own systems at home on our own equipment. The results you have , with the greatest respect, are in your system . We may get different results -honest.
Absolutely true! Starting from the fact that all files here are digital...but again this is the only way to share and discuss this. Plus you can download the entire song for each version in the video description...that helps for a better understanding of the different versions.
Listened closely to the Vinyl and HiRes. Couldnt really tell a difference except that the vinyl is overall quieter. Doesnt seem more dynamic at all, did the audacity graphs show more dynamics after leveling?
In case anyone is curious, I downloaded both digital and the 45 and normalized the tracks in audacity to check the DB ranges, they are near identical except the digital is clipping in parts. So same db range as I can tell.
Hi imo the comparison must be first press vinyl, first press CD, and first press K7 toward Hi-Res audio. To "look" what 3 formats are near the Hi-Res audio (or master). Practically the vinyl record is a Hi-Res transfer aswell booth K7, therefore CD is clearly at a disadvantage.
The comparison is interesting ... I have listened to them several times and the hi.res file is the one I listen to most, according to vinyl. Beautiful piece, it sounds great. ...I'd like to know what you think of the remix of Pink Floyd "on the turning away"
@@anadialog to me the 1987 version sounds better , the new version has the bass overemphasized and sounds bloated. Maybe this is done to appeal to a broader audience... but i would like to know your take on the matter
Happy new year. Did you use the Dual tape deck (you mentioned in a recent episode) for the transfer onto cassette? Asking because that 40 kHz range is surprising. My Technics deck can deliver up to 17 kHz only.
Great comparison! Thank you! But what I don't understand, why is the CD cut at 22khz, when the format could reach 44khz? I checked on Wikipedia to fill my knowledge gap on the format (shame on me, I use CD's since 30 years or so and still do...), but I'm still puzzled. I found references to the Nyquist frequency, but still I don't really understand why a recorded 44.1khz signal has to be cut at about 22khz to be recorded on CD. Why can a CD not playback at 44khz? And why do these limitations not excist on records and cassettes? This fascinates me, I still have to learn a great deal about audio reproduction and recording. Thank you again for your great channel! I already learned a lot thanks to your videos!
Max. audio frequency is half the sampling frequency. You need at least two points for accurate reproduction, so all digital formats are brick wall LPFed at just under half of the sampling frequency. Otherwise you will get aliasing distortion. Analog formats don't need that, but their frequency response is still limited by the pick up devices and the material itself.
You think records and cassettes don't have limitations? First off, a commercial high speed duplicated cassette can't get much above 12kHz, and that's only if the playback machine's alignment is correct. As for records, the high frequency response depends so much on the cartridge, the preamp, the stylus condition, and even where the stylus is on the record. The inner grooves are far more limited in response and dynamics than the outer grooves. Most moving magnet cartridges drop like a rock above 20kHz, and I've yet to see anybody demonstrate that the "information" that's being shown above 20kHz on those spectrographs of vinyl playback is anything more than distortion artifacts.
@@johnstone7697 It's just that the roll-off of analog media is more smooth. If a cassette specifies a frequency response it doesn't mean there's no infornation above it, it's just more than 3db down. Anyways all of this is just splitting hairs. I like my records and my cassettes but I can also enjoy a good CD. I would never bother with high res because I can't hear a thing above ~17kHz. No chance. Not even at full volume.
@@johnstone7697 I've never said that! I referred to the information given in the video, were ANA[DIA]LOG showed the spectral analysis of the cassette recordings, that clearly went above 22khz. I was, as I've expressed in my comment, puzzled about the fact, that the cassette signal went above 22khz while the CD signal were cut off at that frequency. I asked why is that the case, because, again as I expressed in my comment, I didn't know the specifics about digital recording on CD in regards to the Nyquist theory. But clearly the UA-cam comment sections is no place to asked questions about specifics one does not know the answer to, since all-knowing characters like His Highness John Stone seem to be disturbed by those questions of interested simple people who don't have yet sufficient knowledge about the subject at hand. Now allow me to close my second comment with a quote from the movie Trading Places in wishing you: "Merry New Year!"
I listened to them via my iPhone ‘s headphone . Prerecorded cassette is the best for my ears. Sound is more naturel and made me live the times that album was recorded.
@@anadialog I understand there may be some differences in your room comparing these playing them on your gear but for me to listen to these comparisons on my little Logitech speakers sat in front of my computer doesn't tell me anything , really. If I were to buy this I may get a different pressing etc etc and my gear is different amp, speakers, set-up, curtains etc etc So I will not draw any conclusions that will be the same for me .Also I have certain copies of the same material on CD that are as good as the record and others that are better on Record . This is what I mean about too many variables to draw any conclusions from. that isn't to say it is a waste of time as many will draw conclusions. Thanks
here is a link to a screenshot of the LP, CD and Hi-res file as they look side by side in audacity. The LP is clearly the most dynamic af the three files - it is the on in the middle :-) Link to af screenshot: drive.google.com/open?id=1l8ALc6b3wYZGENoLm_Ie63wGG2tmxT1O
It is! Download the full song from the video description. It is the one that I purchased from Qobuz. No recapturing or anything...its the original WAV file. Ok, maybe you mean a more dynamic version...yes, I agree...
👍👍👏👏😎😎😎First of all I would like to wish you happy holidays I totally agree to record sounded the best II was the pre-recorded Factory cassette I did not like the CD at all and the high-res was okay very interesting and fun demonstration keep up the great work I cannot believe you have such a low subscription rate because you rock👍👍💪💪💪💪😎😎
The vinyl is definitely better than the rest, including the hi-res version. The image is better, and it is more detailed. The only explanation I have is that the 96khz pcm file is not the master file, it is derived from it by using some poor manipulation. The transfer to vinyl of the same common matter is definitively superior.
I think I was hearing the Dolby B pumping a bit on the prerecorded cassette. Ran across some Dolby tracking issues with some prerecorded tapes myself. Will give it a closer listen. Was anyone else hearing that? Dolby C is even worse when the tracking is off.
cassette tapes i know alot about them i wonder how they recorded them real time or tape loop at high speed or a digi dump at high speed i just think we a playing good money out on out dated tec i sold all my records because some one's got to deal with them when i drop dead love your video's
Thanks Bob! That is an excellent question...I was wondering the same thing. Since they also used Dolby, vary rare for new recordings, I suspect someone brought some old gear and high-speed dubbed a bunch of tapes for the special release debut.
I rated the 5 samples mainly on the clarity of Roger Daltrey's voice. Apart from High Res. and CD, it was muffled by comparison. 1.High Res. 2.CD 3.Vinyl. 4.Metal Cassette. 5.Pre-recorded Cassette. I was scratching my head over the file sizes of the samples because the Vinyl and Tapes at around 110MB were larger than the CD at 33.8MB. I guess you recorded the vinyl and tapes at higher than CD quality.
Possibly, there's an analog original. Probably not. The way a record should be made is there to be an analog mastertape: a half-inch type I tape, used unidirectionally with 30 IPS and Dolby A. Then a master record to be cut from the mastertape. That master record is never to be played back, never to be copied mechanically, only to be copied optically. It shall be copied optically repeatedly, the copies to be called acetates. Such acetates are then to be coated with silver and galvanized to get a metal plate. And the mastertape should be digitized into a high-res file to be used for the digital releases. Or that the digital file and the tape are produced simultaneously. If it's made that way, that could make the vinyl to sound best among the formats. A slip of tongue in 13:48. You meant "coating". The point of type IV is that it's not oxidized. Your logo is really black-and-white. It isn't greyscale, it's black-and-white.
Sir, thank you (as always) for such amazing comparison! Happy New Year! On my personal taste... here I can enjoy only ONE record - from pre-recorded cassette. It sounds 3 dimensional with strong sound stage and perfect instruments separation! The rest of records are so-so... except CD version that is horrible, disgusting sound.
hello!!!! really hope you to make a video about new reissue vinyl pop and noise probelm!!!!is crazy!!!!!!! huge problem!!!!! hope you can see this!!!!!!!!!!
The nerdier you get the better you are! (Se posso darti un consiglio usa occhiali con un antiriflesso diverso da questo trattamento, che immagino sia quello per evitare danni alla vista da schermi pc. Provoca questi sgradevoli effetti bluastri)
@@arturogalvanmd provate in passato, un incubo e poi sono anche astigmatico da un occhio e dunque non sarei pienamente 'coperto'...al prossimo giro! ;-)
Vinyl fans fall into two camps: 1. Love the physical beauty of the medium and artwork, and value the historic importance of the medium. 2. Actually believe the ultra high levels of distortion and noise make it a better medium for music playback. For the second group, I have some suggestions. Solid rubber tires for your cars. CRT televisions. Coal.
@Peter Yianilos I'm afraid that's too much of a simplification. There is a bit more to it than that. Although vinyl from a technical specs point of view is inferior to digital formats, including even CD, it doesn't automatically mean that the sound of a certain album is always inferior on vinyl. You have to take in consideration the effects a good or bad mastering can have. In some cases the mastering on CD / digital file is just shit with brick-walled dynamics. It can then happen that the vinyl version is done from a different master and sound superior to the digital formats that are available. In addition, in the recording and playback of sound, there are many components that can 'color' the sound. Just because you might listen to a digital source, doesn't mean you are hearing the 'pure sound' as it sounded to the engineers in the studio. All other components in your playback equipment will color the sound in certain ways. Vinyl playback and everything that's involved with it, is just another factor, but certainly not the only determining one.
Hi, ANA[DIA]LOG. Despite the sonic qualities (or anti-qualities) of the album, no matter if analog or digital, in my youth I had to suffer the horrible movie "Tommy" (normal: the infame Ken Russell was the director and Townshend the leading "actor") and The Who became something like crap ever after for me. "Quadrophenia" was almost worse and, thankfully, I don't remember the criminals who were responsible of the anti-musical, anti-cinematographic nonsense. Personally, I detest ALL those late seventies- early eighties infatuated attempts of "grandeur" in rock music that intended to be something like a kind of "aggiornatta Opera". I include in this the terrible Pink Floyd's "The Wall", no matter if I recognize the top class of Richard Williams, the responsible of the animated parts, and who later I had the luck and honor to know and work with.
So vinyl sounds better, and people are assessing it via digital means Hmmm? Does this mean the character is in the distortion, as you know then it wouldn't be a carbon copy of the master tape, bet the vinyl was cut from a digital master?
This means that the analog version has added indeed distortion and that in presence the difference is even more clear. Obviously this is all digitally sourced.
I would like to shed some light on your observations and presentation. I also commend your choice of music for this as The Who made fantastic recordings throughout their career. I began my musical career in the late 1960s and my recording career in the late 1970s - continuing to this day. My work began in the heyday of analog tape, progressing rapidly from 8 to 16 to 24 track recorders using Dolby type A, then type SR noise reduction. I mixed many records to 1/2” tape in stereo with Dolby SR which was a revelation, sonically speaking, but a royal pain in the ass technically. This machinery needed so much maintenance, calibration and care that it impeded the much more important creativity part of making those very recordings. Much worse still was the fragility of the tapes themselves. New manufacturing methods mandated by environmental laws created a disaster for analog tape about 1979. Tape made prior to that plays perfectly today while later tape must now be baked at 135 degrees F for days just to get it to play for a couple of hours to transfer the recording to a safe medium. That safe medium, by the way, is digital, which is vastly superior in every single way and impervious to loss. Digital recording freed musicians and producers in ways that could hardly be described. It made our work portable, reliable and long-lasting, and most importantly, an accurate reflection of our vision for the first time. In the early 80s I spent large sums of money shipping hundreds of pounds of tape around the world. For one project alone, the tape budget was $9,000 for recording, another $9,000 to make safety copies, and $5,000 for shipping of the originals, plus just short of $10,000 in studio time to make these copies - in 1981 dollars. Today this same project would require eight 4TB hard drives, with copying taking place unattended overnight. A few hundred dollars. This is just one of the many things that make content creators jump for joy about digital recording. Regarding your presentation, you use graphs showing decibels on a linear vertical scale which is neither representative of the way we hear nor of what we can hear. Everything to the right of 20kHz is meaningless to the human ear. Likewise everything below about - 80dB. So the shape of those tails to which you assign so much importance at the lower right side of your graphs is meaningless. It’s not “some” noise, it’s ALL noise. We capture this in 96kHz 24bit recordings for a reason that has nothing to do with being heard. The width (kHz) beyond 20kHz is a waste product, a purely technical result of the analog to digital conversion process. We don’t use this at all in music production. The lower half of the depth (dB) part is likewise a lot of never-to-be-heard data used to make the math more accurate in the part that we do hear so, though it is of technical interest, it does not represent music in any way. Like you said, it’s noise, and we remove it completely for release. You also speak of limiting as a pejorative, with a brief reference to dynamics and ‘loudness wars’. Do you know why you preferred the 45? Because it has the most aggressive use of compression and limiting of all the analog formats! Compression and limiting are artistic processes, not unfortunate errors, and like all art, can be done beautifully or horribly. They are our most valued tools, allowing us to focus a listener’s attention on the moments of our music that are important to us. The 45 forces our hand quite a bit but the fact you like the result is proof it can be done very well. You also mention ‘high definition microphones’. Microphones have been very high definition since the early 1950s. I hope you will be happy to know they have never been the weak link in the chain of recorded sound since then. Music is pure art, the issue of human imagination and skill, the true universal language, and my life would be empty without it. The recording of music is more art than technology, as is evidenced by the vastly different results we can obtain even from the same musician. The huge technological improvements allow us to share music, much of which was always transcendent, in a more accurate and convenient manner. Sorry for the very long post.
Hi Peter, Thanks for your input. Its great to learn about the experience from pros like you. I absolutely agree that tape, for those having to deal with it everyday was a pain in the but. In fact, I never claimed that analog should be reintroduced or that digital should be discarded. The are both amazing and both very useful in specific sectors. The convencience of digital is obviously outstanding and analog will never ever come close to that, as well as for the expense as you correctly reported. Nevertheless, I disagree with you on the rest and I will explain briefly why. First and most importantly, there is a world beyond 20Khz. Fortunately I finally made a video and demonstraded that what is beyond the so-called audible frequency, in the highs but also in the lows, are extremely important for a high fidelity reconstruction of the signal becuse we can perceive those frequencies and in some cases even hear them, in particular when they are in the form of harmonics. Here is a link to the vid: ua-cam.com/video/Btn572ZIC8k/v-deo.html I also have to reject your interpretation of vinyl mastering. The medium follows the RIAA curve and has specific characteristics to comply with. I also did a vid on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/mllu3p20wCE/v-deo.html Hence, there is no need to compress anything because the eq will do it automatically and the pre-phono will demphasize everything for a flat frequency response. For this reason the cut of the lacquer must have a different mastering otherwise the result will be dull and lifeless. There is certainly compression in analog media but in a different and more natural way than the artificial manipulations done to a digital file. Yes, I do not like limiters and compression because they are used to increase volume and reduce distortion because of that compression. The result is a very low dynamic sound, which is far from reality. If this is to obtain an effect, good for them, but unfortunately we all know that this is a standard procedure to acquire a high pumping volume in order to compete on playlists and portable devices. Nothing new under the sun, sadly. When I say "high quality mics" I obviuosly do not mean built with high quality materials etc. People who usually follow me know what I intended. But you are right, I did not use the correct word, which is resolution. I was trying to say that maybe they use high resolution mics, which means that they have an extended frequency response, i.e. >40Khz, as established by the Japan Audio Society. That way you capture the full spectrum of music with a higher fidelity as explained above. I do agree fully with your closing words!
So your preference is the Record, which means you like the flavored sound of your phone cartage and phone pre-amp over your DAC. Hum? Seems more like a case of GIGO. Also blows a big hole in your theory about needing to have the ability to reproduce signals well beyond 20KHz since the phone spectrum plot took a serious dive after about 16KHz. Hum? BTW - Its not Who its The Who.
How much love Chris! I do not care what is behind anything, even if it goes against what I said earlier. If something is better to my ears I must admit it. Obviously it all burns down to what gear you have. Considering that I am using high quality professional equipment I am pretty sure to have a good comparison from the two fronts. Yes, I can confirm that it would be better to have the whole range of frequencies...yes likening reality. It's pure logic, not a soccer team to root for. But we are facing something different. The vinyl has gone through a different mastering process where they got the best out of it even if there was a drop in the frequency range (22khz, not 16khz). But again who knows what we are looking at in the high res, maybe noise? I don't know, what I know is that the peaks of the sound wave are cut off creating a very compress sound. So even if we have a nice frequency response, if you compress it, equalize it and limit it then of course a different version with a better mastering with less frequency range will sound better. If I have a Ferrari it is not going to be one of the best cars out there if I use rapeseed oil instead of high octane petrol. Of course it's The Who, I even wrote it in the pic of the video. I have most of their albums. You did not understand my play of words. I said a fantastic album from, who? One of the most famous bands...blah blah blah....In fact I do say The Who after in the video....but no you had to close your comment with this sterile observation...
@@anadialog Your really think the original source is that good. Hum? With a lot of Rock & Roll, we really can't determine what the original source is supposed to sound like we can only assume. I mean, its not like listening to a Steinway piano recording. So your saying that a lot of extra production work went into making the vinyl and made it sound better than the 24 bit files? Hum? I would agree that 45RPM would help a lot but I can't imagine that a different re-mixed source was used for the vinyl, just the RIAA curve applied and minimal compression. The Who web site doesn't say anything, at least from what I could find. Please point me to the details.
None of the versions sounded great via this You Tube demo when playing them through my system but the 45rpm vinyl was the best, the digital high resolution 2nd, the cd version next closely followed by the type 4 metal cassette & last was the other cassette version. The musical clip didn't really hold my interest either. For me a better demo of a 45 rpm LP would have been of On Every Street by Dire Straits comparing it to the excellent cd version.
Your results are dictated by the quality of your playback equipment for each medium. You're an analogue guy so you have invested a lot more into analogue than digital, that's why you found vinyl the best, because you had the best system for it.
I understand you point of view but I don't agree. I have a start of the art player and state of the art DAC. I always invest as much as possible in anything because I love music and I also like high quality digital music.
I think It is, but not the best, I agree. The purpose is also to present the album and grasp the opportunity to confront a multiformat release, which is not easy to find.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
These comparison videos you make are my favorite.
Download all soundwaves and frequency spectrums pics here: www.dropbox.com/sh/tem1vxrdza8lbgt/AAAb_ZQxXPaICmPleuhzT41ka?dl=0
To download the high-res rips check the video description above!
Yes, much better this time with the level matching. I also agree that in this comparison the vinyl did have that something special that made it sound a little more musical than the high-res digital master.
After listening carefully with my trusty high-res headphones (I really like them) I found vinyl to be the best. It looks more dynamical, and the drums seems to be more
punchy.
Love your videos, keep on with them!
The vinyl seemed to have a little less air on top then the digital, but it sounded punchier and smoothed things just a touch.
Very interesting. I honestly didn't expect to hear much of a difference between the vinyl and the hi-res file, but I have to agree the vinyl sound MUCH better to me. I put them side by side and the vinyl version sounds noticeable more dynamic and detailed. In the intro I could pick out the acoustic guitar strums easily on the vinyl version, but in the high-res it sounded a bit muffled due to lack of dynamics. The separation of the instruments simple sounds more natural on the vinyl version.
I'm personally not to concerned about the frequency range, because I honestly can't hear any difference between the CD version and the 96Khz file and my hearing doesn't go much beyond 16 Khz anyway.
But It does indeed seem that they used a different master for the vinyl version, as it is noticeable less brick-walled sounding.
The cassette versions both sounded less accurate and detailed than the digital versions, and certainly less detailed as the vinyl.
Considering you propension/admiration for digital this comment does you honor! I would like to add that it is true, the high-res version in this case is not that different from the CD but in other cases the difference is night and day. A strong manipulation of the file probably impoverished the final result.
@ANA[DIA]LOG Actually I'm a fan of analog recordings :) But I do always try to be as free from bias as I can (nobody is truly free of bias of course). So if I can't hear a difference between a HiRess file and a CD or between vinyl and CD etc, I will just call it as it is for me.
In some cases I find that CDs (particularly if the source was analog tape) sound wonderful. But in other cases they sounds like crap :D
But it's the same really with other formats like vinyl. Sometimes it sounds just outstanding, but other times it's riddled with problems.
Ah well, it keeps it interesting.
I hope you have a nice night, and Happy New Year!
@@MacXpert74 happy new year!
I bet nobody can hear the difference between high res and cd quality.. if so one has to prove it in double blind test. And always with a cd quality copy that is made of the high res file. I would love to see an honest test! If you can do that I would be blown away!!
And if you can not, i’ll still love your videos 👍
Analog has something that that frequency response alone doesn’t show us. Excellent and informative comparison, thanks 🙏🏼
I agree! But a lot of people want numbers, so....
the metal cassette and the record sounded the best to me, great video. look forward to the next one .
happy new year,
jeff
Thanks Jeff! Happy New Year!
For me Vinyl and the precorded tape sounded the best
Nice to know they are making tapes with Dolby again
Hope I can get my hands on one
I agree the vinyl is the most accurate sounding I think and then after that I prefer the metal tape copy. Maybe a bit more punchier sounding that the vinyl.
True!
I only really noticed the drums really kick in on the vinyl which seemed to have more punch and sound the most natural to me. Definitely prefer the vinyl version.
Thanks for doing another comparison vid. 🎶🔊🙂
Thank you Nick!
I agree Vinyl is best. The least, if not no distortion,the individual instruments are more apparent.
Great video! My favourite was also the Vinyl, have a great week and keep spinning that vinyl!🤟
I guess they don't hear our complaints about the "loudness wars"! I guess they don't care! Unfortunate! I agree about the vinyl, it's the best for me! Maybe the drop off has something to do with the natural "surface noise" of the vinyl!
man you come up with such excellent ideas in comparing and discussing music. Great video.
I am in absolute AWE of your set up and collection. Always a pleasure watching you. Happy New Year Sir
Thanks Brian! Soon I am doing a new Room tour. Things changed a bit since last time! Happy New Year!
Hi, vinyl is IMO. the best. I think it's special masters for the 45rpm vinyl.
Have a happy new year!!
Happy New Year!
1 Vinyl
2 High-Res
3 Metal Tape Cassette
4 CD
5 Pre-recorded Cassette
The Dynamic Range database shows the digital versions with a DR of 6 and the vinyl at 10. The latter is not ideal but is sufficiently better than the digital DR to be audible even through UA-cam played to my computer speakers. I have only listened to the hires version on Tidal and find the sound bombastic, which is typical of many recent highly compressed albums from Beck, Sleater Kinney, Bruce Springsteen, Bon Iver etc. But thanks for the heads up and will definitely now check out the vinyl version.
I am glad to hear that but recently that system was criticized and I am not that sure that we are seeing the true dynamic range...measuring analog media with digital software seems to be inaccurate...I will investigate this in the future! Here is a video on the issue: ua-cam.com/video/n-AE9dL5FG8/v-deo.html
@@anadialog I watched the video you mentioned. I can see what the gentleman means, however many of today's digital re-issues are definitely brickwalled to the original analogue vinyl records. I only started buying original vinyls because of I can hear the crushing of the dynamics.
One example was Voyage's Fly Away album 1978. I had it on cassette originally. Brought the Disco Recharge CD that came out in 2012. The CD hurt my ears, even when I turned down the volume. I then brought a decent 1980's Sony record deck and then brought an original vinyl version. Using the said dynamic meter, the vinyl got 15db vs the CD with 7db. By reducing the volume of the CD with my wave editor to same volume of the vinyl, I can see the tops of the peaks are all cut off. My ears didn't complain with the original 1978 vinyl. The CD makes great beer coasters :)
Also someone here also mentioned vinyl reissues vs the original vinyl. I have the Who's Who Are You album. I brought the reissue first, it was a lot quieter than the original, so have increase the volume to listen to it, so the vinyl noise and crackles are more noticeable. If I can go back in time, I would tell my younger self to buy my music on vinyl not on cassette. I would be a lot happier guy now :)
Thanks for sharing that. A lot of experience and learned lessons there!
Great video. It's hard to say which one has the best sound quality, despite the great vinyl and tape dynamics vs the scratchy digital highs. Have you ever seen a free vst plugin called SPAN by Voxengo? It could precisely show you the sharp cut on high frequencies and also the dynamics compression. You could easlily tell which media has more volume compression. I watched your video with the plugin monitoring the sound and found out that the CD has slightly more volume compression than the others, while the tape has the best dynamics. But unfortunately it also shows that youtube cut the high frequencies after 16kHz for your entire video. :/
Heard an interesting presentation from Mathias Boede at the Ascot 2019 Hi-Fi Show regarding the different sound of vinyl. It went like this, imagine a Seismograph recording an earthquake, if you look very closely at the peaks and troughs you will notice it takes a finite time to transition, cutting a vinyl master is similar. Apparently this 'smoothing/distortion' is responsible for the magic that makes vinyl more agreeable to the ear.
Interesting...
30 years ago he made a digital recording and converted it into several formats including cutting a lacquer with the aim of determining which was closest to the original. To his surprise vinyl sounded best but he had no idea why. Only recently when discussing this issue with the designer of the Spiral Groove did he realize what was happening. Direct metal recording for example are more cd like due to metal being used rather than lacquer due to the difference in cutting transition.
Here's a earlier presentation from Mr Boede ua-cam.com/video/zaeugL-1QJo/v-deo.html
I like your videos but I'm unsure about the above 22KHz metric for judging audio. Great to see how much better that metal tape was than the retail one. Thanks for sharing
I listened to this on Qobuz a couple of weeks ago at 96/24 and I liked it. The cassette version seemed quieter (muffled?) - not as bright. I too have to go with the vinyl version. I'll take a vinyl over the other versions any day. I compared the files you uploaded and I could hear the difference even better. The vinyl sounds more natural, uncompressed, and mastered a bit better. The Hi-Res file sounds great, but I do hear the brick-walled compression. Why can't they just normalize them after they're mixed and leave the brick-wall compression out of the equation? At least this one isn't as bad as some I've seen.
True...I agree
Tell you tomorrow when my chord qutest dac should arrive 😁 rels have been setup and the new hiquphon tweeters installed, have a great 2020 thanks, Jim.
Wow! Sounds great! Have fun!
Why did you not do a graph of the LP dynamics? As you did for the download version.
Because sometimes record labels do not compress (loudness) as much for the LP release as they do for the download release.
An you said it your self that the LP felt more dynamical in your comments.
I am a believer in that of course that not even the hires download is as good as it could be. And it as a final mastering steps the record label compress (ad loudness) for the hires and then release it to us. Therefore I do not believe that we get a high resolution copy from the recording session AND that is why the LP is not mastered form THAT hires compressed download, as you say! (yes the LP is mastered form a digital source but not from that compressed download)
The record label has the uncompressed digital files and for the LP they don't need to compress/loudness that version when they do the mastering for the LP.
So you see it is a pity that you did not investigated the compression/loudness level between the LP and the Hires. You could digitalize the LP and in the links in dr.loudness-war.info download MAAT DROffline software and measure for your self and see which one has the most dynamics. (But use the WHOLE track when doing so)
Happy new year!
@Optimize Sorry for the late response! Here you can dowload all soundwaves and frequency spectrums:
www.dropbox.com/sh/tem1vxrdza8lbgt/AAAb_ZQxXPaICmPleuhzT41ka?dl=0
The problem with the Dynamic Range DB is that MAYBE it is not so reliable. My doubts arise after I have see this video ( ua-cam.com/video/n-AE9dL5FG8/v-deo.html ) although I am not fully convinced. In fact, I will do a video in the future on this topic.
I love all the work you done here. We MUST though try these in our own systems at home on our own equipment. The results you have , with the greatest respect, are in your system . We may get different results -honest.
Absolutely true! Starting from the fact that all files here are digital...but again this is the only way to share and discuss this. Plus you can download the entire song for each version in the video description...that helps for a better understanding of the different versions.
Listened closely to the Vinyl and HiRes. Couldnt really tell a difference except that the vinyl is overall quieter. Doesnt seem more dynamic at all, did the audacity graphs show more dynamics after leveling?
I believe that, after they all come from the same master! The vinyl capture did show more peaks...
@@anadialog Did you level both files before comparing peaks? Because the vinyl file was quieter and would show more of them if it wasnt equal.
In case anyone is curious, I downloaded both digital and the 45 and normalized the tracks in audacity to check the DB ranges, they are near identical except the digital is clipping in parts. So same db range as I can tell.
Hi imo the comparison must be first press vinyl, first press CD, and first press K7 toward Hi-Res audio. To "look" what 3 formats are near the Hi-Res audio (or master). Practically the vinyl record is a Hi-Res transfer aswell booth K7, therefore CD is clearly at a disadvantage.
The comparison is interesting ... I have listened to them several times and the hi.res file is the one I listen to most, according to vinyl. Beautiful piece, it sounds great.
...I'd like to know what you think of the remix of Pink Floyd "on the turning away"
I haven't heard it yet...good?
@@anadialog to me the 1987 version sounds better , the new version has the bass overemphasized and sounds bloated. Maybe this is done to appeal to a broader audience... but i would like to know your take on the matter
I prefer the CD version then the hi res,then the vinyl and the cassette.Maybe i have old ears,but i usually find the digital versions better.
No problem. I understand and respect that. That is also why I inserted all version. Each version has positive and negative characteristics.
Happy new year. Did you use the Dual tape deck (you mentioned in a recent episode) for the transfer onto cassette? Asking because that 40 kHz range is surprising. My Technics deck can deliver up to 17 kHz only.
Happy New Year Murat! No, I used my Nakamichi Dragon...I am sure lots of it is noise but the spectrum is rather round and mellow...
Great comparison! Thank you! But what I don't understand, why is the CD cut at 22khz, when the format could reach 44khz? I checked on Wikipedia to fill my knowledge gap on the format (shame on me, I use CD's since 30 years or so and still do...), but I'm still puzzled. I found references to the Nyquist frequency, but still I don't really understand why a recorded 44.1khz signal has to be cut at about 22khz to be recorded on CD. Why can a CD not playback at 44khz? And why do these limitations not excist on records and cassettes? This fascinates me, I still have to learn a great deal about audio reproduction and recording. Thank you again for your great channel! I already learned a lot thanks to your videos!
Max. audio frequency is half the sampling frequency. You need at least two points for accurate reproduction, so all digital formats are brick wall LPFed at just under half of the sampling frequency. Otherwise you will get aliasing distortion.
Analog formats don't need that, but their frequency response is still limited by the pick up devices and the material itself.
44.1Khz is the sampling rate. Following the Nyquist theory half of that is the maximum frequency range
You think records and cassettes don't have limitations? First off, a commercial high speed duplicated cassette can't get much above 12kHz, and that's only if the playback machine's alignment is correct. As for records, the high frequency response depends so much on the cartridge, the preamp, the stylus condition, and even where the stylus is on the record. The inner grooves are far more limited in response and dynamics than the outer grooves. Most moving magnet cartridges drop like a rock above 20kHz, and I've yet to see anybody demonstrate that the "information" that's being shown above 20kHz on those spectrographs of vinyl playback is anything more than distortion artifacts.
@@johnstone7697
It's just that the roll-off of analog media is more smooth. If a cassette specifies a frequency response it doesn't mean there's no infornation above it, it's just more than 3db down.
Anyways all of this is just splitting hairs. I like my records and my cassettes but I can also enjoy a good CD. I would never bother with high res because I can't hear a thing above ~17kHz. No chance. Not even at full volume.
@@johnstone7697 I've never said that! I referred to the information given in the video, were ANA[DIA]LOG showed the spectral analysis of the cassette recordings, that clearly went above 22khz. I was, as I've expressed in my comment, puzzled about the fact, that the cassette signal went above 22khz while the CD signal were cut off at that frequency. I asked why is that the case, because, again as I expressed in my comment, I didn't know the specifics about digital recording on CD in regards to the Nyquist theory. But clearly the UA-cam comment sections is no place to asked questions about specifics one does not know the answer to, since all-knowing characters like His Highness John Stone seem to be disturbed by those questions of interested simple people who don't have yet sufficient knowledge about the subject at hand. Now allow me to close my second comment with a quote from the movie Trading Places in wishing you: "Merry New Year!"
I listened to them via my iPhone ‘s headphone . Prerecorded cassette is the best for my ears. Sound is more naturel and made me live the times that album was recorded.
too many variables for me to understand
Ado, don't complain always...explain your point!
@@anadialog I understand there may be some differences in your room comparing these playing them on your gear but for me to listen to these comparisons on my little Logitech speakers sat in front of my computer doesn't tell me anything , really.
If I were to buy this I may get a different pressing etc etc and my gear is different amp, speakers, set-up, curtains etc etc
So I will not draw any conclusions that will be the same for me .Also I have certain copies of the same material on CD that are as good as the record and others that are better on Record . This is what I mean about too many variables to draw any conclusions from. that isn't to say it is a waste of time as many will draw conclusions. Thanks
here is a link to a screenshot of the LP, CD and Hi-res file as they look side by side in audacity. The LP is clearly the most dynamic af the three files - it is the on in the middle :-)
Link to af screenshot: drive.google.com/open?id=1l8ALc6b3wYZGENoLm_Ie63wGG2tmxT1O
I'd love a Hi-Res Full Dynamic Range version
It is! Download the full song from the video description. It is the one that I purchased from Qobuz. No recapturing or anything...its the original WAV file.
Ok, maybe you mean a more dynamic version...yes, I agree...
@@anadialog yes thats what I meant. without the brickwall
👍👍👏👏😎😎😎First of all I would like to wish you happy holidays I totally agree to record sounded the best II was the pre-recorded Factory cassette I did not like the CD at all and the high-res was okay very interesting and fun demonstration keep up the great work I cannot believe you have such a low subscription rate because you rock👍👍💪💪💪💪😎😎
Thanks so much Steve!
Tanti auguri!!!!!
great video, thanks for your hard wok
Thank YOU!
The vinyl is definitely better than the rest, including the hi-res version. The image is better, and it is more detailed. The only explanation I have is that the 96khz pcm file is not the master file, it is derived from it by using some poor manipulation. The transfer to vinyl of the same common matter is definitively superior.
I agree , the Record always gets us , it did not sound good on youtube , it sounded flat
I think I was hearing the Dolby B pumping a bit on the prerecorded cassette. Ran across some Dolby tracking issues with some prerecorded tapes myself. Will give it a closer listen. Was anyone else hearing that? Dolby C is even worse when the tracking is off.
Yeah, that's what I heard too. This was easily the worst sounding version for me.
cassette tapes i know alot about them i wonder how they recorded them real time or tape loop at high speed or a digi dump at high speed
i just think we a playing good money out on out dated tec i sold all my records because some one's got to deal with them when i drop dead
love your video's
Thanks Bob! That is an excellent question...I was wondering the same thing. Since they also used Dolby, vary rare for new recordings, I suspect someone brought some old gear and high-speed dubbed a bunch of tapes for the special release debut.
I rated the 5 samples mainly on the clarity of Roger Daltrey's voice.
Apart from High Res. and CD, it was muffled by comparison.
1.High Res.
2.CD
3.Vinyl.
4.Metal Cassette.
5.Pre-recorded Cassette.
I was scratching my head over the file sizes of the samples because the Vinyl and Tapes at around 110MB were larger than the CD at 33.8MB.
I guess you recorded the vinyl and tapes at higher than CD quality.
Yes, I captured them at 96khz and 24buts because they probably used that resolution for the master, ar least that is what I thought before starting...
Possibly, there's an analog original. Probably not. The way a record should be made is there to be an analog mastertape: a half-inch type I tape, used unidirectionally with 30 IPS and Dolby A. Then a master record to be cut from the mastertape. That master record is never to be played back, never to be copied mechanically, only to be copied optically. It shall be copied optically repeatedly, the copies to be called acetates. Such acetates are then to be coated with silver and galvanized to get a metal plate. And the mastertape should be digitized into a high-res file to be used for the digital releases. Or that the digital file and the tape are produced simultaneously. If it's made that way, that could make the vinyl to sound best among the formats.
A slip of tongue in 13:48. You meant "coating". The point of type IV is that it's not oxidized.
Your logo is really black-and-white. It isn't greyscale, it's black-and-white.
I wish it was so...Ops! You are right for the metal tapes! I always use the word oxide automatically.
Thanks!
The pre-recorded cassette sounded terrible, at least through my TV
Lol
Sir, thank you (as always) for such amazing comparison!
Happy New Year!
On my personal taste... here I can enjoy only ONE record - from pre-recorded cassette. It sounds 3 dimensional with strong sound stage and perfect instruments separation!
The rest of records are so-so...
except CD version that is horrible, disgusting sound.
Thank you very much Alexander. I do think the pre-recorded cassette has an excellent mid and low range. The highs, not so good.
hello!!!! really hope you to make a video about new reissue vinyl pop and noise probelm!!!!is crazy!!!!!!! huge problem!!!!! hope you can see this!!!!!!!!!!
Hi there...explain better!
Different mastering for Vinyl, that's why it's better, dynamic range Vinyl 7, CD-Hires 5
The nerdier you get the better you are!
(Se posso darti un consiglio usa occhiali con un antiriflesso diverso da questo trattamento, che immagino sia quello per evitare danni alla vista da schermi pc. Provoca questi sgradevoli effetti bluastri)
Vero ma dopo aver sborsato $$$ non penso di cambiare per un po'! ;-)
ANA[DIA]LOG lenti a contatto.
@@arturogalvanmd provate in passato, un incubo e poi sono anche astigmatico da un occhio e dunque non sarei pienamente 'coperto'...al prossimo giro! ;-)
Vinyl fans fall into two camps:
1. Love the physical beauty of the medium and artwork, and value the historic importance of the medium.
2. Actually believe the ultra high levels of distortion and noise make it a better medium for music playback.
For the second group, I have some suggestions. Solid rubber tires for your cars. CRT televisions. Coal.
@Peter Yianilos
I'm afraid that's too much of a simplification. There is a bit more to it than that.
Although vinyl from a technical specs point of view is inferior to digital formats, including even CD, it doesn't automatically mean that the sound of a certain album is always inferior on vinyl.
You have to take in consideration the effects a good or bad mastering can have. In some cases the mastering on CD / digital file is just shit with brick-walled dynamics. It can then happen that the vinyl version is done from a different master and sound superior to the digital formats that are available.
In addition, in the recording and playback of sound, there are many components that can 'color' the sound. Just because you might listen to a digital source, doesn't mean you are hearing the 'pure sound' as it sounded to the engineers in the studio. All other components in your playback equipment will color the sound in certain ways. Vinyl playback and everything that's involved with it, is just another factor, but certainly not the only determining one.
Hi, ANA[DIA]LOG.
Despite the sonic qualities (or anti-qualities) of the album, no matter if analog or digital, in my youth I had to suffer the horrible movie "Tommy" (normal: the infame Ken Russell was the director and Townshend the leading "actor") and The Who became something like crap ever after for me.
"Quadrophenia" was almost worse and, thankfully, I don't remember the criminals who were responsible of the anti-musical, anti-cinematographic nonsense.
Personally, I detest ALL those late seventies- early eighties infatuated attempts of "grandeur" in rock music that intended to be something like a kind of "aggiornatta Opera".
I include in this the terrible Pink Floyd's "The Wall", no matter if I recognize the top class of Richard Williams, the responsible of the animated parts, and who later I had the luck and honor to know and work with.
No problem, I do see why you are saying this...In fact I prefer more albums like Who's Next or Who are You...the wall is magnificent...the album
@@anadialog You have point out it: the ALBUM.
All the best for the New Year, wich is raising in the horizon
CD dramatically compressed 😕
the sound is terrible. Did they it on purpose?
Have you eaten your Christmas turkey pie?
🤣There was a comma!
Subscribed
It should say whats the best
I don’t know.
So vinyl sounds better, and people are assessing it via digital means Hmmm? Does this mean the character is in the distortion, as you know then it wouldn't be a carbon copy of the master tape, bet the vinyl was cut from a digital master?
This means that the analog version has added indeed distortion and that in presence the difference is even more clear. Obviously this is all digitally sourced.
I would like to shed some light on your observations and presentation. I also commend your choice of music for this as The Who made fantastic recordings throughout their career.
I began my musical career in the late 1960s and my recording career in the late 1970s - continuing to this day. My work began in the heyday of analog tape, progressing rapidly from 8 to 16 to 24 track recorders using Dolby type A, then type SR noise reduction. I mixed many records to 1/2” tape in stereo with Dolby SR which was a revelation, sonically speaking, but a royal pain in the ass technically. This machinery needed so much maintenance, calibration and care that it impeded the much more important creativity part of making those very recordings. Much worse still was the fragility of the tapes themselves. New manufacturing methods mandated by environmental laws created a disaster for analog tape about 1979. Tape made prior to that plays perfectly today while later tape must now be baked at 135 degrees F for days just to get it to play for a couple of hours to transfer the recording to a safe medium.
That safe medium, by the way, is digital, which is vastly superior in every single way and impervious to loss. Digital recording freed musicians and producers in ways that could hardly be described. It made our work portable, reliable and long-lasting, and most importantly, an accurate reflection of our vision for the first time. In the early 80s I spent large sums of money shipping hundreds of pounds of tape around the world. For one project alone, the tape budget was $9,000 for recording, another $9,000 to make safety copies, and $5,000 for shipping of the originals, plus just short of $10,000 in studio time to make these copies - in 1981 dollars. Today this same project would require eight 4TB hard drives, with copying taking place unattended overnight. A few hundred dollars. This is just one of the many things that make content creators jump for joy about digital recording.
Regarding your presentation, you use graphs showing decibels on a linear vertical scale which is neither representative of the way we hear nor of what we can hear. Everything to the right of 20kHz is meaningless to the human ear. Likewise everything below about - 80dB. So the shape of those tails to which you assign so much importance at the lower right side of your graphs is meaningless. It’s not “some” noise, it’s ALL noise. We capture this in 96kHz 24bit recordings for a reason that has nothing to do with being heard. The width (kHz) beyond 20kHz is a waste product, a purely technical result of the analog to digital conversion process. We don’t use this at all in music production. The lower half of the depth (dB) part is likewise a lot of never-to-be-heard data used to make the math more accurate in the part that we do hear so, though it is of technical interest, it does not represent music in any way. Like you said, it’s noise, and we remove it completely for release.
You also speak of limiting as a pejorative, with a brief reference to dynamics and ‘loudness wars’. Do you know why you preferred the 45? Because it has the most aggressive use of compression and limiting of all the analog formats! Compression and limiting are artistic processes, not unfortunate errors, and like all art, can be done beautifully or horribly. They are our most valued tools, allowing us to focus a listener’s attention on the moments of our music that are important to us. The 45 forces our hand quite a bit but the fact you like the result is proof it can be done very well.
You also mention ‘high definition microphones’. Microphones have been very high definition since the early 1950s. I hope you will be happy to know they have never been the weak link in the chain of recorded sound since then.
Music is pure art, the issue of human imagination and skill, the true universal language, and my life would be empty without it. The recording of music is more art than technology, as is evidenced by the vastly different results we can obtain even from the same musician. The huge technological improvements allow us to share music, much of which was always transcendent, in a more accurate and convenient manner.
Sorry for the very long post.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your input. Its great to learn about the experience from pros like you.
I absolutely agree that tape, for those having to deal with it everyday was a pain in the but. In fact, I never claimed that analog should be reintroduced or that digital should be discarded. The are both amazing and both very useful in specific sectors. The convencience of digital is obviously outstanding and analog will never ever come close to that, as well as for the expense as you correctly reported.
Nevertheless, I disagree with you on the rest and I will explain briefly why.
First and most importantly, there is a world beyond 20Khz. Fortunately I finally made a video and demonstraded that what is beyond the so-called audible frequency, in the highs but also in the lows, are extremely important for a high fidelity reconstruction of the signal becuse we can perceive those frequencies and in some cases even hear them, in particular when they are in the form of harmonics. Here is a link to the vid: ua-cam.com/video/Btn572ZIC8k/v-deo.html
I also have to reject your interpretation of vinyl mastering. The medium follows the RIAA curve and has specific characteristics to comply with. I also did a vid on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/mllu3p20wCE/v-deo.html Hence, there is no need to compress anything because the eq will do it automatically and the pre-phono will demphasize everything for a flat frequency response.
For this reason the cut of the lacquer must have a different mastering otherwise the result will be dull and lifeless.
There is certainly compression in analog media but in a different and more natural way than the artificial manipulations done to a digital file.
Yes, I do not like limiters and compression because they are used to increase volume and reduce distortion because of that compression. The result is a very low dynamic sound, which is far from reality. If this is to obtain an effect, good for them, but unfortunately we all know that this is a standard procedure to acquire a high pumping volume in order to compete on playlists and portable devices. Nothing new under the sun, sadly.
When I say "high quality mics" I obviuosly do not mean built with high quality materials etc. People who usually follow me know what I intended. But you are right, I did not use the correct word, which is resolution. I was trying to say that maybe they use high resolution mics, which means that they have an extended frequency response, i.e. >40Khz, as established by the Japan Audio Society. That way you capture the full spectrum of music with a higher fidelity as explained above.
I do agree fully with your closing words!
So your preference is the Record, which means you like the flavored sound of your phone cartage and phone pre-amp over your DAC. Hum? Seems more like a case of GIGO. Also blows a big hole in your theory about needing to have the ability to reproduce signals well beyond 20KHz since the phone spectrum plot took a serious dive after about 16KHz. Hum?
BTW - Its not Who its The Who.
How much love Chris! I do not care what is behind anything, even if it goes against what I said earlier. If something is better to my ears I must admit it. Obviously it all burns down to what gear you have. Considering that I am using high quality professional equipment I am pretty sure to have a good comparison from the two fronts.
Yes, I can confirm that it would be better to have the whole range of frequencies...yes likening reality. It's pure logic, not a soccer team to root for. But we are facing something different. The vinyl has gone through a different mastering process where they got the best out of it even if there was a drop in the frequency range (22khz, not 16khz). But again who knows what we are looking at in the high res, maybe noise? I don't know, what I know is that the peaks of the sound wave are cut off creating a very compress sound. So even if we have a nice frequency response, if you compress it, equalize it and limit it then of course a different version with a better mastering with less frequency range will sound better. If I have a Ferrari it is not going to be one of the best cars out there if I use rapeseed oil instead of high octane petrol.
Of course it's The Who, I even wrote it in the pic of the video. I have most of their albums. You did not understand my play of words. I said a fantastic album from, who? One of the most famous bands...blah blah blah....In fact I do say The Who after in the video....but no you had to close your comment with this sterile observation...
@@anadialog Your really think the original source is that good. Hum? With a lot of Rock & Roll, we really can't determine what the original source is supposed to sound like we can only assume. I mean, its not like listening to a Steinway piano recording. So your saying that a lot of extra production work went into making the vinyl and made it sound better than the 24 bit files? Hum? I would agree that 45RPM would help a lot but I can't imagine that a different re-mixed source was used for the vinyl, just the RIAA curve applied and minimal compression. The Who web site doesn't say anything, at least from what I could find. Please point me to the details.
dsd is the best
None of the versions sounded great via this You Tube demo when playing them through my system but the 45rpm vinyl was the best, the digital high resolution 2nd, the cd version next closely followed by the type 4 metal cassette & last was the other cassette version. The musical clip didn't really hold my interest either. For me a better demo of a 45 rpm LP would have been of On Every Street by Dire Straits comparing it to the excellent cd version.
I must agree that the album in general is not audiophile but when I find these multimedia packs from great artists I like to hear the differences...
it sounds exactly the same
Your results are dictated by the quality of your playback equipment for each medium. You're an analogue guy so you have invested a lot more into analogue than digital, that's why you found vinyl the best, because you had the best system for it.
I understand you point of view but I don't agree. I have a start of the art player and state of the art DAC. I always invest as much as possible in anything because I love music and I also like high quality digital music.
@@anadialog I respect that. Which DAC and player do you have?
This music is not suitable for a serious audio test.
I think It is, but not the best, I agree. The purpose is also to present the album and grasp the opportunity to confront a multiformat release, which is not easy to find.
the metal cassette and the record sounded the best to me, great video. look forward to the next one .
happy new year,
jeff