Still all files are digital so can't do much justice to the real analog sound except hearing the coloration of each analog reproduction system and possibly different mastering. Again interesting comparison and I liked SACD the best and cassette was the worst, even 160kbps mp3 sound better than cassette.
Nice 👍 Have this album on 8 track. Also Led Zep "1" etc. Must look at getting a player. Luckily they sell refurb kits for the cassettes themselves. The sponge deteriorates etc. Interesting to compare to the old 8 track system, from what I recall was pretty good back in the day with a good player and speaker system.
Thanks for posting. I will download them. But, frankly, my perception from this video is that the SACD and the 2003 vinyl are the best. The cassette isn't good, I noticed a change in the level of the channels compared to the other forms of media. And I wasn't impressed by the reel to reel copy at all. I think you're more impressed with with the results of the graphic shows you than what you're really listening. However, I have to listen to the high res files to have a definitive opinion and I'm also aware my age (56) could be affecting my perception. But I have to say, I've listened to this album for years and years, with different versions including the 1973 Brazilian "quadraphonic" cut, but unfortunately not with the type of equipment it was intended for. In fact, I've never seen a quadraphonic stereo piece of equipment.
the 2003 LP is Very compress. The volume is just about the same as Master tape but soooooo much compress, bass and guitar are compress and you loss all the soul. For me it's the worst with casette and cd. There is a little bit of attack on the master compression but i not a big fan of the result.... but its still better than the CD or CASETTE
The SACD sounded so different than everything else like the instruments were remixed. The 2003 LP was pretty darn good. I gasped when you produced the master tape it sounds great.
@@keithv4452 I remember the first time I listened to a SACD, the signal to noise ratio was at least 30db worse than the cd version. Even at low volumes I could hear background hissing. But that was a mastering issue, the noise you refer to is probably quantization noise which exists above audible band...
1. Vinyl re-issue - good separation, strong, tight bass, best vocals. 2. SACD - Amazing separation of voices, more sibilant, perhaps too much so. 3. Vinyl early pressing - poor bass, vocals weirdly pushed to right channel 4. CD - Not bad, but flatter and duller overall.
@@DrDoohickeythat vinyl early pressing is ghastly compared to other versions and the stereo separation is bad. Phasing is also off. The cash register sounds are out of phase in other formats and sounds outside the speakers not centered.
Unless you listen to them back to back I doubt any single version of this milestone album would be less enjoyable than the next... Thank you for all the work and energy that must have gone into creating this - especially that final assembly of the same track switching from version to version was insightful!
I respectfully disagree. Maybe not so pronounced on youtube but vinyl mastered from tape has a very warm organic sound, not to say that digital doesn't have some benefits.
With all due respoect, unless you have exceptionally great hearing if he had not identified what is what 99% could nog guess with any great acuracy?? Analog people always use words like "warm and organic" as they cannot be measured and /or quantified. I grew up in the 70's and it is kind of neat hearing the opening crackels of vinal, it brings back a "warm and organic feeling" but I am not going to try to say analog recording is superior when clearly it is not.
@@BenCabell I agree that the love for vinyl is something that can't truly be measured with science, and that DSD might be "objectively" better, but if a digital and analog version of the same album are mastered so well it just comes down to which one makes me feel happier. Just hearing some crackle from the vinyl might get me in a better mood, and get me to enjoy it more in my head.
So, the master tape sounds the best to me, and I was impressed by how close the 2003 LP was. However, despite being lower quality, the cassette put a big smile on my face. I think this is a nostalgia thing. The tape effect on the sound is something I haven't heard in years, and it felt like meeting again an old friend.
Agree, Master Tape was amazing. Even on my K712 Pros the difference was as night and day to the other versions. If you pay extra attention you can also hear the faint buzzing of the motor of the tape machine in the silent parts.
Really appreciate the time and effort you take to put this video together with all the sound clips and analysis. You earned a sub! Keep up the great work!
The 1973 dynamics blow the remasters away, but the cassette is like hearing the song for the first time even in UA-cam compressed audio. I love dynamics more than I like resolution. Then I hear the reels, and OMG.
I think an interesting experiment would be to offer the files in random order not labeled. Then we could listen to them blindly. Put up a poll with just the number. Then after a couple of weeks reveal the results. It would be interesting to see if the results were the same if people’s opinions weren’t colored by preconceived notions.
I think the SACD gives the best value. If you have a player that handles it, for the low cost, and the outstanding no-loss-in-the-future format you get, the SACD will please almost everyone. Remembering too of course that just about *any* version of this album sounds fantastic - so we really are splitting hairs. 😎💜
Been listening to the high quality samples (thank you for leaving those up!)... late to the part, but I'm amazed how "compressed" the CD and SACD sound. Especially the bass, the "roundness" of the thumps and string moving in air is very lost, it's more like a synthbass representative note than a real stringed instrument sound. Even compare to either vinyl, the "body" of the bass is just not there anymore in those 2 formats. Even cassette held that (although the top end (cymbal crashes and washes) are very muted on cassette as would be expected. I'm a die-hard fan of CDs for what it's worth, even though I'm "vinyl-aged" we never had a working turntable growing up, LOL, so I never was used to that sound, cassette was my first personal medium, then CDs, which I thought were amazing (and are/can be I think wen mastered correctly). Alan Parson's for example, I'd love to have a vinyl to CD comparison of some of his work, but I can't imagine anything better than my first listen of "Eye in the Sky". The CD/SACD mixes (sounds to me like the same mix/master just output to the relative conversions thus having a bit more headroom on the SACD which is nice) really sound compressed, like the engineer who made that mix assumed the average system couldn't reproduce heavy bass or something, so just make sure the central note is evident and move on, rather than hearing the nuances of the instruments. And was probably true in 1985 or whenever that was mastered for CD, but... ugh. Way too dry, and lost all low-end warmth. And the "sheen" that normally comes through on CD, isn't there (but OMG it is SO there on the master tapes!!!!)... so it's almost like they took an RIAA mix for vinyl (dropped top-end), and just started there to master the CD, and then made more compromises/compression to get it in digital format. No idea, but if you made an SACD or non-lossy digital format straight off those master tapes, it would sound so wonderful. Could then master out a little bit of the barely detectable tape noise (nothing compared to cassette, LOL, but it IS tape)... basically just the tiniest filtering at the edges to silence the noise floor (which the CD/SACD mixes do well, I think that's part of where the low-end warmth got blended out), and a modern reissue with the quality of those masters... would be exquisite. Honestly I know the vinyl have the RIAA profiles applied, they simply have to to cut reliable vinyl, but the "master-tape-intent" really is best preserved there, even if the depth of stage, separation, noise, etc aren't all as good as the digital domain, the "master" quality really is, I'd rather listen to that 1973 vinly, if you replay the first 5 seconds side-by-side between the CD and 1973 vinyl, the vinyl sounds like you are really "in the shop"... the CDs sound like someone using sound tracks "placed this sound left at 88-degrees, placed this sound right at 74-degrees" and they have no ambience, no character at all... just do that, I opened each cilp in a browser tab to quickly swap between them, and the vinyl is just "you are there" (with a little noise) and the CDs... aren't. That's what it is after many cycles now... it's not analog "noise", it's the actual "ambience" of the original mix is GONE in the digital versions. That, to me, isn't a digital vs analog, that's a sound engineer who really screwed up the mix by drying it out completely. I hope it wasn't Alan Parsons on that "to digital" mix, I can't imagine it was though based on this, as he's quite good at maintaining ambience in his SACD/CDs from my experience. With the loss of ambience also comes that loss of "quality" of the instruments. Anyhow, my thoughts years later, having just found this, LOL.
That it digital sounds tinier not as warm or natural it to crisp in mopinion but you did hear the difference it becomes real evedent when jimmie hendrex is put to that test. Distortion was a big part of his music. Then you can hear part of his music was lost to data compression.
And if that album was recorded now days on proper digital domain rec system it would be so much better and snake oil seller /vinyl propaganda/would be even more laughable then is now
The SACD wins out here because of the sheer instrument tone. Unfortunately that can’t be displayed here because it had to be converted from DSD and it lost all it’s DSD qualities the moment that was done
Man, I may be getting old, but for the CDs, I think the first CD was cleaner and that newer vinyl sounded impressive and obviously that reel was the bomb! I kind of felt sorry for the cassette tape level wise with all its HX Pro! and that other XDR I think you said.lol. That was fun to listen and compare with the way your careful explanation of everything. Big thumbs up brother!
The master tape copy is absolutly the best. It sounds so rich and oppened. I think the 2003 and the 1973 LP's come in second and third. The worst of all is the cassete, wich is not as loud and sound a little muffled. Great video!
1. Cd 2:38 2.SACD 5:09 3. LP 7:47 (Reissue) 4. LP 10:00 (Repressing) 5. Cassette XDR 12:05 6. Master Tape 14:41 In each case outstanding music and the first recording that really overwhelmed me as a 14 y old boy. In a humid dark cellar with gear that was far, far from hifi. Summary: for me no need to buy sacd instead of cd. Tape hype is tape hype. Cassettes can be surprisingly good. No need to substitute my lps. Need a record cleaning machine.
Just an FYI, due to the year produced, this fantastic album was completely mastered on analog reel to reel tape. Many edits were done with a splice block and tape.
I just compared it with amazon music, even the high quality download is just better than casette, far away from all other wav files provided here. Think I dumped my CDs too early...
Today's a very special day, thanks to your channel I found out about the differences between analog and digital, as I'm leaving this comment I'm listenning to this great album for the very first time on vinyl i.e. the 2nd UK press which I was fortunate to get hold of with my newly upgraded Thorens turntable TD 115 with new Exact cartridge from Rega (the yellow one)...a great deal of pleasure, cheers from France
Such a nice comparison! Thank you. For my ears: CD, and master tape copy. SACD totally loses the sound stage. Was not ready for that. All analog versions also sounded great.
I have 40 years of recording experience. The best sound from reel-to-reel master versions. Different recording studios use equalizers, mixers, and human factors. No standard on this field. Even 20 music professional have different perceptions and will make a personal opinion.
This may be an unpopular opinion and of course it is a subjective one but - SOMETIMES Remasters finally "get it right". ( emphasis on sometimes.) There's something about that 2004 Vinyl version.
The 2003 approach the loudness (artificially) and feel of the original tape for the mainstream public (at a coast of the lost of dynamic range) so i guess it can be ok, but with good listening environnement yes the master and 1973 are the best SACD close
I'd be more interested to hear it tracked in digital and analog. Then the fight would be fair. Of course a reel master will sound best, next to having the real separate tracks to play back. But if this was done today, to digital, nobody would complain and it would some as good, if not better. I've been at it for 50 years.. (like that matters) and digital was the first time drums sounded like they sound to the drummer! No tape compression. Even with crappy ADAT converters they were better. And having been in tape for 3 decades, I can get that sound without the bad parts, with digital pretty easily. All personal for sure. but specs don't lie, but our hearts and ears do.
This is the best format comparison I've seen on UA-cam; of course everything we hear is processed and compressed for the stream, but the differences were clearly audible. Nicely done! I didn't realise cassette was so bad...
For the cassette, they had to do everything they could to fight the garbage medium - that's why you hear a compressed, "pinched sound", to get as much above the noise floor as possible. Just like on radio.
I listened to the samples, with Sony ZR1's headphones and a PHA3 the Master Tape and the LP2003 are in my opinion the best. Tremendous difference from all other formats. Thanks for sharing this experiment Cheers MZ.
I am a 67 yo guy, that I grew up with LPs . When the CD s came along I found the sound to be flat compare to a 3 d sound of the LPs. If I close my eys I can see an orchestra and the players on different depth of field located in space. My favorite version is LP 1973. Thanks for your review.
In my opinion I prefer the vinyl sound, I grew up with it, it was the only option. Then cd came along and I got a CD player, and I became disappointed with the sound. I then went back to vinyl, and I got labelled as a dinosaur by younger people at work, but I pointed out that a cd system that cost £100 could never complete with vinyl played on a decent system.
The first wave of CDs issued in the 80s were usually taken from LP pre-press masters. These sounded weak or "not full" because LP pre-masters must have compressed dynamics and a huge bass roll-off under 100 Hz (that is boosted back up by the RIAA circuit in the turntable's output stage) so that grooves don't cause the needle to mis-track from too wide or too deep a groove. Add to this basic challenge the OPEC crisis that caused LPs to become thin as tagboard by the mid-late 1970s and you can see why CDs suffered. Those old LP pre-masters were just dusted off and run straight from the old decks (often without any compensation) into a A/D converter in the rush to sell as many CDs as possible.
@@stevenclarke5606 It's no longer the case. Digital has come light years since then. It's now not even close. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is delusional.
Greetings: I worked for CREST DIGITAL MEDIA (Hollywood) that mastered the SACD master and duplicated the discs. Our listening room had audiophile grade playback equipment that likely cost more than my salary. Not having golden ears, although I was able to note the remixing sound difference, I was unable to note a qualitative difference from the regular CD. If I remember correctly, the source material was delivered at a sample rate of 192 kHz. I was working in the HD video depth. at the time so had no direct involvement with th project. (The AC power cords were filled with sand!?) I think the sacd recording was multi-channel as well, but it was over 10 years ago.
Incredibile!!! Lo sapevo che con il nastro in bobina aperta era il massimo! Ottima comparazione. Ascolto sempre i miei nastri (anche con registrazioni vecchie più di 30 anni) e suonano ancora magnificamente. Grazie, ciao
WOW, I thought I was crazy, but I agree with you 100%. Those recordings are definitely the best sounding of all the versions. The master tapes seemed like obvious winners, but the 2003 vinyl version was a real surprise. I had to listen to it a couple of times and I actually think I like it the 2003 vinyl version the best. Sure there is that vinyl background noise, but it comes with an airy openness and headroom that the others just don't quite have. Also, the attack on bass strings in the intro seemed rounder and a slightly punchier. The master tapes are nearly neck-n -neck and some would say because of the lack of noise from the media it's the best. I certainly see that point too. Great demo, many thanks.
funny for the 2003 master on VInyl they used the same digital source as for the SACD release. Only they pressed it on vinyl instead of plastic haha. So the SACD sounds without a doubt better as it has not the limitations the vinyl medium does have. And yes there are plenty, but sure love vinyl.
Dont believe that, as it was released at the same time the SACD was released. That was the era that all the master tapes came from their climate controlled room and were digitalized for future use as they should have done it already in the 80s as the CD is not that bad but sure the AD conversion were. I'm not sure of course but vinyl was not hot in 2003, and everything was digital. It was not common for a vinyl press back then to get a analog reel delivered for the pressing and it is still not, maybe some press has now bought a second hand Studer, but sure that is not the common source for the master. Often they just receive an CD or in the past a Digital Audio Tape and now mostly just digital audio files. I can't find anywhere the source it was full analog, there is an interview from 2003 from the guys who did the remastering. news.acousticsounds.com/post.cfm/doug-sax-takes-us-to-the-dark-side But thats all they ever commented on this. Nothing about which source was used to do the LP, the newly created digital tracks or the original analogs.. The SACD was first, so it is possible they used the already created digtal tracks. And this means they didnt used a already mixed stereo digital track, but all the seperate tracks as were on the original masters. And this could be easily 3 or 4 tapes.
I would have to agree. But maybe I'll change my mind when I put the tracks through my best set. But at least when I adjust volume so they match up, I think the 2003 LP stands out as the best. I even compared it to the 2011 remastered CD-version off of Tidal HiFi. Which also seem to lack some of the dynamics of the 2003 LP. Wouldn't hate it if they made a MQA from the original master.
Amazing comparison, mate! Definitely, the master tape is the sweetest... But I choose the sound of the vinyl first press (maybe because it's more plausible for me to buy it) the soundstage, the warmth and even the extension of the higher ground it's wonderful... Cheers!
Really cool comparison! I was amazed how much difference I could tell even just listening on UA-cam (at the highest quality setting). One thing I might also suggest is looking at the stereo imaging as well. The SACD version is just amazing in this regard how it uses the full width of the stereo image when compared to the other versions on good headphones. For me, even though I grew up with vinyl and tape, I'm not a big fan of the analog blanket effect (how it smooths out the detail and muffles everything a bit). I don't like pure digital either as clearly that can go way too harsh, but I personally loved the SACD version in this test! The really wide imaging, all of the detail was brought back to life, yet it wasn't harsh, and it just sounded like there was so much depth to it (front to back). For me that felt the most "in the room" with the music, like I was there. Great stuff!
Thank You for allowing all of us to experience something of master recordings from this famous pop music. I haven't listened to the downloads on my DAP yet, but my laptop plays them all the same except for noise levels (surprises no one.)
SACD seemed to have a wider sound stage. I love a wide sound stage so that was my favorite but i guess it just depends on your taste. Everyone will pick the source that suites their taste. No matter how you listen just remember to enjoy one of the greatest albums of all time.
Of course sound quality is subjective. What you are comparing here are different productions, not formats. There are about 13 different digital masterings of DSOTM and close to that number of analog productions. For digital, most audiophiles prefer the original 1983 Sony mastered Black Triangle CD. A production which was a flat transfer of the same master tape that was used for the Japan 1978 Pro Use LP, in the era before digital compression of later remasters. The sound is dynamic, smooth as butter and for most listeners, superior to the SACD (which is a bit compressed). Therefore you are not comparing the "best" masterings in this exercise. As for the best analog version, for me it is the Pro Use LP, which comes close the CD but slightly less dynamic and with the inner groove distortions towards the end of the LP which is a characteristic of vinyl. Some prefer the original UK LP and others prefer the later LPs which were cut from a digital master. It is all a matter of taste. You also need to be careful with what you mean by the master tape. Which master? I very much doubt it is the original 1973 master or the safe copy as they would be accessible only to a very few and would only be played in exceptional circumstances to preserve the tape. The master you are referring to is one of the many production masters and with analog it would be at least three generations removed from the original master. Lastly, your explanation of how digital works, sampling rates etc is based on urban myths. Read the link below for a better explanation. people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
And look at the "D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell" from the same guys on youtube. (the creators of ogg vorbis) They clearly show with examples on scope and spectrum analyser what 16bit 44.1Khz actually means and why so called high res does not make sense.
@Mike P I agree that the 2011 version is a well mastered CD and the reality is that there is no 'bad' version, though the CD layer of the SACD is a bit on the harsh side. However most audiophiles would still prefer the 1983 Sony Black Triangle CD (the early mastering without the "TO" in the matrix) to the 2011, and certainly to the MFSL which was over EQ'd with excessive and boomy bass (ymmv). Yes the 1983 it has pre-emphasis but any CD player which meets redbook specs (ie it displays the compact disc symbol) will automatically de-emphasise it on playback. Other combo CD players may not (eg the Oppo). If ripping the files, there are many software available to de-emphasise the files (eg Foobar with sox plugin) before saving them. I'm not sure whether your comment about many 1980s being anaemic is a general comment or a specific comment about DSOTM. If the latter, that is not so, those EMI masterings are all quite good. As for 1980s CDs in general, they are a mixed bag. Some are poor but others are the best digital versions of any album as they were mainly flat transfers from production masters. The variability depends on what production masters were used, sometimes low generation tapes were uses or LP masters, even cassette masters. Among that lot there are many that were made from high generation masters and sound superb. Those early CDs that were good are worth quite a bit of money on the used market, eg the Sony mastered DSOTM, RCA David Bowies, early Targets and so on.
One thing to point out is the SACD multi-track, which I know you didn't cover; however, as an extra bonus I put that on and as is the case with other 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, Money feels like a completely different song with various nuances emphasized in different ways from the two-channel mix. The Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Immersion box set is worth checking out.
Great video. I enjoyed listening to the comparisons. The master tape wins by a long shot to my ears. But I will say that the SACD down sampling from it's native DSD format 24bit/192khz did it a great disservice.
I can say that, at least to my ears, using a Koss porta Pro headphone, the vinyl version (2003) sounds better, although the master tape copy sounds more "full" or "bigger". I wonder how would these compare to the Mobile Fidelity UHQR vinyl.
You are failing to understand that people buy VERSIONS of an album, not mastering. A version is defined by the medium and the mastering. Hence, in this case I compared digital and annalog versions. In other videos instead I analyzed the same mastering on different media: ua-cam.com/video/-4BLWR2E2wg/v-deo.html Not in this case. Its very simple!
I downloaded and listened to the files on a FiiO E10K AMP/DAC + Audio-Technica M40X headphones. For me from best to worst: 1. 2003 vinyl 2. Master tape copy 2 3. Master tape copy 4. 1973 vinyl 5. SACD 6. CD 7. Casette
First of all, thank you for this video. Whenever I make an upgrade to my two-channel system, I like to take it for a test drive playing this song from the original CD. I have a thousand albums & CD's to enjoy and am certainly not going to nitpick things regarding Digital vs analogue. I play what I have. I threw a ton of cash into my system and can hear the startling differences in sound quality between recordings. In the end I will get into the music and hesitantly overlook the lack in sound quality. Only a small percentage of media will have outstanding sound quality. When in need of quality I know which ones to play and enjoy them for a session of listening.
one thing that stood out to me was the reverb on all of the different versions. the air in the reverb really did a number for me. (long time since you've probably seen this but I don't disagree that those were the biggest differences)
Great comparison between the different formats. It would be interesting to compare the 1/2 speed master vinyl and the 24k 1/2 speed master CD with the master tape. I have this album in vinyl, CD, 1/2 speed vinyl and 1/2 speed CD.
Hi, Found this interesting medias differences demo, bravo for this good job ! I am interested to know what was the LP TT device, what was the Cartridge model/technology and what was the RIAA preamplifier used for your recording. Tks in advance !
To my untrained ear obviously the master tape sounds best, closely followed by the 2003 LP version. Thanks for the video. it was a very interesting experience.
I really liked that you kept the levels as they were recorded, however at the end of the video I think it would've been much better if you could've level matched all the recordings as close to the same volume as possible to give all the formats a more level playing field. Unfortunately we automatically assume when something is louder, it must be better. Hence what started the volume wars in the record business. Please consider this in future videos. Aside from that, very well made video. Thank you
The first time I listened to the Dark Side of the Moon it was on that exact cassette version. I still recognize that exact sound signature as being separate from the others and nostalgic. It's more than just tape hiss, it certainly has its own texture about it.
I hear more compression breathing on the cassette, probably due to the limitations of the format. Ex recording engineer for a cassette duplication house that did copies for Sony Classical, back in the 1980s. But for what it was I wouldn't have complained.
Thank you for the efforts. Master tape copy is the best, follow by the vinyl 2003. I am not surprised by that, what I do its the cassette tape. I need to go back to my parents house and dig out all the tapes. The hard part is to find a good quality cassette tape player.
You know, considering that the cassette was at 1 7/8 IPS and the R to R was at 15 IPS, you have to hand it to the cassette tape! I am enjoying some really fine PRErecorded cassette tapes and it is amazing just how good they sound on a GOOD player. I have the Bang and Olufsen 6500 series audio system from 1990. I replaced all the belts on the player and enjoy using the REMOTE control for it's functions. Who ever heard of a cassette deck with full remote control of playback, record, flipping sides etc. ??? Fun vintage stuff that still sounds SO good (O:
I'd go with the reel tape. I just purchased a quadraphonic reel to reel deck and I heard there was a quad version of Dark Side floating around. After some digging I found a four channel mix saved as an .ISO file to make a DVD-Audio disc. After decades of listening to this album in stereo it's like a new album now.
The problem is that we achieved a lot in recording sound however we are still not capable to really capture it as it is in nature. There is a huge difference if you hear a recorded instrument or if this instrument is played live and you can hear it live. Tape hiss/needle rumblings, the motor of the turntable, the bad cd-mastering techniques...the sterile translation of digital sound media, the compressing of sound, the soundwar all prove that we in fact are still not capable to really record things properly. Its just a hobby because we still are technologically behind in this area. All is now even more difficult because everyone is into the visuals and the digitalised comfort. But noone is really asking him/herself is this sound any good. Maybe there is not much difference between lp and cd. But the youtube/ipod/mp3 etc. and the bad speakers of the Sonos systems are definitely way under good sound reproduction. Its nice if you are working in the shed and those mobile speakers deliver sound. But its just a surrogate of sound, not real good sound. And although I used to be a cd fan....lp sounds less stressed than cd....its as if cd-sound is a tiny bitt shaven and then cranked up a bit in volume. CD is nice for huge boxsets like the Pettsounds sessions or the millions of extra studio material of legendary groups. But their original records should be available in the best vinyl format next to cd. And digital files you can download? I just don't see them as an item so they dissapear in my computer somewhere...while cd's/lps are still used by me...and youtube? yes a lot but what if it stops? And not everything is there and not every recording sounds that good because of the billions of sources.
thing is, no one really wants to listen back to real life...for instance a drum set heard in real life is an often painful thing, levels all over the place per drum and cym result in a non cohesive sound, very little lows, too much highs, too dynamic, and room sound flutter echo etc. close micing gets rid of most of the extremes of these issues, and that is what we want to hear. ps i am a drummer and yes a great cymbal in real life all alone cannot be recorded same as it sounds in person, but the drums are a set that become one, and most often in a band context, so is a moot point to say just because we cant record one isolated thing same as heard alone in real life, but few listen to a hole band or album of just one cymbal. as soon as you add something else, then real life is not as good as a recording
I have always enjoyed vinyl more than digital reproductions even with all the noise and imperfections. For me has a warmer richer sound. Either way, the music is enjoyable in either format. I am an older guy and started my music collection with vinyl so guess I am a little nostalgic and biased towards the memories of those first albums I bought. Including this one.
I leaned more towards the SACD version in a blind test for some reason. In my opinion the original first edition reel to reel tape is the best. Only because of the equipment available for recording back then is what it sounds best on. Imagine if the artist were still alive today and used our studios to re record their music what it would sound like.
Absolutely, the master tape is very dynamic. I listen to Pink Floyd many times and the best part that stands out is all what is played and the realism that goes with it. I feel that vinal has more in-depth of frequency and a smoother bass. I also grew up with vinal and hard a pretty good sound system. I didn't have the best sound speakers but the Advent was excellent for the price. The music I listened to, felt that I was at the performance.
Amazing effort put on that to compare. I even downloaded the files and listened to them very carefully. On one hand, I really understand people's obsession to listen to the best version but when comparing, we need to start putting some perspective. 1) The medium of the original album is vinyl (end of story). The mastering of the album was taped / printed on vinyl - so if the task is to perceive what the mastering engineers and the band wanted to achieve, you listen to the vinyl, it's that dead simple. 2) Of course, someone will claim that the same was later printed on cassette or cd or sacd etc etc...I do not really care...the album was performed / supposed to be printed on vinyl. The whole mindset and technology background of all the people involved in the recordings and mastering was to print this on vinyl. Even the later re-prints from the original tapes will NEVER be the same because simply put, they are not trying to deliver a "fresh" sound of this masterpiece but a version matching the original.... but the original had some limitations (due to the medium initially printed) and after-all if you arrange a new mastering for cd or sacd, of course it is NOT THE SAME with the old vinyls.
good experiment...i I've been searching for something like this..and doing this with my fav Floyd album... obviously the master tape copy sounds much beter than others, however the SACD also put high equality to rip part and separate instruments. thks
I don't know about you guys, but the cassette quality was better sounding than all the others and I think it is because of the Dolby NR being turned off. A very close second would be the reel to reel recording. Thank you ! 👍
I remember when I first heard this album back in the early 70's. I met an artist who had a large stone built studio he lived in off the Kings road in Chelsea London. I asked the lady who ran the record department in Harvey Nichols and she produced a copy off the rack and I bought it immediately. My copy is comparatively unplayed because I spent most of my time listening to music on my friends system and my copy stayed at home. Since then I have bought many more copies in different formats including Hi Res versions. One of the most important albums in my collection. My hearing now only goes up to 10 kHz before dropping of sharply so the only thing I could make out that was better was the master tape.
It surprised me that the vocals were the one thing that were most noticeably different on each of the formats. Surprising, given the relatively limited frequency range of the human voice.
...but that is also the most critical to our ears because very familiar with those frequencies. It's a normal fact. That is why a good midrange is paramount in a speaker.
Thank you so very much for verifying a claim I have been making for years with the younger generations that the original tape and then perhaps vinyl are the only things that will give a better listening experience. Lucky for me, they don't often believe me, as they are caught up in 'new technology' with all it's alluring glitz and glamour. Lucky for me, I say, because I can still obtain tape, vinyl, and yes, even film materials along with the mechanics for enjoying them at a much lower price than if the youngsters were actually appreciating true quality. Keep up the good work.
Its really got nothing to do with the medium though. Digital can more faithfully reproduce the original than analogue can, that's just a simple fact. Analogue will always colour the sound, it doesn't matter if you are playing back a vinyl record on a £22k Linn Sondek or an MP3 on a cheap digital player, just as long as the digital copy is actually a faithful reproduction. The issue is with how its mastered. If the digital copy is poorly mastered then the vinyl will sound better, unfortunately music these days is often rushed out, poorly produced and poorly mastered, so it doesn't even matter what medium its on. Most music is now recorded digitally at the studio anyway. Ive heard some FLAC files produced from an original analogue master of a symphonic metal band, its exactly the same, the Vinyl is not, there is definitely cross channel bleed, loss of dynamic range and a higher noise floor. Some may prefer the vinyl, but that preference and often because its what they are used to. One mans 'warmer' or 'richer', is another mans 'boomy' and 'muddy'. Digital has progressed a long way from the days of 128kb MP3s produced lazily by record labels just wanting to get something out the door, or CDs made without any understanding of what they are going to be played on. Even today some producer think that frequency response is more important than dynamic range, when it absolutely is not. The worse thing about this is that unless you are spending thousands on your equipment that one theoretical advantage analogue has, which you cant even hear, wont show itself anyway.
They all sound very good. If you force me to choose a favorite, for me it's the 1973 vinyl mainly because I remember walking into the record shops back then and buying the LP (more than once!). Plus, it does sound incredibly good to this very day and ANA[DIA]LOG is no doubt using a great analogue set up. Yes - it's the 1973 vinyl for me.
Most interesting video, Thanks a lot! The major difference I heard is that the RTR recorded Master Copy has a slight speed difference (slower) than the rest of the sample. It indicates that during the process of copying the Master at least one of the machines speed (playback and/or recording machine) was slightly not calibrated properly.
Very much agreed with Steve's Stray Stuff, with a slight preference to the LP for it's more rounded and musical bass. Above all thanks for the opportunity to listen and compare all the format.
The master tape was the best, but I liked the warm feeling of the cassette and vinyl. I only have it on CD and Vinyl and it doesn’t sound bad but compared to the other ones on here I have to get a reel to reel copy.
Cool experiment. I used a Dragonfly and Koss Porta Pro headphones to listen. I played the clips in Audacity, which sound nice, and used the Blackman-Harris spectrum function to analyze each wave file. It was interesting to see the frequency drop off at about 20,230 Hz, for the CD. This is due to the filtering used at 22, 050 Hz ( f/2) to prepare the signal for the limited sample rate of a CD (16 bit / 44.1 kHz). I suspect a lot of harmonic overtones are cut off in the CD version, while the other sources retain them.
Harmonics are always at a higher frequency product (so indeed overtones) of the base tone, thus a higher harmonic of a base tone below 20Khz can be higher then 20Khz and will most certainly not be audible. But, there can be a mix of high frequencies resulting in a lower frequency when added. Say, a mix off a 30Khz and a 30.1Khz tone out of phase result in a 100Hz tone. This 100Hz tone is easily captured when converting to digital at 44.1Khz sample rate. The higher frequencies are lost but don't matter anymore, since the 100Hz result is still there. So when an harmonic overtone mix resulting in an audible (so below 20Khz) tone, it will still be in the recorded digital audio wave file. Nothing audible is lost.
Kudos to you sir what you did was amazing! I believe the Master tape copy sounded best. Long may your channel run sir, regards from Manila, Philippines.
I have had two versions on CD from different years, and both sounded like they were too mid range heavy, with splashy treble. And the bass lacked warmth and depth. I may buy an SACD version, and try it with my Sony bluray player. As soon as the SACD version started playing in this demo, it instantly sounded more rounded, with a bit more depth. But hearing it over UA-cam is never ideal. I don't have a turntable, so vinyl is not an option for me. But that 1973 version on vinyl sounds surprisingly detailed, with good stereo separation and depth. The 2003 vinyl version sounded cleaner, and less muddy to me though. The cassette is good also, but a cassette is never going to sound as good as the master tapes. The higher frequency response is probably due to there being no Dolby NR, which makes the treble sound over emphasised, and splashy on a Dolby NR encoded cassette. But that open reel version sounded excellent, even over UA-cam. The frequency response sounded very flat, and the overall effect was very rounded, with plenty depth. I would say it was the best of all. Out of the CD versions, the SACD version sounded closest to the open reel version in my opinion, so I will definitely be buying a copy on SACD.
Something important that needs to be kept in mind here is that the sound of each version is subject to the decisions of the mastering engineer who was working with the signal. If you want to compare each medium on its own merits you'd want to take the master itself and transfer it directly to various mediums because that way you'd be working with the same source signal.
THANK YOU Shark! And this jives with what I've been trying to say ever since the loudness wars and remastering became a 'thing'. For a fair comparison take the same two-ch master - particularly an earlier one, and transfer it to CD, MP3, LP, etc, and then let folks decide.
My order of fidelity, in my humble on ear Sony’s that I use with my iPad is: 1) The Reel to Reel Master Copy 2) The CD (not the SACD) 3) The 1973 Vinyl second pressing 4) The Cassette Tape I had an original vinyl pressing in the seventies that I let get away from me ( I was a kid ) and I kick myself when I think about it. I own both the CD and the SACD but have never heard the SACD version on the intended speaker configuration. The SACD has two versions and although it was remastered, the non SACD version is closer to the CD version but in listening here I think the CD edges out slightly ahead. This is all very interesting. I’ve never done a side by side between those two on my own equipment, have to do that sometime.
cassette < CD < LP 2003 < SACD < LP 1973 < master tape 1. cassette : dull & harsh sound 3. LP 2003 : loudness button on! It's sounds like master tape playing, but not the same 4. SACD : crystal sound and a little-bit skinny for my taste 5. LP 1973 : neutral 6. master tape : fuller, richer and heavy(thick). We can make various coffees from Espresso, can't from Americano
Thank you for the care and effort that you put into making this report. Very interesting. Two things in particular struck me. 1) My mental ranking of the media varied according to whether I was listening through UA-cam or from the WAV files (via Audirvana). In the first case it was CD, tape, LP, cassette. In the second it was tape, LP, CD, cassette. As to whether CD was better/worse than SACD or the old LP pressing noticeably different from the new, such differences are minor compared to the effects of switching other elements in the reproduction chain (e.g. DAC and headphones, my Chord Hugo is noticeably clearer than my Chord Mojo, my Focal Utopias spatially narrower but more engaging than my Sennheiser HD800s). 2) Regardless of the medium, or any other part of the reproduction chain (I first listened to this in my youth via LP on a modest Thorens/JVC/ Wharfedale system and now have it available as a ripped SACD or via Qobuz in a a number of formats on a Chord/Naim/Focal system) I still struggle with the sound balance on DSOTM (vocals brittle, bass drum muddy etc.) And regardless of the timbral qualities (my hearing range at the upper end has deteriorated rapidly with the years, but then does much of interest really happen above 13 kHz, unless you're a bat or a dog) I cannot escape (imagined?) issues with things like mistimed drumming (I'm not a musician so maybe it's all in my head). Conclusions. Yes there are audible differences between the recording media but they are relative. With the exception of clearly compromised media (cassettes) the extent to which they might outweigh other factors, in quantitative terms, can vary according to the reproduction chain being used. But the choice of listening equipment is at least as important, and at a number of price points, more so. Not quite a quantum leap, more of a quality spectrum subject to the law of diminishing returns. Is digital better than analogue (or vice versa)? I have only found this to be a significant issue with 'transitional' or transferred recordings (from the 80s/90s) and often the main problem turned out to be the mastering/remastering process. But conceptually, the very idea of there being 'analogue' advantages for pop music I find problematic. By and large we are talking about electric/electronic instruments, microphoned/amplified vocals, layers of studio effects etc. What is analogue about any of that? Acoustic instruments and unadulterated vocals - well that's different. But in practice, I find modern digital recordings to be superior. in all respects And of course, on a purely pragmatic level, there are no issues with a fragile and imperfect medium (warps, ingrained dirt, scratches, anti-mould treatment etc.) or with storage space. Playing LPs on a turntable is much more to do with ritualistic pleasures and (for oldies like me) nostalgia. People may say that they prefer the sound of LPs but I think that is more to do with the listening experience than the actual sound (listening to LPs on headphones is never an enjoyable experience!) Above all, music is about musicality as much as tonal fidelity. Despite the expanding catalogues now available through the likes of Qobuz, Tidal etc. no amount of technological tinkering or remastering can compensate for the inherent deficiencies in recording techniques available for Caruso or even Callas say. Yet their sheer musicality shines through regardless. One can only imagine how glorious they would sound had their performances been captured using modern recording methods. Fortunately, our brains can cope with such anomalies. So Caruso and Callas will always sound incomparably better than Ed Sheeran or Norah Jones, or whoever happens to be in vogue right now. Not only because of their classically trained voices but also their wondrous artistry. Imagine Mr S attempting Nessum Dorma or Ms Jones Vissi d'Arte (at all, let alone at an equivalent musical standard and without amplification).
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
Remember to download all these versions in high resolution (192Khz/24bit) in the video description!
Still all files are digital so can't do much justice to the real analog sound except hearing the coloration of each analog reproduction system and possibly different mastering.
Again interesting comparison and I liked SACD the best and cassette was the worst, even 160kbps mp3 sound better than cassette.
@@HASHEAVEN sacd sounded the best to me also
Nice 👍 Have this album on 8 track. Also Led Zep "1" etc. Must look at getting a player. Luckily they sell refurb kits for the cassettes themselves. The sponge deteriorates etc. Interesting to compare to the old 8 track system, from what I recall was pretty good back in the day with a good player and speaker system.
Thanks for posting. I will download them. But, frankly, my perception from this video is that the SACD and the 2003 vinyl are the best. The cassette isn't good, I noticed a change in the level of the channels compared to the other forms of media. And I wasn't impressed by the reel to reel copy at all. I think you're more impressed with with the results of the graphic shows you than what you're really listening. However, I have to listen to the high res files to have a definitive opinion and I'm also aware my age (56) could be affecting my perception. But I have to say, I've listened to this album for years and years, with different versions including the 1973 Brazilian "quadraphonic" cut, but unfortunately not with the type of equipment it was intended for. In fact, I've never seen a quadraphonic stereo piece of equipment.
It's 24 bits 192,000 times per second... Grammar is important.
Timestamps
2:37 1994 CD
5:08 2003 Super Audio CD
7:47 2003 Vinyl LP
10:00 1973 Vinyl LP
12:03 1988 Cassette Tape
14:40 Master Tape Copy
You are great!! Thank you.
Thanks you.
Thank you.
thanks heaps
They all sound same to me!
I listened several times and I find the Master tape the absolute best, followed by the 2003 LP. Rock on!
the 2003 LP is Very compress. The volume is just about the same as Master tape but soooooo much compress, bass and guitar are compress and you loss all the soul. For me it's the worst with casette and cd. There is a little bit of attack on the master compression but i not a big fan of the result.... but its still better than the CD or CASETTE
I agree. The 2003 LP does sound better then the other vinyl.
me too !!
100% agree.
Could you tell the difference in a blind test, you blooming liar? We'll include a polygraph with the blind test too, just to be sure.
The SACD sounded so different than everything else like the instruments were remixed. The 2003 LP was pretty darn good. I gasped when you produced the master tape it sounds great.
SACD is crap, the inherent noise is terrible, so they remix the crap out of everything
@@keithv4452 The SACD is good for the 5.1 mix only. If listening in stereo, I opt for a vinyl version.
@@keithv4452 I remember the first time I listened to a SACD, the signal to noise ratio was at least 30db worse than the cd version. Even at low volumes I could hear background hissing. But that was a mastering issue, the noise you refer to is probably quantization noise which exists above audible band...
1. Vinyl re-issue - good separation, strong, tight bass, best vocals. 2. SACD - Amazing separation of voices, more sibilant, perhaps too much so. 3. Vinyl early pressing - poor bass, vocals weirdly pushed to right channel 4. CD - Not bad, but flatter and duller overall.
@@DrDoohickeythat vinyl early pressing is ghastly compared to other versions and the stereo separation is bad. Phasing is also off. The cash register sounds are out of phase in other formats and sounds outside the speakers not centered.
Unless you listen to them back to back I doubt any single version of this milestone album would be less enjoyable than the next... Thank you for all the work and energy that must have gone into creating this - especially that final assembly of the same track switching from version to version was insightful!
I respectfully disagree. Maybe not so pronounced on youtube but vinyl mastered from tape has a very warm organic sound, not to say that digital doesn't have some benefits.
LP needs a special mastering.
With all due respoect, unless you have exceptionally great hearing if he had not identified what is what 99% could nog guess with any great acuracy?? Analog people always use words like "warm and organic" as they cannot be measured and /or quantified. I grew up in the 70's and it is kind of neat hearing the opening crackels of vinal, it brings back a "warm and organic feeling" but I am not going to try to say analog recording is superior when clearly it is not.
@@BenCabell I agree that the love for vinyl is something that can't truly be measured with science, and that DSD might be "objectively" better, but if a digital and analog version of the same album are mastered so well it just comes down to which one makes me feel happier. Just hearing some crackle from the vinyl might get me in a better mood, and get me to enjoy it more in my head.
Your time and effort are much appreciated. Thank you!
I would like to thank Alan Parsons for the superb engineering on this and all the other music he has touched. A fan for LIFE
Yes, except for his last album...
So, the master tape sounds the best to me, and I was impressed by how close the 2003 LP was. However, despite being lower quality, the cassette put a big smile on my face. I think this is a nostalgia thing. The tape effect on the sound is something I haven't heard in years, and it felt like meeting again an old friend.
Just wait a bit, cassettes are coming back. Some nice players are back on the market !
Cassette isnt lower quality, it is the highest quality because mangnetic tape is. For me even with the hisss it sounded bigger.
that master tape sounds INSANE!!!!!!
I agree. We should all be so lucky to have something like that.
@@dkmi I agree. A 192 kHz 24 bit audio file? Count me in, I'm saving that to my phone.
Even the coin sound effects sounded better right out of the gate!
I feel the master copy was beyond all the others but the CD was second best in my opinion but hard to tell
Agree, Master Tape was amazing. Even on my K712 Pros the difference was as night and day to the other versions. If you pay extra attention you can also hear the faint buzzing of the motor of the tape machine in the silent parts.
you are like the professor that teach us to use our ear better then our head, i couldn't thank you enough for your time!!! God Bless always...
Thanks Claudius!
Really appreciate the time and effort you take to put this video together with all the sound clips and analysis. You earned a sub! Keep up the great work!
Thanks Sean!
The 1973 dynamics blow the remasters away, but the cassette is like hearing the song for the first time even in UA-cam compressed audio. I love dynamics more than I like resolution. Then I hear the reels, and OMG.
The 30th anniversary edition is awful!
Agreed
I don't want to like the cassette but I do. Lol
@@ΑπόλλωνΘηρευτής You must be tripping on something, the 30th anniversary is one of the best editions available besides a first issue
I'm really impressed with the quality of the 2003 vinyl overall.
I think an interesting experiment would be to offer the files in random order not labeled. Then we could listen to them blindly. Put up a poll with just the number. Then after a couple of weeks reveal the results. It would be interesting to see if the results were the same if people’s opinions weren’t colored by preconceived notions.
True! Will do with a new video.
jwanda10
I agree. The SACD has much better dynamic range than all the other formats.
Excellent suggestion. I did this once with 6 famous jazz pianists.........My blind favourite was Oscar Petersen, which I hadn't expected.
Agreed. That way to eliminate any chance of bias.
absoluttly agree
The Demo at the end with all of the versions together was a great idea.
Thanks!
Remember that louder does not mean better!
@@BillKinsman True, but you can say the same for quiet!
I think the SACD gives the best value.
If you have a player that handles it, for the low cost, and the outstanding no-loss-in-the-future format you get, the SACD will please almost everyone.
Remembering too of course that just about *any* version of this album sounds fantastic - so we really are splitting hairs. 😎💜
I agree, I never came back to LP after sacd version.
It is difficult to choose between 1973 and 2003 versions. It's probably due to my equipment. Master tape is very natural and definitely my favorite
Foobar A/B same replay gain, the winner 🏆 is master tape
Been listening to the high quality samples (thank you for leaving those up!)... late to the part, but I'm amazed how "compressed" the CD and SACD sound. Especially the bass, the "roundness" of the thumps and string moving in air is very lost, it's more like a synthbass representative note than a real stringed instrument sound. Even compare to either vinyl, the "body" of the bass is just not there anymore in those 2 formats. Even cassette held that (although the top end (cymbal crashes and washes) are very muted on cassette as would be expected. I'm a die-hard fan of CDs for what it's worth, even though I'm "vinyl-aged" we never had a working turntable growing up, LOL, so I never was used to that sound, cassette was my first personal medium, then CDs, which I thought were amazing (and are/can be I think wen mastered correctly). Alan Parson's for example, I'd love to have a vinyl to CD comparison of some of his work, but I can't imagine anything better than my first listen of "Eye in the Sky".
The CD/SACD mixes (sounds to me like the same mix/master just output to the relative conversions thus having a bit more headroom on the SACD which is nice) really sound compressed, like the engineer who made that mix assumed the average system couldn't reproduce heavy bass or something, so just make sure the central note is evident and move on, rather than hearing the nuances of the instruments. And was probably true in 1985 or whenever that was mastered for CD, but... ugh. Way too dry, and lost all low-end warmth. And the "sheen" that normally comes through on CD, isn't there (but OMG it is SO there on the master tapes!!!!)... so it's almost like they took an RIAA mix for vinyl (dropped top-end), and just started there to master the CD, and then made more compromises/compression to get it in digital format.
No idea, but if you made an SACD or non-lossy digital format straight off those master tapes, it would sound so wonderful. Could then master out a little bit of the barely detectable tape noise (nothing compared to cassette, LOL, but it IS tape)... basically just the tiniest filtering at the edges to silence the noise floor (which the CD/SACD mixes do well, I think that's part of where the low-end warmth got blended out), and a modern reissue with the quality of those masters... would be exquisite. Honestly I know the vinyl have the RIAA profiles applied, they simply have to to cut reliable vinyl, but the "master-tape-intent" really is best preserved there, even if the depth of stage, separation, noise, etc aren't all as good as the digital domain, the "master" quality really is, I'd rather listen to that 1973 vinly, if you replay the first 5 seconds side-by-side between the CD and 1973 vinyl, the vinyl sounds like you are really "in the shop"... the CDs sound like someone using sound tracks "placed this sound left at 88-degrees, placed this sound right at 74-degrees" and they have no ambience, no character at all... just do that, I opened each cilp in a browser tab to quickly swap between them, and the vinyl is just "you are there" (with a little noise) and the CDs... aren't.
That's what it is after many cycles now... it's not analog "noise", it's the actual "ambience" of the original mix is GONE in the digital versions. That, to me, isn't a digital vs analog, that's a sound engineer who really screwed up the mix by drying it out completely. I hope it wasn't Alan Parsons on that "to digital" mix, I can't imagine it was though based on this, as he's quite good at maintaining ambience in his SACD/CDs from my experience. With the loss of ambience also comes that loss of "quality" of the instruments.
Anyhow, my thoughts years later, having just found this, LOL.
The CD and SACD sound so much cleaner and clearer to me.
That it digital sounds tinier not as warm or natural it to crisp in mopinion but you did hear the difference it becomes real evedent when jimmie hendrex is put to that test. Distortion was a big part of his music. Then you can hear part of his music was lost to data compression.
Slower.
And if that album was recorded now days on proper digital domain rec system it would be so much better and snake oil seller /vinyl propaganda/would be even more laughable then is now
The SACD wins out here because of the sheer instrument tone. Unfortunately that can’t be displayed here because it had to be converted from DSD and it lost all it’s DSD qualities the moment that was done
@@henrietafirkova2797 Right? Vinyl is a joke
Man, I may be getting old, but for the CDs, I think the first CD was cleaner and that newer vinyl sounded impressive and obviously that reel was the bomb! I kind of felt sorry for the cassette tape level wise with all its HX Pro! and that other XDR I think you said.lol. That was fun to listen and compare with the way your careful explanation of everything. Big thumbs up brother!
I remember buying the SACD and playing it through my old pioneer 5.1 system and it sounded totally amazing
SACD and Master Tape copy sound awesome, runner up is 2003 vinyl, but thank you for those moments from the original vinyl... 45 years ago for me!
The master tape copy is absolutly the best. It sounds so rich and oppened. I think the 2003 and the 1973 LP's come in second and third. The worst of all is the cassete, wich is not as loud and sound a little muffled. Great video!
THE 8TRACK IS NICE TOO !!
@@salamjihad3449 the 78 is better.
vynil is so refreshing, tape is smooth, and precise. Others are like a rage.
Really enjoyed this video. Thanks for taking the time to put it together, and excellent choice in the sample song!
1. Cd 2:38
2.SACD 5:09
3. LP 7:47 (Reissue)
4. LP 10:00 (Repressing)
5. Cassette XDR 12:05
6. Master Tape 14:41
In each case outstanding music and the first recording that really overwhelmed me as a 14 y old boy. In a humid dark cellar with gear that was far, far from hifi.
Summary: for me no need to buy sacd instead of cd. Tape hype is tape hype. Cassettes can be surprisingly good. No need to substitute my lps. Need a record cleaning machine.
The reel tape sounded the most stable/solid, but I liked the 2003 LP the best, probably because of the boosted bass.
Just an FYI, due to the year produced, this fantastic album was completely mastered on analog reel to reel tape. Many edits were done with a splice block and tape.
You should have included the 2001 Napster 128k version in the downloads :)
Not for sound quality, but for nostalgia (for early millennials)
is that version available on Spotify in 320K?
I just compared it with amazon music, even the high quality download is just better than casette, far away from all other wav files provided here. Think I dumped my CDs too early...
😂
Today's a very special day, thanks to your channel I found out about the differences between analog and digital, as I'm leaving this comment I'm listenning to this great album for the very first time on vinyl i.e. the 2nd UK press which I was fortunate to get hold of with my newly upgraded Thorens turntable TD 115 with new Exact cartridge from Rega (the yellow one)...a great deal of pleasure, cheers from France
Such a nice comparison! Thank you.
For my ears: CD, and master tape copy.
SACD totally loses the sound stage. Was not ready for that.
All analog versions also sounded great.
Thank YOU!
I have 40 years of recording experience. The best sound from reel-to-reel master versions. Different recording studios use equalizers, mixers, and human factors. No standard on this field. Even 20 music professional have different perceptions and will make a personal opinion.
This may be an unpopular opinion and of course it is a subjective one but - SOMETIMES Remasters finally "get it right". ( emphasis on sometimes.) There's something about that 2004 Vinyl version.
The 2003 approach the loudness (artificially) and feel of the original tape for the mainstream public (at a coast of the lost of dynamic range) so i guess it can be ok, but with good listening environnement yes the master and 1973 are the best SACD close
Want to engineer master my lp?
I'd be more interested to hear it tracked in digital and analog. Then the fight would be fair. Of course a reel master will sound best, next to having the real separate tracks to play back. But if this was done today, to digital, nobody would complain and it would some as good, if not better. I've been at it for 50 years.. (like that matters) and digital was the first time drums sounded like they sound to the drummer! No tape compression. Even with crappy ADAT converters they were better. And having been in tape for 3 decades, I can get that sound without the bad parts, with digital pretty easily. All personal for sure. but specs don't lie, but our hearts and ears do.
Fascinating, especially the final few minutes where the formats are crossfaded against each other !
Thank you for taking the time to do this.
Bill P.
Thank YOU!
@@anadialog You're welcome !
This is the best format comparison I've seen on UA-cam; of course everything we hear is processed and compressed for the stream, but the differences were clearly audible. Nicely done!
I didn't realise cassette was so bad...
The cassette tape did suck I agree the master tape was cool but still tape
For the cassette, they had to do everything they could to fight the garbage medium - that's why you hear a compressed, "pinched sound", to get as much above the noise floor as possible. Just like on radio.
I listened to the samples, with Sony ZR1's headphones and a PHA3 the Master Tape and the LP2003 are in my opinion the best. Tremendous difference from all other formats. Thanks for sharing this experiment Cheers MZ.
No defined number can describe how many times i have listened to this album. Great video ;)
I am a 67 yo guy, that I grew up with LPs . When the CD s came along I found the sound to be flat compare to a 3 d sound of the LPs. If I close my eys I can see an orchestra and the players on different depth of field located in space. My favorite version is LP 1973. Thanks for your review.
You are absoloutly correct my friend
In my opinion I prefer the vinyl sound, I grew up with it, it was the only option. Then cd came along and I got a CD player, and I became disappointed with the sound. I then went back to vinyl, and I got labelled as a dinosaur by younger people at work, but I pointed out that a cd system that cost £100 could never complete with vinyl played on a decent system.
The first wave of CDs issued in the 80s were usually taken from LP pre-press masters. These sounded weak or "not full" because LP pre-masters must have compressed dynamics and a huge bass roll-off under 100 Hz (that is boosted back up by the RIAA circuit in the turntable's output stage) so that grooves don't cause the needle to mis-track from too wide or too deep a groove. Add to this basic challenge the OPEC crisis that caused LPs to become thin as tagboard by the mid-late 1970s and you can see why CDs suffered. Those old LP pre-masters were just dusted off and run straight from the old decks (often without any compensation) into a A/D converter in the rush to sell as many CDs as possible.
@@stevenclarke5606
It's no longer the case.
Digital has come light years since then. It's now not even close.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, is delusional.
@@user-me5hb2xl1j
No
He was correct back then.
Now however, he's dead wrong.
Greetings: I worked for CREST DIGITAL MEDIA (Hollywood) that mastered the SACD master and duplicated the discs. Our listening room had audiophile grade playback equipment that likely cost more than my salary. Not having golden ears, although I was able to note the remixing sound difference, I was unable to note a qualitative difference from the regular CD. If I remember correctly, the source material was delivered at a sample rate of 192 kHz. I was working in the HD video depth. at the time so had no direct involvement with th project. (The AC power cords were filled with sand!?) I think the sacd recording was multi-channel as well, but it was over 10 years ago.
Incredibile!!! Lo sapevo che con il nastro in bobina aperta era il massimo! Ottima comparazione. Ascolto sempre i miei nastri (anche con registrazioni vecchie più di 30 anni) e suonano ancora magnificamente. Grazie, ciao
The LP 2003 and Master Tape are by far the superior versions.
The LP sounded pretty muddy imo
WOW, I thought I was crazy, but I agree with you 100%. Those recordings are definitely the best sounding of all the versions. The master tapes seemed like obvious winners, but the 2003 vinyl version was a real surprise. I had to listen to it a couple of times and I actually think I like it the 2003 vinyl version the best. Sure there is that vinyl background noise, but it comes with an airy openness and headroom that the others just don't quite have. Also, the attack on bass strings in the intro seemed rounder and a slightly punchier. The master tapes are nearly neck-n -neck and some would say because of the lack of noise from the media it's the best. I certainly see that point too. Great demo, many thanks.
funny for the 2003 master on VInyl they used the same digital source as for the SACD release. Only they pressed it on vinyl instead of plastic haha. So the SACD sounds without a doubt better as it has not the limitations the vinyl medium does have. And yes there are plenty, but sure love vinyl.
Nope! For the 2003 vinyl they used an analog master. The record is an AAA production. Zero digital!
Dont believe that, as it was released at the same time the SACD was released. That was the era that all the master tapes came from their climate controlled room and were digitalized for future use as they should have done it already in the 80s as the CD is not that bad but sure the AD conversion were.
I'm not sure of course but vinyl was not hot in 2003, and everything was digital. It was not common for a vinyl press back then to get a analog reel delivered for the pressing and it is still not, maybe some press has now bought a second hand Studer, but sure that is not the common source for the master. Often they just receive an CD or in the past a Digital Audio Tape and now mostly just digital audio files.
I can't find anywhere the source it was full analog, there is an interview from 2003 from the guys who did the remastering.
news.acousticsounds.com/post.cfm/doug-sax-takes-us-to-the-dark-side
But thats all they ever commented on this. Nothing about which source was used to do the LP, the newly created digital tracks or the original analogs.. The SACD was first, so it is possible they used the already created digtal tracks. And this means they didnt used a already mixed stereo digital track, but all the seperate tracks as were on the original masters. And this could be easily 3 or 4 tapes.
Maybe I'm crazy but LP 2003 sounds best for me, then reel to reel.
3. SACD
...
Great video btw
Its sounds more brighter.
Literally anything will sound better if it's louder (and it is). That's why modern producers have less and less dynamic range in their music.
I would have to agree. But maybe I'll change my mind when I put the tracks through my best set. But at least when I adjust volume so they match up, I think the 2003 LP stands out as the best. I even compared it to the 2011 remastered CD-version off of Tidal HiFi. Which also seem to lack some of the dynamics of the 2003 LP. Wouldn't hate it if they made a MQA from the original master.
Yes, I agree
@@tronderikbrekke8792 mqa is a scam! seriously tho, why mqa, when flac exists? just so they can sell you expensive gear i assume....
Thank you for still doing content even though it gets demonetized. Says a lot about what you stand for.
Amazing comparison, mate! Definitely, the master tape is the sweetest... But I choose the sound of the vinyl first press (maybe because it's more plausible for me to buy it) the soundstage, the warmth and even the extension of the higher ground it's wonderful... Cheers!
Really cool comparison! I was amazed how much difference I could tell even just listening on UA-cam (at the highest quality setting). One thing I might also suggest is looking at the stereo imaging as well. The SACD version is just amazing in this regard how it uses the full width of the stereo image when compared to the other versions on good headphones.
For me, even though I grew up with vinyl and tape, I'm not a big fan of the analog blanket effect (how it smooths out the detail and muffles everything a bit). I don't like pure digital either as clearly that can go way too harsh, but I personally loved the SACD version in this test! The really wide imaging, all of the detail was brought back to life, yet it wasn't harsh, and it just sounded like there was so much depth to it (front to back). For me that felt the most "in the room" with the music, like I was there.
Great stuff!
Thank You for allowing all of us to experience something of master recordings from this famous pop music. I haven't listened to the downloads on my DAP yet, but my laptop plays them all the same except for noise levels (surprises no one.)
SACD seemed to have a wider sound stage. I love a wide sound stage so that was my favorite but i guess it just depends on your taste. Everyone will pick the source that suites their taste. No matter how you listen just remember to enjoy one of the greatest albums of all time.
Of course sound quality is subjective. What you are comparing here are different productions, not formats.
There are about 13 different digital masterings of DSOTM and close to that number of analog productions. For digital, most audiophiles prefer the original 1983 Sony mastered Black Triangle CD. A production which was a flat transfer of the same master tape that was used for the Japan 1978 Pro Use LP, in the era before digital compression of later remasters. The sound is dynamic, smooth as butter and for most listeners, superior to the SACD (which is a bit compressed). Therefore you are not comparing the "best" masterings in this exercise.
As for the best analog version, for me it is the Pro Use LP, which comes close the CD but slightly less dynamic and with the inner groove distortions towards the end of the LP which is a characteristic of vinyl. Some prefer the original UK LP and others prefer the later LPs which were cut from a digital master. It is all a matter of taste.
You also need to be careful with what you mean by the master tape. Which master? I very much doubt it is the original 1973 master or the safe copy as they would be accessible only to a very few and would only be played in exceptional circumstances to preserve the tape. The master you are referring to is one of the many production masters and with analog it would be at least three generations removed from the original master.
Lastly, your explanation of how digital works, sampling rates etc is based on urban myths. Read the link below for a better explanation.
people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
And look at the "D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell" from the same guys on youtube. (the creators of ogg vorbis) They clearly show with examples on scope and spectrum analyser what 16bit 44.1Khz actually means and why so called high res does not make sense.
@Mike P I agree that the 2011 version is a well mastered CD and the reality is that there is no 'bad' version, though the CD layer of the SACD is a bit on the harsh side. However most audiophiles would still prefer the 1983 Sony Black Triangle CD (the early mastering without the "TO" in the matrix) to the 2011, and certainly to the MFSL which was over EQ'd with excessive and boomy bass (ymmv). Yes the 1983 it has pre-emphasis but any CD player which meets redbook specs (ie it displays the compact disc symbol) will automatically de-emphasise it on playback. Other combo CD players may not (eg the Oppo). If ripping the files, there are many software available to de-emphasise the files (eg Foobar with sox plugin) before saving them.
I'm not sure whether your comment about many 1980s being anaemic is a general comment or a specific comment about DSOTM. If the latter, that is not so, those EMI masterings are all quite good. As for 1980s CDs in general, they are a mixed bag. Some are poor but others are the best digital versions of any album as they were mainly flat transfers from production masters. The variability depends on what production masters were used, sometimes low generation tapes were uses or LP masters, even cassette masters. Among that lot there are many that were made from high generation masters and sound superb. Those early CDs that were good are worth quite a bit of money on the used market, eg the Sony mastered DSOTM, RCA David Bowies, early Targets and so on.
WHEN THEY SAY MASTER THEY MEAN A COPY OF THE MASTER . EXACT COPY !! NOT THE ORIGINAL ONE ! LMAO
i like your way of explanation and your relaxed and conscious voice -- thx for your channel !
I am afraid that was more in my beginning because my little baby was sleeping, now In my new videos I am a little more…present! ;-)
Great work, thank you. I preferred the master tape.
Edit: it appears I have a 73 copy of the Dark Side of The Moon. Better have a good listen. 👍
Many thanks for great comparison! Really nice and interesting!
As to me the 2003 vinyl sounds best, more dynamics! Master tape is number 2 for me.
The master reel to reel and the vinyl 2003 I thought were very close. Thanks for the great analysis
One thing to point out is the SACD multi-track, which I know you didn't cover; however, as an extra bonus I put that on and as is the case with other 5.1 or 7.1 mixes, Money feels like a completely different song with various nuances emphasized in different ways from the two-channel mix. The Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Immersion box set is worth checking out.
True!
Great video. I enjoyed listening to the comparisons. The master tape wins by a long shot to my ears. But I will say that the SACD down sampling from it's native DSD format 24bit/192khz did it a great disservice.
I'm happy for someone demonstrating the very nice cassette Tape quality when mastering and "pressing" is done right, thanks for that 🙂
For me the 2003 LP sounds best here
agreed
Ditto
I can say that, at least to my ears, using a Koss porta Pro headphone, the vinyl version (2003) sounds better, although the master tape copy sounds more "full" or "bigger". I wonder how would these compare to the Mobile Fidelity UHQR vinyl.
I do agree.
I cant agree more. I have the same feeling.
You simply listen the output of different mastering process. So what?
@@luciomagini1389 That´s exactly the point which most people here (even the guy who created this video) do not understand.
You are failing to understand that people buy VERSIONS of an album, not mastering. A version is defined by the medium and the mastering. Hence, in this case I compared digital and annalog versions. In other videos instead I analyzed the same mastering on different media: ua-cam.com/video/-4BLWR2E2wg/v-deo.html
Not in this case. Its very simple!
Amazing video! The master tape was unbelievable!
The vinyl versions sound a bit muffled compared to the CD and SACD versions.
it's the CD and SACD which have artificials High Shelf on the master i think..... the high doesn't sound very naturals
It’s due to digital having higher dynamic range I believe
@MilkTrafficker CD HAVE better dynamic range that vinyl but not THAT Cd
@MilkTrafficker dude, with all due respect, a high quality cassette tape is a way more superior format than any mp3
Because they boost the mid-frequencies for cd. Data compression also kinda does this naturally
I downloaded and listened to the files on a FiiO E10K AMP/DAC + Audio-Technica M40X headphones. For me from best to worst:
1. 2003 vinyl
2. Master tape copy 2
3. Master tape copy
4. 1973 vinyl
5. SACD
6. CD
7. Casette
First of all, thank you for this video. Whenever I make an upgrade to my two-channel system, I like to take it for a test drive playing this song from the original CD. I have a thousand albums & CD's to enjoy and am certainly not going to nitpick things regarding Digital vs analogue. I play what I have. I threw a ton of cash into my system and can hear the startling differences in sound quality between recordings. In the end I will get into the music and hesitantly overlook the lack in sound quality. Only a small percentage of media will have outstanding sound quality. When in need of quality I know which ones to play and enjoy them for a session of listening.
The bass and vocals were the only things that changed drastically each time. My favorite has to be the 2003 release of the LP
Omg same here, I felt like as if I was in the room while they performed it live.
one thing that stood out to me was the reverb on all of the different versions. the air in the reverb really did a number for me. (long time since you've probably seen this but I don't disagree that those were the biggest differences)
Great comparison between the different formats. It would be interesting to compare the 1/2 speed master vinyl and the 24k 1/2 speed master CD with the master tape. I have this album in vinyl, CD, 1/2 speed vinyl and 1/2 speed CD.
Hi, Found this interesting medias differences demo, bravo for this good job !
I am interested to know what was the LP TT device, what was the Cartridge model/technology and what was the RIAA preamplifier used for your recording. Tks in advance !
To my untrained ear obviously the master tape sounds best, closely followed by the 2003 LP version. Thanks for the video. it was a very interesting experience.
I love how good the cassette sounds. Obviously it's the worst compared to the others but still very impressive.
Wow Man! Really great job on all this. Now I'm keeping my album collection and Reel-to-reel deck. Thanks for that!
Thank you John!
I really liked that you kept the levels as they were recorded, however at the end of the video I think it would've been much better if you could've level matched all the recordings as close to the same volume as possible to give all the formats a more level playing field. Unfortunately we automatically assume when something is louder, it must be better. Hence what started the volume wars in the record business. Please consider this in future videos. Aside from that, very well made video. Thank you
True! In fact in other similar tests I did that: ua-cam.com/video/UkuHLrh3rKY/v-deo.html
@@anadialog Checked it out. Great job sir
The first time I listened to the Dark Side of the Moon it was on that exact cassette version. I still recognize that exact sound signature as being separate from the others and nostalgic. It's more than just tape hiss, it certainly has its own texture about it.
Cool!
I hear more compression breathing on the cassette, probably due to the limitations of the format.
Ex recording engineer for a cassette duplication house that did copies for Sony Classical, back in the 1980s.
But for what it was I wouldn't have complained.
Thank you for the efforts. Master tape copy is the best, follow by the vinyl 2003. I am not surprised by that, what I do its the cassette tape. I need to go back to my parents house and dig out all the tapes. The hard part is to find a good quality cassette tape player.
You know, considering that the cassette was at 1 7/8 IPS and the R to R was at 15 IPS, you have to hand it to the cassette tape! I am enjoying some really fine PRErecorded cassette tapes and it is amazing just how good they sound on a GOOD player. I have the Bang and Olufsen 6500 series audio system from 1990.
I replaced all the belts on the player and enjoy using the REMOTE control for it's functions. Who ever heard of a cassette deck with full remote control of playback, record, flipping sides etc. ??? Fun vintage stuff that still sounds SO good (O:
I'd go with the reel tape. I just purchased a quadraphonic reel to reel deck and I heard there was a quad version of Dark Side floating around. After some digging I found a four channel mix saved as an .ISO file to make a DVD-Audio disc. After decades of listening to this album in stereo it's like a new album now.
The surround mix on the SACD is fun to listen to. For example, the old man's words are a lot clearer as he moves from front to back.
I have that file. It sounds fantastic.
Fantastic vídeo. Well done. LP 2003 sounds insanely ........freakin good!
This guy just exudes calm.
When I did that video I remember that my daughter was sleeping :-)
Listening all tapes now on descent magne-planar headphones and cassette I like the most. impressed. great job!
and master tape copy, of course.
I did not know the big difference between CD and SACD. impressive.
The problem is that we achieved a lot in recording sound however we are still not capable to really capture it as it is in nature.
There is a huge difference if you hear a recorded instrument or if this instrument is played live and you can hear it live.
Tape hiss/needle rumblings, the motor of the turntable, the bad cd-mastering techniques...the sterile translation of digital sound media,
the compressing of sound, the soundwar all prove that we in fact are still not capable to really record things properly. Its just a hobby
because we still are technologically behind in this area. All is now even more difficult because everyone is into the visuals and the
digitalised comfort. But noone is really asking him/herself is this sound any good. Maybe there is not much difference between lp and cd.
But the youtube/ipod/mp3 etc. and the bad speakers of the Sonos systems are definitely way under good sound reproduction.
Its nice if you are working in the shed and those mobile speakers deliver sound. But its just a surrogate of sound, not real good sound.
And although I used to be a cd fan....lp sounds less stressed than cd....its as if cd-sound is a tiny bitt shaven and then cranked up a bit in volume.
CD is nice for huge boxsets like the Pettsounds sessions or the millions of extra studio material of legendary groups. But their original records
should be available in the best vinyl format next to cd. And digital files you can download? I just don't see them as an item so they dissapear
in my computer somewhere...while cd's/lps are still used by me...and youtube? yes a lot but what if it stops? And not everything is there and
not every recording sounds that good because of the billions of sources.
I agree. I had these same (sad but true) thoughts!
This is something I always thought about, actually the whole drum set but cymbals in particular...
thing is, no one really wants to listen back to real life...for instance a drum set heard in real life is an often painful thing, levels all over the place per drum and cym result in a non cohesive sound, very little lows, too much highs, too dynamic, and room sound flutter echo etc. close micing gets rid of most of the extremes of these issues, and that is what we want to hear. ps i am a drummer and yes a great cymbal in real life all alone cannot be recorded same as it sounds in person, but the drums are a set that become one, and most often in a band context, so is a moot point to say just because we cant record one isolated thing same as heard alone in real life, but few listen to a hole band or album of just one cymbal. as soon as you add something else, then real life is not as good as a recording
I have always enjoyed vinyl more than digital reproductions even with all the noise and imperfections. For me has a warmer richer sound. Either way, the music is enjoyable in either format. I am an older guy and started my music collection with vinyl so guess I am a little nostalgic and biased towards the memories of those first albums I bought. Including this one.
You call it nostalgia I call it...experience! ;-)
Amazing comparison took me 2020 to 1984 recordings. Big Thankyou.
I leaned more towards the SACD version in a blind test for some reason. In my opinion the original first edition reel to reel tape is the best. Only because of the equipment available for recording back then is what it sounds best on. Imagine if the artist were still alive today and used our studios to re record their music what it would sound like.
Absolutely, the master tape is very dynamic. I listen to Pink Floyd many times and the best part that stands out is all what is played and the realism that goes with it. I feel that vinal has more in-depth of frequency and a smoother bass. I also grew up with vinal and hard a pretty good sound system. I didn't have the best sound speakers but the Advent was excellent for the price. The music I listened to, felt that I was at the performance.
Amazing effort put on that to compare. I even downloaded the files and listened to them very carefully.
On one hand, I really understand people's obsession to listen to the best version but when comparing, we need to start putting some perspective.
1) The medium of the original album is vinyl (end of story).
The mastering of the album was taped / printed on vinyl - so if the task is to perceive what the mastering engineers and the band wanted to achieve, you listen to the vinyl, it's that dead simple.
2) Of course, someone will claim that the same was later printed on cassette or cd or sacd etc etc...I do not really care...the album was performed / supposed to be printed on vinyl.
The whole mindset and technology background of all the people involved in the recordings and mastering was to print this on vinyl.
Even the later re-prints from the original tapes will NEVER be the same because simply put, they are not trying to deliver a "fresh" sound of this masterpiece but a version matching the original.... but the original had some limitations (due to the medium initially printed) and after-all if you arrange a new mastering for cd or sacd, of course it is NOT THE SAME with the old vinyls.
Exactly. Well stated.
good experiment...i I've been searching for something like this..and doing this with my fav Floyd album... obviously the master tape copy sounds much beter than others, however the SACD also put high equality to rip part and separate instruments.
thks
I don't know about you guys, but the cassette quality was better sounding than all the others and I think it is because of the Dolby NR being turned off. A very close second would be the reel to reel recording. Thank you ! 👍
Agreed ..
Thank you for all this work! Very interesting comparisons. I think one of my ears is plugged up. I need to re-listen after I address the issue.
I remember when I first heard this album back in the early 70's.
I met an artist who had a large stone built studio he lived in off the Kings road in Chelsea London. I asked the lady who ran the record department in Harvey Nichols and she produced a copy off the rack and I bought it immediately. My copy is comparatively unplayed because I spent most of my time listening to music on my friends system and my copy stayed at home. Since then I have bought many more copies in different formats including Hi Res versions.
One of the most important albums in my collection.
My hearing now only goes up to 10 kHz before dropping of sharply so the only thing I could make out that was better was the master tape.
Thanks for sharing your experience Jeremy!
It surprised me that the vocals were the one thing that were most noticeably different on each of the formats. Surprising, given the relatively limited frequency range of the human voice.
...but that is also the most critical to our ears because very familiar with those frequencies. It's a normal fact. That is why a good midrange is paramount in a speaker.
@@anadialog I'm hearing the tracks fade behind the vocals but thinking that's digital compression.
Might be, I don't know...
its probably down to the mixing not the format
@@zachariahadams At this resolution, compression is absent and is not going to be the issue. This is most likely a mixing problem.
Just listened on my iPad to all the formats and I Love the reel to reel tape!!
2003 LP sounds the best. 1973 LP I think it had been played many times.
I think because the remasteritation
Agreed 100%. Would really like to see the 2016 LP in here too.
2003 LP is loudness wars in action
I find the 2003 LP the most impressive and enjoyable format. Assumed I'd gravitate toward the reel, but, not so. Surprisingly.
Thank you so very much for verifying a claim I have been making for years with the younger generations that the original tape and then perhaps vinyl are the only things that will give a better listening experience. Lucky for me, they don't often believe me, as they are caught up in 'new technology' with all it's alluring glitz and glamour. Lucky for me, I say, because I can still obtain tape, vinyl, and yes, even film materials along with the mechanics for enjoying them at a much lower price than if the youngsters were actually appreciating true quality. Keep up the good work.
Thank YOU
Its really got nothing to do with the medium though. Digital can more faithfully reproduce the original than analogue can, that's just a simple fact. Analogue will always colour the sound, it doesn't matter if you are playing back a vinyl record on a £22k Linn Sondek or an MP3 on a cheap digital player, just as long as the digital copy is actually a faithful reproduction.
The issue is with how its mastered. If the digital copy is poorly mastered then the vinyl will sound better, unfortunately music these days is often rushed out, poorly produced and poorly mastered, so it doesn't even matter what medium its on. Most music is now recorded digitally at the studio anyway.
Ive heard some FLAC files produced from an original analogue master of a symphonic metal band, its exactly the same, the Vinyl is not, there is definitely cross channel bleed, loss of dynamic range and a higher noise floor. Some may prefer the vinyl, but that preference and often because its what they are used to. One mans 'warmer' or 'richer', is another mans 'boomy' and 'muddy'.
Digital has progressed a long way from the days of 128kb MP3s produced lazily by record labels just wanting to get something out the door, or CDs made without any understanding of what they are going to be played on. Even today some producer think that frequency response is more important than dynamic range, when it absolutely is not. The worse thing about this is that unless you are spending thousands on your equipment that one theoretical advantage analogue has, which you cant even hear, wont show itself anyway.
They all sound very good. If you force me to choose a favorite, for me it's the 1973 vinyl mainly because I remember walking into the record shops back then and buying the LP (more than once!). Plus, it does sound incredibly good to this very day and ANA[DIA]LOG is no doubt using a great analogue set up. Yes - it's the 1973 vinyl for me.
Most interesting video, Thanks a lot!
The major difference I heard is that the RTR recorded Master Copy has a slight speed difference (slower) than the rest of the sample. It indicates that during the process of copying the Master at least one of the machines speed (playback and/or recording machine) was slightly not calibrated properly.
Very much agreed with Steve's Stray Stuff, with a slight preference to the LP for it's more rounded and musical bass. Above all thanks for the opportunity to listen and compare all the format.
The master tape was the best, but I liked the warm feeling of the cassette and vinyl. I only have it on CD and Vinyl and it doesn’t sound bad but compared to the other ones on here I have to get a reel to reel copy.
Cool experiment. I used a Dragonfly and Koss Porta Pro headphones to listen. I played the clips in Audacity, which sound nice, and used the Blackman-Harris spectrum function to analyze each wave file. It was interesting to see the frequency drop off at about 20,230 Hz, for the CD. This is due to the filtering used at 22, 050 Hz ( f/2) to prepare the signal for the limited sample rate of a CD (16 bit / 44.1 kHz). I suspect a lot of harmonic overtones are cut off in the CD version, while the other sources retain them.
Harmonics are always at a higher frequency product (so indeed overtones) of the base tone, thus a higher harmonic of a base tone below 20Khz can be higher then 20Khz and will most certainly not be audible. But, there can be a mix of high frequencies resulting in a lower frequency when added. Say, a mix off a 30Khz and a 30.1Khz tone out of phase result in a 100Hz tone. This 100Hz tone is easily captured when converting to digital at 44.1Khz sample rate. The higher frequencies are lost but don't matter anymore, since the 100Hz result is still there. So when an harmonic overtone mix resulting in an audible (so below 20Khz) tone, it will still be in the recorded digital audio wave file. Nothing audible is lost.
Kudos to you sir what you did was amazing! I believe the Master tape copy sounded best. Long may your channel run sir, regards from Manila, Philippines.
I have had two versions on CD from different years, and both sounded like they were too mid range heavy, with splashy treble. And the bass lacked warmth and depth. I may buy an SACD version, and try it with my Sony bluray player. As soon as the SACD version started playing in this demo, it instantly sounded more rounded, with a bit more depth. But hearing it over UA-cam is never ideal.
I don't have a turntable, so vinyl is not an option for me. But that 1973 version on vinyl sounds surprisingly detailed, with good stereo separation and depth.
The 2003 vinyl version sounded cleaner, and less muddy to me though.
The cassette is good also, but a cassette is never going to sound as good as the master tapes. The higher frequency response is probably due to there being no Dolby NR, which makes the treble sound over emphasised, and splashy on a Dolby NR encoded cassette.
But that open reel version sounded excellent, even over UA-cam. The frequency response sounded very flat, and the overall effect was very rounded, with plenty depth. I would say it was the best of all.
Out of the CD versions, the SACD version sounded closest to the open reel version in my opinion, so I will definitely be buying a copy on SACD.
Something important that needs to be kept in mind here is that the sound of each version is subject to the decisions of the mastering engineer who was working with the signal.
If you want to compare each medium on its own merits you'd want to take the master itself and transfer it directly to various mediums because that way you'd be working with the same source signal.
THANK YOU Shark! And this jives with what I've been trying to say ever since the loudness wars and remastering became a 'thing'. For a fair comparison take the same two-ch master - particularly an earlier one, and transfer it to CD, MP3, LP, etc, and then let folks decide.
You made me miss my old reel to reel tape deck from early ‘70s!
My order of fidelity, in my humble on ear Sony’s that I use with my iPad is:
1) The Reel to Reel Master Copy
2) The CD (not the SACD)
3) The 1973 Vinyl second pressing
4) The Cassette Tape
I had an original vinyl pressing in the seventies that I let get away from me ( I was a kid ) and I kick myself when I think about it.
I own both the CD and the SACD but have never heard the SACD version on the intended speaker configuration. The SACD has two versions and although it was remastered, the non SACD version is closer to the CD version but in listening here I think the CD edges out slightly ahead. This is all very interesting. I’ve never done a side by side between those two on my own equipment, have to do that sometime.
cassette < CD < LP 2003 < SACD < LP 1973 < master tape
1. cassette : dull & harsh sound
3. LP 2003 : loudness button on! It's sounds like master tape playing, but not the same
4. SACD : crystal sound and a little-bit skinny for my taste
5. LP 1973 : neutral
6. master tape : fuller, richer and heavy(thick). We can make various coffees from Espresso, can't from Americano
I fully agree with you in your ranking. I liked vinyl 1973 a bit more than master tape.
Thank you for the care and effort that you put into making this report. Very interesting.
Two things in particular struck me.
1) My mental ranking of the media varied according to whether I was listening through UA-cam or from the WAV files (via Audirvana). In the first case it was CD, tape, LP, cassette. In the second it was tape, LP, CD, cassette. As to whether CD was better/worse than SACD or the old LP pressing noticeably different from the new, such differences are minor compared to the effects of switching other elements in the reproduction chain (e.g. DAC and headphones, my Chord Hugo is noticeably clearer than my Chord Mojo, my Focal Utopias spatially narrower but more engaging than my Sennheiser HD800s).
2) Regardless of the medium, or any other part of the reproduction chain (I first listened to this in my youth via LP on a modest Thorens/JVC/ Wharfedale system and now have it available as a ripped SACD or via Qobuz in a a number of formats on a Chord/Naim/Focal system) I still struggle with the sound balance on DSOTM (vocals brittle, bass drum muddy etc.) And regardless of the timbral qualities (my hearing range at the upper end has deteriorated rapidly with the years, but then does much of interest really happen above 13 kHz, unless you're a bat or a dog) I cannot escape (imagined?) issues with things like mistimed drumming (I'm not a musician so maybe it's all in my head).
Conclusions.
Yes there are audible differences between the recording media but they are relative. With the exception of clearly compromised media (cassettes) the extent to which they might outweigh other factors, in quantitative terms, can vary according to the reproduction chain being used. But the choice of listening equipment is at least as important, and at a number of price points, more so. Not quite a quantum leap, more of a quality spectrum subject to the law of diminishing returns.
Is digital better than analogue (or vice versa)? I have only found this to be a significant issue with 'transitional' or transferred recordings (from the 80s/90s) and often the main problem turned out to be the mastering/remastering process. But conceptually, the very idea of there being 'analogue' advantages for pop music I find problematic. By and large we are talking about electric/electronic instruments, microphoned/amplified vocals, layers of studio effects etc. What is analogue about any of that? Acoustic instruments and unadulterated vocals - well that's different. But in practice, I find modern digital recordings to be superior. in all respects And of course, on a purely pragmatic level, there are no issues with a fragile and imperfect medium (warps, ingrained dirt, scratches, anti-mould treatment etc.) or with storage space. Playing LPs on a turntable is much more to do with ritualistic pleasures and (for oldies like me) nostalgia. People may say that they prefer the sound of LPs but I think that is more to do with the listening experience than the actual sound (listening to LPs on headphones is never an enjoyable experience!)
Above all, music is about musicality as much as tonal fidelity. Despite the expanding catalogues now available through the likes of Qobuz, Tidal etc. no amount of technological tinkering or remastering can compensate for the inherent deficiencies in recording techniques available for Caruso or even Callas say. Yet their sheer musicality shines through regardless. One can only imagine how glorious they would sound had their performances been captured using modern recording methods. Fortunately, our brains can cope with such anomalies. So Caruso and Callas will always sound incomparably better than Ed Sheeran or Norah Jones, or whoever happens to be in vogue right now. Not only because of their classically trained voices but also their wondrous artistry. Imagine Mr S attempting Nessum Dorma or Ms Jones Vissi d'Arte (at all, let alone at an equivalent musical standard and without amplification).
Analog passion...dope ! Glad people like you still exist.