The Dark Side of the Moon: analog & digital comparison (CD, SACD, Vinyl, Tape)
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 апр 2018
- In this video we explore and compare different digital and analog versions of one of the most famous Pink Floyd's album, the Dark Side of the Moon. In particular we focus on the track 'Money' sourced by:
1990's CD, 2003 anniversary SACD, 2003 anniversary remastered & 1973 original vinyl pressings, XDR - HX Pro cassette tape and reel to reel master tape copy (2 track 15ips)!
(N.B. The actual listening of these versions live, that is reproduced through a Hi-Fi system, is truly incomparable in respect to these digitalized files. The Master Tape copy version is by far the best, although listening to the Hi-Res files the quality is only slightly better. I guess this is the downside of digital audio, conversion and compression processes)
!ATTENTION! - For a better comparison stream or download the high resolution versions (192Khz / 24 bit) of 'Money' of each media following these links:
- CD version:
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
- SACD version:
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
- Vinyl (2003 version):
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
- Vinyl (1973 version):
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
- Cassette tape version (XDR - HX pro version):
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
- Master tape copy (2 track 15ips, machine 1) version:
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
- Master Tape Copy 2 (2 track 15ips, machine 2):
my.pcloud.com/publink/show?co...
INSTAGRAM: / ana_dia_log
FACEBOOK: / anadialog1
TWITTER: / anadialog
_____________________________________
Music: Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon - 'Money'
_____________________________________ 
Видеоклипы
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.
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.
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 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.
Your time and effort are much appreciated. Thank you!
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.
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.
Really enjoyed this video. Thanks for taking the time to put it together, and excellent choice in the sample song!
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!
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.
Thank you for still doing content even though it gets demonetized. Says a lot about what you stand for.
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!
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!
very well . At last, someone has realized how well analog can be.
the comparisons were outstanding and I could distinguish the different media.
Well done .
Thank you so much!!
No defined number can describe how many times i have listened to this album. Great video ;)
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.
The 1973 dynamics blow the remasters away, but the cassette is like hearing the song for the first time even in RUclips 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
@@user-xh9rz7rf8l You must be tripping on something, the 30th anniversary is one of the best editions available besides a first issue
An awesome demo, thank you, sir!
EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you for the excellent video sir.
Hey man, I really enjoy your channel. Thanks for sharing your time with us
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'm really impressed with the quality of the 2003 vinyl overall.
I'm happy for someone demonstrating the very nice cassette Tape quality when mastering and "pressing" is done right, thanks for that 🙂
Amazing video! The master tape was unbelievable!
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
Thank you for this comparison! You have great stuff. The copy of the master tape was a real revelation for me, I had never heard some things in the recording before, like the guitar echo when the bass comes in. Cheers!
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.)
Really cool comparison! I was amazed how much difference I could tell even just listening on RUclips (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!
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.
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!
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 !
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.
vynil is so refreshing, tape is smooth, and precise. Others are like a rage.
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
Thanks for sharing the files - really useful!
Thank YOU!
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!
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
Thank you!!
really enjoy your videos
Amazing comparison took me 2020 to 1984 recordings. Big Thankyou.
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!
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!
Outstanding presentation - thank you!
Loved the Master and the 2003 LP, the cassette surprised me. Thanks for all the hard work.
This is the best format comparison I've seen on RUclips; 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.
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
Fantastic vídeo. Well done. LP 2003 sounds insanely ........freakin good!
Hey thank you very much for the downloads and the content!
Thank YOU!
I didnt expect the vinyl to perform so well. You may have changed my outlook to vinyl :-)
Now that will make me smile for the entire day!!
30th Anniversary edition vinyl, SACD and Master Tape. I guess in this order, are my bests.
The dynamic of the cassette recording it's interesting.
We never used to buy comercial cassettes. We used to buy vinyl records and tape them for Walkman use. It makes me remember the quality of our recordings in CrO2 + Dolby C from Vinyl - despite the quality of the manual recording at home, was better than the commercial sold tapes, even with extended dynamics and headroom expansion and whatsoever, but the industrial process brings deep lacks. Anyhow, I liked that kind of wide deep sound although was few dB lower.
Mate: You are a guy I'd like to be friends with. Thanks for your work, your voice tone, your dedication and your art. You have art in what you do. - This is my first video where I find you, I'll subscribe and keep in touch.
Warm hug to you and everyone reading and commenting in this interesting channel.
Yes I done that to and still have my collection. They certainly were almost on par with the original vinyl and you can nearly eliminate ANY tape hiss by doing a first run silent recording!
Used SONY HF 90 tapes.
The master reel to reel and the vinyl 2003 I thought were very close. Thanks for the great analysis
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 absolutely LOVE that saturation on the Tape Machine 1 track. Ooooooweeee...... Can't get enough of that punch.
True!
Analog passion...dope ! Glad people like you still exist.
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 RUclips 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).
🤗 THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD ,CAREFUL WORK😍😍😍
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.
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
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 difference is very good to hear, thank you. 👌
Really nice to have all the hi-def versions to listen to. My favorite was the second press vinyl... "more listenable".. whatever that means... ;)
I am extremely satisfied and happy with my reel to real copy at 15 ips version on pro equipment and thank you for sharing your experience
Very helpful, entertaining and thought provoking... thanks.
Great examples for us to hear and evaluate. Thanks for your time and knowledge sharing. It's greatly appreciated. I think the Master Tape is best for me followed closely to the 2003 LP.
This guy just exudes calm.
When I did that video I remember that my daughter was sleeping :-)
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.
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
Loved this video. I heard people say there was a huge quality difference in oldschool analogue and modern degital recordings. I could never really grasp that concept until now. Your comparison demonstrated clearly the difference in overall quality. The original reel to reel version is the best by far.
There is a huge quality difference between old school analogue and modern digital recordings, but it’s not the one that “analogue rules audiophiles” would have you believe.
The reality is that properly produced, engineered, and mastered recordings made digitally today capture much more audio data than is possible using analogue methods. They also present zero noise from their recording or playback, and they don’t deteriorate, stretch, or wear out over over time or many listens like tape or vinyl does. Tape and vinyl both produce either hiss or surface noise, respectively. They both degrade and wear out at a very fast rate, at least compared to the indefinite lifespan of crystal clear digital recordings. So an album made today using analogue methods, released on analogue media, will absolutely sound objectively worse (and have a much shorter life of optimal quality) than a purely digital recording released as uncompressed digital audio.
The confusion comes from older recordings, like this album. There have been poor remasters made for different media, and the age/integrity of the master tapes used for these masters makes a difference, as well.
The main thing you’re realistically hearing is, unfortunately, the presenter’s “poisoning of the well”, by him telling you what you’re listening to before he plays it. 2nd or 3rd generation copy of the original studio tapes on reel to reel? That’s GOT to sound the best, right? Well… that’s complicated.
At the end of the day, our ears can only hear so much. Do some research on audiophiles preferring digital recordings when blind-tested, or audiophiles debunked. A huge amount of this is ways to A. Humble brag about how righteous their equipment is, and how valid their ridiculous expenditures were for stuff that still only sounds so good, and B. To sound like an expert in a field that is so full of quackery and snake oil that it’s ridiculous.
Analogue doesn’t inherently sound better than digital. Old analogue recordings mastered by geniuses, for playback on analogue media, sounds better than those same analogue recordings being mastered 20 years later by some hack for digital media. That’s the secret.
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. 👍
your voice is on the edge of a whisper, kind of relaxing! lol
The reel to reel tape sounds outstanding!
Outstanding demo and review1
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...
😂
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.
A great idea to make comparisons like this
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.
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.
Really enjoyed your presentation! Anybody can surmise that everything in the signal path will affect the output. But you used the best you have to provide a comparison being as equal as you can with your equipment. The tests do reveal noticeable differences in overall presentation. Thank you!
All the credit, masterful comparison.
Great job thanks! Ps. Have original sounds great.
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
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.
Very interesting comparison. Thanks!
it's really interesting listening the differencies of ambience, specially for Pink Floyd
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.
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.
This is so cool. Thanks.
Amazing work, thanks,
Thanks for doing this exercise, must have taken you a few hours of work at least, I enjoyed that.
Thank you!
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.
Thanks for the great analysis!
Just listened on my iPad to all the formats and I Love the reel to reel tape!!
I've heard a lot of different masterings of this album since the original vinyl, but the 24-bit/96k transfer on the Immersion Box is very well done. I highly recommend you have a listen to that one.
Thanks for your suggestion!
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.
thanks for this! just getting into higher quality audio equipment this was a fun difference in how much audio source can effect and learning it's possible to obtain copies of the masters! next item on agenda, wish you were here master copy 😉
This was fun, thanks!
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)
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.
You got my thumbs up as soon as I spotted the Beatles in Mono boxset :)
hello, very thanks for this amazing post, i'm loved , very interested theme !!!!
thank you , best regards.