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)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- 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/...
- SACD version:
my.pcloud.com/...
- Vinyl (2003 version):
my.pcloud.com/...
- Vinyl (1973 version):
my.pcloud.com/...
- Cassette tape version (XDR - HX pro version):
my.pcloud.com/...
- Master tape copy (2 track 15ips, machine 1) version:
my.pcloud.com/...
- Master Tape Copy 2 (2 track 15ips, machine 2):
my.pcloud.com/...
INSTAGRAM: / ana_dia_log
FACEBOOK: / anadialog1
TWITTER: / anadialog
_____________________________________
Music: Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon - 'Money'
_____________________________________
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'm really impressed with the quality of the 2003 vinyl overall.
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.
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.
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...
😂
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.
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.
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...
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 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
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.
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
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.
The 1973 dynamics blow the remasters away, but the cassette is like hearing the song for the first time even in TH-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
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
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....
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
Holy shit that master tape copy sounds great
Those 30+KHz sounds are:
1. too soft (-72db)
2. not audible by humans (I just had a door squeak at 16KHz, and while it was barely audible to me, Spectral Analysis on my phone was showing it red, as in very loud. My colleagues couldn't even hear it).
It's impossible for humans to hear them, and analog equipment is limited by that at design stage. Whatever you recorded over 30KHz, it must be some kind of loopback/resonance based on playing equipment+cables.
Even SACD players don't go high (50KHz according to wikipedia, not the 70KHz in graphs). As for analog equipment, the hiss you hear is the mediums limit. And it's in the audible range. There is no way that LP needle (even high-end consumer) can react to 30KHz signal.
What destroyed digital recordings is compressed mixing (loudness war), because in digital you can mix everything at clipping point (which is well defined) and it will be reproduced correctly. That is not possible on cassette/LP. Thus if an LP and CD sound differently, it's not analog vs digital, it's 2 different mixes.
Anything over 16-bit 48KHz is not needed even in audiophile listening. Over 16-bits is great for music creation, where you overlap several samples at different amplitudes/volume, but for the final mix (where you defined the clipping point), 16-bit is enough. As for frequency, it may help for changes in speed (like amplitude-bits relation), but you won't reduce the speed by 4 times to use the full 192KHz at 48KHz.
Unfortunately, marketing has cashed-in on loudness wars with unnecessary "listening features" (they have to sell equipment).
Your time and effort are much appreciated. Thank you!
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.
For me the 2003 LP sounds best here
agreed
Ditto
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
vynil is so refreshing, tape is smooth, and precise. Others are like a rage.
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.
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!
Thanks for the excellent work. When I read the comments, I realise that this video brings out the true differences between the recording quality, the media and most importantly the musicality. It is of no surprise that almost everyone votes for the master tape. Me too. I guess that's because "mom is a woman" - an Chinese expression of tautology!
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 find the 2003 LP the most impressive and enjoyable format. Assumed I'd gravitate toward the reel, but, not so. Surprisingly.
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
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.
it's really interesting listening the differencies of ambience, specially for Pink Floyd
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.
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.
Fans say the Doug Sax remaster is the best version of the Album🎵🔥
From best to worst I would say:
#1 Reel tape
#2 2003 Vinyl
#3 1973 Vinyl
#4 1994 CD
#5 SACD
#6 Cassette
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.
Thanks for your time.
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)
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.
The master is better , ts..the 50th version remastered atmos.. Allan Parson plays with master. When hd record 45 rpm box set !?
to me, the cassette and 1973 vinyl didn't sound very good. master copy 2 gets my nod. sadc sounded really good as well. 2003 vinyl was ok. Couple things here. 1) I saw a youtube video, (perhaps this channel) that talked about people how can actually react to frequencies above 20khz. they put subjects in MRI machines and watched their brains react to frequencies as high as 100khz when they were the result of harmonics. perhaps in the future, they'll be able to fit ALL the frequencies on digital music files and give digital a better sound. 2) there is a general complaint about digital music being too harsh. But consider that if the original recording was meant for digital, perhaps they'd take the harshness away. one should talk to alan parsons (the engineer on Dark side of the moon ) about this theory.
N.1 yup! Thats mine! Yes, I do hope the same.
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
Wowsers, i could hear the difference from CD to Vinyl...
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.
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!
Thanks for sharing the files - really useful!
Thank YOU!
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:
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!
*Interesting video:* I like its non-judgemental style. In fact, I bought a copy of the original 1973 record back in the day from Woolworths, and can say that it is a lucky person indeed who got a clean copy without high levels of crackles and pops. Like many of my friends at the time, who also bought copies of this very popular record, I returned the first one to the shop because it was so bad, and the replacement was not much better! Some time later, I made a copy of the treasured record on a TDK type IV metal tape, with Dolby B. The level of tape noise is negligible compared with the crackles on the record, and in strong contrast with the example in this video. So, I wonder how this recording would sound if a similar copy were made on a premium quality cassette tape from the master tape, with Dolby noise reduction. It was always my experience that pre-recorded cassette tapes were fairly dire quality regardless of any fancy claims made by the manufacturer, even for the most expensive classical music recordings. It would also be worth making a similar comparison using some classical music, where the dynamic range is generally larger than for the present example, and the human ear is very sensitive to any flaws in reproduction of classical instruments, owing to the character of their mid-range content, noting also that the human voice is included here. One more point is that the technical upper frequency limit for playback from cassette tapes is generally not much more than about 12-14 kHz, so the audio spectrum above this, seen in the video, is nearly all noise. Anybody who bought the original record in 1973 probably can't hear it anyway! :-)
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 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! ;-)
Difficult to tell which is best IMO. Each source has its own eq idiosyncrasies and noise floor (hiss on tape and rumble on record). De-emphasis also plays a part on record and tape. I believe the biggest differences being heard are dynamic range based and not frequency (particularly high end) based. Of course there’s the small matter of hearing ability. I believe that anyone over the age of thirty who thinks they can discriminate between a 20 kHz roll of and a 30 kHz roll off has either not used their ears at all or has their head stuck where the sun don’t shine. That being said, there is something magical about the sound of music from a record. It’s so visceral and organic. A CD by comparison is so clinical.
Great video though and spectacular resources, particularly the separate audio files.
-Machine 1, master tape copy sounded the most “natural”.
-Second best was the 1973 vinyl.
-The worst was the cassette.
-After that, the SACD failed to give a good presentation. It was like listening in a sterile operating room.
I wish you owned a UHQR pressing by MFSL.
I remember buying the SACD and playing it through my old pioneer 5.1 system and it sounded totally amazing
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 TH-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 TH-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.
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: th-cam.com/video/-4BLWR2E2wg/w-d-xo.html
Not in this case. Its very simple!
I love how good the cassette sounds. Obviously it's the worst compared to the others but still very impressive.
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.
I only focussed on the very beginning when the coins are put in the cash tray. imo the SACD gives the most real life image of this event. For more comparison u need the same SPL and a good system to be able to compare really. Nice experiment & video.
That said, the AD-DA conversion techniques of today have improved dramatically. You may wanna play your records for "old" stuff when no new conversions from the MT are available but im not gonna be bothered by buying new vinyl.
And the loudness war is just ridiculous, i wish all engineers/producers quit that kinda rape.
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!
Having tinnitus from listening to my 70s and 80s music too loudly (especially this album) makes no difference today. Love the comparisons though. I think I heard a distinct stereo spread on the Master Tape
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.
Giving this A/B/C/D comp another listen, it really is a shame their wasn’t any normalization of output amongst mediums, since it can be hard to distinguish sheer volume from EQ hype sometimes.
Interesting but you're limited by the Zoom TAC-2 which is a long way from high end audio equipment. I'm sure that's what is creating the 70KHz bump in your graphs. The samples at the end are all over the place in terms of volume - impossible to compare, so I downloaded the hi-res files and again the Master Tape is louder. I normalised them in Audacity and suddenly there's very little difference - just a bit duller on the Vinyl 2003. Then I listened to my copy in iTunes (matched Apple lossless) now that sounded appreciably better! I'm using the RME Babyface Pro FS audio interface and Focal Clear headphones. You obviously have a decent turntable but I think the tape machine is colouring the sound ...making the audio punchier but since it's all going through so many conversion processes who knows? I trust that the studio gave Apple the finest available source files and used something better than a £250 A/D convertor.
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.
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: th-cam.com/video/UkuHLrh3rKY/w-d-xo.html
@@anadialog Checked it out. Great job sir
I don't have audiophile ears. I can definitely tell when albums are mixed too loud because my ears get fatigued. The Darkside of The Moon I feel is overall a great mixed album. I have the 1994 edition, 2011 version, and the 2016 Vinyl. They all sound great imo. The difference is minimal.
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!
#1 2003 SACD
#2 1994 CD
#3 2003 Vinyl
#4 Master Tape Copy
#5 1973 Vinyl
#6 Cassette
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!
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.
#1 Master tape
#2 2003 Vinyl
#3 SACD
#4 1973 Vinyl
#5 1994 CD
#6 Cassette
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 ..
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.
Thx for this great comparison. I have a Q4 Harvest Quadrophonic LP Version and there is a rare Q8 LP Version on the market. With the right Hardware (i have a 4 Channel Ampilifer) you a hearing the greatest quad Release ever made!
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.
Naturally, the Master Tape was the best sounding version by far. Close behind that I would say lies the LP 2003 followed by the LP 1973. The SA-CD and CD versions were essentially identical, however the SA-CD did provide slightly better separation and musical detailing. Lastly, I have to say that I was very disappointed with the cassettes sound. Sound pressure was very weak and the distortion was not very appealing.
Great video! Please keep them coming.
"SA-CD did provide slightly better separation and musical detailing" - I agree with your post 100% and this line in particular. I found the separation and detail to be unnatural though, it was in-cohesive and distracting. Instead of the instruments/sounds blending as one, each piece was fighting for my attention like toddlers in the morning.
Do you like how tonality dropped down?
@@michaelrenwick5042 likely due to the machine down mixing the multichannel audio into stereo. There's no direct DSD stream, it's all emulated PCM so it's really no wonder the SACD sounded like a poorly mixed CD, it practically is at that point!
The cymbals sounds good on the vinyls. The masters are awesome. But the cassette is my jam. Because 90s kid.
I personally thought the 2003 SACD and Vinyl had the best sound.
Well, some of us like the music more than the search of the ultimate sound.
Also in search of the best sound (or whatever best) you always end up being disappointed as you can’t be 100% sure if there is an even better version out there. This leads to ultimate disappointment instead of ultimate satisfaction in the long run. It’s chasing rainbows. A psychological paradox the most audiophiles are not aware of. Simply put: It‘s such a waste of life. Imagine applying this wasteful technique on friends, food, relationships, jobs etc. and it suddenly becomes very obvious ...at least it should.
I like to remember THE SONG in my head, not the picture of the frequency range. But I‘m also not religious, which is very similar to believing in all that audio voodoo that you can only see rather than hear. ...(and believe me, I can tell audio differences: I‘m a musician and have recorded many albums on analog tape as well as digitally). The search is just not worth it. I‘d rather would like to explore unknown music in ok quality than hear DSOTM over and over again in different (or even in slightly better) qualities.
Hi Kyrk, I so agree that this pitfall is always lurking around us audiophiles...losing focus on the actual goal od us all, enjoy music!
This! One of the best comments ever on the subject. I believe there is a minimum in quality, and I can say to me it's a little higher compared to what my friends considere their minimum acceptable quality. When you reach that, just relax and enjoy. I have this more with picture quality than audio and I can't count how many hours I've spent tweaking for a hair better PQ. Great post.
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. 👍
1973 Vinyl: Not so bad!! I like
2003 Vinyl: good!
Cassette: bah...
CD: the worst (not a media problem... I think)
Master tape copy.: not my taste
Master tape copy2: very good!!
SACD: Honest...
2003 vinyl is a good choice
I actually disliked the sound of sacd. Timing was off and everything was highlighted which make it colored. The normal cd sounded ok. Sounded a little compressed but that made it sound proper for classic rock. The LP sounded like a mix between the two but fatter, maybe slower
I caught that as well. The SACD mastering mucked around with upper mids which is something you can do in the digital realm. Photoshop equivelant of unsharp mask, but done by engineers to 'clarify' certain frequency ranges and make it more pronounced. Obviously you need to differentiate the higher price of the SACD.
same here the bass sounded quite wooly
compression is for amateurs - Bruce Swedien (Micheal Jackson Engineer)
Master tape all day long. Although like another commenter said, it would be interesting to do a blind test.
Clearly easy to hear jumps out of my MacBook cheap ass speakers.
Being stoned on some good Colombian back in the day always made the lp sound the best
the 2003 Super Audio CD is the one for me - the cymbals have air - the others sound murky
SACD CD then Vinyl is my preference,but this is more down to my current set up.
Same here on my TV with JBL speakers, which are not even Hi-Fi, as they are limited to 15KHz according to the manual.
I would say 1-SACD 2-Old Vinyl 3-Tape 4-New Vinyl 5-CD
CD sounded like a beat-m-up. The new vinyl lacked high frequencies. The tape lacked mids (too light / too much emphasis on the treble)
@@sassuki that's interesting,I've never actually heard any vinyl that's been pressed this century.
Really cool comparison! I was amazed how much difference I could tell even just listening on TH-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!
Many years ago I purchased the Mo-Fi "gold" CD version of DSM. Today that version is a rare collectable. I also purchased the SACD. I like the Mo-Fi CD better. I'm convinced that the gold substrate provides a warmth and smoothness that is lacking with conventional aluminum (CD-DVD) substrates. I also made this comparison with Steely Dan's AJA. In that case it was Mo-Fi half-speed master vinyl vs. Mo-Fi "gold" CD. The gold-CD is the winner there also. Of course nothing beats tape for an analog master...:)
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.
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.
I have the SACD and 1st gen MOFI LP, the LP is clearly better. The digital sounds compressed, dull, and lifeless in comparison. The LP sounds awesome. VPI Scout, Blackbird, Sutherland 20/20 w/LPS vs Modwright Oppo 95. You need to give us the competing playback systems to make a judgment.
the CD sounded TOOOO normal & short on detail The cassette sounds better with its atmosphere the open reel sounds like it had the treble was tucked away but thatis youtube
the LP sounded nice . cassettes always sound better without Dolby for my taste .
The end test was the BEST
I bought a SACD player just so I could hear this disc using the 5.1 version
Now that is true hi-fi passion!
I did too...
The coins sound terrible on SACD. Especially in a right channel. The CD was better before a remastering killed the sound. The master tape copy sounds a bit raw. I heard that an acoustic treatment in a studio wasn't perfect. LP 1973 sounds great (2003 is just by some dB louder, and highs are equalized). The cassette was written on Nakamichi I guess )))
So, LP 2003, LP 1973, CD 1994, MTC, SACD. Compact cassette goes to a trash can.
I came back to edit my original preference. After running in seven different windows and comparing side by side with good headphones this is what I think.
#1 reel to reel first for its depth and better voice. great dynamics, good soundstage visualization.
#2 2003 remaster vinyl pretty good even sound, snare drum sound crisp, bass line is clear and direct
#3 1973 vinyl little muffled but still good sounding, even and somewhat dull probably from many plays on table
#4 cassette high noise floor and sounds treble boosted but has good clarity in guitar parts
#5 1994 cd harsh and fatiguing to ears, don't like this version at all
#6 sacd super loud and not very dynamic, fatiquing to ears
Drums and echo/reverb sound amazing on cassette. So much punch.