Tap to unmute

The Dark Side of the Moon: analog & digital comparison (CD, SACD, Vinyl, Tape)

  • Published on Apr 6, 2018 veröffentlicht
  • 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:
    - SACD version:
    - Vinyl (2003 version):
    - Vinyl (1973 version):
    - Cassette tape version (XDR - HX pro version):
    - Master tape copy (2 track 15ips, machine 1) version:
    - Master Tape Copy 2 (2 track 15ips, machine 2):
    INSTAGRAM: ana_dia_log
    FACEBOOK: anadialog1
    TWITTER: anadialog
    Music: Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon - 'Money'
  • MusicMusic

Comments • 3 586

    ANA[DIA]LOG  4 years ago +169

    Remember to download all these versions in high resolution (192Khz/24bit) in the video description!

    • Valentin Dona
      Valentin Dona Month ago

      It seems that the cassette was recorded with dolby b and played without .... High frequencies sound strange. I liked SACD the best. I made an mp3 from the master tape at 256k and it sounds better than the cassette.

    • Manky Frilla
      Manky Frilla 6 months ago

      @ANA[DIA]LOG Now now buys.. Poem's everybody? The laddie wreckons himself a poet? 😬🍻

    • Gaby1945
      Gaby1945 8 months ago

      Tape master es la mejor versión sin dudas

    • Myron Helton
      Myron Helton Year ago

      Too many people have coloration on the brain. Remember Dolby Noise Reduction on cassettes that removed the unwanted vibrations in the highs, in the highs, so that it cut out most of the volume of the highs that made the cassettes sound like schit. Some better transistor circuitry has unwanted & better sound. It goes with the territory, Vibrations is what you want, where vinyl a sax or acoustic guitar strings vibrate, using a tube amp with color. On a cd the guitar strings dont vibrate. The saxophone dont vibrate & sounds like a damn hirn. Electric guitar tubes amps professionals prefer that have color. Color is wanted. A room adds color. There is not a damn thing that dont add color. Nothing sounds natural. A cd lazer dont touch nothing & halfway picks up the sound, but vinyl touches the record & picks up all the sound & a little color. CD people are jealousd they cant afford vinyl. LOL! Yeah, everyone with speakers, think they have the best speakers. LOL!

    • Luca
      Luca Year ago

      Why don’t you do other videos like this? Please

  • Harley Thomas
    Harley Thomas 3 years ago +341

    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

  • Percy
    Percy 3 months ago +21

    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.

    • Ding Dong
      Ding Dong 17 days ago

      @Keith V 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...

    • Steven Gaddis
      Steven Gaddis Month ago

      @Keith V The SACD is good for the 5.1 mix only. If listening in stereo, I opt for a vinyl version.

    • Keith V
      Keith V Month ago

      SACD is crap, the inherent noise is terrible, so they remix the crap out of everything

  • chuck hartey
    chuck hartey 2 years ago +174

    Honestly folks, you could play Dark Side of the Moon on Edisons' phonograph and it would still sound Great! Awesome video Sir!

  • John
    John 8 months ago +13

    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!

    • ultraneight
      ultraneight Month ago

      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.

  • Evan
    Evan Year ago +8

    The bass and vocals were the only things that changed drastically each time. My favorite has to be the 2003 release of the LP

    • Wilander Xavier
      Wilander Xavier 4 months ago

      Omg same here, I felt like as if I was in the room while they performed it live.

  • Lucas McCarthy
    Lucas McCarthy Year ago +38

    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.

    • ButtWiser
      ButtWiser 4 months ago

      Cassette isnt lower quality, it is the highest quality because mangnetic tape is. For me even with the hisss it sounded bigger.

    • Gary Smith
      Gary Smith Year ago +2

      Just wait a bit, cassettes are coming back. Some nice players are back on the market !

  • Steve's Stray Stuff
    Steve's Stray Stuff 2 years ago +256

    I listened several times and I find the Master tape the absolute best, followed by the 2003 LP. Rock on!

    • Zickcermacity
      Zickcermacity 5 months ago

      @Zockblatt Shickleblender The key word in your comment is "SOME". Compared to the amount of DRC(dynamic range compression) applied to current CD and digital download masters which current pop releases sound like a fuckin' DIAL TONE.. Again, (over)processing in post trumps the format every time!

    • Zockblatt Shickleblender
      Zockblatt Shickleblender 5 months ago

      @Zickcermacity vinyl has to have some dynamic compression otherwise the groove would be so large as to cause mistracking

    • Julien Paturel
      Julien Paturel 5 months ago

      @Zickcermacity ahah i don't think so thank you

    • Lee Wilkerson
      Lee Wilkerson 5 months ago

      @Zickcermacity, I am speaking from a standpoint of well over 40 years of repairing audio equipment from 6 transistor radios to thousand watt industrial amplifiers. I know what the fuck I am talking about and I CAN PROVE WHAT I SAY IN SPADES! Bring whatever you think you have and let's have a blaster party!

    • Zickcermacity
      Zickcermacity 5 months ago

      @Lee Wilkerson Again, you're speaking like an audiophile, even if you aren't one specifically.
      How two different issues of 'Dark Side Of The Moon' are MASTERED will have a hundred times more audible impact than a 1,000watt per channel stereo with 10gauge speaker wire vs a 100watt per channel with 16awg zip.
      The average person with a rack of components in their den or living room isn't going to notice the difference between 16 and 10awg speaker wire, or the difference between $5.99 Radio Shack RCAs and $59.99 Monster interconnects, except in their POCKET.
      Also: Spending the kind of money on the kind of gear your're recommending isn't going to make some modern over-compressed sounding piece of mush sound any less than an over-compressed sounding piece of mush!

  • Steven Gaddis
    Steven Gaddis Month ago +5

    I'm really impressed with the quality of the 2003 vinyl overall.

  • Emirhan Temel
    Emirhan Temel 2 years ago +8

    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

    • Gaby1945
      Gaby1945 8 months ago

      Foobar A/B same replay gain, the winner 🏆 is master tape

  • bill campbell
    bill campbell 3 years ago +12

    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

      ANA[DIA]LOG  3 years ago +1

      Yes, except for his last album...

  • theo9952
    theo9952 11 months ago +2

    I bought the 30th anniversary CD soon after it came out and I am very happy with the way it sounds. Before that, I had bought a made in UK 1997 180gr vinyl re-issue, Ι was not happy with, because it was a lousy cut with visible flaws on the surface, which caused lots of annoying crackles especially on the more quiet parts. I returned it to the shop but the copy they changed it with, was just as flawed. Later I found out that the whole bunch of the 1997 Pink Floyd 180 gr re-issues had the same problem. I know next to nothing about frequencies and such. All I want is to listen without unwanted noises. So I will stick to listening to the CD. It's perfect as far as I am concerned.

  • Marcelo Costa
    Marcelo Costa Month ago +2

    Wonderful masterpiece.

  • JayDub
    JayDub 4 years ago +280

    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.

    • Erin L
      Erin L Month ago

      @Vuthy Chrun SACD into tube amp seems the way to go, to me.

      SALAM JIHAD Year ago


    • Myron Helton
      Myron Helton Year ago

      I have heard remasters that sounded better than the sacd. You mean to say an lp remastered greatly, sounds better than a sloppy mastered cd. I have never heard a great remaster of a mfsl cd, that sounded as good as an original lp or any lp. A mfsl remaster of an lp is much greater sounding over a regular lp. But a mfsl cd, sometimes isnt any better, or barely better. Give me one other example of a cd better than an lp. Why is it no one on youtube rarely shows a mfsl cd? Why do their lps bring so much more money? The best albumss are 1971 & before recorded 100% pre analog with tubes. Half of my older lps, I can only stand to listen to half of then on cds. 99% of the albums in 1972 & after, I cant stand listening to them on either cds or lps. You heard me right, I like older cds, but hate 99% of 1972 & after lps & cds. The original lps sound best, then every few years afterr that, the master tape & stampers wear with age. When the lp gets real old, a remaster can help, but not as good as the original. But I have heard some remasters that sounded better than the 10 year old original. A sacd can never be as good as a real old album, because cds came out years later & the old master tapes were worn. Hiss is good, you can hear guitar strings distort. The cassettes that had dolby noise reduction removed the hiss & sounded like shi . You cant find one high end stereo shop, they all say not one sacd sounds as good as an lp. All lp collecters give big money for lps, where are all the sacd collectors. SACDS are going out of business. All cds arent digital, thew old tube recorded anbums on cd say AAD, or ADD. I got a mfsl 2,500 copy Besk-Sea Change on cd & lp. The cd is somewhat better than the cd, but it isnt bringing nothing, but I will leave you a link where probably 40 people will bid on the lp for $500.00. Cd people laugh at lp people. Its the cd & sacd people that lp people dont act weird & say you wont show me. I'll show you the link. LOL! www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_nkw=beck+sea+change+mfsl+lp+vinyl&_sacat=9355&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=tracfone+phone+with+1+year+service&_osacat=9355

  • Candyflip Records
    Candyflip Records 2 years ago +3

    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. 😎💜

  • multimood
    multimood Year ago +7

    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.

  • Alvaro Sundfeld
    Alvaro Sundfeld 2 years ago +17

    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!

  • William Palminteri
    William Palminteri 2 months ago +1

    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.

  • don lang
    don lang 3 months ago

    I had the Gold CD recorded from the Master Tape and mfg'd by Windham Hill, around 1988. Not having heard the whole Tape recorded from the Master Tape, that you played the sample from, I was mighty impressed with the Windham Hill CD much more!
    You could hear individual breaths of the performers(as carefull as they were in the studio, to avoid such "accidents" getting recorded,) ...they happen, along with the details of very faint page turnings, stools creaking.
    I was amazed at the sonic clarity you wont hear from any other source. Gold lays down a more 'solid' base, with less gaps between molecules, therefore less gaps or 'Dropouts' to imprint to the CD's surface. Aluminum, being a smaleer molecule, leaves many gaps between molecules, ie. "Drop-outs' in the recorded surface. CD mfg quality, being what it was in the 80's, making millions of CDs at 'passable' quality, also contributed to the lack of detail inherent in recordings.
    the Windham Hill process, used to catering to amazing artists of higher audiophile and musical quality, made sure to make available higher quality standards for premium listening experiences.
    I paid $30-$35 for a Gold CD, that would have cost $10-$12 dollars if made with an Aluminum coating. I was pleasantly surprised how much more nuance and deeper the experience upon EVERY listen!!
    Of course, a 'friend' made off with that disc and i miss having it. About time I get another!

  • Eodox
    Eodox 3 years ago +17

    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!

  • MPB
    MPB 4 months ago +4

    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 ! 👍

  • Chris Lightfoot
    Chris Lightfoot 22 hours ago

    For an Album that was already recorded and brilliantly produced in 1973, i would say the reel to reel was the best with the 2003 LP as a close second. I’m glad I own the 2003 LP because i never bothered to buy any recent pressing.

  • Rekmeyata
    Rekmeyata 3 months ago +1

    Great comparison, thanks for doing it.
    I felt the cassette was the worse of the group. The best of the group was the reel-to-reel followed closely by the two types of vinyl, and of those two vinyl recordings it was extremely close, but for some reason, I thought there were certain elements in the LP 1973 version that was a tad better. The problem with the reel-to-reel is that the sound level was higher which can make it seem like it's the better recording, had the sound level on all of them being at equal levels there might have been different versions selected by the listening audience. The other issue is that in order for us to get an adequate idea you should have taken a specific time in the song for about 15 seconds and kept repeating that same time frame over and over; the problem again is that as the song progresses different dynamics come into play so we cannot adequately get a true representation of each format.
    I would love to get a reel-to-reel machine but the problem with doing that is these machines are now old and need rebuilding, and a lot of parts are no longer available; the other issue is buying a pre-recorded reel-to-reel tape is that it's very expensive, add on top of that expense is the fact tape wears out faster than vinyl does; the only way to preserve a reel-to-reel tape is to record the tape onto a high-quality cassette deck using high-quality tape.
    There is a way of recording vinyl and tape to your computer but then you'll give up that analog feel. Currently, I record my vinyl to my HK cassette deck using Maxell XL II which is no longer in production, but I have a couple of bricks of this tape unused that I bought 20 or so years ago.

  • B Shah
    B Shah Year ago +1

    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. 👍

  • 99Solutions IT
    99Solutions IT 8 months ago +1

    I do have this SACD&CD remastered.
    To my ears, as result of this video (comparison was done during presentation, not at the final segment!) I find the master tape 14:42 and SACD 5:09 the best: details, dynamics, body and stage. A slightly difference of nuances, but both sound very good and pleasant.
    CD 2:37 was very harsh for some reason, kinda low bitrate MP3. Cassette 12:04 was just decent (if used with Dolby no more hiss, no more highs too). First LP 7:48 very reserved in mids and highs, lacks details, sorry to say not engaging enough. Older LP 10:02 had some presence that I cannot explain, which it makes up for all shortcomings. After master tape and SACD, I was really enjoyed this one!
    Note that I listening with average headphones (Marshall). I have some premium ones ordered, I will repeat when those will arrive. 😉
    Thanks for this comparison!
    I had to check the CD harshness on my devices, using same headphones: a cheap Sony boombox (terrible sound, moved on), out from a Technics CD, from amp, switching to another CD, a 25yrs. Panasonic combo and a Sony CD-walkman from mid '00s that still amazes me. Except the boombox, they gave the expected sound, that strange harshness being missing.
    But... In the segment of 4-12sec. there is a hum like that from bad powered amplifiers. Noticable on the walkman too, which is on batteries. That must be the record itself, it is audible in all formats too, somehow hidden in older LP by the backhround white noise.

    • 99Solutions IT
      99Solutions IT 8 months ago

      As promised, with better headphones have to say SACD was the best. The bass is amazing there, also more atmosphere comparing to the rest. To me, that is the winner.
      Also, it confirmed that cassette was boring. And '94 CD was still harsh, probably the original is so, since I don't have that hard sound on the remastered CD&SACD.

  • Lb M
    Lb M 3 years ago +68

    The 1973 dynamics blow the remasters away, but the cassette is like hearing the song for the first time even in Clip-Share compressed audio. I love dynamics more than I like resolution. Then I hear the reels, and OMG.

    • Dropit
      Dropit Month ago

      @Απόλλων Θηρευτής You must be tripping on something, the 30th anniversary is one of the best editions available besides a first issue

    • ed rhinehart
      ed rhinehart Year ago +1

      I don't want to like the cassette but I do. Lol

    • ed rhinehart
      ed rhinehart Year ago


    • Απόλλων Θηρευτής
      Απόλλων Θηρευτής 2 years ago +1

      The 30th anniversary edition is awful!

  • Max High
    Max High 10 days ago

    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.

  • Chris Vaughan
    Chris Vaughan 3 months ago +1

    Fascinating. My opinions are based upon the downloads of the lossless files. I thought both the vinyl editions were closer to the master, especially in the "change" being handled at the start. (It actually sounds recessed compared to the digital versions where it's far more "in yer face"). I especially liked the definition of the bass line in the master & 1973 vinyl editions, the 2003 lacking any definition tending to "one note bass"? Clearly the digital versions have been remastered, interesting the 2003 vinyl doesn't sound like it has. I own all of these versions but never had the opportunity to compare them so quickly, one after the other. However, I have always disliked the 2003 vinyl version - it never sounded "right". Now I can be sure it's not just me imagining it. Thanks, very useful. Chris.

  • Diego Henrique Trentini Gehm

    Would be interesting to compare the last tracks of each side of the album: The Great Gig on the Sky; Eclipse/Brain Damage. The grooves of the vinyl disc has less extension and because of this more analog distortion and less high frequencies.

  • HilloBerries
    HilloBerries 25 days ago +1

    I love the cassette sound!

  • CruzzioXT
    CruzzioXT 4 months ago +2

    I was actually surprised by how good the cassette sounded. The master tape was clearly the best, as I actually heard the lid/drawer of the cash register open - never noticed it before. I only have this year's pressing of Dark Side, but I think it sounds great! Good enough for me, anyways. Cheers!

  • Antonio Torres
    Antonio Torres 4 years ago +8

    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.

  • Tony Galli
    Tony Galli Year ago +5

    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.

  • Марк Пиво
    Марк Пиво Year ago +1

    The Master Tape was the best in my opinion. This really stood out for me. I haven't even listened closely. The guitar really stood out.

      ANA[DIA]LOG  Year ago

      It depends from the source and ultimately the one you prefer! Listen and discard! The quality may vary but usually in PCM it should be at least 96khz/24bits

    • Mini Logic
      Mini Logic Year ago +1

      so on the reddit riprequest forum someone posted a big library of dsd, hires, vinyl, and so on. i have been downloading flac files so idk much about dsd or master tapes. should i get both the dsd and master tape copy of the michael jackson songs or no. also is the master tape copy supposed to be 24/192 like a hires?

  • Mark Kessel
    Mark Kessel 2 years ago +9

    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.

  • Phil Brittain
    Phil Brittain 3 months ago +1

    I liked the 2003 remastered CD version the most of the ones he played. Sure, there was more "warmth" from the master master and vinyl but the 2003 version had a certain crispness to it. Apple music has a really good digital master which seemed even better overall.
    Vinyl added a lot of noise and it felt like some dynamics were lost.
    I used Bose headphones with ANC turned off to listen, so it's probably not the headphones altering the sound.

  • spl4t1
    spl4t1 3 months ago +1

    Thank you for still doing content even though it gets demonetized. Says a lot about what you stand for.

  • M Z
    M Z 5 years ago +12

    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.

  • Mel T
    Mel T Year ago +2

    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.

  • Hi Fi Filos
    Hi Fi Filos 2 years ago +1

    por este video me suscribi y no me arrepiento tienes muy buen contenido.

  • Martin Ruddell
    Martin Ruddell 3 years ago +3

    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!

  • Shirley Márquez Dúlcey

    An official 24/96 PCM version was released late in 2021. It would be interesting to see how it compares with these other releases.

  • Gabriel Jaimez
    Gabriel Jaimez Year ago +4

    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!

  • loona
    loona 4 years ago +4

    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.

    • Mike
      Mike Year ago

      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.

      ANA[DIA]LOG  4 years ago


  • Beth Caruso
    Beth Caruso 2 years ago +1

    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.

  • Rod Pinfold
    Rod Pinfold 2 years ago

    The most amazing thing is no matter what your personal favourite is, they all sound absolutely stunning.
    Take away the other versions and you have a smile on your face anyway.
    I have 4 versions, 2 CD, 1 SACD and the new vinyl, all f-ing amazing.

  • Martin Kjær
    Martin Kjær Year ago +2

    No defined number can describe how many times i have listened to this album. Great video ;)

  • Mike P
    Mike P 4 months ago +1

    I still like the 2011/2016 remaster. I felt the same about pretty much all of the other albums. The very early Harvest versions are good too, but hard to get the right one and can be expensive. I sold my MFSL gold CDs when I heard the 2011s. Similar in tonality, but the 2011s didn't sound as 'congested' to me. For Animals, no comparison, the old disc is from a tape that was high frequency deficient.

  • Benson Russell
    Benson Russell 2 years ago +3

    Really cool comparison! I was amazed how much difference I could tell even just listening on Clip-Share (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!

  • Gene Dizon
    Gene Dizon 4 years ago +29

    Your time and effort are much appreciated. Thank you!

  • Pitt Brat
    Pitt Brat Year ago +3

    The 94' release sure "sounds" like a 94' cd release! The amount of work done on the other (re)releases was substantial , not only to combat tape degrading elements(already in 94' it was 20 years old) but also to mix it and "package" it to modern standards(more bass,more this, that). But that has nothing to do anymore with the original recording. It is something "else".

  • Kenneth L
    Kenneth L 3 years ago +5

    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.

  • Diogo Alfaiate
    Diogo Alfaiate 3 years ago

    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!

  • Gregory Smith
    Gregory Smith 9 months ago +1

    Time travelling from 3 years in the future... what a treat. The "master" tape version was a delighter. I'd like to see the MP3 comparison. Because I understand the "horizontal" digital compression is a real killer.

  • summer20105707
    summer20105707 3 years ago +2

    Holy shit the master copies were amazing. BLEW ME AWAY. The Cassette is surprisingly good. I have that particular cassette. So sweet sounding.

  • ProgressiveTrancer
    ProgressiveTrancer 4 years ago +8

    I love how good the cassette sounds. Obviously it's the worst compared to the others but still very impressive.

  • Paul Tanner
    Paul Tanner 6 months ago

    As we proceeded through the various versions, I began to hear the hi-hat cymbals. On the master tape, there is a double stroke. Thank you for your efforts.

  • Martin Lopez
    Martin Lopez 25 days ago

    man that was really cool, the 2003 lp and master tape copy were awesome.

  • djdt77
    djdt77 3 years ago +5

    I remember buying the SACD and playing it through my old pioneer 5.1 system and it sounded totally amazing

  • Andy Peek
    Andy Peek Year ago

    I have the same 1973 vinyl copy as you have, but pressed here in NZ, by EMI NZ, it still sounds awesome. I also have CD and another LP version, the best copy I think is the Apple remastered version from 2011 from the iTunes store, with video.

  • mlblue535
    mlblue535 2 years ago +2

    Amazing video! The master tape was unbelievable!

  • Ted Etheridge
    Ted Etheridge 4 years ago +12

    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!

  • D
    D 9 months ago

    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 😉

  • Mister NFC
    Mister NFC 2 years ago +2

    Master tape 2 is astonishing.Cd and Sacd copies have underlined highs to give some impresion of "higher quality" and 2003 vinyl also.

  • Ben Perry
    Ben Perry Year ago +2

    The master tape copy is by far the most detailed I can hear the pick on the bass guitar and even the finger pull-offs of certain noted

  • Ganak Sergey
    Ganak Sergey Year ago +3

    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.

  • Mandibil
    Mandibil 4 months ago +2

    As usual, the original pressing sounds most organic and true to the expected timbre

  • Christian Goergen
    Christian Goergen 4 years ago +54

    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.

    • isettech
      isettech 4 years ago +2

      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.

    • Tom Hermance
      Tom Hermance 4 years ago +1

      The reel tape sounded the most stable/solid, but I liked the 2003 LP the best, probably because of the boosted bass.

  • Scott Scottsdale
    Scott Scottsdale 2 years ago +1

    This is a very good video. Thanks so much for taking the time. And my favorite album too. I must say that I prefer the 2003 remix remaster. The percussion is so much crisper and that goes for all formats. But the LPs sound to me a bit richer in mid bass. But i honestly prefer the SACD played on my own system. Maybe you can add in say Tidal or QOBUZ to this? I really like Tidal because it allows for a vast array of listening.

  • John H
    John H 2 months ago

    I have listened to a sacd and analog recording that was done in o3 they are both extremely good but to me the vynal sounded better ,not by much but it had a more natural presence,in sound you want to hear a realistic presentation,the problem today is not many people have the means to acquire really good playback equipment.I’m lucky that I bought high end audio and could listen to a 3 dimensional immersion.

  • Jordan Allen
    Jordan Allen 5 months ago +1

    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.

  • ItsJim
    ItsJim Year ago +1

    Outstanding presentation - thank you!

  • cyma cymulacra
    cyma cymulacra Month ago +1

    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.)

  • Sinnsonido
    Sinnsonido 4 years ago +3

    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.

  • David
    David Year ago

    Nice presentation. I would have dropped the audio cassette and inserted the MFSL LP. Digitally, it would be interesting to hear the first edition CD as DSTM was one of the first albums to be put on to CD circa '82. In addition, I would compare the Capital (made in USA) with the Harvest (made in the UK) '80s CDs.

  • William Bontrager
    William Bontrager 2 years ago +2

    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.

  • GetRealMusic1
    GetRealMusic1 2 years ago +1

    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.

    • Luke Whitmaker
      Luke Whitmaker Month ago

      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.

  • Mike
    Mike Year ago

    In my opinion, the second pressing was my pick.
    The reverb tails on the bass stood out moreso than any of the other formats.
    As far as the "master open reel tape" and the SACD, they vied for second place easily, and pretty much sounded exactly the same.

  • Chiefs Hotline
    Chiefs Hotline 3 years ago

    Hey man, I really enjoy your channel. Thanks for sharing your time with us

  • Flying Ace
    Flying Ace 3 years ago +162

    that master tape sounds INSANE!!!!!!

    • Anemal Demo Music
      Anemal Demo Music Year ago

      oh fuck yeah I bet. I have it on vinyl but I cant imagine how it sounds on the master tape

    • Captain Autism
      Captain Autism Year ago +1

      @Lone Star Racing The SACD is much better. Unfortunately, he can’t show it off without converting it which loses quality, without even counting Clip-Share compression. SACD uses DSD, every other digital format uses PCM. Converting between PCM and DSD creates loss, especially from DSD to PCM.

    • danlock
      danlock 2 years ago +1

      @M.K. Mousanz Because of its INSANE sound, you can get it at an INSANE Asylum.

    • leaks
      leaks 2 years ago +1

      @M.K. Mousanz because it's not, it's a reel to reel safety master release

    • M.K. Mousanz
      M.K. Mousanz 2 years ago

      How does one even get a hold of THAT?

  • David Wald
    David Wald 4 months ago

    I have the 30th vinyl and SACD plus the gold Ultradisc. All sound fantastic but I'm partial to the SACD simply because the surround mix is much more immersive and I can hear details like "if you can hear this whisper your dying" on Great Gig easier probably cause the mix is more distinct ( and that part comes out surround left which is closer to where I'm sitting, lol)

  • Luciano Iacoletti
    Luciano Iacoletti 3 years ago +2

    Excellent video. The best are the open-reel tape and the 2003 vinyl, quite similar eachother. By the way, I listened to them with a Sennheiser HD-650

  • Face Palm
    Face Palm 2 years ago +1

    I like all of them. Strange is that in the SACD version the humm is much more audible than on the others.

  • Andrew M
    Andrew M 2 years ago +2

    The SACD version has amazing surround mixing in 5.1...but as a 2 channel I love my 1973 vinyl version. Thanks for the comparison

  • Random Tube
    Random Tube 4 years ago +5

    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.

  • Brent LeVasseur
    Brent LeVasseur Year ago

    I just heard a dark side of the moon master tape played on the original reel to reel player that was used to master it, and it sounded amazing. The thing was huge - that reel to reel machine took up an entire closet space, but I guess if you are going for the ultimate extreme best sound quality that’s the sacrifice you need to make to get it. I am in the process of comparing streaming formats between Apple lossless (ALAC) vs. Tidal (MQA and FLAC). You can hear it here…clip-share.net/video/Ez9enUmeBYI/video.html

  • Ljonka
    Ljonka Year ago +1

    Just some things that may be under the radar for alot of people: Vinyl, cd and tape are not played on the same device. CD-players have dacs which can be better or worse and can influence the sound. The recordtabel has a preamp to fix the frequency response which will always have some influence on the sound.
    Also recordtables generally add some harmonic distortion to the music which is verry likely the reason people often like voices on records more.

  • Espresso101
    Espresso101 2 years ago +6

    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

    • Espresso101
      Espresso101 2 years ago

      @ANA[DIA]LOG Checked it out. Great job sir

      ANA[DIA]LOG  2 years ago +1

      True! In fact in other similar tests I did that: clip-share.net/video/UkuHLrh3rKY/video.html

  • Analog Soundsystem International

    Great Video ! I really loved your analysis.
    Based on your comparisons, I found the Master Tape to be the most Neutral of them all, followed by a close replica in sound on the 1973 LP. The 2003 Version is definitely remastered mainly to add some overall volume and exciting some high frequencies and some Low end. The SACD seems to be an overall remastered enhancement of the Master Tape.
    The Cassette seems to have its own character in sound all together as I can hear extra brightness on the high frequencies. With cassette tapes there are so many variables such as the bias, the noise reduction and the HX PRO. If this Cassette version has Dolby B it should have been used [on] to have a better comparison. When it is off, the Dolby encoding sounds much brighter.
    My personal preference of them all is the 2003 LP Issue. It seems to be the perfect balance of the SACD and the original master tape.
    Excellent Video man

  • Ivan Giongo
    Ivan Giongo 3 years ago

    I love the 2003 vinyl, I must have consumed it by now, but I also was surprised from the cassette tape version, background noise aside.

  • James Bentz
    James Bentz 4 years ago +3

    Really nice to have all the hi-def versions to listen to. My favorite was the second press vinyl... "more listenable".. whatever that means... ;)

  • Manza Media
    Manza Media 2 years ago

    I got the 30th Anniversary Vinyl edition and I haven't played it yet as I can hear it's very bright, and my BOSE 501's are pretty bright overall so I'll be excited to see how everything makes out when I finally give it a spin.

  • Justyna Kania
    Justyna Kania 2 years ago +2

    The reel to reel tape sounds outstanding!

  • annabelleshaus
    annabelleshaus 3 years ago +1

    Drums and echo/reverb sound amazing on cassette. So much punch.

  • Jimmy Steele
    Jimmy Steele 2 years ago

    I would love to see you review the various releases of Queensryche's "Silent Lucidity". Insane mastering. I'd love to get my hands on a 15 ips master copy on Ampex 406 or 456.

  • Natan Pierce
    Natan Pierce 3 months ago +1

    You forgot the 8-track version...haha... Good job showing us. I am surprised by the cassette. I like them and kept my Harmon Kardon tape deck over all these years, but still like playing on my turntable.

  • Canuckvapor
    Canuckvapor 3 years ago +6

    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.

      ANA[DIA]LOG  3 years ago +2

      You call it nostalgia I call it...experience! ;-)

  • sinclair forrest
    sinclair forrest Year ago

    I have Dark Side on the surround sound SACD and an earlier CD version. The one to avoid, like the other Floyds are the 2011 remasters where the sound is noticeably compressed compared to the earlier versions. Someone once described the difference with the 2011 version as being in a different room from the one the music was playing in!

  • Maxpower78
    Maxpower78 2 years ago

    I have several versions. The sacd dominates on my system. The 5.1 mix is no slouch. The bluray audio version on the immersion box set is fantastic as well.

  • Metalman 070
    Metalman 070 2 years ago +2

    I liked the analog cd best. I thought it was the most authentic to the studio recording sound. I could hear is fingers squeak on the base strings during the cord changes. Very Cool.

    • Murderdogs
      Murderdogs 2 years ago +1

      Analogue CD? CDs are digital.