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

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

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

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

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.

that master tape sounds INSANE!!!!!!

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.

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 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 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.

Your time and effort are much appreciated. Thank you!

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

The CD and SACD sound so much cleaner and clearer to me.

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

The Demo at the end with all of the versions together was a great idea.

Really enjoyed this video. Thanks for taking the time to put it together, and excellent choice in the sample song!

vynil is so refreshing, tape is smooth, and precise. Others are like a rage.

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!

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...

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

This guy just exudes calm.

An awesome demo, thank you, sir!

very well . At last, someone has realized how well analog can be. the comparisons were outstanding and I could distinguish the different media. Well done .

EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you for the excellent video sir.

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

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

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

I'm happy for someone demonstrating the very nice cassette Tape quality when mastering and "pressing" is done right, thanks for that 🙂

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!

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.

Thank you!! really enjoy your videos

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.)

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!

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

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!

Amazing video! The master tape was unbelievable!

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.

The LP 2003 and Master Tape are by far the superior versions.

Wow Man! Really great job on all this. Now I'm keeping my album collection and Reel-to-reel deck. Thanks for that!

Outstanding presentation - thank you!

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 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.

Thanks for sharing the files - really useful!

Today's a very special day, thanks to your channel I found out about the differences between analog and digital, as I'm leaving this comment I'm listenning to this great album for the very first time on vinyl i.e. the 2nd UK press which I was fortunate to get hold of with my newly upgraded Thorens turntable TD 115 with new Exact cartridge from Rega (the yellow one)...a great deal of pleasure, cheers from France

I absolutely LOVE that saturation on the Tape Machine 1 track. Ooooooweeee...... Can't get enough of that punch.

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.

Amazing comparison took me 2020 to 1984 recordings. Big Thankyou.

Hey thank you very much for the downloads and the content!

Really cool comparison! I was amazed how much difference I could tell even just listening on KZfaq (at the highest quality setting). One thing I might also suggest is looking at the stereo imaging as well. The SACD version is just amazing in this regard how it uses the full width of the stereo image when compared to the other versions on good headphones. For me, even though I grew up with vinyl and tape, I'm not a big fan of the analog blanket effect (how it smooths out the detail and muffles everything a bit). I don't like pure digital either as clearly that can go way too harsh, but I personally loved the SACD version in this test! The really wide imaging, all of the detail was brought back to life, yet it wasn't harsh, and it just sounded like there was so much depth to it (front to back). For me that felt the most "in the room" with the music, like I was there. Great stuff!

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

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.

Loved the Master and the 2003 LP, the cassette surprised me. Thanks for all the hard work.

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!

You should have included the 2001 Napster 128k version in the downloads :)

Very helpful, entertaining and thought provoking... thanks.

The master reel to reel and the vinyl 2003 I thought were very close. Thanks for the great analysis

I didnt expect the vinyl to perform so well. You may have changed my outlook to vinyl :-)

This is the best format comparison I've seen on KZfaq; of course everything we hear is processed and compressed for the stream, but the differences were clearly audible. Nicely done! I didn't realise cassette was so bad...

🤗 THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD ,CAREFUL WORK😍😍😍

The difference is very good to hear, thank you. 👌

For me the 2003 LP sounds best here

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. 👍

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.

Fantastic vídeo. Well done. LP 2003 sounds insanely ........freakin good!

Analog passion...dope ! Glad people like you still exist.

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.

it's really interesting listening the differencies of ambience, specially for Pink Floyd

Very interesting comparison. Thanks!

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

I 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.

Amazing work, thanks,

A great idea to make comparisons like this

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

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.

This is so cool. Thanks.

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!

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:

30th Anniversary edition vinyl, SACD and Master Tape. I guess in this order, are my bests. The dynamic of the cassette recording it's interesting. We never used to buy comercial cassettes. We used to buy vinyl records and tape them for Walkman use. It makes me remember the quality of our recordings in CrO2 + Dolby C from Vinyl - despite the quality of the manual recording at home, was better than the commercial sold tapes, even with extended dynamics and headroom expansion and whatsoever, but the industrial process brings deep lacks. Anyhow, I liked that kind of wide deep sound although was few dB lower. Mate: You are a guy I'd like to be friends with. Thanks for your work, your voice tone, your dedication and your art. You have art in what you do. - This is my first video where I find you, I'll subscribe and keep in touch. Warm hug to you and everyone reading and commenting in this interesting channel.

Thanks for the great analysis!

hello, very thanks for this amazing post, i'm loved , very interested theme !!!! thank you , best regards.

your voice is on the edge of a whisper, kind of relaxing! lol

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.

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.

Outstanding demo and review1

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.

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.

Just listened on my iPad to all the formats and I Love the reel to reel tape!!

That master tape , sounds awesome, it's probably worth it's weight in gold at this point!! The vinyl from 2003 sounds great as well , the cassette tape sounds very smooth, and put a smile on my face 😊 !!

good experiment...i I've been searching for something like this..and doing this with my fav Floyd album... obviously the master tape copy sounds much beter than others, however the SACD also put high equality to rip part and separate instruments. thks

Most interesting video, Thanks a lot! The major difference I heard is that the RTR recorded Master Copy has a slight speed difference (slower) than the rest of the sample. It indicates that during the process of copying the Master at least one of the machines speed (playback and/or recording machine) was slightly not calibrated properly.

Holy shit that master tape copy sounds great

You got my thumbs up as soon as I spotted the Beatles in Mono boxset :)

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

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.

Incredibile!!! Lo sapevo che con il nastro in bobina aperta era il massimo! Ottima comparazione. Ascolto sempre i miei nastri (anche con registrazioni vecchie più di 30 anni) e suonano ancora magnificamente. Grazie, ciao

Very interesting! Thank you!

I am extremely satisfied and happy with my reel to real copy at 15 ips version on pro equipment and thank you for sharing your experience

Thanks for doing this exercise, must have taken you a few hours of work at least, I enjoyed that.

This was fun, thanks!

Bought the album when it came out , listened to it a couple times, then went and saw them that night ,it was Mr. Gilmore's birthday you ain't never gonna get no recreation. As Mr.Walsh once said l am an analog man, saw him too.