What is the best audio medium?

Vinyl, tape, CD, mp3? Maybe some future technology? What would be the ultimate audio storage medium?

[@microteche]

Probably one of the best thinking out a loud discussions with oneself about music formats that I have listened to.

[@JammingWave]

Absolutely agree!

[@timothymayo7522]

I totally agree...those of us who have Reel to Reel players (I inherited my Akai and Blue Note OP's from my Grand Father) it is a phonemal format. It is not for the lazy because it does take a little more work to enjoy but the sound is frankly unrivaled especially listening to my Gran Dad's recording of Trane, Getz,Miles, Ella and others it is phonominal. LUV your channel and objective view points....keep being U!🙏🏼

[@TheOzthewiz]

@@timothymayo7522 Yes! Agree. I bought a used TEAC 'open reel' deck as a fun toy which was fun to watch the machine running without actually listening to the audio. Back in the day (early '70s), these ELEGANT machines added class to your component system! I did play some commercially available tapes once in a while. One in particular had AMAZING FIDELITY, "Cabaret" running at 15ips would give a CD a run for its money, albeit running time was quite short even with auto-reverse on the 7" reels. But, the thing was a MONSTER, weighing in at about 50lbs. Everything built in "golden age of audio" was HEAVY, NO PLASTICS for me, thank you!

[@markthomas2436]

He did a great job in explaining things for sure. If indeed you had top quality tape, the reel to reel format would sound the best.

[@DirkGrosemans]

Hello Graig, I worked at a radiostation in Belgium (between 1985-1994). Most of the shows were live on the air. But we used VCR tape for our "in case of emergency". Everybody who had a show had to make sure that he had 2 "emergency tapes" as backup The main reason that we used VCR tape : It was wider than the normal reel to reel. And also that sometimes we could record 8 hours of music on that tape. (on slow speed) Reel to reel had one disadvantage... the tape could fail or break. That was very useful for our night programs. All we had to do was start the VCR player and we had non-stop music till the first man arrived in the studio. The quality was very good and had almost or no noise. Later we used DAT tape but that was not really a succes. And I remember those card system. We used it indeed for commercial and jingles. Wish those times could be back. Respect for your youtube channel and best regards from Belgium.

[@coldginuk1]

First time I heard Dark side of the moon was on reel to reel way back in 73. It never sounded better no matter what other format I heard on but then again my ears were 45 years younger!

[@continentalgin]

Yeah, I agree! There are so many factors: quality of speakers, amp/receiver, even speaker wires and cables, not to mention human ear sensitivity/youth. But back in the day, when I had reel-to-reel, a tube amp/receiver and nice, warm speakers, that was the best! I also had some good headphones, but headphone technology has come a long way since 1970.

[@coldginuk1]

@@continentalgin I still have my Celestion Ditton speakers from 1970. Richest warmest sounding speaker I have ever owned and I've owed a few over the years but I always go back to those bad boys.

[@bentonpix]

I had a chance to listen to a 15ips half track master of Dark Side of the Moon just a few years ago on an extreme high end system. I was completely unprepared for the fidelity that I heard and I've heard many fantastic systems. It utterly blew away ALL other mediums by a gigantic margin! I have never heard anything sound as good since.

[@michaelshultz2540]

It has nothing to do with your ears. A digital recording is dead it has no soul. It can't be felt in your heart. Now you know why analog feels better. It's not that it sounds better. It is not dead and that bit of soul from the performer can touch your soul especially when you close your eyes and listen with your heart .

[@GrzegorzDurda]

Plus you popped a virgin cherry. 1st time is best in most things.

[@iratozer9622]

My first experience was at 7 years old, my grandmother had a small cabinet with an automatic stackable 45, RPM console. I was hooked the first time I discovered it. She had about 20 or 30 Scandinavian, folk dance and square dance records. I'm glad you rediscovered music again.

[@CHICO976]

love you Vinyl TV channa. I am 82 and have got back into vintage stereo equipment from 1967..I have just bought a Fluance RT85 TT and I am blown away with the sound my old records produce...well done Craig...

[@craigwarner6156]

I'm with you on the idea that it's almost miraculous that vinyl works at all. It's magic that these songs can somehow be contained on this disc.

[@Valveus]

Craig Warner Yes indeed. You can explain to someone HOW it works (the stylus converts the grooves into an electrical signal etc), but no one can explain WHY it works

[@tomislavukraden4151]

@@Valveus WHY it works? The answer is simple: Because of music! ;-)

[@bobzwol]

Thanks for putting this together! Much appreciated! This video is right up my alley! Loved every second of it! Being a man of a certain age [63], I delved into every recorded format that the 20th century had to offer. I am a self-proclaimed audiophile and a vinyl & reel-to-reel aficionado, all piped thru vintage Dynaco vacuum-tube equipment from the early 60's. Now that I'm totally digital, I haven't played my analog media for almost 2 decades. This video definitely got me thinking! I have my favorite MFSL LPs and reels @ 7 1/2 IPS. Their CD brethren never quite matches the sweetness of their analog counterparts. But once I up-sample selected CD tracks to 48K / 32-Bit, I'm happy once again! Thanks again for your train-of-thought on my favorite subject!

[@andrewmoore150]

Doc from back to the future.

[@kencohagen4967]

Cassettes sound really god when you have a good deck, and you EQ your recordings. I've recorded cassettes that fooled people into thinking that they were listening to thinking they were listening to CD's. Reel to Reel is only slightly behind cassettes. Cassettes were best used when you recorded your own albums and mixed them down onto cassette. Pre recorded cassettes sucked, big time. But that was because they used the cheapest tapes you could find. They didn't last long when you played them a lot. So I bought CD's or Vinyl and mixed them down onto cassettes, eq'ing them in the process so that their was very little loss when they were played back. If I could record a song or collection of on cassette and gave it to someone who loved the bad I recorded for them.., and they likes the tape I gave them I know I did my job well. Throughout the 80's I recorded mix tapes for all my friends and gave them away for the holidays. Everybody loved them. Nobody complained. Vinyl records compared to CD's? Night and day! Always use CD's if you can. If you. Can't use vinyl and use Audacity to clean things up as much as you can!

[@mubodude]

We're the same age. I remember when I had a reel to reel in the late 70's, we'd load them up with about 5 albums and never have to get up to change them for a long time. Throw on a reel and you're good!

[@stevenbarth7502]

Reel to reel will always be nearest to my heart.

[@johnholmes912]

the cost of tapes is mind-boggling

[@trondsi]

"This should not work but it does" :) I have been thinking similar things. I remember first blowing my mind when I realized how it worked (roughly) as a kid, except I didn't think about the fact that it was in stereo. Then I re-blew my mind more recently when I started thinking about how the needle manages to capture stereo. It's awesome!

[@benkrake3678]

Whoever said cassettes sound terrible have obviously not heard of chrome and metal tapes. I go back as far as tapes and I used to be very picky about what tapes I used. I mainly used the TDK SA90 or the Sony UX90 tapes. Sometimes I’d splurge and get TDK MA90 tapes but were very expensive back in the 90’s. These tapes when recorded properly sounded almost dead on CD quality.

[@oschiri66]

With a decent recorder, tapes can sound great, as long as you play them back on the same recorder. But if you play them on another deck, the mess starts. Often you can only turn off the Dolby circuit, to avoid pumping and missing highs. And then we have back our old friend: Tape noise. And there is some signal loss in long term archival storage.

[@benkrake3678]

oschiri66 it also depends on how good and how clean the heads are on the tape deck that cassette was recorded from too. I had a Technics tape deck made in the early 80’s which I got from my dad back when I was in high school and it sounded terrible playing back tapes recorded from any other deck. I also the matching receiver, EQ and speakers to go with it. This particular HiFi system was Technics base line model back then. My dad also had a JVC tape deck from the same era lying around and I convinced him to let me have that one instead. The JVC deck sounded so much better with tapes recorded from other decks. Only problem with the JVC deck is the rubber band kept coming of the motor, and I didn’t know at the time where to get a replacement one. Later on when I started working I upgraded to another, newer mid 90’s Technics deck that was very primitive to features. It was a double tape deck with only one set of play, pause, rewind, fast forward and stop buttons for both decks. It sounded pretty good, but it didn’t even have a record level knob on it which I hated and recordings on that deck were usually pretty quiet. After that I upgraded to an early 2000’s Yamaha tape deck that was fantastic, had all the bells and whistles and I absolutely loved it. Still have both those tape decks sitting out in my shed!

[@oschiri66]

With cassette decks it's like with record players: Everything must be correctly calibrated. On tape decks that is: Azimuth, Bias*, Equalization, tape speed and the Dolby level*. (*=Must be calibrated for EVERY different tape!) I have a Revox B215. If there was ever a "professional" cassette deck, that's it. It even has a computer for calibrating tapes. But if I record with "Dolby C" the reproduction on other decks sounds terrible. Calibration issue. So I only use "Dolby B" and when the playback machine sounds "muffled", I even switch Dolby off. Tapes can sound great, if everything matches. If not, it's a pain in the a... nalog.

[@benkrake3678]

oschiri66 If I had the money I’d buy a Nakamichi Dragon deck. As far as I know they are one of the best tape decks ever made. I have only seen one of them up close and it was in a record store on the other side of town who also sell vintage audio equipment, they were asking $1750.00 for it. I have watch a lot of reviews on KZbin on these decks and they sound absolutely amazing. Apparently these decks can get basically any type cassette to sound superb so long as you set the bias and Azimuth adjustments correctly.

[@oschiri66]

Be careful with Nakamichis. They cost a fortune to maintain. I bought my Revox B215 new back in 1986 and it hasn't seen a service since. The Nakamichi has some nice ideas with auto-azimuth and flip-over autoreverse. But in the long run everything is quite fragile. Look at the Revox mechanism. That's not consumer class, that's pro-equipment. On the other hand, there are some combinations of cheap decks and tapes that can sound astonishing for little money. But if you have found the right tape, stick with it. I remember (1978) a cheap japanese top-loader tape deck called "Fair Mate" that loved TDK AD ferro tapes. That primitive combination sounded great and rivaled my reel to reel at 3 3/4 ips. But when I took a german BASF or a Maxell, the good sound was gone. It had nothing to do with the quality of the tape, but that "Fair Mate" was most likely factory calibrated for ADs.

[@Tnapvrvideo]

I only listen to CD's due to cost. Albums are expensive, they're more challenging to find specific titles, and they do hiss, crackle, and pop unless you buy/own really nice copies adding further to their cost. CD's are really affordable, you can pretty much find anything on CD, and used CD's sound just as good as new CD's further lowering the cost to amass a collection. I might get back into vinyl but it would be on limited basis. BTW, and I have experienced this first hand in high end stores; a CD system is just as warm and inviting as any vinyl playback experience. People who want to deny this fall into one of two categories. [1] they have never gone to a high end store and demo'd a high end CD system. [2] they are subjectively invested in vinyl, and they will defend their choice regardless of the simple reality that CD playback can match vinyl playback (and the proof is a store visit away). Vinyl offers a wonderful tactile experience and an equally involving visual experience along with wonderful album covers. Those are great reasons to buy into vinyl. Sound superiority is not.

[@slipwagon7944]

SACD, DVD-A, or Blu-Ray Audio are the best. Vinyl is my personal favorite.

[@TheRollingStoness]

i love the cd brightness but the vinyl warmth as well..all good ...cassettes are warm as well..all good happy man here,, i stay away from technical math frequency details which is so boring to me...enjoying my cd and vinyl and cassette collection...love it..cheers..

[@thomasfleming8388]

Interesting thoughts Craig! I appreciate your pondering on Planck time! Cheers!

[@stringsattached67]

It's the crackles and pops that I enjoy about my vinyl collection . It feels and sounds real to me . Yeah of course digital is cleaner and has a low noise floor but there's just something about dropping that needle and listening to every song on each side that's magical to me .

[@jimmm7339ki3456]

The best audio medium for me is vinyl. I have a lot of CDs as well, but the whole listening experience of vinyl records is amazing. Taking the record out of the sleeve, cleaning the record, putting it on the turntable, dropping the needle, and hearing the crackle sound. It doesn't get any better than that.- James in Wisconsin.

[@jimmm7339ki3456]

I forgot to add looking at the front cover of the vinyl, most of the time admiring the artwork, although some front covers can have boring artwork, reading the back cover and reading the lyrics.

[@mic982]

I feel the same - it's probably my age showing thru because I had my first TT and stereo long before cassette, 8-track and other tape formats were invented. CD's never seemed to me to be quite the same either. And now digital...the best thing to be said about digital is the enormous amount of songs one can cram onto a single thumb drive. That said, I still spin vinyl and hope I always will

[@matthatton3763]

Sure I love those parts of it too especially album art and liner notes/lyrics, and this is getting into semantics, but nothing you said there has anything to do with vinyl as an audio medium itself. In terms of performance quality and so on. All the stuff you mentioned is peripheral. Except the crackling which romanticises bad sonic quality. So a sort of tail waggin the dog comment really - sure the experience, but when it's not about the intrinsic nature of what you're listening to surely you're missing the point and romanticising/fetishising tangential details? Did you mean your favourite?

[@jn3750]

Reel to reel gives you the same experience, bUT better soud.

[@GrzegorzDurda]

True

[@fabianroblero]

I Like your honesty Craig, cheers from Chile

[@raultech1975]

Hola compatriota, soy otro fan de Vinyl TV y de la música y diferentes formatos. Saludos.

[@fabianroblero]

@@raultech1975 Saludos compatriota 👍

[@edscofield6954]

Back in the early 60s, commercial reel-to-reel albums were available.

[@thegreenlaser215]

I have found that when you clean the record, leave it damp and play it "wet." You will lose a lot of the extra noise, pops, and clicks. It sounds better to my ear this way.

[@beosliege]

I am not opposed to digital VS analog, and I enjoy both for what they offer. I’m currently obsessed with the sound of what I record on my cassette deck: It adds depth and richness to the sound that I am finding intoxicating. The first time I recorded on to a cassette in decades and played it back, I basically cried. I hadn’t realized just how pivotal that “sound” could be to me. It may not be true to what was originally recorded, but it feels more real. I like to think of it as putting back something that was removed which you might hear if you had been there live. I have a high-end vinyl rig, lossless digital files as well as streaming, and CDs, and yet the little cassette tape has come back and stolen my heart and moved me emotionally and engaged me like I had never expected. It’s a fun hobby… listen to what you enjoy, and listen using the format of your choice! But most of all, make sure the music moves your soul.

[@VegasAlien1]

We used to make mix tapes on high quality VHS when I was in Germany. Sounded great.

[@bradt.3555]

Hi Fi vhs is recorded with the video head as oppossed to two audio tracks on the sides of the vhs tape. It's similar to the way sound is broadcast with video. I've used Hi Fi vhs for audio recording many times in the past. It will actually sound better than reel to reel due to lack of tape hiss.

[@aldolasc6186]

I love all formats, each one has pros and conts and uses, for me doesnt matter as well sound is near as possible to the master.

[@michaelfurbank3504]

Thanks so much, that was the most informative, cut-through-the nonsense analysis of the various formats I've heard. It's great to have someone confirm that vinyl is fine but not without its drawbacks and that it's ok to still love CDs! Great talk - thanks again.

[@venturarodriguezvallejo1567]

Yes. Reel-to-reel tape format can sound really great and I love it. The main problem, I think, is how to produce "albums" in enough large amounts (say, 1 million copies) without degradation of the master material and avoiding the well known generation's issue, not to mention the high selling prices per unit. All that said, I admit vynil is, for me, the less worthy format available today. "Rituals" don't make me feel hot or cold. Truly interesting and calmly thought video. Thank you very much for it.

[@wamunyimamundia3485]

The very pops and clicks that people hate is what I love so much about vinyl. You drop the needle on the record and you hear them, takes me way back to when I first heard some of the albums with my Dad.

[@richardclarke1693]

Great video, enjoy listening to all your videos. For me the most important thing to consider is playback. This is where you get the emotions and the accuracies of the original recording. That being said, I won’t get into the classic video versus C D discussion.

[@TheVinylDon]

I can hear it now - New "Planck" digital format is coming - Damn, now I have to buy 'The White Album' again. (Men In Black reference). :)

[@icecreamget]

time isn't necessarily quantized, it's a theory because it can't really be proved, but it also can't really be disproved. It's still a really useful theory that makes a lot of scientific mathematics work, and it's based on what are theoretically the smallest possible observable measurements that could be made.

[@fredsbloggs656]

I worked in recording studio, the master recording machine was the Studor A80 16 track......you could hear if you listened carefully, wow and flutter on constant notes like the piano.......secondly you have modulation noise, this is an increase in background noise with an increasing saturation of signal. I have a sensitive ear to speed consistency, nothing can get over this. CD has a clocked and almost totally constant speed that doesn't suffer from off center records or the speed variation of tape or turntables.......and there is almost no modulation noise. For all the faults of CDs they have no inherent problems with the above!

[@bikemike1118]

Yes sir! CD‘s are vastly underrated. If you have a real good CD player and stereo system plus a very well recorded cd ...you think the artist stands right in front of you in your listening room. GREAT. It‘s a big mistake to think in terms of digital, analog that on Sounds „colder“ and one sounds „warmer“...that’s just BS. Just as white vinyl doesn’t sound brighter than black vinyl. Some people conclude from the looks to the sound... bad idea! Plus: cd‘s doesn’t wear out, are easy to storage and the whole thing is MUCH easier to handle altogether....people call that PROGRESS.

[@pandoraefretum]

Piano usually sounds better on CD, I'll agree to that too, probably due to wow & flutter ; the pitch of notes warbles on Vinyl.....( though I still prefer the 60 and 70s on vinyl rather than CD ) but a solo Violin or Cello is perhaps the most convincing advocate for vinyl... which has a warmth and live presence which cannot be recreated from 1010110 digital in red book format.... 24-bit is better. Anyway I'm just telling you what I like... if I said the best colour was Blue, you hardly need to argue that, in your opinion, it is Red... I have some recordings which are better on CD than Vinyl... plenty of them, in fact

[@pandoraefretum]

@ReaktorLeak I did tests with professional musician friends, and we all went for vinyl when playing Milstein and Rostropovich's solo Bach. I do also find that some recordings do sound exactly the same. Others sound better on CD. It really depends on the mastering / recording.... in general if it's pre-80s I opt for vinyl, unless I have a super-hires. option

[@truckerallikatuk]

@@pandoraefretum Even a modest CD player can sound amazing with a good DAC. The low quality DAC is usually the issue with lower end CD machines, and if it has an optical or coax digital output, you can bypass the weak link and get some great sound from them.

[@valuevinyl110]

You said everything correctly, Craig... You did not disrespect or offend... You spoke facts and truth.

[@michaelshultz2540]

A nice trick is to record your cd's on a quality r2r at 7 1/2 ips then listen to the tape it gets rid of the digital harmonic distortion and or smooths it out so that the high fq is softened and not scratchy sounding and monotoned as much.

[@larrygall5831]

I agree with what is said here. Open reel (reel to reel) is the best analog format. They are making some truly fantastic (although fantastically expensive) open reel machines today. Most of the recording studios through the years used this and considered it the best format. I'll never look down on digital, especially these days. Now we have ~32-bit at ~200k Hz. You don't miss anything with this. CDs don't qualify in my opinion, but were convenient. I mainly listen to music through a PC with a good DAC now.

[@denniswade6727]

I have always thought that one HUGE problem with a lot of music lies not so much with the playback format as it does with the way that sound engineers manipulate the sound according to what they think is what it should sound like. Boosting the bass or treble, or both, adding excessive loudness, compressing the sound, and so forth. When you start with sound that has been manipulated like that, it shows up on any playback medium. Think of all the great sought after recordings: they are not just known for the artists, but usually also the sound engineer and the original techniques used to record the session.

[@EVnewbie]

Very well done--My father had a R2R and he recorded records onto reels at 7 1/2 IPS and it sounded wonderful. The records were only played to make recordings because every time you play a record, you degrade the sound. The "perfect" format, well... once you hit 24 bit (or is it 32 bit) you are at 144dB of noise floor. You can do tricks to the original 16 bit (96dB) and make it 115dB. Let's assume you live in an underground bunker with no HVAC to make sound and measure 0dB in the room. Go to the max level of the 24 bit format and hit your ears at 144dB. Once your ears get hit with around 105dB, the middle ear muscles clamp down to protect your hearing which destroys any frequency response or hearing acuity. 115dB you will start getting a pain response and 144dB you will destroy your hearing (talking mids/highs, not 20Hz bass) Also at 144dB, that would demand electronics/amplifiers to have at least 144dB S/N ratio which costs stacks of cash to get there. Basically, your EARS are the natural limit and in the future if 24bit takes off just because--it will wildly exceed your ears ability to hear it and most electonics to be able to play at that level of accuracy. As far as vinyl and tape go, in reality when you listen to a record that was made in the last 30 years--it comes off a digital master. The best recording you can hear is straight off the digital master! Vinyl and tape add background noise so is called "a sound effect"--that is not accuracy! It is really amazing that vinyl records actually can put out decent sound--it is 19th Century technlogy--but it does work. He forgot one format--it was HiFi VHS with chrome tape on video tape. I had a pro S-VHS 7 head hi-fi VCR and made a few recordings on tape with noise reduction encode and noise reduction decode and it had incredible sound. I would make 2 hour "mix tapes" with S-VHS tapes--because I could! The problem with tape is it degrades over time, the magnetic nature of it will "bleed" through and "ghost" the sound on the layers above/below it and the materials break down over time. Back in the day, I would use CD's, record them onto chrome tape with a 3 head deck, dual capstans and noise reduction and it sounded great--CD master mix tapes were far better than the pre-recorded garbage at the store. Realistically though, a non-compressed download smokes R2R, cassettes, records and all analog formats. A perfect copy of the master is ideal and you can get that. If you like screwing around with analog formats because that is the experience or you like tinkering around with trying to get the best sound of the things--go for it. I call records like I do starting an old school motorcycle with carbs, chokes and kick starters. On a cold morning, you had to get the choke perfect, ease the cylinder just past top dead center, get the throttle position right then get a forceful kick to get the thing to even start--you feel connected to what you are doing. Fuel injection and electric start is like CD...press the button, the electronics take over and the motor starts--simple! You just don't get the fun, the hope it will start and the feeling of really getting it down with fuel injection/electric start--but it is almost magic if you get the choke/throttle position and the perfect kick on the lever and the thing starts up;! It is a fun hobby to try to get the best sound out of records and tapes also...but at the end of the day we realize that digital recordings, exact copies of the digital master is better than analog recordings of the same digital master. Same is true with electric start/fuel injection VS kick start/carbs--but kick start and carbs are just more fun and more interactive than pressing a button. If I had to start a motorcycle 5 times a day in all weather--I'd go with electric start/fuel injection! But, if it is just a hobby, something to screw around with kicks and carbs are just more fun. The same is true with records and tapes, just don't think they are "better"...don't fool yourself. There are plenty of simple things that can be better but just less fun--records are an experience, a hobby and is entertaining--but it is not "better". R2R, a great format for recording but as far as buying pre-recorded tapes? That would of been rough to load in your car--imagine how big a "reel-to-reel man" would of been! Great video--have a great week.

[@likesnoozn]

Oh the frustration of 8 tracks from tape jam and being eaten, which were often tossed out the car left to die on the side of the road, to changing tracks or fading in/out in the middle of a song, to not sitting in the unit at the correct angle on the tape head, to the peeling off of the metal strip that caused the tape head to switch to the next level! But what made it so worthwhile was the ability to take your music with you in the car or play on a portable until cassettes eventually took over the market. I had a Teac 3300 reel2reel back in the mid 80’s and I always enjoyed the full very low noise sound it produced. And like others have commented, I also had a few prerecorded label released reel2reels. I love vinyl for its analog sound and tangibles, and digital for its clean, though not perfect, sound and convenience. Is there a best format? They all have their pros and cons, but they’ve each allowed us to enjoy music, and that’s the goal.

[@RichardCockerill]

i love your take on reel to reel,my uncle recorded so much in the 50's and 60's,i never questioned how he did it,i was a teen then,but it was amazing,he did music,tv,radio,family gatherings...interesting video,takes me way back

[@Greywolf3]

I was a radio DJ, on and off, for 17 years beginning in 1966. I still love playing vinyl recordings at home.

[@continentalgin]

Believe it or not, around 1970, I had a nice reel-to-reel machine and the record companies were releasing albums on that format. I had a Sgt. Pepper album that played at 7 1/5 ips and sounded great. At some point, I sold off a bunch of stuff, including my tape player and tapes. Sure wish I had kept the tapes as they would be very valuable collector's items today. I had an 8-track player in my car, but that was a different tape format, which I didn't like as much, but it was the best thing for a car back then.

[@scottstrang1583]

Some open decks did use what was called "EE" for extra effeciency. I think it was basically the formulation as Maxell or TDK high bias cassettes. BASF had an EE tape also but I think it was supposed actually chromium dioxide like many of their cassettes. I was a jock at a 100kw CHR FM station and we used NAB carts for everything. We used ITC 99Bs (eight in control room) for spots, jingles and music. The heads (if I recall) called MaxTrax which was created by PR&E for their Tomcat line of NAB cart machines. These carts were so quiet that we didn't need dbx or Dolby SR and many of the CD's from which we dubbed our library had more noise (noticeable) than the carts. We used AudioPak SGS4 carts at 7.5 ips. Sound quality was excellent as long as the jocks cleaned the heads and didn't abuse the carts. Love your channel.

[@VinylTV33]

Thank you! Love your info. Very interesting!

[@82abn34]

Open reel and cassette tapes can sound very good. Also, finding interesting cassettes, records, etc at the thrift stores and in yard sales is the best. Refurbishing old tape transports is also alot of fun. I say if it makes you happy do it (within reason).

[@migalito1955]

I have a GE RD Electronics Engineer as an acquaintance. Eight years he took me on an audio tour from half speed masters on a professional reel to reel all the way through various qualities of vinyl up to newest digital formats. I was blown away by the sound that a half speed master put out. Never heard better although quality vinyl came in as a close second. Of course none of this matters if the sound engineering was not done artfully. I also asked him what he thought could be better than reel to reel. You ready for this? He said if 35 mm movie film had its entire width used for recording that such a method of recording and playback would be beyond outstanding.

[@vwestlife]

Record companies did produce pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes from the 1950s through the mid-1980s, but many of them ran at 3¾ IPS so the quality was not as good as the format was capable of. And DSD (Direct Stream Digital), as used by the Super Audio CD (SACD) format, is almost the idea you're thinking of -- it samples audio at 2.82 MHz, but only at 1-bit depth, so the end result is about the same quality as 24-bit 192 kHz PCM.

[@SSJfraz]

But it's not. Because often in many cases, the SACDs are created from the standard 16bit redbook masters used for the standard CD releases. It's only "the same quality" as 24bit 192khz PCM if the masters used for creating the DSD tracks where in that quality or better to begin with, which they very rarely are.

[@vwestlife]

You're right. Audiophile are too hung up on numbers than what it actually sounds like. In actual listening tests, most people have only a 50/50 chance of being able to hear the difference between a CD and a SACD.

[@SSJfraz]

Indeed. Much of it is marketing voodoo, just like the glass CD's which supposedly sound better than the same master burned to a standard CD. Obviously the 1's and 0's have an extra sparkle in them due to the glass.....

[@venturarodriguezvallejo1567]

@@SSJfraz GLASS CDs??? 😩 What on Earth can do GLASS to improve the conversion to analog, wich is all that matters? Someone is needing urgent psychiatric help, I'm afraid.

[@phuongweary5433]

VWestlife I Can Hear the Difference I work Doing Mixing for a Singer

[@robertrussell2595]

Very good presentation. You really know your stuff. Hoping for reel-to-reel to re-arrive. Reeley!

[@musicalmrbear]

Hi Craig , just join your chanel and thx a lot for so much info and great stories, I love listening to all your stories about music and equipment. I even joined CraigTube despite the fact that we are from a different time zone and I have to wait until 4 am of my time, it's worth it because you are doing a great job !! Don't stop and take care buddy .

[@PuffTMagicDragon]

What I think is interesting is that modern digital studios these days often try to replicate the ambiance of tape noise in their recordings, to bring back some of the warmth that medium gave recordings. Also as a drummer I've noticed that you often track drums on tape still, because of the dynamic response that is better captured on tape.

[@sulayman44]

I'm binge watching your videos. Keep up the good work! Thank you!

[@RichardCockerill]

my uncle recorded everything on reel to reel in the 1950's and 60's it was awesome

[@jpdenk]

My experience with cassettes was the same as yours. I had a cassette deck that used DBX noise reduction and metal tape, made recordings of CD's that sounded amazingly close to the original CD'S.

[@lawrenceterwilliger6787]

I use to have a reel to reel with a dbx rack mounted unit! 85 db s/n ratio! The bass and drums were so kick ass sounding! The wall of sound would vibrate the furniture! Analog at it's finest! Miss those days! Thanks for your thoughts and got to visit some fond memories!

[@theaudioman4446]

If manufacturing Graphene at a commercial scale with great quality control for the bonded atoms it would be a game changer for many applications in audio, tapes, speakers, etc etc

[@jamistevens9049]

Those pops and crackles that you are talking about remind me of an open fire 🔥 this is why I like listening to vinyl if I wanted perfect sound I would listen to CDs but CDs remind me of watching a radiator

[@bobt3374]

A great set of thoughts & every body will have there own but it is so good to here what various people think.

[@ndroughrider1564]

Don't forget the Quadraphonic format. I had an Akai Reel-to-reel back in the early '70s that was a Quad unit and the demo tape they sent along with it blew me away! The trouble was it never took off and tapes were hard to come by. Even with that, albums on reel-to-reel were also hard to come by. I used my machine to record my vinyl on and to make mixed tapes on my cassette recorder. Too bad that while I was deployed that I got ripped off and they got away with everything I owned. Every album, tape and all my electronics, speakers & all. I still miss that gear!

[@Unwise-]

Thanks for keeping it reel. I remember a time when reel-to-reel was venerated among myself and my audiophile friends as a potential step-up that none of us could afford. It promised a dream of multiple records playing back in series without flipping or changing. Perhaps we were naive.

[@youngatom]

I am about the same age as you (I think) I have been buying records since I was 12/13 I still remember buying a Elvis EP of "Loving You" . Like you I was awe struck by CD's none of the Vinyl crackle but I had these records that had fond memories, so I could not just throw them in the bin. So now I have my CG collection and my Record collection. I still buy records that I could not afford when I was young. I am surprised that young people are collecting Records, but good on them. I also think they can never have the attachment we have because as I said the memories that are attached. I was waiting for you to mention Mini Disc's. Funny how you mentioned that you just think it is great how records play, I said the same thing to my wife.

[@lazy_ape]

Didn't expect this video to end up at Planck scale, but it did! Amazing! :D

[@jeremywhittler8591]

Vinyl shortcomings used intentionally as an advantage- FWD speakers -Fwd amp-laid back LP source. Component matching is a real thing.

[@chesterjohnson4504]

Nice discussion. You are breaking my heart. Back in 1972 - 1976 I had a few R2R tape decks. My Revox was the best one I had. I would tape my LP collection onto tape. Life got in the way and I had a family to raise so I ended up selling my tape deck and over 50 reels of music. I did however save my LP collection. I still have my records and just ordered a new Fluance RT-85 turn table. Time will tell but I did enjoy my tape collection back in the day.

[@papershark]

16/44.1 is just fine for listening to music. Really I could not tell the difference between that and 24/48 which I preferred to record in. But people record generally in 24/48 because they are going to squeeze a hell of a lot out of a single track. You might just be focusing in on certain parts of (say) a guitar recording with aggressive filters, equalizers and compressors. Things like noise floor (or other audio artefacts) can become pretty apparent even without golden ears.

[@ET2carbon]

You're really limiting yourself

[@papershark]

You need to split format it into 3 questions. 1. What is the best library format. 2. What is the best archival format. 3. What is the best recording format. Library. Probably plain old digital/MP3. If a poor kid in the 3rd world is going to listen to Mozart than it will be on his mobile phone with those ear buds you hate. But let’s pretend it’s 1990 and a 500mb hard drive cost $200. CD would win here hands down. Archival. Probably vinyl. Those things will still play 2000 years from now after an EMP wipes all your iPods and cds. How do I know? There are plates made of shellac that came out of the pyramids that still have thumb print of the guy who made it. That plastic takes it time degrading if you don’t play them. Recording. Take your pick. Like you need a home recording format these days.

[@neonquixote5278]

I’m glad someone said it - records don’t sound *better*, the sound *different*. It’s perfectly fine to prefer vinyl as an aesthetic choice, but to claim they’re “better” without any objective criteria stated to make that assertion does not make for an honest debate. A lot of the criticism of CDs comes down to poor decisions in mastering, not a limitation of the format.

[@bilbobobbytoucansam]

A fellow Rush fan!!! That makes my heart happy :)

[@reyiiteleco]

Love hear ppl that make sense when talking these days, so hard to find. Thank you, very accurate. Backed up by science and not by histeria and stubbornness.

[@MrXavierRose]

I watching your vids on my lunch break and I just got home, you made a new one

[@showstopperrob1097]

Absolute spot on this video. I remember when some radio switched over from AM to FM. Most people din't like sound off FM. It was to sharp same as we have had now in the 80's with CD. But Craig there was a time a time companie's did release their albums on tape. The reason they stoped this is because if you've had a copy it would last for a long time. While as you said a record can be damaged and they bought a new one.

[@henryjones3305]

Great comparison of all the recording formats. Still using several of those formats and enjoying every moment.

[@horowizard]

Some Reel-to-Reel machines could run at 1 & 7/8ths ips and even 15/16ths. Tape didn't suffer the same limitations of a Vinyl record. You had to make compromises to the sound just to get it on an Analog disc. The 8-Track Cartridge was always a dog. I recognized that from the start and never went for them.

[@HammyTechnoid]

Take all the advancements we made for cassettes, such as metal tape and micro gap heads... and put that on a reel to reel. 1/4" metal tape at 15ips would be enough to make any master tape last forever. Digital or analog, either one.

[@buddafingahz9057]

Thanks for posting your thoughts. No hyperbole here. I grew up listening to vinyl. I remember when the party started to really rock, the album would eventually start to skip. Like most average folks, we lived in a house made of wood frame construction and didn't have a dedicated audio room with a cement wall tied into the foundation to mount our turntable to so the records would inevitably skip. ( record crime : dimes taped to the cartridge shell to reduce skipping and keep the party rocking! ) When cassettes came out I loved them because you could record on them, and there was no chance of skipping. 45 minutes per side was glorious. That was like a whole album on one side of a cassette and the longer the music played without interruption the better. There was a reel to reel in my life at one time, but I have no idea what it was, maybe a Phillips? Many of my cassettes stretched out after a while though, and that never happened to any album I owned. Also lived in northern canada where lower end audio equipment everywhere else was high end where I was living. We never even had access to the kind of equipment you mention. Never heard of Marantz until it became legend. Pioneer, Technics, Sanyo, Sony, Fisher, Kenwood etc...were the fare of the day. Then cds came around. At first they sounded great. What I loved the most was the lack of static, crackle and pop. But I also remember getting some cds and wondering why they sounded so bad. One that jumps to mind is the Breeders, Last Splash. Even though I liked a couple of tunes a lot, ( cannonball ) the sound or mastering if you will just sounded like crap. ( maybe it was a columbia record house issue, a whole other discussion! ) Fast forward 20 or 30 years and we're into the loudness wars. Much sounds bad to these old ears. As for mp3s, I always get 320 if I can, I could always hear the difference in the lower bit rates. Each format has its strengths and weaknesses. As I've mentioned in another post, I have reconnected with my vinyl collection and am having a lot of fun, but it takes a lot more effort to listen to music on a turntable. Gotta get it level, adjust the stylus/cartridge etc... very finicky, and then you gotta do it all again when your stylus wears out in a year or so. For the ultimate in sound I think it all boils down to the mastering on whatever particular medium you're listening to, but for me, as much as I love vinyl, digital still has it's place. Whatever the format, music sounds best to me when it's shared with other people in a social setting. One final note, I have a very modest set up with an old yamaha class a amp with a dedicated phono channel, 4 Klipsch r 15ms, 2 energy pro series 6" bookcase speaker, and old sound dynamics 10 in powered sub with frequency control, a very inexpensive Nikko direct drive turntable. I've learned how to set up a listening station from YT ( toe in the speakers, tweeters at ear level ) and I gotta say, lps have never sounded better. The band has moved out of the basement and is now in my living room!

[@fredmccarroll3476]

I love reel to reel tape. I have a Pioneer RT-1020L machine. I would love to see reel to reel tape make a big come back. My reel to reel tape collection is very small, about 25 tapes. Some of the tapes in my collection include "Woodstock" , "The Plastic Ono Band LIve in Toronto 1969" , and "Easy Rider". I also have a Music Hall turntable with a Shure M97xE cartridge. My vinyl collection is about 700 records. My CD collection is around 1200 CDs. I play my CDs on a Samsung Blu-ray player and a Tascam CD-RW700 CD recorder. All units are connected to a Yamaha 7.2 A/V receiver with a Klipsch 7.1 speaker system. My 55 inch TV and my computer is also connected to my Yamaha receiver. I hope in the future to buy a nice cassette deck. I had a nice Pioneer cassette deck back in the 70s. In the 70s I also had a Pioneer RT-1050 two track reel to reel tape machine.

[@MrKLindholm]

Tämä on loistava luonnehdinta digitaalisen ja analogisen äänilähteen eroista. (This in Finnish). Thanks. This IS so brilliant.I've been made a pristine examples of really good cassette recordings. IT depends so much what recording deck you use. There are examples of cassettes that are premium , Even If they are Type I (for example TDK AR-X or Sony HF-ES. But you have to have a premium machine, to cope these. Thanks again for a interesting and a very good KZbin-channel.

[@anthonyvizzo1456]

The "Perfect" oversampled audio is basically CD. It was designed to sound completely uncompressed and I doubt more than a few people can A/B the difference. Even differing quality MP3 can be hard to tell for most.

[@jamessimpson5165]

Love this channel

[@BoxerTys]

Thanks Craig, nice video, i still play and record my music on my ReVox A77 MKIV Reel to Reel from 1974... :)

[@iratozer9622]

At my age, I have developed the giggles, and it's kind of reassuring to realize that so does my stylus.

[@alvafocal6338]

The perfect format was invented 20 years ago; it was called SACD-DSD.

[@ET2carbon]

Yep. But however, the encodes vary too. Like you can go from like DSD64 to DSD512. the low setting is equivalent to like 14-16bit depth and 48khz. Do you still need to keep increasing. To get a 32bit depth you need about DSD256 I THINK. but, it still doesn't shape a signal like analog and will have artifacts I think like jitter with clocking? I'm thinking best analog might be AFM depth modulation of BETACAM SP. I'm still learning though

[@repairfreak]

Remember the big video laser discs? I don’t see why they couldn’t make a digital audio disc that is recorded at crazy high bitrates and sample speed. A laser pickup assembly however mounted on a tonearm would make much sense for how critically precise the laser must track. Most pickups I’m aware of use 4 photodetector diodes in them to detect the angular deflections of the reflected beam between the pits and lands for the conversion to a digital 1 or 0. Its amazing how little electrically energized coils with a magnet create a magnetic field to pump the lens up and down for proper focus/reading of the data, and the sled motor moves the optical pickup block from inward outward of the disc, “just the opposite direction of playback than a record.” Also interesting is how the speed of the disc must continually vary in speed to maintain a constant linear velocity (CLV) in order to keep the 1’s and 0’s coming in at the same data rate . So the disc actually spins faster at track one approx 500 rpm and continues to slow as the disc is played onward towards the end of playback, at approx 200 rpm. I also read once that a full length compact digital audio disc can hold something like 5 miles of data in its spiral of pits and lands if you were to stretch it out and measure end to end, and the pitch of the data is only 1.5 uM wide! Amazing technology.

[@repairfreak]

@MF Nickster Yes reading digital optical discs are way more complex and amazing that it works. However the simplicity of a vinyl record and just how good it can sound is amazing as well. I love both formats. Video & Audio Technology is a fascinating subject. 😎👍

[@garrettcarroll5808]

You've piqued my interest in learning more about cassettes, 8 tracks, and more vinyl-related stuff! :D. Interesting video.

[@markmarkofkane8167]

P.S. Tape decks have a lot more parts. They cost more. You can't easily replace worn heads. You have to keep the heads clean of tape residue. They have to stay aligned. If one deck isn't aligned properly, the recording won't play well on another deck. It will lose the higher frequencies if not aligned. It's easier to replace a stylus than a tape head. Everything has pros and cons.

[@moonshiner2977]

Reel to reel heads do not go out of alignment if they are not adjusted ! Studios and broadcasters that claim they had to re-align the heads routinely are simply making themselves look like they are having to do an essential job.! It's a scam more than anything ! As for heads wearing out, it would take a huge amount of time for that to happen, but you are right they are not easily interchangeable and they do have many more parts than a record player.

[@nigelmealing3480]

Cassettes and 8 track were the portable format that could be used in cars etc, I also had a 45 rpm record player in a Mark 2 Lotus Cortina.

[@AmazonasBiotop]

One big disadvantaged analog has it is that it is a physical medium. That degradation of the tape or LP when played, even when a tape is not used it also degrees! The CD has got the same bad reputation as the casete because people used them on por playback systems like walkmans and recorded bad LP and radio broadcast with the casete. But if you take a CD that is +30 year old it has never sounded better than today. Because it will not develop pops during time go by and the players is way better than in the 80-ties. If you hear a CD on a high end player in a good system then you will be surprised how great it is.

[@sundemon1156]

Ever hear of disc rot? When Cds fail you will never feel so helpless. Tapes can be spliced and a record may jump a groove... but when a Cd messes up you might as well throw it in the bin.

[@AmazonasBiotop]

@@sundemon1156 Yes I have. It is one of the few ways that I CD can get destroyed. I have never encountered it but I live in a cold country with low humidity. The issue is in high humidity areas. On the other hand the CD can be easily be one to one bit perfect copied without any SQ degregation that is not possible with a analog format.

[@pulezanpulezan4918]

I have a 10 year old ORIGINAL CD album. It will not play anymore in any CDROM or CDPLAYER anymore. So much about CDs durability. Not to mention the stupud loudness wars that destroyed music altogether!

[@AmazonasBiotop]

Yes any media can of course get destroyed. My point is that CD is a media that do not use any physical contact and do not wear out due to that you have put the CD-player on repeat. It is more likely that your CD-player will break after 5-10 years of continuous playback. And then you can still move the CD to next player and continue. This has not many practical applications but just show us the benefits of contact less reading of the information. (Yes there are examples on back in the day at Swedish television had a CD-player that played same CD 24/7 that they used when there was no broadcast together with a test image..) And I cant even imagine what would happen with a record or tape if you played that medium continuously for 10 years ;) Yes loudness war has destroyed music altogether but that is not the fault of the medium you could record that crap on the great sounding R2R tape also! That mistake is what people always do, like in this video there is speculation of ridiculous high digital resolution. That will not help if you still put loudness treated music on that imaginary format. Crap in will always be crap out regardless of format.. :)

[@TheSoundrookie]

Technical oriented historians believe we will become a lost era, because digital medias doesn't last. We have records, movie rolls, wax rolls, photo's etc. over a hundred years old still going strong, and papyrus and parchment rolls way over a thousand, while cd's, hard drives, SD-cards etc die off pretty quick, due to rot, or just stops working for other or no apparent reason. Besides that analog medias are simple, and it's therefore apparent how they work, while the constant change in digital formats, their variety, and complexity can become a problem over time - Even if the medias survive. Notice that you can play a record with a piece of paper rolled to a funnel, just as one example. I know what you mean, and theoretically you are on to something, but analog physical medias using physical contact have passed the test of time, while it so far doesn't look all that good when it comes to digital storage. See how much data already lost for good, due to erroneous trust in digital medias - Even when stored under perfect conditions.

[@Calendyr]

Going from Vinyl to CD was the best thing that ever happened. Then the digital formats started coming out and it added so much flexibility on how you listen to music. I just can't understand why people would want to go back to vinyl. I can appreciate music stores wanting the format to come back because online stores like Apple and Android are killing them off, and nobody is buying CDs anymore. But from the standpoint of a listener, I have never heard a vinyl sound better than a CD. It think it's just in your mind. I would be very curious to see a blind test between CDs with added pop noises and vinyls to see if the listener could actually tell one appart for the other.

[@Calendyr]

Sufficiently Breathless You are right, a new format would be a good idea. The issue is that everything is moving to online purchases. But for the sake of argument, it would be easy to make a new media format that would be smaller and combine it with a higher fidelity file format. I guess the reason CDs are still around is that it's good enough. I really doubt most people could hear a difference between the current file format and something with more sampling. Maybe I am wrong,

[@Calendyr]

Sufficiently Breathless I agree, but as I was saying, everything is moving to digital release now. I would not be surprised if 10 years from now CDs would simply stop to exist as a release media for music. The cost of printing a disk, making a booklet for it, an plastic case, send it to distribution and all that is enormous compared to selling directly through digital release. I would hope they would increase quality on digital files though. Just use a format that is a lossless as possible, it's still smaller than an uncompressed file and bandwith is no longer an issue, nor is storage space.

[@Conenion]

I nowhere see somebody mentioning that analog vinyl is a) compressed (but for technical reasons that deal with the medium, not to "make everything louder") b) send thru filters while recording and playback, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization And filters _always_ damp/wipe out frequencies around the cutoff frequency. Now, my comments regarding the "perfect" format: At @19:00 talking about bit depth: Analog tape and records have about 10 bits. S/N ratio is about 60db (a real good studio tape has a bit more). With every bit you gain 6db. 10bit times 6db equals 60db. 16bits has 96db, which is a LOT. Regarding sampling frequency: As you said, nobody can hear frequencies >20kHz. So the bandwidth is 20kHz. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem you need to have at least a sampling frequency double than the said 20kHz. Which makes it 40 kHz. There you have it: Uncompressed PCM, with 16bit for each channel and a sampling frequency above 40kHz is the perfect format, since it contains all frequencies a normal human can hear plus a huge dynamic range. That is what CD uses. You still need a very good, no.. perfect, digital to analog converter, analog amplification, speakers, and room. And here are the main problems. Esp. speakers and room.

[@EliteRock]

The "noise floor" figures you quote are 'unweighted'. Record a record (sic) digitally (preferably at 24 bit, 'peak normalised' to close to 0dB, making sure to remove any clicks which peak higher than the 'program' first) and measure the noise floor. Then apply a c. 200 Hz, 2nd-order (12dB.octave) high-pass filter (i.e. remove most of the sub-200Hz content). Ta-daa! The noise floor is now 20 dB lower! The point is that MOST of the noise from a vinyl record is in this region, but at levels which are to all intents inaudible/unnoticeable (this LF rumble at, say -50dB or lower is certainly not obtrusive - it almost sounds like 'ambience noise'). However, the medium can and does reproduce captured high frequency content at _well below_ the levels of the LF noise, easily down to -90 dB or even lower *which is not masked by it.* Further, this is with distortion levels that 16-bit PCM cannot hope to match (undithered, at such low levels there is as much distortion as signal, and even _with_ dither, the distortion is in the high double-digits). All of which is to say; _noise-floor_ [edit >>] I mean _signal-to-noise_ and _dynamic range_ are NOT interchangeable terms.

[@jacobholgate4399]

19:58 Is this what you're talking about: 16 bit/44.1 kHz 32 bit/88.2 kHz 64 bit/176.4 kHz 128 bit/352.8 kHz ... I really think the sweet spot is probably 24 bit/96 kHz, but that's only under the most ideal of ideal circumstances. It would still have to be EQ'd/mixed right (personally, I want to hear a perfect balance of all the elements.) It's like you said (re: reel-to-reel) the people involved have to take the time to get it right, and that's not the profit motive for the music industry...

[@kd5you1]

One problem I see with reel to reel and the general consumer market is that they require a lot of discipline. I think of Radar in MASH when Col. Blake ask him to rewind the home movie they were watching, but all of it had run onto the floor.

[@martinsapsitis4292]

Touche, very entertaining thanks Craig. I got myself a toploader sliver disc spinner, all manual load and removal. The lid even does slow counterweight close akin to a turntable arm. It does give a tactile buzz reminicent of vinyl days. I recommend this loading system for anyone who does not like the un flattering noise mechanics of a disc tray, which is a significant failure to the ritual of preparing oneself for a listening experience.

[@coldginuk1]

I love vinyl we all do that's why we are here but I'm also from back in the day. I also think we all wear rose tinted glasses when it comes to vinyl too. How many of you remember having to take records back to the shop because they were damaged in some way. I remember taking back Iron Maidens Number of the Beast back 3 times due a scratch through the b side. That wasn't the only one either. Anyone remember the crappy off shoot label for EMI FAME. The vinyl was so thin it was almost like a flexi-disc real bargain basement crap. They also released cassette tapes that would stretch after a couple of plays. The other end of the spectrum and staying with EMI you had Harvest. Now anything on that label was always really good even reissues. So it wasn't always as great has we all seem to remember but would I part with any of it. ......no way.

[@johnlovesbridge]

I bought a used EMI Fame album, thin and constant surface noise, despite being visually flawless. If I had known EMI Fame vinyl was poor, I would have not purchased. You live and learn.

[@gorber81]

Never happened to me..

[@stephenjerome4135]

I can remember buying a cassette tape back in the 80's on EMI's Fame label, it was a reissue of A Collection Of Beatles Oldies. I bought it brand new but after a lot of plays it didn't play very well. I think because it was so cheap it obviously wasn't the best quality. The Fame label was just a budget label for EMI purely for reissues of albums from their back catalogue, in particular The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney etc.

[@IAdryan]

I loved the idea of ridiculously oversampled and overquantized sound :) And that the analog is digital in the end :D I think a following good quesion will be "At what level of reduction from plank scale we will be able to hear the difference ?". ps - mp3 is good enough for me, i watch the "best audio war" for fun

[@larkstonguesinaspic4814]

If we're talking technology, Of course High Res Digital files. But as an overall listening experience for me it's Vinyl. That said I consume 90% of my music as FLAC downloads ( Which I convert to MP3 for my phone ), Ripping my CDs into my computer or streaming. Vinyl is amazing when you're at home, it's not just the sound we're talking about. Taking the record out, putting it on the turntable, looking at the cover, building a collection ... it's the ultimate music listening experience for me. However I can't ignore the convenience of digital files.

[@ostybe6216]

First HD-Vinyls will be pressed and in Stores in 2019...so this should be closest to your perfect Medium in terms of Soundquality & Putting-On Experience.

[@cliffhulcoopofficial8075]

I am possibly late commenting here but official Beatles albums were released officially by EMI on Reel to Reel in the UK and the US. They may also have been released in other countries. Someone on KZbin did a video about this. EMI also released other albums on Reel to Reel.

[@HDaudioEnhance]

Great video Craig. Vinyl is all about the experience. The new TT (Sony PS-HX500 & Pro-Ject Debut Carbon RecordMaster HiRes) can record in HiRes DSD 128/256. I just ordered a Pro-Ject Debut Carbon RecordMaster HiRes. Can't wait to set this up & start listening to & recording my LP's again. Will be interesting to compare the recordings of PCM 24/192 to the DSD ones.

[@jwl9286]

Great discussion! I just love watching the record or reel to reel go round. Ear ringing gives me all the extra noise I need. I record my favorite record's and CDs, and yes mp3 to reel to reel which sounds wonderful to me! Then I get to watch the tape turn and listen to the music. Still, the child's record player which used a turntable a needle and a diaphragm was so cool!

[@Beefnhammer]

I believe Moving Pictures was an A-D-D album, meaning the studio sessions were recorded to analog tape but then transferred to digital for mixing and mastering. It was 1980 after all, so I don't think 100% digital production process from start to finish was available yet. Signals was the same (A-D-D) but interestingly enough, they went backwards for Grace Under Pressure which was recorded and mixed in analog and then mastered in digital (A-A-D). Power Windows was the first Rush album to be produced completely digitally, as was every album afterwards.

[@funkyzero]

Like others here, I remember going into a guys house one Saturday night, I went with a buddy who knew him to see if he would buy beer for us. This guy had an audio system that sounded SO astounding, it kind of set the baseline for what I wanted from that day forward. I won't pretend to know what brands or anything that ANY of it was, but he was playing it off of a Nakamichi DAT deck... and ever since then, that's what I've wanted... for nostalgic purposes more than anything I suppose. I just have that vision and feeling still in memory from all those years ago, the glowing lights in the dark, the analog VU meters bouncing around, playing The Ocean. I remember it like it happened 5 minutes ago. And SOME day when I get the money, I WILL get that Nakamichi deck

[@mikieson]

anyone still arguing what sounds better is fooling themselves..NOTHING beats digital. Its as clean and clear as you can get music..Its PERFECT..plain and simple.