Cool video brother 👍

And we get to listen after it goes through You Tube.....

Despite all the different opinions I really appreciate all the work that went into making this video,  it was fun!

So...as a old audiophile and retired Recording engineer who worked in the analog world (and before vocal correction et all) I can tell you that many factors impact analog "fidelity". In the 70's we spent a lot of time looking for the holy grail of equipment that did not color the music or sound from the original. For turntables it was as much about the cartridge as the medium itself. Different cartridges can greatly impact the playback (yes, isolation etc from the mechanics can too). In the tape world, the quality of the tape can change the dynamics and so as the speed of the tape through the heads. I know engineers who recorded at a much higher speed (30 IPS) to get better overall fidelity on their pro-machines (Tape was way cheaper then too :-) ). Cassette is never going to give a great playback because of the speed of the tape through the heads and the actual tape medium that is pass through them. Cassette is nearly half the width of standard R to R and thus looses some headroom, so it looses some of the dynamics and then there is the dreaded tape hiss that seems to plague Cassette over R to R.

I like what you did here and it does present some compelling arguments about analog vs digital. I am still in the industry and everything is digital now and that is okay. Digital is more forgiving and is highly accurate if the right equipment, bitrates etc are used. Listeners today tend to be less worried about fidelity and are more concerned about portability and accessibility and Digital is the king. Digital formats do not have the noise, degradation over time, and size constraints that the analog world has.

I  have all the analog stuff today and I still use it when I want to be nostalgic. I have the exact same Akai R to R you have, Technics 1700 turntable with Shure Cartridge, Pioneer cassette, an 8 Track recorder/player from Lafayette  (terrible), Denon CD player (not analog!), all playing through a MAC1700 Receiver with an external switcher for selecting some of the inputs since I have more gear than inputs, all playing through JBL 4310 Studio monitors (I bought these from a studio that closed down 40 years ago and they still sounds great). I love to grab a bottle of red wine and pull out an original release Boston or REO record and enjoy.


So for all you folks looking to dabble in analog, especially in records, look for albums that were mastered on analog equipment. I look for vintage albums that were released prior to/no later then 1983 unless I can confirm it was recorded and mastered on analog gear. Anything after that was likely recorded mostly on digital and mastered digitally and they used digital files to press the records....so yes they were record in analog, but a copy of a digital master. Same goes for re-releases of older recordings re-released after the mid-80's. Likely remastered digitally and certainly pressed from a digital file. All semantics though since most people in a blind test will not be able to tell the difference :-) . But if analog is what you are after, make sure the signal chain and masters were all analog too!

As a kid of 80’s I had tapes and CD’s. I remember I put tape deck in my car and instantly wanted CD player. I went out and bought CD play and what a big difference in clarity!

This proves that no matter how perfect your sound is in your mastering process, people will always hear something different...

The fact that the snare got lost on the cassette tape explains why the snares in the 80s got so distinct and massive on recordings at that time.

A thing people should be aware is that the mastering process is different each medium.
For instance, for vinyl frequencies below 150Hz must be combined to mono.
This comparison it's not only about comparing listening to the same song in different formats, you're actually listening to different masters.
You even can see this by looking at the frequencies in each track. The two first ones look thicker that the others, meaning they're louder (probably more compressed and limited).

I love good experiments like this one. I thank youtube's compression for destroying the original purpose of this video. I also thank the author for his amazing work.

I agree. The reel-to-reel sounds fantastic.

As someone who loves drum heavy music, The Reel was my favourite, adds character in a pleasing way. Liked it more than the Master if Im honest. I loved the vinyl too

I have Motley Crue LPs from back in my teenage days.  I recently compared it to Spotify streaming.  I honestly thought since my records are almost 40 years old, they would suck compared to digital streaming.  I was completely caught off guard when i noticed how big of a difference it is. My vinyl has a wider steteo image and sounds loud, with out turning it up loud.  The digital stream sounded overly compressed, flat and lifeless.

A really great video! 👍
I’ve been working in a very well-known recording studio in Germany for over 15 years, and even in 2025 we still have two ReVox tape machines in our studio. They’re no longer used at all these days, but they’re fully maintained and integrated into the setup, ready to run.

We once did similar internal tests ourselves (without using a cassette) and found that, in 2025, vinyl really sounds poor and simply cannot compete with Apple Lossless streaming. One very important point you didn’t mention is that the low bass range on a vinyl record is only mono. Many people say it sounds “fatter,” but that’s mainly because there are no spatial effects (L&R) in the bass range — everything is summed perfectly, which isn’t actually perfect, but was a technical limitation of vinyl at the time.

Also, the dynamic range of vinyl just can’t compete with today’s streaming technology. However, you would have needed to use a different song for your test, because the one you chose was already extremely loud in terms of loudness.

Thanks for the great video! 🤗

My favourite was the tape and surprisingly, the cassette, I really loved it.  I was a little bit dissapointed by the huge boost of low end of the vinyl.
That was so interesting! Thank you Dom for this test! Thats was very fun!

I’ve been an audiophile since the 70s and the biggest difference in sound when it comes to analog is the sound in,cartridge on the turntable, and the sound out,your speakers. I own three of those reel to reels which were entry level but still better than any cassette deck.because of the speed, size of tape and amount of information you can get on that tape. I have never seen that turntable in a quality audio store or part of any decent system. Cassette will always have tape hiss so I only used it in my car. Nice to see a measured result and blind test. Cheers

Very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to set this up and show such clear results.
Great conversation in the digital v analog food fight.

The best format is the one that you like. The best testing equipment are your ears😊

It's a bit unfair for vinyl. The SoundBurger cartridge is entry level with a conical stylus.  Both your tape sources are higher-end consumer units.  If you had doubled your turntable budget, the difference of an mid-level elliptical cartridge would be a noticeable improvement.

That was a terrific comparison. I thought the reel sounded the most pleasing for sure. You should have compared the casette after the machine had chewed it and you spent 2 hours winding it back together. Now thats the authentic sound of cassette!

I’m a vinyl fan, but I personally don’t think newer music sounds better on the format. Albums from the 70’s and early were recorded specifically for that medium so it generally sounds better on vinyl in my opinion. I have an old Beatles LP and some of the vocals actually sound like the guys are in the room with you. I have the same album on CD and the vocals just don’t have that organic “real” quality. They don’t jump out of the speakers the same way.
Just a personal opinion and observation.