Fair Blind Test??

YouTube uses lossy audio, so this is a pretty useless test. Some of the data is being discarded before you can hear it.

Besides YouTube's lossy audio, God only knows what microphone was used for recording the sound. For all we know, a cell phone was used.  Amazing how they use fancy equipment costing thousands upon thousands and then show it off with 128 kbps audio using an unknown microphone. But, the equipment does look nice....

DAC vs. phono what's the point after all?

Welcome to the audio world.  I once had an event where the manufacturer demonstrated several recordings.  They all progressed so you could hear how the manufacturing process was on sound quality.  Everyone agreed but one person who said, I liked the one before.  Well if goes to show, well, I am not sure what it goes to show!

Happy Listening.

You cannot judge Anything on you tube 

a true blind test you need a Flac file, like QObuz or tidal , or totally loss less no mpegs 

from electronics to every cable needs to be exact, even 1 different power cord 

can distort the test.  We have used switch boxes made by bryston 

this is very accurate where our tech friends put on a scope to measure  ,and That is what is needed for true accuracy .

There will be surface noise on the LP. 

If you guys can not hear a difference between tracks on YouTube I'm thinking its you and your bias, as I can readily hear a difference. Specially when the poster takes the time to do a proper setup using good mic's etc. sure its compressed some but not always compressed more then red book. The way some of you go on  about it you'd think a CD wasn't good enough to evaluate a track, only hi rez files allowed.

It may not be as good as being in the room but I can hear enough of a difference that its helpful, specially if the youtuber makes many recording in the same room to compare with.

Maybe put your phone down and stream YouTube through a proper streaming device using a quality DAC. 

glennewdick

If you guys can not hear a difference between tracks on YouTube I’m thinking its you and your bias, as I can readily hear a difference.

The problem with YT videos isn’t not being able to hear a difference - I don’t think anyone but you has claimed that - but assessing qualitative differences. Because YT is lossy, there’s no way to know what information you’re missing. And of course that can make all the difference.

... sure its compressed some but not always compressed more then red book ...

Redbook CD is 16/44.1, by definition. Youtube’s bandwidth isn’t even close to that. By design. You or your system have issues if you can't distinguish between CD quality and lossy compressed audio such as YT or mp3s.

I don’t know what’s required to make it valid, but I can clearly hear a difference between the two sources.

Agreed you can barely tell the difference as is, could be the lossiness. But there's still a major giveaway of the LP