New remastering of Steely Dan's Katy Lied review by Fremer

Katy Lied, content wise, is one of my favorite SD albums. The integrity of the recording from the perspective of accuracy and resolution is there, as it responds very well to my tinkering around with bass and treble on my PEQ-1. I can make it sound excellent. Therefore it is not an inherently bad recording. On the other hand, the bad recordings that do exist out there I have a hard time making them “better,” if you will, with tonal adjustments. Honestly I find the clarity of the album quite good. Have not heard the remaster. 

Just another comment on Katy Lied. As is often the case with the old stuff there’s a lot of variability track to track. Chain Lightning sounds awesome while Black Friday and Rose Darling sound overly lean in comparison. 
Am trying to find the new release digital on streaming services. Can’t seem to find. But the 192 and 96 kHz hi res versions have considerable volume reduction and generally suck c w the original redbook version. 

Oh. I see. The hi res versions ARE the 2025 remaster. Freaking Auralic’s Qobuz integrated into its own Lightning DS software doesn’t tell you that. But the proper Qobuz app does. Sorry the confusion. Wow, the 2025 remaster even when volume compensated sounds terrible. No other words are needed. 

OP, an equalizer is a magnifying glass of sorts. If the fundamental sonic characteristics of the recording at baseline are good, then it will respond well to bass and particularly treble EQ well.  Try to add treble to a fundamentally flawed recording and you will magnify the flaws, as the air in the upper octave that you are adding increases the apparent resolution of an already flawed mids and or highs. As the saying goes, “lipstick on a pig is still a pig.”  Katie Lied is not a pig. 

Does anyone else think the 24/192 2025 remaster on Qobuz sounds inferior to the still available cd redbook version on Qobuz?  Or am I just plain crazy?  No, I’m not talking vinyl here. Just digital. 

Ok. Different question. Because I need to sort this out and need the help of the community. Can someone please stream the 192 version and then the 16/44.1 version and tell me if the 192 is several dbs quieter?  Like I hear?  Maybe my dac is broken. 

I would really appreciate a response to my query above. I am truly having a hard time understanding why some hi res versions of their cd red book counterparts to me sound quieter and less dynamic, even with a quick volume compensation the level of the 16/44.1 file. This record is not the only one. There are MANY 

In theory you are right that this quieter less compressed version should always sound better. But often I find anyway that it does not. Streaming services give you the opportunity to quickly start one version and then another. Even volume adjusting, I often find that the louder 44.1 version sounds better in terms of overall SQ. And it’s not the amp, when I am going from nine o’clock to say 10 o’clock on the volume dial. Both are well within the “”sweet spot” for the amp. 

Ok yes. Sorry the assumption. I started a thread on this topic as it really interests me. Why some hi res remasters are great and others aren’t. I am sure a lot of variables other than compression or lack thereof go into it. I just think one should always expect a better sounding hi res remaster. Even if it’s lower volume.