Tidal digital hi-fi vs records


Played remastered album on Tidal Hi-fi, and then played the remastered vinyl version.
No comparison. None. Tidal was DOA. No life. 
I then played the original Harvest album. It was a little "dirtier" than the remastered record as you can imagine but -head shaking- it was three dimensional, in the room and so much more dynamic.
Drum sticks sounded like they were made of wood. Tamborine had color. Ah dammit. It was just better by an order of magnitude that it made both the remastered efforts pointless.
128x128noromance

Showing 3 responses by lowrider57

@noromance , putting aside the vinyl/digital debate, there could be other reasons for a difference in SQ. Consider the quality of your components, is your analogue rig better than your streamer? 
Also, I've noticed that some songs on Tidal don't sound very good, and there's no way to know if the track was originally mastered in hires or upsampled from 16/44.1.

And the Harvest release should sound better since it was an original flat transfer. Vinyl or digital, flat transfers with original mastering sound better than the compressed stuff.

What album are we talking about?

@cleeds , 
Using a direct copy of the analogue master to produce CDs. Minimal compression during the A to D process, no remastering, no additional EQ added.
I'm referring to the mastering and transferring to media before the Loudness Wars.

I believe the OP is comparing an analogue mastered vinyl pressing vs. a digital remaster on vinyl vs. a digitally remastered file via Tidal.
I should have used the word digital instead of CD.
This is why I asked which album he is referring to. I only know it’s on the Harvest label.

Of course, the pressing plants are not using the original master, but typically a first generation dub. I can only assume the OP is playing music which was originally from an analogue source.
And yes, the amount of compression at this final stage
would vary between facilities as well as the variation in cutting.