These kind of comparisons seem pointless and tiring to me. I think people play the audio medium or media they like...and enjoy. The more ways to play audio, the better. Give me a transistor radio, give me headphones, give me an IPod, give me a streamer, give me audio in my car, give me a turntable. Remasters or original recordings, just much more music. All to play music...... happiness with variety.
9 responses Add your response
@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?
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.The OP is talking about LPs here, not CDs, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're suggesting that early LP pressings were always made from original analog masters, you're mistaken. That's especially true of popular records, because they were commonly pressed at various plants around the world. The amount of compression would vary from plant-to-plant, and original masters were often not used. That's why many collectors often prefer pressings made in the country where the artists originated, because it would be more likely to be made from the analog master.
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.
A few years ago I purchase a Behringer UCA222 - a little A/D converyer
- Cost $35
- Converts analogue to 16/44.
- recorded content sounds amazing
I've recorded a few albums, just to see if I could hear a difference between my Analogue side and digital side, because I had compared analogue versions to CD's and found the same as Lowrider57 - the mastering of different sources are always tweaked a little differently.
Using this simple little A/D converter I was able to eliminate those mastering "refinements" from the equation because my "master" was the analogue version.
I was amazed at just how good my digital side performs - i.e. I had to listen really intently to discern any differences bewteen the analogue version or recorded digital version - and that's conducting A/B listening simply by switching inputs.
So now I am confident that my digital rig is aproaching the sound quality of my analogue rig and I attribute any noticeable differences to
- the mastering techniques applied to a recording or
- the data rate at which a song is broadcast.
With those two things in the mix it is pretty pointless in comparing the two different formats.
So now I just listen to the music and enjoy
I'm playing Tidal Hi-Fi on a new i7 Microsoft Surface Pro. I also tried a HP laptop with much the same result. The record in question is this one.
Garrard401/Decca, Croft phono, tube mono amps, Spendor speakers.
I've experienced these phenomena with other recordings.