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
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.
@2psyop I enjoy all playback methods and agree that it's all about the music. However, it is an audiophile forum where we strive for perfection. The acceptance of mediocrity devalues the art.
@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?