@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.
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.
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.
- ...
- 9 posts total
@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? |
lowrider57 ... the Harvest release should sound better since it was an original flat transfer ...What is a "flat transfer?" |
lowrider57 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. |
- 9 posts total