purplehippieonthe1 said:

FunkyStrange said:

Listening to Disc 1 of Sign O' The times now on Tidal

Sign O' The Times, It & Hot Thing are not the original versions, the volume levels are almost double on these tracks compared to the other album tracks, pretty crappy when you think about it...

Glad I'm on the free trial.. I'd be pissed off if I was paying $20 a month for this jumbled mess..

Not to mention some of the B-sides are straight rips from vinyl - you can hear the clicks !!

Is it that hard just to get the master copy?

[Edited 9/9/15 0:55am]

That volume issue was the same with all the versions that were on Spotify. As for the vinyl rips, there was a pile of digital releases of 12" singles and b-sides (lets go crazy/ raspbery beret/ i would die 4 U/ sign o the times and a few more i think) in the late 2000's that came from rips and these have ended up as the digital go-to version.

So basically, aside from adding a few new albums these are the same digital sources as previous.

[Edited 9/10/15 2:54am]

Yup, sounds plausible to me. The record companies/artists would rather have one version of a song whose streams can be tallied together making for better rankings. So rather than have 3 versions of the song, the album version and 2 compilation versions, canibalising each others stream count, they just use one version and tie it to the 3 different albums/compilations. Surely the right thing to do there then is to use the album version as the definitive version so at least the albums have a consistent sound. Anyway, maybe this will make Prince realise his albums are so poorly mastered he should do something about it.

Holy Fk! I just (tried) listening to SOTT on Tidal. This is is some BAD shit and regardless of their reasons, even if they're perfectly logical like the one posited in the posts above, it's a stupid choice that RUINS the album. This is completely unlistenable. Sure the song SOTT sounds better that the one on the CD album, that's expected as it is obviously the updated mastering from one of the compilations. But listen at the end as it's (supposed to) segue into Play In The Sunshine. What a mess! And of course that song (and most of the album) are the exact same masters as the CD, so, the soundfield is all over the place.

I'm not even going to check out Parade. Whomever made this choice just ruined the flow of every album they did this to.

Major FAIL! Even for exclusive Prince music I would not for one second consider paying Tidal beyond the free trial with this lack of quality control. Here's hoping someone gets a clue and this is soon rectified.



EDIT: The "segue" from Beautiful Night into Adore... somebody should be fired over this shit, for reals. Just sayin'...

[Edited 9/16/15 16:26pm]

This irks me so much, I just can't stop ranting! It's such unproffesional amateur hour and I can't letitgo...

Let's suppose the above mentioned theory is accurate and the reason for this is to rack up play #s. IF that is the case, THEN surely some tech geek would have no problem creating an algorithm to link the plays of the same track from different sources.

So for instance, regardless of whether or not you played, say the song Purple Rain, from the album, the Hits, The Very Best Of or the Single (oops, sorry, "EP") the algorithm would then count one play for the song itself, not for the specific audio file accessed.
Okay, I'm not computer programmer or audio player designer, so I can't do this. But surely anyone who could create the Tidal program could also create such a solution, no?

Until/unless they do, in it's current form... Tidal sucks as a source for listening to Prince's albums.
In my not-at-all humble opinion, of course...

Other than being louder I do not think SOTT sounds remastered to me. If remastered means louder then I guess you could say it's a remaster.

.

Honestly even though the older originals are not the best quality I can at least turn them up loud and add a little EQ without it sounding overloaded and distorted like everything from 1995 onward. Overly compressed and in your face. It's been discussed here plenty how the fidelity and ambiance has gone by the wayside in favor of loudness.

.

IMO remastering is taking each original track from a song then cleaning it up and enhancing it. In layman's terms of course. I don't think this is the case with the stuff on Tidal unless we get some official word.

[Edited 9/16/15 20:51pm]

I wish Prince would allow to physical CD to get remastered.I shouldn't have to go onto a streaming site just to hear a good quality version of SOTT.

SoulAlive said:

I wish Prince would allow to physical CD to get remastered.I shouldn't have to go onto a streaming site just to hear a good quality version of SOTT.

read the thread, you can't do it on a streaming site either.

fortuneandserendipity said:

mothyham said:

Oh You Guys!!!!

As if this stuff is going to ever sound as good as it does in your memory.

I was living in Santa Fe when SOTT came out. I saw the movie a bunch of times at the local art theatre....the jean cocteau.

I remember doing blow in the bathroom before it started.

those were the days!

Exactly !

djThunderfunk said:

This irks me so much, I just can't stop ranting! It's such unproffesional amateur hour and I can't letitgo...

Let's suppose the above mentioned theory is accurate and the reason for this is to rack up play #s. IF that is the case, THEN surely some tech geek would have no problem creating an algorithm to link the plays of the same track from different sources.

So for instance, regardless of whether or not you played, say the song Purple Rain, from the album, the Hits, The Very Best Of or the Single (oops, sorry, "EP") the algorithm would then count one play for the song itself, not for the specific audio file accessed.
Okay, I'm not computer programmer or audio player designer, so I can't do this. But surely anyone who could create the Tidal program could also create such a solution, no?

Until/unless they do, in it's current form... Tidal sucks as a source for listening to Prince's albums.
In my not-at-all humble opinion, of course...

I dont think this is exclusively a Tidal issue. It has been known to happen with digital downloads on Amazon where one or two songs within an album download have been sourced from the single. Not a problem in most cases these days because everything is mastered for maximum volume and singles are exactly the same as album versions. But Prince is an example where the logic falls down. Perhaps that is why no one makes singles and then puts an extended (or rather unedited) version on the album anymore. When PR is streamed do you get the edited version of the song PR or the full length version?

Rebeljuice said:

djThunderfunk said:

This irks me so much, I just can't stop ranting! It's such unproffesional amateur hour and I can't letitgo...

Let's suppose the above mentioned theory is accurate and the reason for this is to rack up play #s. IF that is the case, THEN surely some tech geek would have no problem creating an algorithm to link the plays of the same track from different sources.

So for instance, regardless of whether or not you played, say the song Purple Rain, from the album, the Hits, The Very Best Of or the Single (oops, sorry, "EP") the algorithm would then count one play for the song itself, not for the specific audio file accessed.
Okay, I'm not computer programmer or audio player designer, so I can't do this. But surely anyone who could create the Tidal program could also create such a solution, no?

Until/unless they do, in it's current form... Tidal sucks as a source for listening to Prince's albums.
In my not-at-all humble opinion, of course...

I dont think this is exclusively a Tidal issue. It has been known to happen with digital downloads on Amazon where one or two songs within an album download have been sourced from the single. Not a problem in most cases these days because everything is mastered for maximum volume and singles are exactly the same as album versions. But Prince is an example where the logic falls down. Perhaps that is why no one makes singles and then puts an extended (or rather unedited) version on the album anymore. When PR is streamed do you get the edited version of the song PR or the full length version?

Purple Rain is the album version, but then, the album version is on The Hits & The Very Best Of and is therefore an updated (louder) version.

Rebeljuice said:

djThunderfunk said:

This irks me so much, I just can't stop ranting! It's such unproffesional amateur hour and I can't letitgo...

Let's suppose the above mentioned theory is accurate and the reason for this is to rack up play #s. IF that is the case, THEN surely some tech geek would have no problem creating an algorithm to link the plays of the same track from different sources.

So for instance, regardless of whether or not you played, say the song Purple Rain, from the album, the Hits, The Very Best Of or the Single (oops, sorry, "EP") the algorithm would then count one play for the song itself, not for the specific audio file accessed.
Okay, I'm not computer programmer or audio player designer, so I can't do this. But surely anyone who could create the Tidal program could also create such a solution, no?

Until/unless they do, in it's current form... Tidal sucks as a source for listening to Prince's albums.
In my not-at-all humble opinion, of course...

I dont think this is exclusively a Tidal issue. It has been known to happen with digital downloads on Amazon where one or two songs within an album download have been sourced from the single. Not a problem in most cases these days because everything is mastered for maximum volume and singles are exactly the same as album versions. But Prince is an example where the logic falls down. Perhaps that is why no one makes singles and then puts an extended (or rather unedited) version on the album anymore. When PR is streamed do you get the edited version of the song PR or the full length version?

It's got the single version of I Would Die 4 U, so the segue into Baby I'm a Star is lost. Was the same issue on Spotify.

fortuneandserendipity said:

It can only sound better as a result of the "remastering". Audibly there's no difference between 320 kbps and cd quality.

Also, Tidal subscribers paying double for the lossless audio are being ripped off basically.

Possibly for you, but I think there's a lot of people who'll disagree on 320 kpbs vs CD.

I remember having a discussion with someone who told me he couldn't see the difference between HD and SD television broadcasts. Turned out he needed glasses....

Krid said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

It can only sound better as a result of the "remastering". Audibly there's no difference between 320 kbps and cd quality.

Also, Tidal subscribers paying double for the lossless audio are being ripped off basically.

HHHmmmm, to each his own, but that comment I certainly cannot second. It might be true that the sound quality does not differ much when it comes to EDM / Avicii kind of music, but if you listen to classic, jazz and traditional pop/rock music, then you can certainly hear the difference if your audio equipment is good enough. At least I can certainly hear it...

yup. there's a world of difference between 320 kbps and cd. for those prince fans who can't get it, just listen to the piano solo in jam of the year in 320, and then listen to the cd. you'll get the difference.

fortuneandserendipity said:

It can only sound better as a result of the "remastering". Audibly there's no difference between 320 kbps and cd quality.

Also, Tidal subscribers paying double for the lossless audio are being ripped off basically.

Sorry, but i can say by hear if a song is compressed or not. But, i know that a lot of people can't physically hear it. That's one of the reason the MP3 format worked so well back then, only 10% can distinctly hear that a lot of informations have been cut in the low and high frequencies during the audio compression process.

Susanna Hoffs on SOTT!!!!

[Edited 9/17/15 12:15pm]

Still Waiting on "Prince" is from the same master as the original CD. It's missing the first note and it fades out early, unlike the more recent high res remaster which reverts to the original vinyl version.

Is SOTT louder? The cd is really low.

2freaky4church1 said:

Is SOTT louder? The cd is really low.

The loundness changes in the Tidal tracks are really disturbing.

SOTT (song) sounds fantastic, it's the same track as on Ultimate Prince. Then if you skip ahead to IIWYG, the volume drops so much you have to have to quickly up the volume, otherwise it sounds like your amp just blew a fuse.

Funkyalien said:

Krid said:

fortuneandserendipity said: HHHmmmm, to each his own, but that comment I certainly cannot second. It might be true that the sound quality does not differ much when it comes to EDM / Avicii kind of music, but if you listen to classic, jazz and traditional pop/rock music, then you can certainly hear the difference if your audio equipment is good enough. At least I can certainly hear it...

yup. there's a world of difference between 320 kbps and cd. for those prince fans who can't get it, just listen to the piano solo in jam of the year in 320, and then listen to the cd. you'll get the difference.

What are you hearing though? because if you think there's a difference between quality compressed and cd in terms of ever-present purity of sound, you're probably wrong. If you mean absence/presence of artifacts between the two there shouldn't be any difference if done right. Also 128 kbps using a quality encoder is better than 320 with a crap encoder.

I will try hearing the piano section on both formats. Piano is really difficult to get right through any audio setup. Beethoven's ninth would be worth a try, and maybe complex organ music.

Nah... just done comparison between wave and mp3 lame. No difference, and used wave instead of cd because of crappy player (but not so crap it wouldn't transfer the 1's and 0's perfectly accurately)

Placebo effect is consistently underestimated, and confirmation bias way too prevalent in the audiophile world!

fortuneandserendipity said:

Nah... just done comparison between wave and mp3 lame. No difference, and used wave instead of cd because of crappy player (but not so crap it wouldn't transfer the 1's and 0's perfectly accurately)

Placebo effect is consistently underestimated, and confirmation bias way too prevalent in the audiophile world!

There is a difference - perhaps your ears are just not up to the task (they are the most important part of the experience).

Even though Tidal is offering "Cd-quality" streaming, it STILL doesn't sound as good as the actual CD. That's not to say I wasn't impressed with Tidal - it is by far the best sounding streaming service I have used. BUT, once I got the CD, Tidal was blown out of the water.

But, that's also down to equipment - there is no way my laptop's soundcard (and it's a very decent laptop) is going to compete against my £1,000 cd player and £2,000 amp! They will and do process and deliver the sound much better.

There is something to be said for confirmation bias, but then you have musicians and producers who consistently sound better than others and that is down to innate ability for sound perception. I knew a producer who could blind test an A/B copy from the original master and tell you every time which was which. But, for most of the public, they don't have the so-called "golden ears".

But, seriously, if you can't hear the difference between a wav and an mp3, either your ears are shot or you don't have the equipment capable of highlighting the difference, because it is night and day.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Nah... just done comparison between wave and mp3 lame. No difference, and used wave instead of cd because of crappy player (but not so crap it wouldn't transfer the 1's and 0's perfectly accurately)

Placebo effect is consistently underestimated, and confirmation bias way too prevalent in the audiophile world!

Just re-read this - what do you mean about " transfer the 1's and 0's correctly? (and, its 1s and 0s, by the way!).

You don't seem to understand what is going on - it largely depends on the quality of the DAC. Yes, the information is digitised (ie. stored in a binary format), but it then has to be translated in to sound. The DAC converts the digital information in to analogue information to produce sound, so the sound you hear greatly depends on the DAC's abilities. That said, EVERY component has an effect on the sound. If it a cheap laser, or the carriage is not sturdy, or there's a lot of jitter, then the player will NOT perfectly deliver all those 1s and 0s, so information will be obscured or lost entirely.

Mindflux said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Nah... just done comparison between wave and mp3 lame. No difference, and used wave instead of cd because of crappy player (but not so crap it wouldn't transfer the 1's and 0's perfectly accurately)

Placebo effect is consistently underestimated, and confirmation bias way too prevalent in the audiophile world!

There is a difference - perhaps your ears are just not up to the task (they are the most important part of the experience).

Even though Tidal is offering "Cd-quality" streaming, it STILL doesn't sound as good as the actual CD. That's not to say I wasn't impressed with Tidal - it is by far the best sounding streaming service I have used. BUT, once I got the CD, Tidal was blown out of the water.

But, that's also down to equipment - there is no way my laptop's soundcard (and it's a very decent laptop) is going to compete against my £1,000 cd player and £2,000 amp! They will and do process and deliver the sound much better.

There is something to be said for confirmation bias, but then you have musicians and producers who consistently sound better than others and that is down to innate ability for sound perception. I knew a producer who could blind test an A/B copy from the original master and tell you every time which was which. But, for most of the public, they don't have the so-called "golden ears".

But, seriously, if you can't hear the difference between a wav and an mp3, either your ears are shot or you don't have the equipment capable of highlighting the difference, because it is night and day.

lol where do I start?! So the cd quality format on Tidal (which is flac and is an identical copy of original audio data i.e. lossless) is somehow 'blown out of the water' by CD. Flac and wave are inferior to CD quality then? That proves you don't know what you're talking about.

I once was told by a hifi retailer he could tell the difference in audio quality by plugging the amp power cable into the wall as opposed to through an adaptor. I laughed. Evidently bullshit, as was his claim his son could tell the difference between flac and wave- apparently wave was better.

The only way to do a proper reliable test is to set up the test blind- double blind with a friend involved, no hidden cues or gaps between tracks and all other conditions being equal. Or you could just take the Phillips Golden Ears challenge or other similar test designed to reveal transparency and post your results.

Mindflux said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Nah... just done comparison between wave and mp3 lame. No difference, and used wave instead of cd because of crappy player (but not so crap it wouldn't transfer the 1's and 0's perfectly accurately)

Placebo effect is consistently underestimated, and confirmation bias way too prevalent in the audiophile world!

Just re-read this - what do you mean about " transfer the 1's and 0's correctly? (and, its 1s and 0s, by the way!).

You don't seem to understand what is going on - it largely depends on the quality of the DAC. Yes, the information is digitised (ie. stored in a binary format), but it then has to be translated in to sound. The DAC converts the digital information in to analogue information to produce sound, so the sound you hear greatly depends on the DAC's abilities. That said, EVERY component has an effect on the sound. If it a cheap laser, or the carriage is not sturdy, or there's a lot of jitter, then the player will NOT perfectly deliver all those 1s and 0s, so information will be obscured or lost entirely.

I am aware of what digital analogue converters are, and how to use apostrophes (i used them here on purpose to make the point 1 and 0 as binary digits are distinct from analogue which is a constant wave form). DACs don't have to be huge or expensive to do a perfect job of reproducing the sound i have one that sounds just fine and it's a mere 2 by 3 inches. Some may be substandard, but it's more than likely they're made deliberately like that to make the more expensive models more sellable. There are many people who swear by the dac on the iphone 4 for example.

I'm surprised you say you can hear jitter, most honest people can't as it's non-audible? There are always forums online where you can find extraordinary claims based on extraordinary absence of evidence.

fortuneandserendipity said:

I've got ears which can't hear the difference between CD and 320k mp3. Has saved me a fortune in audio equipment

TheEnglishGent said:

I've got ears which can't hear the difference between CD and 320k mp3. Has saved me a fortune in audio equipment

Fortunately, it is not a prerequisite that you buy the best audio equipment suitable to your hearing! Like most things in life, it is a lifestyle choice

It may be, of course, that you've only heard comparisons on equipment that isn't capable of highlighting the difference anyway. I can assure you though, on my hifi, which is very revealing, and particularly in my studio (which, of course, is designed to be extremely revealing) you can hear a difference between those formats.

The most important thing is enjoyment of the music, though. And if I had to live the rest of my life listening to it on cheap headphones through my phone, I could live with it