HiRez Poll Who, The - Tommy (2003 Mix) [SACD/DVD-A]

JonUrban · Sep 6, 2004

A classic, available in both formats. Vote on the surround presentation, list your findings in a reply if you have a preference for either format on this title only!

:-jon

daved64 · Sep 6, 2004

I have the DVD-A.

This thing has PUNCH! It sounds so analogue......you can crank it and it just gets better. Pete did a wonderful job.

Guy Robinson · Sep 6, 2004

Now this is one that stands out above the others. I rate it 10 in every category; Mix, sonics and musically. If every DVD-A sounded like this one I would be happy. Incredible!

MIDIQ · Sep 7, 2004

I have this one on SACD, mainly because it came out first on that format, I like the mix quite alot. Very good, I gave it a 9.

winopener · Sep 7, 2004

Good mix, just too "dry" compared to the original stereo releases.

bizmopeen · Sep 7, 2004

Classic music, and I like the new mix. The fact that it's "drier" is kind of cool for me in that now it seems to bring you into the studio and puts the focus on the fact that this was a real live rock band playing the material...however, I agree that it definitely is a different experience from the original mix and doesn't have the same feel...

quadrofis · Sep 30, 2004

This one (SACD) turned me into a Who fan right away. Both mixes are very essential: the 1969 mix is classic late sixties stereo, and the new surround mix reveals everything so clearly. The dryness only adds up to an authentic studio-feel.
Out of curiousity I bought the 1996 remix, it's interesting too, but too processed and compressed (e.g. hardly any drums on "Extra")

I even bothered to buy the complete Pete Demos of "Tommy" and must say, the chosen stuff on the Deluxe-issue is chosen very wisely and is actually just enough.

BananaSlug · Oct 2, 2004

The sound quality and the mix are outstanding for a recording of this age. Both get a 10. However, I find the music here weak. Most of the songs seem to be here to tell the story, and don't stand on their own musically. And, I must admit that I find the story uninteresting. Much of this may have to do with the fact that I am about as old as the music - this music doesn't have a historical context in my life. Pinball Wizard is the lone exception, and for it's brilliance I give the 2 disc set a 5. My apologies if I have offended anyone's favorite album, but this just isn't something that works for me.

neil wilkes · Oct 4, 2004

Jon, I'd love to be able to vote on this one - but I can't.
Got the 2 disc deluxe edition and am getting absolutely Zero output from it. Zilch, Zip, Nada.
Every other disc I have works fine, so it is not the player or the amp.
When I put the disc in, I get the photos and sound into the menu, then when I try to play the thing, I get silence.
Funny thing is the display mode from the player, when accessed, shows 96/24 output, at 7.7 Mb/sec, but there is no audio.
MC, Stereo, both discs. Utter silence.

Is there a fault with this batch? It looks like there is no decryption key on the disc. It has to be an authoring mess up.

Baffled.

A few days later, two player changes and finally an updated firmware solves the playability issue.

Onwards to the disc then.
The new Surround versions are very well done indeed. There is not the separation we have lately come to expect, but considering the source material was 8 track tape with all the drums in mono, the quality is truly superb and a fine job has been done.
The bass in particular is so much more detailed and rounder in the MC mix.
Compared to the stereo version - which sounds as it has a constant wash of reverb all over it to my ears, and on "see me feel me" the vocal in stereo is actually distorted.
Not so on the MC.

All in all, I can highly recommend this disc to everyone as a "must have".

Tommy as you have never heard it before.

EMB · Oct 9, 2004

A '9'.....always felt this was an overrated album--SELL OUT is much more playful, and the Tommy plotline was very thin to begin with--but this mix is vivid enough to keep me interested. Granted, it is 'dry'--doesn't have the warm sound of the original vinyl or CD reissues--but the bonus is, there's much more detail and little things going on that more than makes up for the sometimes radical differences in mix.

I have the SACD edition...might pick up the DVD-A eventually for comparison purposes, some say it's a slightly better defined sound.

ED

Uncle Al · Nov 9, 2004

Jeez - what a wonky surround mix. Vocals all over the place (and I don't mean "directional", 1921 has the lead vocal in the center and rears only - creating a weird "in the middle of your head" triangular effect).

Double and triple tracked vocals (which are the majority) are spread throughout the corners. It seems more like a 70's quad mix to me, rather than a modern 5.1 mix. Considering the forum - maybe I'm out of step

.

I also don't care for the "dryness", but like any other discreet sound mix I always have one revelation.....

There were always some "off tempo" background vocals in 1921 that I always thought were random errors (i.e. - I couldn't distinguish what they were), but here they come across clearly:

"You didn't hear it (I HEARD IT)
You didn't see it (I SAW IT)
You never heard it (I HEARD IT)
Not a word of it (EVERY WORD OF IT)"

It was always there - but from 1969 to 2004, I never knew that - and it does make me appreciate it more to actually hear Tommys voice responding in this pivotol song.

Guy Robinson · Nov 10, 2004

Uncle Al said:
Jeez - what a wonky surround mix. Vocals all over the place (and I don't mean "directional", 1921 has the lead vocal in the center and rears only - creating a weird "in the middle of your head" triangular effect).

Double and triple tracked vocals (which are the majority) are spread throughout the corners. It seems more like a 70's quad mix to me, rather than a modern 5.1 mix. Considering the forum - maybe I'm out of step .

I also don't care for the "dryness", but like any other discreet sound mix I always have one revelation.....

There were always some "off tempo" background vocals in 1921 that I always thought were random errors (i.e. - I couldn't distinguish what they were), but here they come across clearly:

"You didn't hear it (I HEARD IT)
You didn't see it (I SAW IT)
You never heard it (I HEARD IT)
Not a word of it (EVERY WORD OF IT)"

It was always there - but from 1969 to 2004, I never knew that - and it does make me appreciate it more to actually hear Tommys voice responding in this pivotol song.

Interesting. This is the DVD-A disc that I always bring out as a demo. To me it is still the best (but maybe not musically) DVD-A disc to come out to date. At least within the 100 or so that I have heard.

Cai Campbell · Nov 10, 2004

One man's wonky is another man's bliss. I love the mix. Dry? I would call it natural. When I hear the term "wet" I hear "distortion".

Yep, this is one of my demo discs as well.

QR-GUY · Nov 10, 2004

Uncle Al said:
Double and triple tracked vocals (which are the majority) are spread throughout the corners. It seems more like a 70's quad mix to me, rather than a modern 5.1 mix. Considering the forum - maybe I'm out of step .
.

I really don't think it matters how it's mixed, just as long as the mix matches the music. I thought the mix was done very well. I also use this album for a demo .

Uncle Al · Nov 10, 2004

I guess it's just a preference, maybe I found the one thing I don't care for in a surround mix. It's not the active use of rear channels that turns me off - I really enjoy The Doors "L.A. Woman" mix, Queens' "A Night at the Opera" and ELP's "Brain Salad" all of which have agressive surround mixes. The Queen and ELP discs also have vocals coming from behind, but they are usually to achieve a dramatic effect - the lead vocal is primarily front and center (whether through a FL+FR combination, or in the center channel makes no difference to me). During much of Tommy, I just felt the primary focus of my attention was too often behind my shoulders. I kept looking behind

. The See Me Feel Me sections have the echo on the lead vocals coming distinctly from the front speakers. I guess mentally I just "face the other way".

The reaction to the "dryness" is simply an aural reaction to my imprinted memory of the way this album has always sounded - that french horn in the Overture always had a lot of "space" around it. Now it sounds like it's in my ear.

Strangely enough - I have no problems with the manner in which the bonus tracks are mixed. Maybe because the only reference I have was hearing Dogs Part 2 on the b-side of one of the singles so many years ago.

The only other surround mix I really didn't much care for was Wings Venus and Mars dts disc. It also features too many "over my shoulder" lead vocals than I care for.

neil wilkes · Nov 11, 2004

I still really like this mix, and you have to remember that it was done from not only an 8 track mix, but an 8 track that had bounces all over it.
The interview with Pete points out clearly that on most of it the drums were all in mono, as tape tracks were limited what with all the brass, guitar parts, vocals etc that had to be fitted in.
So therefore most of the surround work was done with panners as opposed to a full discrete remix from 24 track such as Queen's offerings so a comparison is not really fair there.
As for the dryness, I prefer it to the reverb laden stereo version also on offer here.
In particular, the bass is far more detailed in the surround version - especially in Pinball Wizard - try A/B this one with the stereo version and you will soon see what I mean.

Personally, I always mix significant information into the surrounds - I loathe those mixes that sound as if they have been rammed through a TC6000, and there are far too many of those for my liking. I want the surround to put me in the middle of things and not make me think I'm simply sitting in a large room with the band - if I want that then I'll simply play it in a large room.
But there is always room for difference of opinion here, as there really are no fixed rules.
One mans meat is anothers poison.

This disc is still one of my favourite surround mixes.

Bob R · Nov 15, 2004

Tis an amazing opera, the Who put out.

The SACD just fills the room with memories. And that's a good thing!

Uncle Al · Nov 16, 2004

OK - so a few more listens and I am slowly being won over....

I am beginning to think of the weird "center + RL + RR" lead vocals as a stroke of genius - in the "sweet spot" this is almost like headphones without headphones (has anyone else ever mixed anything quite like this?). The drums and bass are significantly improved over any other version I've ever heard.... and their are no REALLY strange mix anomalies (or any evidence of missing overdubs - all the elements are there).

Just get me over the fact that I hear "See Me [See Me]" echoing in the front channels and I might just really like this disc.

And Townsend mixed this???

eelkiller · Dec 16, 2004

I have both (had to get the DVD Audio for the interview). Both are excellent.

kumquad · Feb 20, 2005

This album was the turning point of the Who musically. It was a classic rock album in stereo, but the SACD remix is excellent and a must have. I give it a 10.

kumquad

HiRez Poll Who, The - Tommy (2003 Mix) [SACD/DVD-A]

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Rate the SACD/DVD-A of Who - TOMMY

10: A Classic - A Must Have

9: Exceptional

8:

7:

6:

5:

4:

3:

2: Forget it, Get the CD

1: A Waste of Plastic

Forum Curmudgeon

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

600 Club - QQ All-Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

500 Club - QQ All-Star

Active Member

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

Member

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

In Remembrance

Member

Member

2K Club - QQ Super Nova

Well-known Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Similar threads