The Who - TOMMY. So after 20/9 Years, what's the decision?

[Larry Geller]

I would guess the CD used the same master as the LP, so I'd say it's also encoded.

It used the stereo master, so not encoded. The LP was dual inventory.

 

[Larry Geller]

The MOVIE soundtrack has the QS encoding.

 

[par4ken]

So the original SACD/DVD-Audio mix came out in 2003 to our delight, then we were surprised with a 2013 re-issue with a completely different 5.1 mix. It's been some time and looking through the QQPoll threads, there still seems to be quite a split of which mix is preferred by members. Some folks believe the 2013 mix needs a channel swap while others disagree.

I'd like to hear from you 'Tommy' experts as to what version you prefer and why. This thread can then become a reference for future members with this question. Who knows, there may be a new Atmos mix appearing some day, based on one of these two different mixes.

To refresh your memory, here's a look at the wav files of the two mixes which shows the obvious difference between the two mixes. This is for looking. As for listening, you'll have to do that on your own.

Thanks

:-jon

View attachment 75129

Right off the bat I would completely reject the DVD-Audio, look at how compressed (brick walled) it is!!!

 

[sjcorne]

Right off the bat I would completely reject the DVD-Audio, look at how compressed (brick walled) it is!!!

It looks infinitely worse when you zoom out to view the entire album like that. Yes it's loud, but it doesn't exhibit that awful 'lifeless' sound that many of the early-2000s DVD-As suffer from (I'm thinking especially of then-contemporary titles like Alanis Morisette's Under Rug Swept, Faith Hill's Cry, The Wallflowers' Rebel Sweetheart, etc).

 

[The56Kid]

It looks infinitely worse when you zoom out to view the entire album like that. Yes it's loud, but it doesn't exhibit that awful 'lifeless' sound that many of the early-2000s DVD-As suffer from (I'm thinking especially of then-contemporary titles like Alanis Morisette's Under Rug Swept, Faith Hill's Cry, The Wallflowers' Rebel Sweetheart, etc).

I own the DVDA and never thought it sounded overly compressed much less brickwalled so I too was surprised to see the waveform!

 

[himey]

I own the DVDA and never thought it sounded overly compressed much less brickwalled so I too was surprised to see the waveform!

Same here with the SACD.
I listened to two mixes with well thought out drums, XTC Drums and Wires and Santana III, especially the last Santana track. Not for one second did I think they would sound better with all the drums in one channel. Such a missed opportunity with the Tommy 2013 mix. It makes me .

 

[sjcorne]

I listened to two mixes with well thought out drums, XTC Drums and Wires and Santana III, especially the last Santana track. Not for one second did I think they would sound better with all the drums in one channel. Such a missed opportunity with the Tommy 2013 mix.

Drums & Wires has multitrack drums, whereas the entire kit on Tommy was recorded to one mono track on the 8-track master. I think Santana III has mono drums as well (also an 8-track source?), but there are additional discrete percussion elements (congas, bongos, shakers, etc) that they were able to spread out in surround. I don't hear a missed opportunity with the drums on either 5.1 mix, just an unfortunate limitation of the source material.

 

[jaybird100]

The MOVIE soundtrack has the QS encoding.

That's what I thought we were talking about. The version you're talking about was, as you say, dual inventory. It would have made a great surround SACD.

 

[jimfisheye]

I own the DVDA and never thought it sounded overly compressed much less brickwalled so I too was surprised to see the waveform!

Only limited and boosted about 3db vs the sacd. Pretty transparent. Keep the sacd copy between the two if it's convenient though just because.

 

[himey]

Drums & Wires has multitrack drums, whereas the entire kit on Tommy was recorded to one mono track on the 8-track master. I think Santana III has mono drums as well (also an 8-track source?), but there are additional discrete percussion elements (congas, bongos, shakers, etc) that they were able to spread out in surround. I don't hear a missed opportunity with the drums on either 5.1 mix, just an unfortunate limitation of the source material.

My comparison probably isn't fair. When I saw Santana live, they had two percussionists. I still stand by my comment that it was lazy to only put Moon's kit in one channel, however.

 

[MidiMagic]

My comparison probably isn't fair. When I saw Santana live, they had two percussionists. I still stand by my comment that it was lazy to only put Moon's kit in one channel, however.

This was common practice when the band had only an 8-track to work with.

They would record all of the drums on 7 tracks. Next, they would mix them down to the remaining track. Then the other parts would be recorded on those other 7 tracks.

 

[CPR]

Between the 3 formats:
SACD
DVD/A
BluRay/A

I'm sticking with DVD/A; sounds incredible, after 20 years
SACD, close 2nd
Blu-Ray/A 3rd

 

[atlantasteve]

I finally had a chance to compare the 2 releases. They both have qualities unique to them. The SACD is a big sounding presentation. I felt completely engulfed in sound. The Bluray is more discrete. If I want to focus on Keith, no problem. Same with vocals. My only complaint on the bluray is the relatively low bass from the left front speaker. I wished I could spend more time listening to John. Of well, that is what The Kids Are Alright Entwistle cam is for.

 

[jaybird100]

How about the DVD-A, compared to the SACD?

 

[Larry Geller]

How about the DVD-A, compared to the SACD?

They sound the same, but the DVD-A includes a 40 min. video interview with Pete.

 

[edisonbaggins]

Y'all are sorta making me want to listen to my DVD-A.

 

[Scott M4]

Simply not having the drums always isolated in the back left corner gives the DVA a big, big win for me.

It’s the same problem I have with the AF “Birds Of Fire“ - though there’s no alternate mix that I’m aware of. (Please tell me there is a better and available surround mix!)

 

[mikusguitarius]

Queen's A Night At The Opera almost counts as 2 different releases/mixes... The first 5.1 release had God Save The Queen upmixed as they couldn't locate the multitrack (curiously from the Sheer Heart Attack sessions and recorded not on 24 but 16 track). A later re-release had a new discrete mix of God Save The Queen as they'd found the multitrack by then.

 

[audiomaster]

So the original SACD/DVD-Audio mix came out in 2003 to our delight, then we were surprised with a 2013 re-issue with a completely different 5.1 mix. It's been some time and looking through the QQPoll threads, there still seems to be quite a split of which mix is preferred by members. Some folks believe the 2013 mix needs a channel swap while others disagree.

I'd like to hear from you 'Tommy' experts as to what version you prefer and why. This thread can then become a reference for future members with this question. Who knows, there may be a new Atmos mix appearing some day, based on one of these two different mixes.

To refresh your memory, here's a look at the wav files of the two mixes which shows the obvious difference between the two mixes. This is for looking. As for listening, you'll have to do that on your own.

Thanks

:-jon

View attachment 75129

My favorite version is the Tommy with Richard Harris and the London Symphony on Ode Records. Wish they would remix in quad or Atmos. Beautifully packaged two record set.

 

[par4ken]

My favorite version is the Tommy with Richard Harris and the London Symphony on Ode Records. Wish they would remix in quad or Atmos. Beautifully packaged two record set.

It was mixed in quad.

https://www.discogs.com/release/773367-The-London-Symphony-Orchestra-Tommy