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

[lukpac]

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.

Yes, although worth noting that the drums were recorded in stereo for Underture.

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.

Is that in reference to some specific recording? Because in general, that wasn't a thing.

As far as Tommy goes, worth noting that the 2003 5.1 mix was encoded differently for SACD, DVD-V, and DVD-A. It's been a while, but I remember significant differences with the LFE track.

Also, the 2003 5.1 mix is very "upfront", but it really loses a lot of the majesty of the stereo mix. To me it kind of sounds like listening to a great sounding boot rather than a finished mix.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Well...the weird part of this dramedy....is that :
The Who Tommy Soundtrack(75) , is not even listed in the Polydor Japanese
Catalogue listings for 1975.

However I do know as do many others that the Japanese copy with OBI strip had the noteworthy indication that it was "Quintaphonic Sansui QS System" . And in the appropriate quadraphonic 5ch Quintaphonic emblem.

Now that disc with the obi strip is a preferred collectable.

 

[fredblue]

at the risk of being vaguely on topic, i now find i have come full-circle in my own "Amazing Journey" with Tommy in Surround and enjoy the first 5.1 mix of 'Tommy' on SACD/DVD-A as much as the 5.1 on the later 'Tommy' HFPA Blu-ray, whereas up until fairly recently i preferred the separation on the Blu-ray mix! i find Pete's own 5.1 mix gutsy and ballsy, just like The Who itself and maybe more in the spirit of the band even if it is quite revisionist in some ways

"who knows"? maybe 'Tommy' (the original album, aka the subject of this thread ) will get Atmosized after 'Who's Next?'

now, going back to being off-topic, i noticed the new 4K version of the 'Tommy' Movie streaming on Apple in the UK has only 1 Audio option, sadly not Atmos but seems to use some kind of rendering of the Quintaphonic from the Sony Blu-ray! isn't that groovy!

 

[kezug]

A little bit about me, this is my first post on this forum. Consider me new to SACD/DVD-A. I have a player that I bought about 4 years ago and bought a few discs in this format. Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and the DVD-A version of Tommy and a few others. DSotM was awesome. Tommy was just OK, for me. I then started getting more so into the Blu-ray Audio 5.1. They just seemed better to me and coupled with video, much more so. I am no audiophile! LOL. Fast forward to current times. I have picked up the new Pink Floyd DSotM 5.1 atmos, and many other PF 5.1 blu-ray releases (Wish You Were Here, Animals). They are excellent to me and my ears. I then started thinking of Tommy and started my research, hope, that there was a treatment to Tommy for blu-ray, video, Atmos and 5.1 that would be Excellent (like my exp for Pink Floyd releases). However, I came across this thread and discovering that there IS a newer release for Tommy but yet a lot of discussions say the DVD-A or SACD are better than that newer release of Tommy (newer being too discrete of channels and drums in rear left as a big CON often mentioned).
However, that is not my topic. My topic here is that I DO have the Tommy DVD-A and its been so long since I listened that I put it on.

I have to say, in a comparison of what 5.1 can sound like, and probably wrongly, I AM comparing it to Pink Floyd's audio experience....Tommy in DVD-A is very underwhelming. Its not as good sounding as Pink Floyd.

But, perhaps that is the help I need, to understand why that is. Is it just because Tommy was recorded differently than Pink Floyd, and it has limitations? Is it just that DVD-A from 2003 just will not sound as good as a blu-ray audio recent production that Pink Floyd is doing?

I really hope the answer is that someday, Tommy will get a treatment like that of Pink Floyd's recent releases and it WILL be much better.

Thoughts?

 

[mikusguitarius]

A little bit about me, this is my first post on this forum. Consider me new to SACD/DVD-A. I have a player that I bought about 4 years ago and bought a few discs in this format. Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and the DVD-A version of Tommy and a few others. DSotM was awesome. Tommy was just OK, for me. I then started getting more so into the Blu-ray Audio 5.1. They just seemed better to me and coupled with video, much more so. I am no audiophile! LOL. Fast forward to current times. I have picked up the new Pink Floyd DSotM 5.1 atmos, and many other PF 5.1 blu-ray releases (Wish You Were Here, Animals). They are excellent to me and my ears. I then started thinking of Tommy and started my research, hope, that there was a treatment to Tommy for blu-ray, video, Atmos and 5.1 that would be Excellent (like my exp for Pink Floyd releases). However, I came across this thread and discovering that there IS a newer release for Tommy but yet a lot of discussions say the DVD-A or SACD are better than that newer release of Tommy (newer being too discrete of channels and drums in rear left as a big CON often mentioned).
However, that is not my topic. My topic here is that I DO have the Tommy DVD-A and its been so long since I listened that I put it on.

I have to say, in a comparison of what 5.1 can sound like, and probably wrongly, I AM comparing it to Pink Floyd's audio experience....Tommy in DVD-A is very underwhelming. Its not as good sounding as Pink Floyd.

But, perhaps that is the help I need, to understand why that is. Is it just because Tommy was recorded differently than Pink Floyd, and it has limitations? Is it just that DVD-A from 2003 just will not sound as good as a blu-ray audio recent production that Pink Floyd is doing?

I really hope the answer is that someday, Tommy will get a treatment like that of Pink Floyd's recent releases and it WILL be much better.

Thoughts?

Welcome!!

Well…. DSOTM was recorded to 24 track whereas Tommy was only recorded to 8 track. Moonie’s entire kit was recorded to a single track (not even a stereo spread, let alone separate kick, snare, OHs etc)

The format (DVD-A or whatever) won’t make any difference to the mix.

 

[Bill B]

A little bit about me, this is my first post on this forum. Consider me new to SACD/DVD-A. I have a player that I bought about 4 years ago and bought a few discs in this format. Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and the DVD-A version of Tommy and a few others. DSotM was awesome. Tommy was just OK, for me. I then started getting more so into the Blu-ray Audio 5.1. They just seemed better to me and coupled with video, much more so. I am no audiophile! LOL. Fast forward to current times. I have picked up the new Pink Floyd DSotM 5.1 atmos, and many other PF 5.1 blu-ray releases (Wish You Were Here, Animals). They are excellent to me and my ears. I then started thinking of Tommy and started my research, hope, that there was a treatment to Tommy for blu-ray, video, Atmos and 5.1 that would be Excellent (like my exp for Pink Floyd releases). However, I came across this thread and discovering that there IS a newer release for Tommy but yet a lot of discussions say the DVD-A or SACD are better than that newer release of Tommy (newer being too discrete of channels and drums in rear left as a big CON often mentioned).
However, that is not my topic. My topic here is that I DO have the Tommy DVD-A and its been so long since I listened that I put it on.

I have to say, in a comparison of what 5.1 can sound like, and probably wrongly, I AM comparing it to Pink Floyd's audio experience....Tommy in DVD-A is very underwhelming. Its not as good sounding as Pink Floyd.

But, perhaps that is the help I need, to understand why that is. Is it just because Tommy was recorded differently than Pink Floyd, and it has limitations? Is it just that DVD-A from 2003 just will not sound as good as a blu-ray audio recent production that Pink Floyd is doing?

I really hope the answer is that someday, Tommy will get a treatment like that of Pink Floyd's recent releases and it WILL be much better.

Thoughts?

It’s more about WHO did the surround mix than the format.
Welcome to the forum. Be warned though, the peer pressure here will make you want to buy a lot more. LOL

 

[Fourplay]

Keith Moon was larger than life. The Blu-ray makes him seem too small. I normally prefer more discrete channel use, but in this case it does not feel appropriate. Too bad his drums are mixed to mono on the multis. A nice fat Waxing Moon in stereo across the fronts would be my preference. I prefer the older mix.

 

[par4ken]

I can only comment on the vinyl release. It seems that the jury is still out. It was long reported to be QS encoded. That was brought into question as it is somewhat lackluster surround wise. It has even been suggested that it was released encoded but then pulled by Polydor who had either not picked a quad system yet (or had picked CD-4).

I purchased a japanese copy with the QS Obi strip but haven't yet got around to comparing it to my other (US) copy. Still I suspect that both are encoded but with the music in the front channels and sound effects in the rear. That is how it would have needed to be done for movie use. That is how it seems to decode.

 

[lukpac]

Welcome!!

Well…. DSOTM was recorded to 24 track whereas Tommy was only recorded to 8 track. Moonie’s entire kit was recorded to a single track (not even a stereo spread, let alone separate kick, snare, OHs etc)

The format (DVD-A or whatever) won’t make any difference to the mix.

I believe DSOTM was second generation 16-track (allowing for more than 16 tracks via a sync up), but yes, Tommy was a much more basic recording.

Although Underture does have stereo drums. I believe the one track on the album that does.

 

[lukpac]

I can only comment on the vinyl release. It seems that the jury is still out. It was long reported to be QS encoded. That was brought into question as it is somewhat lackluster surround wise. It has even been suggested that it was released encoded but then pulled by Polydor who had either not picked a quad system yet (or had picked CD-4).

I purchased a japanese copy with the QS Obi strip but haven't yet got around to comparing it to my other (US) copy. Still I suspect that both are encoded but with the music in the front channels and sound effects in the rear. That is how it would have needed to be done for movie use. That is how it seems to decode.

When was Tommy ever reported to be QS encoded? It doesn’t sound like it to me, and I’ve never heard anything to suggest quad was in anyone’s mind at the time. I doubt IBC even had such capability at the time.

Quadrophenia is another story, but even then, the final mix was just stereo.

 

[marpow]

My biggest disapointment of Box Sets 2023 was Who's Next, way too expensive, too big, nice stereo CD's. I think in defense of The Who, I have heard that album a million times, via radio, my CD's, My albums, My cassettes. So even though when it came to Atmos, it emotionally did not give me what I was looking for.
Regarding a possible Atmos release of Tommy, only a stand alone would be an option for me.
Quadrophenia, I would buy a box set in Atmos, would love to hear how they would do the rain and waves crashing.
Other later releases I would be interested in also, but Tommy, not really.

 

[kezug]

I have to ask but dont want this to derail into a Quadrophenia discussion, but does Quadrophenia in 5.1 sound better as a 5.1 delivery than Tommy does? I ask because if it does, I will seek it out, but if its going to be similar to DVD-A or SACD as Tommy in 5.1 then I wont.

Edit: quick search says that in order to "seek it out", I may have to fork over some big moola, or become friends with someone who has it and go to their house and listen to it!!!

 

[sbrom]

I have to ask but dont want this to derail into a Quadrophenia discussion, but does Quadrophenia in 5.1 sound better as a 5.1 delivery than Tommy does? I ask because if it does, I will seek it out, but if its going to be similar to DVD-A or SACD as Tommy in 5.1 then I wont.

Edit: quick search says that in order to "seek it out", I may have to fork over some big moola, or become friends with someone who has it and go to their house and listen to it!!!

To me Quadrophenia sounds much better in 5.1 than does Tommy. YMMV. Suggest checking the polls here in QQ for more input.

 

[mikusguitarius]

I believe DSOTM was second generation 16-track (allowing for more than 16 tracks via a sync up), but yes, Tommy was a much more basic recording.

Although Underture does have stereo drums. I believe the one track on the album that does.

Thanks for correction. I’m always happy to learn something new. I wonder when PF went to 24 track then…?

 

[mikusguitarius]

My biggest disapointment of Box Sets 2023 was Who's Next, way too expensive, too big, nice stereo CD's. I think in defense of The Who, I have heard that album a million times, via radio, my CD's, My albums, My cassettes. So even though when it came to Atmos, it emotionally did not give me what I was looking for.
Regarding a possible Atmos release of Tommy, only a stand alone would be an option for me.
Quadrophenia, I would buy a box set in Atmos, would love to hear how they would do the rain and waves crashing.
Other later releases I would be interested in also, but Tommy, not really.

I must disagree: Who’s Next/Life House box set was excellent value compared to, for example, Moving Pictures and/or Signals. But just my opinion!!

 

[barfle]

A little bit about me, this is my first post on this forum. Consider me new to SACD/DVD-A. I have a player that I bought about 4 years ago and bought a few discs in this format. Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and the DVD-A version of Tommy and a few others. DSotM was awesome. Tommy was just OK, for me. I then started getting more so into the Blu-ray Audio 5.1. They just seemed better to me and coupled with video, much more so. I am no audiophile! LOL. Fast forward to current times. I have picked up the new Pink Floyd DSotM 5.1 atmos, and many other PF 5.1 blu-ray releases (Wish You Were Here, Animals). They are excellent to me and my ears. I then started thinking of Tommy and started my research, hope, that there was a treatment to Tommy for blu-ray, video, Atmos and 5.1 that would be Excellent (like my exp for Pink Floyd releases). However, I came across this thread and discovering that there IS a newer release for Tommy but yet a lot of discussions say the DVD-A or SACD are better than that newer release of Tommy (newer being too discrete of channels and drums in rear left as a big CON often mentioned).
However, that is not my topic. My topic here is that I DO have the Tommy DVD-A and its been so long since I listened that I put it on.

I have to say, in a comparison of what 5.1 can sound like, and probably wrongly, I AM comparing it to Pink Floyd's audio experience....Tommy in DVD-A is very underwhelming. Its not as good sounding as Pink Floyd.

But, perhaps that is the help I need, to understand why that is. Is it just because Tommy was recorded differently than Pink Floyd, and it has limitations? Is it just that DVD-A from 2003 just will not sound as good as a blu-ray audio recent production that Pink Floyd is doing?

I really hope the answer is that someday, Tommy will get a treatment like that of Pink Floyd's recent releases and it WILL be much better.

Thoughts?

IIRC, “Tommy” was recorded in 1968 or 1969. I seem to recall listening to “Pimball Wizard” in the Army, and I got out in ‘69. DSOTM came out three or four years later, and quad was starting to become a thing, so it may well have been recorded with MCH in mind, whereas “Tommy” was a bit early for the surround treatment. Not that we don’t have the technology these days to pull apart combined tracks so they can be remixed, but as most of us realize, we’re a niche market and undertakings like deconstructing “Tommy” probably wouldn’t turn a profit.

That being said, welcome to a place where you will undoubtedly get suggestions on spending your disposable cash, and maybe a bit more.

 

[MidiMagic]

When was Tommy ever reported to be QS encoded? It doesn’t sound like it to me, and I’ve never heard anything to suggest quad was in anyone’s mind at the time. I doubt IBC even had such capability at the time.

Quadrophenia is another story, but even then, the final mix was just stereo.

It is in the movie credits in my DVD copy. Quintaphonic sound is QS with a discrete center channel.

IIRC, “Tommy” was recorded in 1968 or 1969. I seem to recall listening to “Pimball Wizard” in the Army, and I got out in ‘69. DSOTM came out three or four years later, and quad was starting to become a thing, so it may well have been recorded with MCH in mind, whereas “Tommy” was a bit early for the surround treatment. Not that we don’t have the technology these days to pull apart combined tracks so they can be remixed, but as most of us realize, we’re a niche market and undertakings like deconstructing “Tommy” probably wouldn’t turn a profit.

That being said, welcome to a place where you will undoubtedly get suggestions on spending your disposable cash, and maybe a bit more.

The original album predates quad.

The 1972 Who+LSO album is in QS.

The original movie was in Quintaphonic sound.

My DVD of the movie is in Dolby Surround. You can select Quintaphonic sound instead.

I have heard two versions of the soundtrack on record, one with QS and one without.

 

[par4ken]

IIRC, “Tommy” was recorded in 1968 or 1969.

The movie soundtrack that we were talking about was recorded latter circa 1975.

I have heard two versions of the soundtrack on record, one with QS and one without.

That is why I bought a Japanese copy with the QS obi to see if it is the same as my US copy. I haven't got around to comparing them yet. My original copy was always assumed to be QS encoded, it has that narrower stereo sound common to many QS recordings.

Decoded the music stays up front while the sound effects mostly come from the back.

 

[lukpac]

The movie soundtrack that we were talking about was recorded latter circa 1975.

Yes. The movie soundtrack has zero to do with the original album.

 

[par4ken]

Yes. The movie soundtrack has zero to do with the original album.

Now which one were we supposed to be talking about? Flipping back I think that there are references to both the original Who album as well as the movie soundtrack.