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

[daved64]

And Townsend mixed this???

he sure did!
I revisited this last night. Incredible. i had the lights off and closed my eyes. Sublime!
I do find that you really have to be IN THE SWEET SPOT....and I mean exactly in it, to get the vocals to sound perfect. Lean in either direction and they get "wonky".

 

[neil wilkes]

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?).

I nearly always mix vocals like this in Surround.
You get the benefits of a well anchored vocal, plus if using stereo FX on the vocal, feed them just to the L/R at 100% wet - leaving the centre dry.

Works really well.

 

[newbyquad]

Soundwise it is really great, both in stereo and in MC but the album itself has always been really weak to me. I love the Who but TOMMY was always a bust IMHO and I could never figure out what it was so popular. It is just the same riff for 80 minutes.

And the plot is so stupid. Sorry. But there it is, I said it.

And I feel better now ...

9 sound, 5 album so I won't vote in the poll. if you want to hear it in MC, then get it otherwise let it pass by.

 

[EMB]

Well, there isn't much of a plot at all....very shallow, really. The highlights are quite fun, however, but it's hard to reconcile this kind of pretension with the raw adolsecent id of their early work, which has retained all its raffish charms these decades later.

But on its own terms, if one doesn't expect a lot, it's a nice listening experience, and at least we got it in 5.1....

ED

 

[analogdemon]

A classic of the 1960s and the surround mix is excellent. I have the DVD-A and was absolutely blown away. The sonics are a HUGE improvement over the original recording, IMO. An unapologetic 10.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

A great album, I purchased the original release on vinyl and considered it one of the best 4 rock albums of all-time at that time, I believe that was 1968 when I first got it, or was it 1969? I won't go check the release date, it isn't relevant but along with "Highway 61 Revisited", "Rubber Soul", and "Revolver" this one was in my top 4 immediately after a couple of listens. I lost interest in all 4 albums for decades, got interested in the two Beatles albums in the 90's with the CD releases and this year got the other two in SACD. I may not have known diddly about girls back then, that took decades of struggle to grasp even the simplest concepts and I still don't have much more than a rudimentary understanding of that complicated creation but something as simple as popular music, I understood what I liked early on. These albums are great and this is a great handling of the music in SACD Surround. A 9 from me, just because current recording technology means the music could have been recorded better, I don't think this album will ever receive a better treatment. The surround mix is all I hoped it would be.

Chris

 

[Dylan Berichon]

I have the DVD-A version of this.

Is there any real difference between the SACD and the DVD-A aside from the video interview?

I'm just wondering if I should buy the SACD version since I've recently added SACD capability. I really enjoyed this one.

 

[jeffrey r]

While I only have the SACD (which I think is outstanding), most comparisons I have read between the SACD and DVD-A have rated them comparable. So, unless you're curious to try the SACD, you likely won't get any great sonic improvement, or anything that's not on the DVD-A.

 

[Felix E. Martinez]

Love this 5.1 incarnation of the classic album; however...

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).

I'm not a fan of lead vox mixed liberally into the surrounds, and Townshend makes use of that technique here.

As far as the dry vs. wet - I believe it's mentioned in the liner notes (or in the interview with Townshend on the DVD) that the wet-sounding reverb on the original release was done without the band's approval. I'm sure I read or heard that somewhere...so this 5.1 mix (and I think the stereo version on the disc is a re-mix with less reverb) is the preferred version - at least to Townshend.

 

[Larry Geller]

(and I think the stereo version on the disc is a re-mix with less reverb)

The stereo mix is the original wet mix, not a remix.

 

[Felix E. Martinez]

Sorry, did not mean re-mix, but rather "unsweetened."

On page 12 of the liner notes (on the DVD-A version - not sure if the page # also corresponds to the SACD book), it states, "one story is that Kit Lambert destroyed the final master leaving only a 'sweetened' version. However, Pete Townshend says that these stories turned out to be untrue, and whilst researching for this new 5.1 surround version the original stereo masters were discovered...so, for the first time, the stereo version contained in this package is taken from the original masters, as originally heard by the band in March 1969." My turntable is out of commission, so I can't do an A-B of the vinyl and DVD-A/SACD stereo mixes to see if this is in fact correct.

 

[SBax]

I always hated the sound quality from the vinyl lp. I first got a used lp of Tommy and then years later, a fresh vinyl lp. Terrible, muddy mix and sound quality. I loved the music but compared to the Beatles or Led Zep.....well Tommy more like a muddy Stones recording. BUT, this is amazing. This re-opened up Tommy for me. Very clear, great mix, wow. Consider that this was recorded in a TV studio to save money. Yes, IBC did record other music but they were known as a cheap studio. A big save from Pete. Thanks.

EditVD-A

 

[breakingglass]

Just absolutely perfect. Everything you could ever hope for in a classic reissued in surround. Interesting how the mix highlights the worst kept secret of this album - that the extensive delays in writing and recording prevented Pete from putting electric guitar on many tracks.

 

[halothane]

I only have SACD and have only listened to this version. The album's a massive favourite and both 5.1 and stereo SACD mixes are utterly superb.

 

[Frantic]

TOMMY CAN YOU HEAR ME?:banana:

Holy hell, The guitar was open and in the room.
This is just one great example of what can be done with this technology.

I put off buying this for years and finally decided to start completing my collection. What was I waiting for?

A new demo for the unbelievers.

 

[ssully]

You guys should check out this thread and see what you can make of purported mastering differences between the SACD and DVD-A versions.

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?p=27579

 

[filper]

I was fortunate enough to find a copy of this during the week on SACD (the deluxe edition) at a nearby Best Buy.

I haven't seen a copy in years.

I'm gonna 'giver' this weekend.

 

[filper]

I couldn't wait. I cracked 'er open tonight.

The SACD is a delight. I haven't heard 'Tommy' in years, but now I have.

Brilliant composition. Great sonics. Nice subtle surround mix.

I hope you are as lucky as I am to find a copy.

 

[The Rang]

Tommy is easy to find around here, SACD or DVD-A. The DVD-A is usually at least $10 cheaper.

Guess I better grab one while I can......

 

[ssully]

It's not hard to find online

http://www.amazon.com/Tommy-Pete-Townshend/dp/B0000DJZAH