Quadrophenia - Original Mix

FFWIW, I have an Elton John - Honky Chateau in both UD1 and UDII versions. No audible difference to my ears. I AB'd quite often over a period of a week, and coudn't find any audible difference to my ears, headphones and loudspeakers.
I have been looking for a Quadrophenia original version CD and can't seem to get hold of one. Maybe I will have to buy the MFSL if funds permit.
Thanks for that useful info lukpac.

 

I compared the "The Real Me" and "Cut My Hair" German Polydor/MSFL Quadrophenia and I came up with some definite differences.

On "The Real Me", I had difficulty choosing one from the other. At times the MFSL and Polydor sounded identical, other times the Polydor sounded brighter. Also, I seemed to have trouble matching the levels - i.e., it seemed as if there were subtle level changes during the track that kept throwing things off. But one difference really stood out - there was a sizable level change going into the next track ("Quadrophenia"). The MFSL was quite a bit louder than the Polydor. I switched players (I use a DVD player and a CD player for comparisons, and always switch to try and eliminate player variables as much as possible) and the results were the same - the MFSL did get louder.

On "Cut My Hair", the Polydor is brighter. It can be easily heard in the tonality of the voices during the "zoot suit" chorus, and less easily heard on Pete's solo singing. The MFSL sounded a bit dull on Pete's voice, but natural on the chorus. The Polydor sounded good on Pete's voice, but a bit bright on the chorus. I switched players and heard the same tonalities, and I am confident that I could pick out the Polydor in an A/B blind test.

One other difference - although I synched up the two versions at the beginning of each track, by the end they were no longer in sync - and the MFSL was faster every time (maybe about 1/4 sec), regardless of players used.

 

Which makes sense, since they are different transfers.

Thanks for your MoFi/Polydor comments. The majority of my listening has focused on The Real Me. It seems that one or both versions has some "tweaking" in some places but not others.

 

Are you saying that the pitch is (unavoidably) slightly different, or is it something else?

 

Well, it's pretty much a given that when you play an analog tape back, the speed will be slightly different each time. This is *especially* true if different machines are used.

I'd say a 1/4 sec difference through the course of an entire song is pretty good.

 

Never really thought about it, but it makes perfect sense.

Two questions - does this mean that you can't do an inversion comparison between two different transfers because they won't be in perfect sync?

Also, if the UD1 and UD2 are in perfect sync, does this mean that they are both from the same transfer? I have long suspected that any UD1/UD2 differences (if they exist) would have to be the result of post transfer manipulations - it's inconceivable to me that MFSL actually went back to the original tapes and did brand new transfers for the UD2s.

 

Well, then there was some tweaking with the Polydor...

 

So any level differences between the MFSL and the Polydor are due to tweaking on the Polydor? I am wondering why Polydor chose to turn down the level on "Quadrophenia"... Seems like the vast majority of mastering engineers only turn things UP, never down!

 

Yes (you *can't* do it). While something might come along in the future, I'm not aware of any process today that will allow you to get two different sources in *perfect* sync - or, at least close enough to do such a comparison.

Yes, that is true. Both clearly come from the same digital tape. It seems to me that any differences can be attributed to some type of signal path/pressing issues, rather than "manipulations". As I've mentioned before, if you do *any* type of EQ, you'll get music when you do such a comparison, *not* virtually inaudible white noise.

 

How do you know that?

It's quite clear the two came from the same *initial* digital source. Were both pressed from the same physical tape? I don't know. But they both stem from the same digital transfer.

At the *very* least, a digital clone was made of the UDI to press the UDII. I'm not saying that's necessarily what they did, but...

Same digital transfer. Same mastering.

 

By manipulations, I was talking about things like the "Gain 2" process, (which seems like some sort of fancy distortion/noise reduction) not necessarily EQ. Also, I tend to believe that MFSL were using Gain 2 before they started advertising it on the J card. If the only difference between the two Tommy versions was some noise, could this be explained by the use of Gain 2 on the UD2? I'm not sure if the UD2 of Tommy was advertised as using it.

 

If you are simply saying they did not both come from the same *physical* tape, then yes, I trust you.

However, if you are saying they do not come from the same digital master (be it a CD, a 1630 copy, whatever), then, quite obviously, I have to disagree.

 

Isn't the CD an exact copy of the digital tape that it was made from? If MFSL used the UD1 to make the UD2, instead of the digital tape, what is the difference?

Or are you saying that they used a DIFFERENT digital tape? I don't understand that...

 

Well, the thing is, I'm not sure if anyone really knows that "Gain 2" is.

For all we know, "Gain 2/UDII" was simply a way of saying the disc was made in the US, rather than Japan.