The writing on the W1 side 2 is identical to the W1-2 except for the addition of the "-1" whereas on side 1, while the handwriting is the same (Doug Sax and his "8") the writing is NOT identical to that on the W1. But the bands separating the tracks and deadwax size/runoffs are still identical.
To be clear, looking now: Side 1 MG7-12888-W1-2 MG7-12888-W1 Similar handwriting, but nothing is identical. If you match up the runout grooves on both the grooves between songs are clearly different. Side 2 MG7-12889-W1-2 MG7-12889-W1 Again, similar handwriting, but nothing identical, and the writing is in totally different places in the runout. And again, if you match up the runout grooves, the grooves between songs don't match up. Two totally different cuts. (Albeit likely done around the same time).
My mistake on the writing. I'll have to do some A/Bing. The tracks on at least Side 1 look identical to me. Side 2 seems a tad hotter on the W1.
Alright, shootout time. Who's Next W1 vs W1-2. Both needledrops were done on the same equipment/software with the same settings. I also normalized both to -3.05dB so that the volumes should be similar. @lukpac is correct: while both cuts are Doug Sax's work they are not identical and do sound different. After working on these needledrops I have my favorite of the two, but I am curious what people here think since both are similar and very good sounding. Four sets of samples, two from each side. I will put the "answers" in a separate text file so you can use your ears first to decide. Sample 1 - Bargain Sample 2 - The Song Is Over Sample 3 - Going Mobile Sample 4 - Behind Blue Eyes Mega link to folder
Bumping this thread to shamelessly promote my post above. I thought now with everything going on that folks might want to escape a little and do some fun A/B-ing and discussing of a classic LP and two of its most beloved pressings. Are they both the same cut or are they different? Which one is better?
I can’t speak to the W2, but I have a UK Track 1st press and a W1 US. They are similar (for obvious reasons), but the UK Track is the better of the two (both sides). I am not one of those who believes only one side of the UK Track was a Dog Sax cut.
I have a ‘73 rainbow MCA W3/W1 in pretty stellar condition but frankly it’s a fairly dull experience. Like, everything sounds good but there’s very little energy in this pressing, and Keith in particular sounds too muffled. It’s the kind of record that if it was Joni Mitchell I’d be loving every second of it but for a Who album it comes up short. Again, not bad, just bland.
Some thoughts and speculation on the different W1-cuts: There are four main W1 variations: W1, W1 X, W1-2 and W1-2 X. Now, I need some TML historians to chime in here at some point, but we know that from at least 1972 Doug had three cutting machines that would run simultaneously. Those were two Scullys and a Neumann. He would always put TML-M (Scully master), TML-S (Scully slave) and TML-X (Neumann) in the dead wax, and I'm sure there are audible differences between all of his M/S and X cuts. Some might strongly prefer the X, for all I know. But they initially come from the same mastering. I don't know if Doug had three machines as early as the summer of '71, but let's say he only had two; a Scully and a Neumann. That would account for W1 and W1 X - two different machines that would cut simultaneously; the X (Neumann) being a slave of the Scully. As Luke wrote, there are clear visible differences between W1 and W1-2; more than the difference in machinery would account for, and W.B. pointed out in one of our TML-threads that the spacing of lead-ins and lead-outs on TML-X lacquers (at least up to 1981-82) were the same as Scullys (32.3125 or 14.729167 lpi lead-in and 3.92 lpi lead-out), so that would probably mean that Neumann's "X" cuttings at the time had the positionings "guided" by the "M" Scully. Following this logic, W1-2 and W1-2 X are re-"simulcuts" done sometime in late '71, or early '72 before TML acquired a second Scully lathe. As always, lacquers were thrown together in all sorts of combinations by Decca, so they subsequently turned up all over the place. W2 follows the same pattern with X and -2, whereas afaik only one W3 lacquer was cut (from the Scully master, perhaps?).
Thanks for sharing. And the hard work it was to produce this piece. It is a shame how one of the greatest albums of all time is treated by its record company,.
This seems plausible. I recently found a Decca W2 X copy but haven't had a chance to listen to it yet.
After endless chasing for the perfect sound, is it possible that Who’s Next is not the finest recording?
The recent MOV pressing is amazing sounding. Get it while you still can. Has the 95 remix on it. Only place to get it on vinyl is the MOV.
I actually played four different copies of the W-1, W-1-2, etc. Deccas a couple weeks ago. Just in the background on my office system over the course of a few days while I was working. A couple definitely stood out, didn't really keep track of which was which though. I will say it was a great way to spend the time!
I've had a bunch of Sax's go through my hands and I could never tell any difference. I settled on the best condition which was a later 72ish pressing. I have German one too that is right there also Sax mastered.
Playing mine right now. On most days, like today, it’s the best pressing I own. And I own too many. Thanks for the great comparison vid. I found the Decca veiled in every example, and the MOV had fine clarity.
Appreciate you watching. I opened and played the Masterphile when I received it, BTW, and quickly put it away (sold it actually). I preferred the MOV.
