Your best sounding Tommy, original mix

One of my top ten favorite albums of all time, I have it in four "incarnations": the original U.S. Decca vinyl release from 1969, the deluxe SACD release, the super deluxe box set from a couple of years ago and the Classic Records vinyl. While the remix on the SACD version is mind blowing for sure, as far as the original mix is concerned I have to go with the Classic Records vinyl version. Of all the original mixes, it has the richest overall sound..thick low end and very smooth high end (renders the original LP obsolete in the sibilance department).

 

The deal is the original tapes have been missing for years where Townsend's personal copy was used on all the CD releases starting with the "RE" (or RM) MCA 2-CD set. I guess people belived the myth about Kit Lambert burning the original Tommy tapes after the mastering session in the US in 1969 that Townsend's tapes wre the next best thing. The original tapes were found and used on the 2-CD/SACD release. I have a later UK Track issue from 1973 which has "Eyesight" with the alternate vocal. It sounds a tad better than the US Decca LP (and pressed on better quality vinyl). I'm a big fan of the SACD, never heard the Classic LP.

http://www.milesago.com/stage/tommy.htm

Tommy was released as a 2LP set on Track Records in May 1969. Bizarrely, at the end of the Tommy mastering sessions in New York, after the first cut to vinyl was completed, Kit Lambert declared the album a “masterpiece” and reportedly destroyed the original master tapes by ceremonially burning them. (This, says Barnes, may be why many Who fans claim Tommy sounded better on the original vinyl than on early CD issues.) It wasn’t until 1988 that a first generation copy of the master tape came to light, although the most recent CD reissue was totally remixed from the original IBC multitracks.

 

The Polydor 2003/4 Deluxe SACD [9861011] I have is an Original Mix and the SHM-SACD [UIGY-9089] version I have is also an Original Mix.
Which SACD version are you referring to as a remix ? I was under the impression that only the 5.1 tracks were remixed.
My preference is for the SHM-SACD [UIGY-9089] as the 2003/4 Deluxe SACD [9861011] is simply too loud and in your face.
I think you would like the SHM-SACD [UIGY-9089] as your description of the Classic Records vinyl version would be how I describe the SHM-SACD

 

The SACD version which I have is on the Geffen label, Booo1386-36, hybrid SACD. The "regular" layer plays the original mix. The SACD layer is the 5.1 however I'm hearing it on a stereo setup.

 

Ok. The Geffen Hybrid is exactly the same sound as the Polydor SACD [ 9861011].
Based on your comments then I think you will enjoy the SHM-SACD [UIGY-9089] .

 

The Blu-ray is the best for the original stereo mix IMO. The SHM-SACD is too bright and the SACD Deluxe Edition is too compressed and has some no-noise used.

 

Classic Records all the way here...

 

Track 1st press.

 

Interesting. Your player is probably resolving a lot more information than mine as the SHM-SACD is very laid back on my Yamaha CD-S2000.

Out of curisity what player are you using for SACD ?

 

I like the US Decca and 2003 Geffen.

 

is there a matrix number we can check out for the alternate eyesight vocal ?...from memory the original matrix was -1-1-1-1 although there are label and sleeve changes before 1970, the original matrix could have gone on way longer....

 

Thank goodness we settled that! Lol

 

I have a NM German LP and, though the vast majority of times I prefer vinyl to digital, my MFSL Gold CD sounds soooo great (yes, I know it has the alternate "Eyesight...") I've never taken the time to wet-vacuum clean my LP.

 

This

 

I find The Who's catalog and all the different mixes etc. hopelessly confusing so thank God for you guys!

Question: The very, very first issue of Tommy on HdTracks...which version was that???

 

The DVD-Audio version. Sounds compressed and about the same as the Deluxe SACD.

 

One to avoid then. Is the DVD-A original stereo or remix?

 

from memory (I'm not home to check) - I think a UK Track 'A//1' is one vocal and 'A//2' onwards is the 'other' vocal - one being an octave higher than the other for the first half of 'Eyesight' - which way round it is I can't remember!

 

Sorry, but you are wrong. Stereo layer plays the Townshend remix. See booklet (page 12): "So for the first time, the stereo version contained in this package is taken from the original masters, as the originally heard by the band in March 1969". Also there is a note at the sheet of transparent paper: "The Who's classic album remastered and remixed by Pete Townshend in stereo and 5.1. surround sound".

 

The 2-channel mix (SACD and redbook) are the original mix. If it "is taken from the original masters" than it's already mixed, i.e, the original mix. On page 26 only the 5.1 remixing is credited to Townshend.

 

I only have vinyl: An early US Decca, a mid-70's CDN MCA and the Classic reissue and for me, the Classic definitely has a silky smooth tube-like presentation which I prefer.

 

Original stereo mix. Only worth getting for the surround mix and bonus tracks IMO.

 

Right you are. I've just compared SACD and CD (Polydor 531-043-2, 1996). CD is remix, not SACD. For example, Amazing Journey on CD lasts 3.24, on SACD - 5.04; Sparks on CD lasts 3.46, on SACD - 2.05.
The advantage of CD edition is the booklet with original artwork.

 

The timing of these two tracks may not actually reflect any difference in musical content, but rather the difficulty in determining when one track finishes and the other starts. This has been happening for Amazing Journey/Sparks through the ages. Note the total time of the two is the same.

 

Yes, that's the only drawback of the SACD.