It's been said in this thread and elsewhere that the Canadian is not the same mastering as the US. The Canadian is at a lower level, has no hiss between the tracks, and a digital glitch in WGFA. Despite these things, I really enjoy the Canadian CD. Also there are two US masterings from the 80's - one is 43:15 (not SH) and the other 43:25 (SH), give or take a couple seconds.
Didn't mean anything confrontational - in fact, I should have just left that comment out. Just meant that somehow surely I must be wrong, or that my bad luck meant I didn't buy what I thought I did. I popped it in this morning and Exact Audio Copy tells me it's 43:24. Guess I'll give it another listen on my home players and see what that experience is like. The only reason I ask is this is actually the first Hoffman master I knowingly bought, so I was really excited to hear it, especially since it's from one of my absolute favorite bands.
That's Steve's then. Let us know if the CD still sounds dull to you after your listening session. BTW, no offense taken.
Ok, just an update from my original post. I've given the disc two more listens in the car (one with "fresh ears" and one directly after playing a CD with mastering that I like) as well as listening to "Baba O'Riley" on my system at home, first flat and then EQ'd to taste. Dunno what was in my ears during that first listen, but I will say that I couldn't listen to Steve's Who's Next with treble boosted as considerably as I first described. However, when listening flat, I discovered what was bugging me and still does. It's the drums. Listening to this disc flat, everything else sounds absolutely perfect - the bass, vocals, keys and guitars are clear and spot on. But it's the drums that leave me cold. If I boost the treble a bit (sorry, I'm not savvy enough to say what frequencies and how much), then the attack of the drums begins to cut through, and the cymbals start sounding "live" to me. I have to say that even with this caveat, once I adjust to taste, I absolutely love the sound of the CD. Having heard the album thousands of times before and intending only to listen to bits and pieces for the purpose of this post, I just couldn't turn it off. The problem I do have is that once I boost the treble, a few instruments here and there tend to get into ear-piercing territory, most noticeably the horns in "My Wife". But still the overall listening experience is a very pleasant one. Having spent years behind a drum kit, I know too well that a snare drum and cymbals have a really bright tone to them. Cymbals can be quite painful, and though I wouldn't want to be pained by a recording, I'd like a little of that flavor. Not so much though that these new "crispy" remasters tend to offer - I've heard plenty that just abuse the higher frequencies and make the drums sound completely unnatural. Boosting the treble on Steve's Who's Next evens out the pounding bottom frequencies and lets the snare and cymbals cut through. Really gives me the feeling like I'm listening directly to a master tape. To be fair though, all those years of bashing on cymbals behind the kit myself likely have destroyed my ability to hear some higher frequencies as well as others, so this could just be me. But after three separate tests, I'd say I find the drums to be a little murky on this mix or master (not sure how much the former affected the latter).
Well Steve transferred the master tape flat with no EQ, so the drum murkiness you're hearing is inherent in the mix. There was no tweaking done. Keep in mind that I'm talking about the Japan/BMG version and not the Canadian version.
There's a segment on Baba O'Riley, regardless of who masteried it, that always hurts my ears. It's when Towndshend sings, "Don't cry, don't raise your eyes...." Does this hurt anyone else's ears too?
The only time I've ever boosted the treble on a CD is on some old jazz CDs that were no-noised to death.
Thanks for mentioning that - I hadn't read through all the other threads on this topic, so i didn't know he didn't do any tweaking. This would certainly explain my observation. And I do mean "observation" and not necessarily a complaint, because as I said, I'm very happy to own this disc. It's really something to get me to want to listen to those same songs I've heard on the radio for the past 25 years.
I haven't read all 150+ posts in this thread, but this is the first I've seen this. Is there a link to where Steve confirms this?
Actually, it's not a flat transfer (I typed all this out myself, then found Steve's post with Google ) http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=677566&postcount=3
I just bought a Who's Next cd from ebay hoping it was Steve's but mine also clocks in at 43:15. It does sound pretty darn good though, who did this mastering? It has catalog #37217 DIDX152, made in USA. Mike
At the risk of sounding like a raging egomaniac, this thread is a complete mess. Let's try this: 1) original MCA, made in Japan: pretty loud, lots of clipped peaks. Presumably mastered by Steve Hoffman. I've been told this was also made in the USA, but I haven't come across a copy. 1a) CRC/Columbia Record Club: seems to be identical to 1), except the entire thing is lower in level (including the clipped peaks). Based on some posts here, it seems like this version may have also been released as a non-record club version. Made in USA (my copy is from WEA/Specialty). 1b) BMG: nearly identical to 1), but runs at a *slightly* different speed, as if it was somehow digitally resampled. Same peaks as 1) however. 1c) Canadian: totally different transfer. No clipped peaks, whole thing is at a lower level. Hiss abruptly cuts off between some tracks. Small glitch in WGFA. Assumed to be mastered from an analog copy made during the mastering of 1), but I don't think there's any proof of that, just speculation. 2) Polydor: a lot more hiss than 1), some tracks fade up. I've only heard the German pressing, but I haven't seen anything to suggest there's another version. 3) alternate MCA: presumably done after 1). More hiss than 1), channels narrowed slightly, and running time shorter (43:15 vs 43:26). 4) MCA gold: lots of noise reduction, very harsh sounding. 5) 1995 remix/remaster: some tracks remixed (Baba O'Riley, Love Ain't For Keepin', My Wife, Goin' Mobile and Behind Blue Eyes), others subjected to some pretty grainy sounding noise reduction. 5a) MFSL: basically the same as the 1995 CD with slightly different EQ. 6) Deluxe Edition: similar sound to 1), but with some of the harshness EQ'd out. Noise reduction on fades and some quiet sections. One oddity I recently spotted - all variations of 1) in my possession have the credits on the disc itself left justified with the Compact Disc logo. On my lone copy of 3), the credits are shifted to the right by about 1/8". The font is also slightly different on 3). *Maybe* an easy way to spot those.
I listen to 1) the most. It is nice to have it relatively untampered with. That said, I honestly don't know if I'd be able to detect the difference between it and any of its derivatives in a blind test (excepting the lack of hiss between tracks and pop in WGFA on the Canadian disc). The Deluxe Edition is good. I just don't like the NR on the fades. Of course, the original Decca vinyl sounds nothing like 1). The upper midrange is rolled off to combat that splashy sound of the mix. Sometimes it sounds great, sometimes it sounds mushy. As far as I can remember, when the issue of the Canadian CD first came up, Steve said when he mastered Who's Next he made an analog copy. It has been assumed that the Canadian CD came from that analog copy, but I've never seen any proof that that's the case.
Were it not for these overly-entertaining "Who's Next" threads, the forum population would be halved. I love 'em and I want many, many more By all means, carry on.
Thanks for the quick reply. How does 3 compare to 1? Is it close in terms of enjoyment or is 1 a few steps above?
Here's a clip I made a few years ago of the intro to Behind Blue Eyes: http://lukpac.org/mp3/samples/bbe_comparison.mp3 In order: - MCA Japanese original - Polydor - MCA alternate - MCA gold Mastersound - 1995 remix
Yeah, especially when the "clipped peaks" maybe on the master tape! On the subject of the Canuck MCA (1c) you posted: "totally different transfer". At first that freaked me out as well... EZ too do. Then I thought; transfer, he is saying "transfer". Which too me meant you were saying it was Steve's "mastering"; just it was a different transfer. Explaining: "No clipped peaks, whole thing is at a lower level. Hiss abruptly cuts off between some tracks. Small glitch in WGFA". Which also ties into the general perception that the Japan is better than the US & the US is better than the Canadian. However, now you post you do indeed believe it to be different mastering. This is going to get... interesting! Thx again.
Thanks, wow! That was great! 1 Definitely sounds better than 3, but 3 still sounds nice. I suppose 1 is very rare? I have a needledrop that I should upload and post. I think it sounds wonderful.
No, they aren't. Definitely clipped during the digital transfer. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The assumption has always been that Steve played back the master, recorded that to PCM for the CD and at the same time made an analog dub. And *that* dub was then recorded to PCM for the Canadian CD. That may very well be the case, but I don't think it is a certainty.
1) is proof positive that somewhat loud discs with some clipped peaks can still sound really good. I think the source used, playback equipment and EQ are more important than some clipped peaks. One of my forum pet peeves is when people dub anything with clipping as brickwalled. Ideally you would want clipping but a few clipped peaks aren't going to ruin a mastering. I'll get flamed for this but IMO the best version of Baba is the remix. It's the only version where the piano sounds decent. Keith's drums sound more open on the remix too.
