The Who Quadrophenia on CD

My memory as well.

 

Interesting. The UK Track vinyl must sound quite a bit different than my brown label U.S. Track LP then, because my U.S. Track LP's sound nearly identical to the original MCA CD's, at least to my ears, & on my setup.

 

It is a P48P catalogue number.



I don't like the mud pie drum sound on the MoFi "Q" and keep the original Polydor CD.

 

Regarding the Quad movie soundtrack that Entwistle worked on with new mixes - I have a 2 CD japanese set on Polydor that I bought back when it first came out on CD (early 1990's?) P48P-25060, and a newer 1 CD version that came out in 2000 Polydor in USA/UK.

The 2 CD Japanese set is curiously about 2 minutes shorter than the 2000 single CD USA/UK version - it is missing one song (I'm The Face). I don't have my vinyl copy anymore and can't recall if that song was on the vinyl or not - I suppose if it was on the vinyl my question would be why was it left off the Jap release (or if it wasn't on the vinyl, my question would be why was it added to the newer reissue)????

And regarding the mixing/mastering of these - any comments on them? I've been reading a bunch of Who threads up here lately and I think there already was some discussion on these but now I can't find it :-\


EDIT: Doh! I see some comments on it above in this very thread. I still have my questions though. My Jap version has 22 tracks, but the 2000 reissue has 23 (???) btw.

 

As I mentioned above, all of the mix differences aside (and there are many), I think in some ways the *sound* of these mixes is much better, especially regarding the drums. I was comparing the various mixes of 5:15 a while back, and the drums on the '79 remix just sounded *right*, unlike either the original LP mix or the '96 remix.

 

Thanks but I'm asking just about the different SOUNDTRACK versions now Luke, that is in comparison to themselves, not the real Quad album - did they remix the soundtrack album again on the 2000 version, similar in example to how the original Quad on CD was remixed when rereleased in 95/96? Or for example remaster the Soundtrack significantly differently in some way so that these sound different to each other? I'm wondering if I need to keep both of my Soundtrack versions for any sonic reasons.

 

No, the 2000 version was not remixed. And if it's anything like the TKAA reissue (I passed on Quad), the mastering is terrible. Lots of noise reduction. Stick with the original CD(s).

 

Well, in my experience, it's not at all uncommon for a UK and US cut of the same album to sound quite different; even in their initial pressings. Often one will see these differences chalked up to different/superior sources when discussed here, but I suspect it's typically much more about the cutting engineers involved.

 

QUAD is my favorite album of all time. I don't think it will ever sound better than it did on cassette coming out my *****box Radio Shack speakers in the back of my Beetle when I was in college Once CD's came in I had the MFSL but thought the German Polydor "felt" more like what I remember hearing when I had the vinyl back in the day.

 

Thanks that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I guess I need to keep my Jap original for better sound, but I'll hold onto the remaster single one since it has that one extra track on it; although maybe not since I'm pretty sure I have that one (I'm The Face) on several other things (O&S for one). So maybe I can part with it after all.

I have raging Who fever lately. Been listening to tons of Who the past couple daze, and reading countless threads up here (thank you all for the very interesting threads). There is just too much info to retain! Am trying to shed some needless sonic copies of things, but is hard to do that for fear of later learning I parted with something I needed to keep! I'm already pissed I parted with my original Quad, WAY, and By Numbers, not to mention practically all of my Who vinyl, years ago.

 

I'm the Face was not on the original LP. I don't know why it was added to the reissue. Presumably they thought it fit in and they had room for it.

 

The latest issue of Mojo says that an expanded Quadrophenia is due this summer. Mind you, I've heard them say this before!

 

Awesome. THX for that info. I will have to check out the story.

 

Interesting quote from Pete posted recently at Long Live Rock, from Naked Eye #1, just prior to the 1996 remix:

Q: Do you think that the classic material should be remixed or do you think remastering would have been sufficient?

Pete:
The one that's absolutely mindblower is Quadrophenia. I heard it recently. It opens up and I just burst into tears, immediately. Quadrophenia was a studio masterpiece lost in the mix. The most extraordinary thing about it too is that you hear, for the first time, the real detail in Roger's performance. He was just great on this record and you hear it really clearly.
There are a couple of tracks where people might prefer the original mixes, and they might indeed prefer the original muddy sound, but what actually went wrong was a technical problem with Quadrophenia, and also the masters, again, were lost. All we had were equalised copies from the mastering lab where it was mastered in LA.

So perhaps this explains more than Pete intended why both Who's Next and Quadrophenia on CD from this period were remixes; they assumed both masters were lost ...?

Does this mean that previous issues of Quadrophenia on CD are from eq'd copies of the master?

 

First of all, there are only 2 masterings of the original mix on CD (excepting tracks on comps) - MCA/Polydor and MFSL. I can't say I know if the masters were used for either of those or not.

Second, the attitude of the time was remix remix remix. I don't think it necessarily had to do with masters vs. copies, considering just about everything was remixed, except where multitracks couldn't be located.

 

OK, but information about this topic from direct sources is pretty thin on the ground; Pete's remarks contemporaneous to the remix suggest the possibility that CD issues prior to that time (especially the MSFL) were not straight transfers from the original masters.

It's true, in 1996 word that Quadrophenia had been remixed was received as great news.

 

As I stated, that may or may not be true, but it seems as if the remixes were happening for reasons beyond that. While some masters were missing at the time, I've never heard that they *all* were, yet with the exception of AQO and some of Who's Next (where multis weren't available), all of the albums were remixed.

EDIT: Nice job finding that post.

 

Why especially the MFSL? His comments don't single out that version.

 

Because MFSL purports to be from the "original master" and yet Pete, within five years of its release in 1991, is stating the the masters have been lost.

Hope you don't mind, I came across that while searching for contemporary interviews on the remix. How did the remix strike you then versus now?

 

The remixed Quadrophenia is so much better than the MFSL version. Tha original mix is all muddy and the vocals are behind everything. Drowned have a very strange effect on Roger's voice. Tha remix is the best.

 

The remix was quite exiting to hear when it first came out.

 

Does the MFSL make any explicit claim to that end? "Original Master Recording" doesn't mean anything.

Don't mind a bit. For what it's worth, my mindset at the time was remix=better.

Interesting story, though. I had Quad prior to the remix (the original MCA set), and while I *tried* to like it, I just never got into it. When I got the remix, it seemed to click. That said, some time later I went back to the original mix and now prefer it.

IMO Drowned sounds very naked and wrong without that effect on Roger's voice.

Sound quality wise, the original mix isn't a favorite of mine, but then neither is the remix. For the remix, it often seems as if they felt something was "wrong", but didn't really know what to do to make it better. It's *different*, but at the end of the day that's all it is for me. These days I reach for the original mix, this coming from somebody (as above) that didn't really get turned on to the album until the remix.

 

I don't know enough MFSL history to say whether they used only original masters as a matter of policy - but that's what those words connote to me. Otherwise the banner should read "Original Master Recording or an EQ'd copy recording"

 

Tommy was very clearly an alternate source, and while I believe it is less known, Who Are You is as well. I take the OMR designation as more marketing than an assurance than the 1st generation master tapes were used.

 

To your earlier point, which I missed, there is nothing in the MSFL copy printed in the UD2 issue regarding the master tape used to produce it.

Doing a little research, the site Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Album quotes copy (FWIW) from early MFSL vinyl catalogs:

What distinguishes an Original master Recording LP from any other record?

1. Original Master Recordings are exclusively transferred from the original stereo master tape that the musicians recorded in the studio (not from a second, third, or fourth generation copy of that master tape).

Also, Steve weighed in on the topic in your thread from eight (!) years ago:

#12 I don't mean to butt in here but the MoFi "Quad" sounds pretty much dead on with the flat USA tape copy that I heard years ago.

In other words, the MoFi sounds like the original mix.

Good or bad, I dunno. I haven't played Quad since Pete told us he purposely put Roger's voice way down in the mix. Talk about shooting one's self in the foot!

#31 There was no tweaking on the MoFi. They just aligned the tape and let it go. So, this is the best version to hear what the actual mix sounds like.