The Who Quadrophenia on CD

Kevin, I would say that technically, you are correct. However, this is such an unusual difference between the two, that it is nearly irrelevant. I guess the same things could be levelled at more common happenings such as:
1. Same mastering, with/without pre-emphasis
2. Altered index points (e.g. The Beatles 30th Anniversary edition vs the original).
3. Added tracks with the same mastering for the main album (e.g. Brain Salad Surgery Victory vs Rhino editions)

 

Well, I'm in no position to put forth an argument either way on what constitutes a truly different mastering or not. All I know is that I have been having one of the best musical experiences of my LIFE listening to this album for the first time on my newly aquired MCA fatboy CD's! I dont know why I waited this long to get this album but it is now impossible for me to pick out which is my favorite Who album: Quadrophenia or Who's Next! The fact that these came out one after the other says to me that this was EASILY the pinnacle of the bands creative period. Just amazing. So much fun listening to this album. My wife is very close to killing me as it's just about all I've been playing on my system since August 4th Tonight that changes as I have about 12 other CD's that I bought at about the same time that I havent even OPENED yet I've been so enthralled with Quarophenia. Anyway....carry on with the argument, I just had to get that out

 

IMO, whether the offset is as it should be, 1 sample off, 1 second off or 1 minute off, they are the all the same mastering... it's just that the latter three have a manufacturing error.

 

Look, I'm not saying that manufacturing errors can't produce differences in sound. I'm just saying those erroneous differences should not be considered separate masterings. In the examples you cited, there is one single mastering, it's just that some of the CDs have errors which prevent them from sounding as they was intended to sound.

Here's an example for you. I once bought a copy of Message from the Country by the Move, on the One Way label. When I brought it home and played it, I heard scratchy sounds throughout the CD. I tried it on two different players and had the same result. I brought it back to the store and the guy played it on the store deck, and it sounded fine. So clearly the disc had some sort of manufacturing error, but it was an error that only affected playback in some decks. What would you conclude here? Is it a separate mastering when I play it at home on my deck, but not a separate mastering when it's played in the store?

On this forum we talk about mastering engineers, people who make deliberate choices about how to alter the sound of a tape. Mastering is a specific term to describe what they do. I just don't understand why you want to broaden it to encompass errors and manufacturing defects.

 

Right. Such a hypertechnical definition of "mastering" renders the word functionally meaningless (especially when another phrase, "digitally identical," accomplishes much the same thing with a greater degree of linguistic accuracy).

 

Same digital source. One CD is level shifted such that the dynamic range is audibly reduced vs another CD of the same digital source. Same mastering?

No manufacturing defect.

So CDs can sound different and yet a lot of you would say it's the same mastering? Sorry, I just don't see it that way. If they are different, they are different.

I PM'ed a bunch of people whose judgment, knowledge, and guidance I've leaned on through the years here, and every single one of them agrees with me, but alas, they don't want to get into an argument here about it.

 

1. Different mastering, since pre-emphasis is a significant re-equalization and the de-emphasis is player-dependant. Has anyone ever come across such a case?.
2. Same mastering, since index points are not part of the audio.
3. Same mastering for the main album tracks.

I would also say that the two 1980s Quadrophenia CD sets are the same mastering since each channel cancels out seperately. A similar case for me would be if two CDs differ only in the amount of silence between songs. A volume change is not the same mastering anymore (since the effect is not 100% reversible due to rounding errors), but I don't have a problem if it is called "same mastering with a volume shift".

 

Like the clipped versions of Steve Hoffman's Who's Next, you mean?

Yes, same mastering. Different transfer. And the way in which the transfer is different is certainly a relevant point to mention, but it's no reason to change the definition of "mastering."

 

For the record, I wouldn't call errors and manufacturing defects "different masters."

When a mastering engineer creates a digital master, they create a stream of bits that is used to manufacture a CD (or some digital medium). Personally, I have no problem getting my head around calling that digital master a "master" or "mastering." If it gets sent to some other plant, then their CDs will be the same mastering as the first plant.

If someone takes that digital master and does a level shift on it, they are changing the data and creating a new master. I call that a different mastering. Works for me.

Recently I was comparing two CD releases of the same album. I listened to them carefully from a music server (i.e. the CD medium was not a factor). I tried to adjust their volume levels so they were equal. I came to the conclusion that they had different EQ and I preferred one over the other.

Then I compared them on my computer. I opened a couple songs, did a straight level shift on one CD's data, and found they nulled out. They both originated from the same digital source, but one had been level shifted, and it sounded different to me.

The point being: Despite once being the same analog and digital mastering, a simple change created a new digital master and had a noticeable impact on the sound that I couldn't eliminate with the volume knob on my stereo. That's why I don't consider the distinction "hypertechnical." They are different masters. When discussing different CD releases, it's easier and more sensible, IMO, to call them two different masterings.

I have no problem acknowledging the fundamental differences between "mastering" by applying subjective EQ and other processes, and "mastering" by creating a data source for CD creation -- but it's never been problematic for me, personally, to read or use the word "mastering" for both.

 

The Polydor Quad isn't offset by a second, so the point is moot.