The Who - TOMMY. So after 20/9 Years, what's the decision?

[JonUrban]

So the original SACD/DVD-Audio mix came out in 2003 to our delight, then we were surprised with a 2013 re-issue with a completely different 5.1 mix. It's been some time and looking through the QQPoll threads, there still seems to be quite a split of which mix is preferred by members. Some folks believe the 2013 mix needs a channel swap while others disagree.

I'd like to hear from you 'Tommy' experts as to what version you prefer and why. This thread can then become a reference for future members with this question. Who knows, there may be a new Atmos mix appearing some day, based on one of these two different mixes.

To refresh your memory, here's a look at the wav files of the two mixes which shows the obvious difference between the two mixes. This is for looking. As for listening, you'll have to do that on your own.

Thanks

:-jon

 

[sjcorne]

I gave the 2003 DVD-A a fresh listen not too long ago and was pleasantly surprised. It's kind of loud (par for the course with early-2000s 5.1 discs), but it doesn't sound like the dynamics are completely squashed. There isn't a lot of instrumentation fully-isolated in the rear speakers, they're reserved more for overdubbed effects and vocals like the whispers in "We're Not Gonna Take It". In terms of surround activity, "Underture" is undoubtedly the standout track. I also think Townshend did a great job integrating the mono drums into the expanded soundstage: you can tell that the kit is coming almost entirely from one of the front speakers, but there's a good amount of ambient signal spilling over into the other channels that makes it feel less isolated. The only thing that's a bit weird is most tracks have the lead vocal at the same relative level in the center and rears, so sitting outside the sweet spot can cause the vocals to lean to one side. The front channels are really interesting to listen to isolation, as they carry no dry vocal whatsoever.

I'm in the camp that thinks the 2013 Blu-Ray has a channel error. Swapping rear left with front right yield a quad-like soundstage of drums & bass in the front channels and guitars split between the rear channels. The opening of "Pinball Wizard" now mirrors the original stereo mix, with the acoustic on the right and electric on the left. Also, while the vocals are present in all five channels, they appear loudest in the rear left and front right speakers. The extreme isolation of the instruments in this mix definitely makes for an interesting listening experience, though the drums often sound too isolated and overexposed to me (even post-swap). However, this mix restores a lot of the reverb from the original stereo mix that was stripped away in the older 5.1 mix.

If I had to pick one, I'd gp with the older SACD/DVD-A 5.1 mix. Townshend made the album sound absolutely huge in this format (just listen to the opening of "Pinball Wizard" on the SACD or DVD-A) and managed to use the rear speakers in clever ways, despite the limitations of the source material (8-track multis?). You can pick out the individual instruments all around you better in the newer mix, but it can be too revealing and sometimes makes the instruments sound 'small'. The 2013 mix puts the listener in the center of the band, while the 2003 mix puts you in center of the performance - does that make sense?

 

[gene_stl]

One of the things I love about this forum is discussions like this.

 

[himey]

I couldn't get past the drum kit in one channel. The sound quality is better and the old mix isn't perfect but I would pick the old original multichannel mix if I was forced to pick one over the other.

 

[mrcond]

I have both the original 2003 SACD (with bonus disc) and the 2013 blu-ray. Prompted by having just watched the Tommy documentary on Amazon Prime Video, I listened to the SACD in its entirety over the weekend (very timely, as it turns out!). Jon's post above got me curious so I pulled out the blu-ray to do some comparisons of my own. I assumed the channel orientation on the blu-ray was "as intended" so didn't do any channel switching. I focused on 3 tracks for the comparison - Overture, Pinball Wizard and Tommy, Can You Hear Me.

I have to agree with @sjcorne and @himey in that I much prefer the the 2003 mix, for all the reasons stated. @sjcorne hit the nail on the head in his description above so I won't try to improve upon that. While the 2013 blu-ray may have more discrete instrumentation in the rears, which a lot of us like usually, I prefer the more cohesive, more immediate sound and punchiness of the 2003 mix. The Who is a rock band like no other and the 2003 mix "rocks harder", if that makes any sense. More in-your-face without being grating. It sounds "huge" as @sjcorne put it. On the blu-ray, much of it sounds like it is coming from another room, too much reverb and sounding too far away. And yeah, I just don't like all the drums coming from over my left shoulder, it just doesn't work for me.

Special mention to "Tommy Can You Hear Me" - this is demo-quality surround on the 2003 mix. Just awesome how it completely envelops you with the vocals and acoustic guitars.

One more thing to add, I mentioned the 2003 SACD has a second disc with outtakes / alternate versions / bonus tracks / demos / studio chatter, most of which are also presented in 5.1. These are pure gold to me - really really interesting and they sound great. If you can, check out the studio version of Young Man Blues. Very different from what you are used to from Live at Leeds.

Thanks Jon for this thread, it made me really think about which one I prefer. I really don't see myself pulling the blu-ray out when it is time to listen to this again.

 

[ar surround]

Thanks folks. This gives me good reason to stick with the 2003 SACD and not seek out the 2013 blu-ray. I only wish that Quadrophenia sounded as good as this 2003 version of Tommy.

Now, regarding the 2003 version of Tommy, which sounds better, the SACD or the DVD-A? Don't kill me! Don't kill me!

 

[mrcond]

Thanks folks. This gives me good reason to stick with the 2003 SACD and not seek out the 2013 blu-ray. I only wish that Quadrophenia sounded as good as this 2003 version of Tommy.

Now, regarding the 2003 version of Tommy, which sounds better, the SACD or the DVD-A? Don't kill me! Don't kill me!

I have never heard the DVD-A and I don't know if it offers up the bonus tracks that the 2-disc SACD set has, but those extras are worth seeking out. As for sound quality, if you can hear a difference, you are a better audiophile than I.

 

[sjcorne]

I have never heard the DVD-A and I don't know if it offers up the bonus tracks that the 2-disc SACD set has, but those extras are worth seeking out.

Yep, the DVD-A is also a two-disc set with lots of bonus tracks & outtakes in 5.1 on the second disc. They sound great!

 

[Larry Geller]

I far prefer the new mix. MUCH more separation. Drums in the rear left don't faze me at all. Underture is a religious experience on the BR, just OK on the 2003.

 

[Larry Geller]

Thanks folks. This gives me good reason to stick with the 2003 SACD and not seek out the 2013 blu-ray. I only wish that Quadrophenia sounded as good as this 2003 version of Tommy.

Now, regarding the 2003 version of Tommy, which sounds better, the SACD or the DVD-A? Don't kill me! Don't kill me!

They sound the same. DVD-A is preferable due to the included 40 min. video interview with Pete and on screen lyrics.
I feel Quadrophenia 5.1 sounds amazing, and much better than 2003 Tommy.

 

[gene_stl]

The DVD-A I have is copyright 2004 It has the bonus disc.

 

[ar surround]

I feel Quadrophenia 5.1 sounds amazing, and much better than 2003 Tommy.

Larry, if you have the time and the inclination, would you like to expound on that comparison?

(Nothing like getting off topic.)

 

[Bill B]

I did a compare between the two and, while both are very good mixes, I prefer the sacd as well. I just thought there was a lot more going on with the 2003 mix and the result was a more powerful listening experience. I compared Overture, Amazing Journey, Christmas, Underture, Go To The Mirror, Sally Simpson, and I'm Free. The sacd was played on an Oppo UDP-203 and the bluray on an Oppo BDP-83SE and I toggled back and forth between the two several times per song. I have to say that it seemed the sacd was recorded at a higher level (louder) so that may have affected my opinion some but I tried to adjust with the volume. It just seemed like the sacd surround mix was always more aggressive while the bluray seemed less so.

On a side note, my Oppo BDP-83 doesn't seem to recognize sacds anymore (I originally had the sacd in that player). I tried messing around with the settings but I could not get it to play/recognize the multi-channel sacd layer. Just to check that it wasn't the disc, I also tried the Elton John Captain Fantastic sacd and had the same result, cd only. I have 3 other players that I can play sacds on so I am not that worried about it, but it is annoying.

 

[skherbeck]

I love the 2013 version with the channel swap and some adjustments to the drums and low end. I’m a Discretoholic.

 

[jimfisheye]

First, how often do we get two fully realized surround mixes for an old double length album?! As well as a properly handled copy of the stereo mix.

I have to agree that the 2003 mix has a bottom end weight that is compelling as mentioned. But I also agree that this mix pushes the music away outside of the room and is decidedly front heavy. It's a darker mix overall vs the stereo original and the added reverb alters it further.

The 2013 mix almost has a "in the period and quad era" approach to it. This sounds more like the original stereo mix aesthetic with bright vs dark levels and less reverb. It's more of a fully quad presentation vs the front heavy 2003 mix. Don't be fooled by the volume levels! The 2013 mix is a full 6db quieter than the 2003 mix or the 24 bit unmolested stereo copy. And you need a full range surround system all the way around because the mono drums are in fact in the left rear channel. And they are dynamic! You need to be able to turn your volume control up a bit.

Altering the channels in this to work around too small rear speakers is a big mistake! This grossly mangles the mix! There are phantom center images front and back that are destroyed. The isolated vocals in the center that lock in the with the front L/R is a thing going on here and that would get torn apart with the channel swap. It's a bit on the experimental side of a mix perhaps with this but the channel presentation is clearly intended. Route the proposed channel swap in your favorite DAW app so you can A/B switch between them and it drastically mangles the mix if you swap channels!

If you really can't work with the drums in a rear speaker in your system, you might try rotating the whole mix clockwise. Redirect the Center channel content to the center of the front and rear right speaker pair if you try that.

The 2003 mix still sounds pretty bangin' by itself. If this was the only surround mix we were to get, this would be a pretty welcome one! The newer 2013 mix puts it to shame though. The clarity of the original is back and even extended. Serious dynamics! And kind of an "in the period" quad sounding mix with full 4 corner weight. (With the addition of the dry vocal reinforcement trick with the center channel vs the front L/R.)

Nice collection of bonus tracks in the 2003 release though! Then keep that mix itself as a bonus addendum.

 

[CPR]

I'm voting DVD/A; 1921, is still one of my go to Surround tracks
In my older Acura/ELS, it used to amaze people, how great it was
I tried the BluRay audio, version, but it didn't impress me as much
To each, his own!

 

[Larry Geller]

First, how often do we get two fully realized surround mixes for an old double length album?! As well as a properly handled copy of the stereo mix.

I have to agree that the 2003 mix has a bottom end weight that is compelling as mentioned. But I also agree that this mix pushes the music away outside of the room and is decidedly front heavy. It's a darker mix overall vs the stereo original and the added reverb alters it further.

The 2013 mix almost has a "in the period and quad era" approach to it. This sounds more like the original stereo mix aesthetic with bright vs dark levels and less reverb. It's more of a fully quad presentation vs the front heavy 2003 mix. Don't be fooled by the volume levels! The 2013 mix is a full 6db quieter than the 2003 mix or the 24 bit unmolested stereo copy. And you need a full range surround system all the way around because the mono drums are in fact in the left rear channel. And they are dynamic! You need to be able to turn your volume control up a bit.

Altering the channels in this to work around too small rear speakers is a big mistake! This grossly mangles the mix! There are phantom center images front and back that are destroyed. The isolated vocals in the center that lock in the with the front L/R is a thing going on here and that would get torn apart with the channel swap. It's a bit on the experimental side of a mix perhaps with this but the channel presentation is clearly intended. Route the proposed channel swap in your favorite DAW app so you can A/B switch between them and it drastically mangles the mix if you swap channels!

If you really can't work with the drums in a rear speaker in your system, you might try rotating the whole mix clockwise. Redirect the Center channel content to the center of the front and rear right speaker pair if you try that.

The 2003 mix still sounds pretty bangin' by itself. If this was the only surround mix we were to get, this would be a pretty welcome one! The newer 2013 mix puts it to shame though. The clarity of the original is back and even extended. Serious dynamics! And kind of an "in the period" quad sounding mix with full 4 corner weight. (With the addition of the dry vocal reinforcement trick with the center channel vs the front L/R.)

Nice collection of bonus tracks in the 2003 release though! Then keep that mix itself as a bonus addendum.

This.

 

[JonUrban]

Thanks everyone. Great responses and info. It's fun to have something like this to toss around.

Funny thing, as I was listening it struck me as ironic, this part:

"Gotta feeling '21 is gonna be a good year"..........................uh, no. It sucked!

 

[LennonCobain]

Imagine how great it would be if there were more classic albums with multiple surround sound mixes to have this kind of discussion and debate.

 

[Bill B]

Imagine how great it would be if there were more classic albums with multiple surround sound mixes to have this kind of discussion and debate.

We could compare the two versions of "A Farewell To Kings" but that would be a waste of time....