Major Find: Who's Next Track Records Deluxe LP

According to Steve Hoffman the Decca West Coast LP is the only one pressed from the original master tapes.

I have an original Track and a US Decca W-1, sonically I prefer the West Coast, pressing wise (noise) the UK Track wins hands down.

JG

 

The midrange peak is gone on your Decca LPs? I'll compare my Track and Decca LPs with the SH mastered CD and report back. Also, I can post clips if anyone is interested.

 

Checked my Decca lp and it's:

Side one matrix: MG7-12888-W1-2
Side two matrix: MG7-12889-W1

So I guess it's a keeper!
Oh, and the autographs tucked in the shrink wrap from 4 guys doesn't detract from the value!

 

I just looked at (and listened to) both of my Decca pressings. Both are W-1 pressings. *Totally* different sound than the SH CD.

Which do I like better? Depends on my mood and what else I've been listening to recently, I guess.

 

Peter, your Blind Faith is REALLY rare, and someday, when the word finally gets out to enough people (who confirm the results of my A/B'ing of at least 8 different pressings and 4 original UK Polydor's), your copy will be worth hundreds of dollars. You should NOT sell it. It is very very rare. I know because for at least a year I was on eBay looking for as many early A/1, B/1 stampers (as indicated by the numbers that follow the A/1 and B/1) I could find. They are hard to come by.

Randy, Who's Next was very popular during my high school days too, although my high school days were in the early 80's, lol. Since I do not have a copy with your stamper numbers, you may wish to check the first few bars of "Baba O'Riley". If you do NOT hear any false notes (waivering or wrong pitch or diminished volume) during the first few piano/keyboard bars on the left channel, your copy was pressed from the same tape as my original copy.

Ben, your copy IS the ORIGINAL, according to the UK experts on this record.

I would like to add that I try to relay as much info as I have on a particular record but obviously I do not dare to think that it is gospel by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. I really welcome other opinions, especially if they help lead to the truth (as I am, just like you folks, always looking for a better pressing). I know our respected host has mentioned that the master tape always was with MCA here in L.A. but unless someone tells me that the original Decca West Coast pressing does NOT have the distortion during the first few bars on "Baba O'Riley", I will continue to believe the UK experts (that the original Track stampers were pressed BEFORE any release to pre-meet the anticipated demand). The master tape may have been shipped to the States afterwards. If the original West Coast Decca is without the distortion, then, of course, I will be on the market looking for a copy to compare it against the UK original Track. This enquiring mind wants to know! Someone, please help!

 

Oh, hijack away guys: the information is always interesting.

What I'd really like, though, is more information on my export pressing. If it was cut in the US for export to the UK, does that mean it was pressed from the same master disc as the first US Decca lp? The label makes it sound as if the record was pressed in the US, though I suppose they could have cut the export version in the US and shipped the master disc to the UK for pressing. The vinyl is thicker than the US Decca, I think, and the surfaces (aside from used LP wear) are very quiet and "black."

Just to reiterate, my matrix numbers are simply 2408102 A1 and 2408102 B1. There's no "MG 12888" or any other markings. Almost seems like a special pressing.

My own US copy, bought on the East Coast about six months after release IIRC, is a US Decca W4. I think it sounds really good, but not as huge, focused, holographic, and powerful as the export Track Deluxe I just got.

So in conclusion, just to reiterate once again, and to repeat myself, does anyone have any information or even educated guesses about the Track Deluxe export LP? I really do think it's the best I've heard (several CD versions, including Steve's; the US Decca, and the "Phases" box set vinyl as well), so I'd love to know as much as I can about its history.

 

Sorry, Gardo for going off tangent.

To better guess at what you have, would you let us know whether the matrix info on the dead wax is machine-stamped or hand-written? Also, is there a "/" or "//" between A and 1 and B and 1? If machine stamped, does it look like the Polydor/Track machine stamps, which are quite small.

Also, is the black Track label "matte" (spelling?) black or smooth?

Also, what does your inner sleeve look like? Is there any writing on it?

 

Machine stamped, quite small. No "/" or "//" markings of any kind. I believe the label is smooth but I'll have to check. The inner sleeve is plain white paper with the typical smooth UK inside.

 

That's interesting considering that according to Steve both the Decca W-1 and his CD used the master tape.

I haven't compared them yet but will soon and report back. BTW, I found that the Track A//4 had more midrange than the Decca W-1. Is this the midrange peak that you mentioned earlier?

 

to read in conjunction with the next post

The pics are on the next post.

The pic of the label shows what a "matte" (spelling?) finish looks like for the label. It also shows (although I had to reduce the resolution) what the machine-stamped matrix looks like for the Track/Polydor records.

The pics of the spine shows the "pinched" parts at the top and bottom of the spine.

The pic of the inner sleeve at the bottom shows what the original Track pressing of this LP looks like (although there is also a "head hunter" paper sleeve that some of the original Track pressings came in).

Please see how yours differs from or is similar to this. That will help in trying to figure out your "export" pressing.

 

first pic

Finally! I had to lessen the resolution on the camera AND cut the size of the picture. Unfortunately, now you can't see the dead wax area. Ugh! See my post above for the explanation of the pics.

 

Thanks for the words, Sung. Interestingly, I found, within a very short period of time, 2 UK copies of the Blind Faith LP, both with A//1 B//1 matrixes. One features the standard girl on the cover, though the cover is constructed completely differently from my later Polydor and RSO copies. The other copy has the US cover! This, AFAIK, is undocumented. The UK NEVER released BF with the non-girl cover and without a gatefold. But there it is, in my collection. Very heavy vinyl and a very rough, matte Polydor label. When I cleaned and played it I was knocked out.

I have a Canadian Who's Next with the following matrixes:

Side 1: MG7-12888-W1-2

Side 2: MG7-12889-W1 (no "2" after the W1)

It sounds very nice. I have not compared to my UK which I posted the matrix above, but maybe I should.

Also, haven't we sort of concluded here on the Forum that a UK pressing pressed from a first or second gen. tape copy can often beat the US pressing which came from the master?
The reason being that the UK vinyl, quality control, etc more than makes up for the use of the first or second gen. tape. (I know I am mis-using the terms first, second, master, etc., but I think everyone knows what I mean.)

I must also add that I have always thought CDN. Decca vinyl to sound awesome. My CDN. Tommy, purchased new in 1971, sounds unbelievable even after all these years. I spun it recently for kicks and was very surprised.

 

Well, if you EQ the heck out of it...

Perhaps, but I don't have any Track pressings, so I don't know. All I have for LPs at the moment are 2 Decca W1 copies.

 

Luke,

Just so I'm understanding you, are you saying there's a midrange peak on Steve's CD compared to the US Decca W-1?

I haven't done an A/B yet, but the Track Deluxe export has a very smooth midrange response, to an extent that surprised me. Some folks might think it makes the album too polite, but for me the effect is magical as it allows me to hear into the depth of the mix. Time for a comparison, obviously.

Sung,

My label is matte, just like the one in your photo.

 

While I've obviously never heard the tape itself, my understanding is it has that peak (like Steve's CD), and various LPs (like the W1) have it reduced. I think the W1 actually goes a bit too far.

Interesting that the Deluxe Edition is somewhere between the two.

 

I recently found an unopened Decca and played it and compared it against the original, very worn but clean, which I bought on the first day it went on sale and found the pressing quality almost identical. While listening to my new find I heard a lot of tape hiss. I also have a later pressing on MCA records which I received from MCA in 76 and found that noisy as well and the sonics left something to be desired.

Compared to the remastered CD there is no competition as the CD sounds far superior with a much tighter and pronounced bass and better midrange and treble and nooo tape hiss.

I guess the original pressing sounded great back in 71 when CDs were just a dream, but now CDs of Who's Next are clearly superior IMHO.

My sound equipment is also better now and my speakers are quite unforgiving of poorly recorded material.

 

Which one? The 1995 CD, which was a partial remix, or the 2003 Deluxe Edition, which is the original mix?

 

Hi, Gardo,

As far as I know, the matte Track label was made only in the UK at that time (as Decca had a shiny, smooth label). It is possible that the record itself was pressed in the US and then shipped to the UK, where the label was glued on and placed in the UK sleeve. That would make your record a US export pressing. I would think a more plausible explanation would be that your record was pressed in the UK for export to the US. Either way, it appears that you have a very early pressing and should sound great (and very rare to boot).

 

Well, I compared my UK Track A4/B4 against my W1 Decca and it's obvious the Track is down one generation. I did hear a litlle of what Sung spoke of in the left channel as well. Until I find an A1/B1 UK Track, the W1 will have to do, and to be honest I think it will be tough to top it - it's that good.

Thanks again Sung for your insights.

 

I compared my UK A4/B4 to my CDN. W1 too this morning. The UK vinyl is quieter and the cutting is louder, but the W1 was a bit better--spatially, depth, layering, definition, though I have to say, not by a lot.

 

Bargain FLACs. The CD is lowered by 2.2 dB to match the volume of the LP.

MCAD-37217 SH mastering

Decca MG7-12888-W1-2

 

Has anybody compared a Decca W1 and a Decca W2?

 

Here's "Bargain" from the Track A//4 LP lowered by 2 dB to match the volume of your clips:

Track 2408102 A//4

I'll compare all three clips and report back. Please do the same.

 

I was just about to ask that myself--thanks! I've got a W2 and would like to know, specifically, what makes it inferior to a W1?

 

Thank you both, Randy and Peter!

By the way, I am a bit neurotic about vinyl but I DO stop looking if I find a pressing that I feel satisfied with, even if there may be another difficult-to-find pressing which may be better. From this thread, it appears that at least three or four different pressings/stampers of this record would be satisfying enough (plus at least one CD, the one mastered by our revered host).

This is a great record, ain't it?