"Quadrophenia: The Director's Cut"--Reviews

I don't think Pino is on the demos. I listened to a couple of the Quad demos on Scoop 3 last night and the bass work is very much Entwistle-inspired (I assume the Scoop 3 demos are authentic). I picked up the standard 2-disc reissue and have enjoyed hearing some of the demos I had not previously heard. That said, I am still content with my decision to cancel my order for the deluxe box - while I dig the demos and love hearing Townshend's creative process, it wasn't worth $120-$140 dollars. If I there are one or two others I want, I can always download from Amazon or iTunes.

 

Myself, I don't mind Pino. He's a good bass player. The one bassist I wished could have joined the band so to speak was the one player they asked - Bruce Thomas. He declined.

 

And... it is rather annoying.

 

It seems to crash too when scrolling and/or zooming through the pictures too fast.

 

I am very interested in the sound quality of the new mastering. Does it beat the MFSL gold CD? Close?

 

I prefer this 2011 remaster although I did not a/b it with the MFSL. To me, I put the gold aside for the '96 remaster a long time ago pretty much solely due to Roger being more up front in the 96.

My guess is that if you prefer the MFSL gold over the '96 you will also prefer it to the 2011. I am liking the 2011 over the 1996 so far but it is not an earth shattering difference.

I am going to dig out the gold cd for another listen sometime this week as I haven't heard it in years.

 

Not really comparable, since the MFSL uses the original mix and this uses the '96 remix.

 

I know the answer is hiding in a thread, but does the Classic Records Quadrophenia pressing use the original mix, or the 1996. I've been a/b'ing that against the 2011 CD remaster, and the differences are profound in terms of how far back the vocals are. I'm curious if I'm hearing the difference between a remaster and the vinyl medium, or if it's a different mix altogether.

 

I think I'll just stick with the Lps and Cds I own...

I'm curious about this too.

My local still has a Quadrophenia 2-Lp set on Classic and I was thinking of picking it up to compare to my original US press--but only if it is the original mix.

Likewise, glad I did not pick this new set up last night at BB, as I like my MFSL Cd set, and did not even know about these other remixes--I'll stick with it version.

And, now after reading this thread, I see this whole box set has pretty much turned into a 'royal cluster ****'.... such a shame, especially if Pete dubbed folks in on his 'demos' or 'upgraded' his own parts...

I was so tempted to buy this last night just for the demos, now glad I passed...

 

Original mix on the Classic vinyl.

Funny...for as much as people have complained about the vocals being buried on the original mix, I've always thought they sounded fine.

 

Luke,

How do you think the Classic 2-Lp set compares to the original US vinyl?

thanks,

 

I'm not intimately familiar with either. Honestly, with a few exceptions (Sea and Sand is one), from a *sound quality* perspective, I've never really been impressed with any version of the original mix I've heard. It's just an odd mix in a lot of ways. Whether some of that can be helped in mastering I'm not sure...I know I haven't bothered trying.

 

So you prefer the 96 remixes?

And this new one uses those?

(It was a long, confusing thread read...)

 

No, I prefer the original mix. I just don't think it sounds great.

The mixes I like the most are the soundtrack remixes. Unfortunately, those are significantly different in terms of new and alternate parts, so while I prefer the *sound*, they don't really count.

I guess there are some things I like about the sound of the '96 mixes, but IMO there's too much different in terms of missing effects and such overall.

New set uses the '96 mixes, albeit with an additional (new) noise near the start of 5.15.

 

Thanks for this info Luke!

 

True, but I have always loved what Entwistle did with those tracks. When ever I have made a Who playlist in the past, I typically included those soundtrack versions as representatives of the Quadrophenia material.

 

Just got my copy today, really like the remastered cd and the book. Haven't listened to the demos yet... and 8 tracks of 5.1 is better than nothing but would certainly take the whole album in surround. The first listen to the 5.1 was okay, just didn't have the WOW factor... Drums could have been mixed better IMO. Count me in as the "Glad I got it" camp.

From a Q&A with PT back in February 2009:

Freditor:
Your mix of Tommy in SACD was outstanding. It sounds like you're playing acoustic right in my living room. I know there have been rumors of a deluxe version of Quad, do you plan on doing a 5.1 SACD version? And, if I may, why do you think higher resolution audio formats have not been accepted by the masses?

PT: I started a 5.1 SACD version of Quad and then lost interest. It would be good to complete a kind of DIRECTOR’s CUT of Quadrophenia, but I’m not sure it will ever happen now. I need to keep focussed on writing something new.

 

For potential customers who already have the 1996 CD, would you recommend they buy the 2011 two CD deluxe version for the remastered sound? Does it sound significantly different or better to make this a worthwhile additional purchase?

 

Makes sense the Classic is the original mix. a/b'ing the two was instructive. The new CD's blow it away in terms of detail, the voices being forward in a good way, and a sense of space and "3D" when it comes to all the instruments. On the downside, the new CD's versus the Classic vinyl sound thin -- not enough bass -- too much lives in the midrange and not enough bottom, in my opinion. It looks like they're releasing vinyl in a few weeks. If this is vinyl of the 96 remaster, it will be interesting to see how much bass comes back as the result of the vinyl EQ curve.

 

The new vinyl is the original mix.

 

Does anyone know if there's any way to buy the 1996 mix on vinyl? Did it ever come out, anywhere?

 

I have given the 2011 remaster a listen now on full range speakers. On my shelf is the '96, MFSL, MCA/Polydor. The 2011 has a nice "smooth" and coherent flow (gone is the harshness in the HF present on the '96). The individual instruments/vocals have more separation, resolution and realism. IMO, the 2011 is a worthwhile purchase. Not a huge upgrade over the '96, probably best described as a subtle but noticeable "improvement".

 

Classic Records used the original mix and I'm listening to a needledrop of it right now! I personally can't stand the remix of the album. You're A/B'ing two different mixes.

 

I don't know what system you're listening on (profile not filled out), but the classic records version of the original mix has PLENTY of detail. It sounds more real than that crazy 96 remix that's actually missing elements!

 

Wasn't the EU Back to Black vinyl reissue from a few years back the 1996 mix? Never heard it, but am sure I read that it was the '96?