Forums dot lukpac.org

I wasn't planning this, really, I wasn't.

A friend of mine was saying that he pulled out his Decca (LP) copy of Who's Next, and even through all the vinyl noise thought it sounded a lot better than the Hoffman version. I figured what the hell, and pulled both out (I've only listened to the LP once or twice before). What do you know...the CD (at least on Bargain - the only song I've compared so far) sounds *really* "pinched" in comparison to the LP, which sounds much more natural and "open". Am I saying I like the LP better? In a word, yes.

Now, my LP copy is beat to shit, so it doesn't do me a whole lot of good. For the hell of it I pulled Bargain from the CD into ProTools to fool around a bit. It would seem the CD has a *big* bump around 4k - in the order of 6 dB. I'm pretty sure that's what the tape sounds like, but still... Remove that, and add a little bass and mid bass, and you've got something starting to sound like the LP.

Of course, while the tonality of the LP is great, it has plenty of issues on its own. Like I said, my copy is noisy as hell (much worse than I was expecting) and the stereo separation isn't what it is on the CD.

The Deluxe Edition is actually a bit closer to the sound of the LP, although still not quite there. It's a lot closer to the Hoffman CD than the LP.

Now, the Hoffman CD isn't bad by a long shot. It's certainly the best source I've ever heard (ie, best to work from if you want to tinker). I just think that big midrange hump probably shouldn't be there. I do like it on its own, but this game is all about comparisons, is it not?

lukpac wrote:What do you know...the CD (at least on Bargain - the only song I've compared so far) sounds *really* "pinched" in comparison to the LP, which sounds much more natural and "open". Am I saying I like the LP better? In a word, yes...

...It would seem the CD has a *big* bump around 4k - in the order of 6 dB. I'm pretty sure that's what the tape sounds like, but still... Remove that, and add a little bass and mid bass, and you've got something starting to sound like the LP...

Now, the Hoffman CD isn't bad by a long shot. It's certainly the best source I've ever heard (ie, best to work from if you want to tinker).

Allow me to post some things that I didn't bother with posting elsewhere.

My guess is that the mastering engineer for that LP had a good ear and applied some judicious EQ. While I haven't heard the LP in many years, it wouldn't surprise me if I found myself liking it better in a comparision with the CD. You would think that IF there was an issue of master tape degradation (softening) over the years, the CD would sound duller than the LP. Or, perhaps the master tape did "soften", and SH overcorrected with the EQ...but I think that to be unlikely.

I agree that (for some tracks) the SH version is the "best to work from if you want to tinker." His mostly "hands off" mastering philosophy is a boon to those of us that do want to tinker. However (and this is also true for many of the MBBB tracks), he didn't go far enough in areas that needed a lot of help. I hasten to add that other mastering engineers haven't gone far enough either...however, as you found, they may have gotten closer than SH did. There is still plenty of room for improvement on this album.

For example, if you add a ton (around 10db, IIRC) of treble in the 10k (and above) area, the drum break in WGFA sounds much better. The same goes for the fiddle in Baba (which is one of the worst recorded fiddles that I've ever heard). None of the versions that I've heard go far enough with the EQ in these areas. Play around with that WGFA drum break and see if you agree.

Can we (meaning not just Luke and I, but everyone in the whole dang world) just admit finally that Who's Next is kind of a shit-sounding album, always has been, always will be, barring a radical remix? And yes, I have Hoffman's CD and I listened to it on LP for ten years befoer I got my first CD player and have gone through at least three other CD versions.

We can't? Oh well.

To me, it always sounded to be one of the first 'arena rock' albums...way too much reverb, crappy early 70's drum sound. It's virtues are the great songs and playing, and those will forever make it a must-listen.

Hrmm...count me out, since I think the sound/production on that album is terrific - I think it's part of the fun of listening to that album. That's not a "crappy early 70's drum sound", that's a "Glyn Johns drum sound", like it or not (I love it). Compared to most "arena rock" albums, I'd say the drums are *very* natural sounding.

So much for *that* idea...<g>

krabapple wrote:...Who's Next is kind of a shit-sounding album, always has been, always will be, barring a radical remix...

I agree that it definitely has shitty moments. The aforementioned fiddle in Baba (and the opening piano chords), all of "My Wife" (I think the remix sounds better)...but IMO "Bargain" and "Going Mobile" sound great. Too bad the whole album can't sound as good as those two cuts.

That's why I think it's ultimately inconclusive to talk about the sound of the whole album when there is such a variation between tracks (and sections within those tracks). I can't say whether I like the "Glyn Johns" sound or not, as I like it one moment and hate it the next. For sure I don't like his inconsistency - By numbers is another album with sound that is all over the place.

lukpac wrote:That's not a "crappy early 70's drum sound", that's a "Glyn Johns drum sound", like it or not (I love it).

I much prefer the "Ron Nevison drum sound" on Quadrophenia...but I already know we have different tastes in this area, as I think the drums on the 1995 remix of Live At Leeds are just about perfect.

lukpac wrote:Compared to most "arena rock" albums, I'd say the drums are *very* natural sounding.

Yes...but that's rather faint praise, don't you think?

I haven't heard the vinyl, but I can say with absolute certainty that the STEVE HOFFMAN version of Who's Next is the best one ever. It blows all the others away. Magnificent breath of life and no compression! It sounds exactly like the master tape. Soooooo much better than Jon Ghastly's no-noised monstrosity.

Someone's been hitting the 'goosh' again.

My Avatar Is A Hot Babe wrote:Magnificent breath of life and no compression!

I found your previous couplet more intriguing and thought provoking - due to the juxtaposition which constructed a conjunct from potentially contrasting qualities, rather than obviously complementary ones:

My Avatar Is A Hot Babe wrote:Magnificent breath of life with plenty of hiss!

You should stick with that one.

I checked my Dutch Polydor copy tonight, and it didn't knock me out -- it sounded good, but not good enough to beat out the Hoffman. I guess the Decca is the one to hear (since it most likely came from the same tape as the Hoffman CD). It did sound more "open" than the CD, but most vinyl sounds more "open" to me than the CD equivalent -- as Thom told me over on the Dylan SACD thread:

Air, depth, ambience and the like are midrange effects mostly attributable as by-products of vinyl playback. Nothing to do with what is on the master tape. If you prefer that then there is nothing wrong with that.

Ryan

There may be other "magic" going on, but the biggest difference in this case is certainly EQ.

Yes, there are definitely EQ differences. I could tell that the midrange was much more pronounced on the CD than the LP. However, tastes being what they are, I actually liked the CD version, as it sounded more "aggressive" which works for this music. (The acoustic guitar at the beginning of "Bargain," for example, sounded too dull on the LP.)

But then again, I am renowned for my lowbrow tastes.

Ryan

My Avatar Is A Hot Babe wrote:I haven't heard the vinyl, but I can say with absolute certainty that the STEVE HOFFMAN version of Who's Next is the best one ever. It blows all the others away. Magnificent breath of life and no compression! It sounds exactly like the master tape. Soooooo much better than Jon Ghastly's no-noised monstrosity.

How do you know it sounds "exactly like the master tape"? So you've actually heard the master tape, then? (But never heard a vinyl copy?)

Kjoerup wrote:How do you know it sounds "exactly like the master tape"? So you've actually heard the master tape, then? (But never heard a vinyl copy?)

I believe that MAIAHB is indulging in some "hard" satire...meaning that it can be difficult to determine if he is kidding or not. But I think that he's kidding.

lukpac wrote:There may be other "magic" going on, but the biggest difference in this case is certainly EQ.

I don't know what other "magic" there could be other than EQ...I don't buy into the "by-products of vinyl playback/fairy dust" argument, unless it's referring to cart or phono amp coloration, which is another manifestation of EQ. But I admit to being biased towards CDs, all else being equal (mastering, source tape, etc.). Unfortunately, things are hardly ever equal.