• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

The who - Whos next

D

Dude111

Analogue is Awesome
I was lucky enough to get a FIRST PRESSING of this album months back and IT IS INSANLY GOOD!!!!!

DL-79182 (MG7-12 888-W1-2)


I discovered long ago THIS ONE IS MONO!!!!!! -- Tonight I got between the speakers and carefully listenend and I do believe this is one of the reasons it sounds SO GOOD!!!!!


Its disgusting to read about how this album has been RE-MASTERED many times..... I HAVE TO ASK MYSELF WHY??????? - THIS ALBUM SOUNDS INSANELY GOOD WITHOUT THEM RUINING IT!!

Here is someones comments on it: www.better-records.com/product.aspx?pf_id=who__whosn_remaster

I am glad to have the copy I have!!!!!!!!! (I dont want some idiots idea of what they think IS BETTER because usually its complete crap compared to the original!)
 
Register to hide this ad
How do you tell what pressing it is? I've had mine since the album was released, it was and still is a benchmark rock album
 
I have an MCA re-issue copy because my black label MCA was worn out and destroyed. The SQ is deplorable so I never play it anymore.

The resolution of my system makes bad recordings sound very bad. I have the the Who'S Next remastered CD that sounds much better than my vinyl copy.

I have an original issue of both Quadraphenia and of Tommy. Neither sound all that great to me.

The Who made great music (songs) but attention to details in the studio was lacking IMO.
 
I have found the original UK Track pressing to be the best, to my ears anyway. I did get a copy of the recent blue vinyl pressing, 1000 pressed, it actually sounds decent, I belive it was from 24/96 files from the original master, similar to what was used for the "recent" Beatles reissues. It sounds alot better then 80% or so of other pressings Ive heard, plus it's on pretty blue vinyl.
 
The W1-2 was mastered by Mr. Doug Sax. That is the definitive pressing, but MONO? Not likely.

Can you post some links to your source?
 
Dude111 said:
I was lucky enough to get a FIRST PRESSING of this album months back and IT IS INSANLY GOOD!!!!!

DL-79182 (MG7-12 888-W1-2)


I discovered long ago THIS ONE IS MONO!!!!!! -- Tonight I got between the speakers and carefully listenend and I do believe this is one of the reasons it sounds SO GOOD!!!!!


Its disgusting to read about how this album has been RE-MASTERED many times..... I HAVE TO ASK MYSELF WHY??????? - THIS ALBUM SOUNDS INSANELY GOOD WITHOUT THEM RUINING IT!!

Here is someones comments on it: www.better-records.com/product.aspx?pf_id=who__whosn_remaster

I am glad to have the copy I have!!!!!!!!! (I dont want some idiots idea of what they think IS BETTER because usually its complete crap compared to the original!)
Click to expand...

The Decca W-1 "West Coast" is tops in my book. The "black" Track being a close second. Interestingly enough, the original run of Track records were pressed at the same time as the Decca W1, in the US, then sent off to England. People wax about the Track being better, quieter, etc. but I've heard both and don't agree. My preference though.

My pressing has "W1" on both sides. I believe "W1-2" is a slightly later pressing (although it still probably sounds great).


More info that you'd ever need to know about these pressings:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/best-whos-next-on-vinyl.40098/



Why do you think the mix is mono?
 
Pappas3278 said:
I don't think it's MONO. But YOU mentioned that it was in your original post! Did I misinterpret something?
Click to expand...

Not sure who you're posting towards. My post was a reply to the OP, hence the quote. Your post looks to be a reply to me, as if I were the OP, which I'm not. This thread has gotten confusing. :D
 
OK, so question. I have this LP that is listed as "712889" no W in the dead wax. also has the date "8-13-71" in the dead wax as well. Made in England on Decca. What is it then? It is DL-79182. Just curious
 
dodog said:
Not sure who you're posting towards. My post was a reply to the OP, hence the quote. Your post looks to be a reply to me, as if I were the OP, which I'm not. This thread has gotten confusing. :D
Click to expand...

You're right! I confused you with the OP. My mistake.
 
I have the Polydor UK 1995 AAD CD release which sounds great to my ears,so I certainly wouldn't bother with the new remaster (unless I came across it second-hand for £1).
 
Dude111 said:
Well there is no seperation between the speakers,everything is heard in both...... And Usually MONO stuff sounds quite good..


I have heard STEREO STUFF so I know what it sounds like (Seperation)
Click to expand...

You've heard STEREO STUFF? Well, then I and everyone in the world stand corrected. This recording was done in MONO! :thumbsdn:
 
Dude111 said:
Well there is no seperation between the speakers,everything is heard in both...... And Usually MONO stuff sounds quite good..


I have heard STEREO STUFF so I know what it sounds like (Seperation)
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate a bit more?

There's the old-school Beatles Stereo (even some Velvet Underground) where you have hard left/right panning. Turn the balance knob to one side and you'll hear only guitar or vocals. Then there's stereo where you may have some panning, some shared information.

If it's truly mono, if you inverted the polarity on one speaker, shouldn't it mostly cancel out the sound if you stood between?
 
I'm totally confused....

I just have a plain-Jane US Decca version. Now I'm curious to see what the stereo separation sounds like. Haven't played it for a long time. :confused:
 
Just ordered the remastered version a couple days ago. Should be here by the weekend.

First bought the record in the late 70's. Wasn't happy with the sound. Pitched it.
Bought the CD when it first came out in 1984. Didnt' like it. Traded it in.

Hopefully the third time will be the charm.
 
Last edited:
jsisk said:
Just ordered the remastered version a couple days ago. Should be here by the weekend.

First bought the record in the late 70's. Wasn't happy with the sound. Pitched it.
Bought the CD when it first came out in 1984. Didnt' like it. Traded it in.

Hopefully the third time will be the charm.
Click to expand...
Some people don't like the remastered version claiming there's noise reduction and whatnot, but it's the only version on CD I find to sound good. I think you'll like it.

The '84 version has two masterings, I like neither.
 
SimplyOrange said:
Some people don't like the remastered version claiming there's noise reduction and whatnot, but it's the only version on CD I find to sound good. I think you'll like it.

The '84 version has two masterings, I like neither.
Click to expand...

Have you heard the Hoffman version?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom