I have the 1988 MCA CD of Who's Better Who's Best. I took a picture of the booklet. As an aside how do I insert a jpg from my hard drive? I took a picture but cannot post it. I am newish to this site and it does not seem intuitive. So I cannot show the CD. At any rate, it has nineteen tracks starting with My Generation, ending with Baba O'Riley. The disc itself says MFG BY CINRAM. I bought it soon after I got my first CD player. My Generation sounds really poor to me, from there track quality seems to improve. Is there a better compilation disc out there quality wise? I am not a hard core Who fan. The only other disc I have is Tommy 2013 and to my ears the quality there is pretty amazing by comparison.
You have to post your picture onto a picture hosting website (Facebook works), copy the picture's URL address, click the image icon on SHF and paste the address. As to the sound quality on the Canadian CD (I have the same pressing) it's variable, which is par for a lot of Who comps and it's probably better-sounding than most.
My Generation and a lot of other early Who records are just not very good fidelity recordings, no matter how well they're mastered. You just have to accept that and enjoy the music.
We have loads of Who threads here on the best digital versions. Often with compilations (not just for the Who), some songs sound better than others due to multiple tape sources being used. If you want a cheap compilation, look for our host's version of Meaty Beaty Big and Bouncy. You could also try The Who Hits 50, which some people like. I've not heard the particular disc you're talking about, but the above comps might be a better bet overall. If you want to host a picture, try Imgur.com
I'm gonna disagree here. Rough recordings of the day but a properly mastered and sourced version of that track in mono does not sound poor.
I have both Meaty Beaty Big And Bouncy and The Who Hits 50. The former is the classic Who comp with mastering by our host but some of the sources are not the best due to time constraints. The latter is very good but it has a mono "I'm A Boy" where Who's Better Who's Best has it in stereo. None are perfect. Agreed about the sources.
Possibly, depends on what you mean. '65 era Who sounds great when the proper sources and mastering are used despite the rough recording. If it's a poor source, or garbage fake stereo, latter stereo remixes, etc. then it will not sound good. If people are expecting a 3 track recording originally mixed in mono to sound the same as an early to mid 70s recording made on more advanced multi-track gear and mixed to stereo - well, it doesn't work that way.
This compilation came out before agreement was reached with Shel Talmy and access was gained to the masters of the Brunswick material, which resulted in serious improvement to sound (this happened after the ‘Maximum R&B’ box, where the High Numbers stuff sounds better than the early Who).
Yeah, I would give qualified agreement to @patient_ot ’s comments above. Some of the early mono tracks do sound good. But some do not. I would put “My Generation” in the latter category. From memory I think “I Can’t Explain” sounds pretty great. I should probably take a disciplined approach and determine the exact ratio of good to bad (and how many songs I have actually heard in original mono mixes), so I know which way to generalize For the record I have heard “My Generation” on the original US Decca Meaty Beaty lp, the original Meaty Beaty cd mastered by Our Host, and the Classic Records reissue My Generation lp.
I think the sound quality or lack thereof has more to do with Shel Talmy’s technical ability, the machine itself, maybe the tape itself, and the studio. Plenty of good sounding records were made on 3 tracks, just not this one.
I find that the early Beatles and Beach Boys recordings sound quite good, as do some recordings from the 50's. The early Who just don't sound like they were recorded as well. Still, mastering and using a good tape source definitely matters, whether you have a rough recording or a pristine one.
Yes, My Generation was and will always be a bit rough sonically but isn't that one of the reasons we love it? It's a renowned rock classic that still kicks some butt when blasted out! Give us the original unfutzed mono mix and its PERFECTION to me - its the whole package, the vibe, energy, mayhem, sonics all colliding in a piece of pure magic. I think a lot of Talmy produced Kinks material sounds worse but... we still play and enjoy them for what they are.
I have a 1988 pressing and it’s about average sound quality. I don’t want it cleaned up too much, I like the grime.
"I Can't Explain" why someone would be up at 2 comparing Who ceedees for a CD-R! 1st ever "WBWB" ceedee for me ['88 US MCA MCAD-8031] purchased yesterday. This is exactly why ceedee won me over immediately [same year '88]. No pops, clicks, nor skips; certainly not as 'rich' as analog can be, though detailed & clear IMO. However, the same cuts on Steve's "MBB&B" '85 Japan smooth case MCA MCAD-37001, are the proverbial audiophile's "removing the vail" overused saying in direct comparison. [only using headphone out on a TEAC CD-RW890 MK II (improved DAC from the 1st version) via Massdrop (at the time/now Drop) HiFiMan HE-4XX so... YMMV] If guessing the general sonic difference [not comparing specific mixes], it would would be compression. Steve's "MBB&B" appearing to be less compressed/more open than "WBWB". Still like the overall presentation of the recordings [just my opinion] of "WBWB". Predict it would sound "good/OK" on a lot of systems. Especially, as background playback during an activity other than critical listening or in a listening environment with a lot of background noise [i.e. a vehicle]. "WBWB" v '85 Japan smooth case MCA MCAD-37003 "WAY" [title]; with "WAY" [track] on "WBWB" SQ not lacking at all [would never profess remembering how it sounded back-in-the-day '78/different source-system-room-ears-drugs]. This is tougher, the "WAY" release is subtle, can not completely disregard the volume variation though. The "WAY" release is 'warmer', so the overall presentation is more appealing. Though the "MBB&B" 'rocks' more. "MBB&B" v '84 US MCA MCAD-37217 "WN" "Won't Get Fooled Again"; the 1st few notes are clearly more atmospheric on Steve's "WN", though IMO when the the vocals kick in "WBWB" is less congested. This is one of the most atmospheric "Rock" albums ever IMO, so super tough to choose Steve's more detailed [especially with decay] & "MBB&B" more open ['relaxed'?] SQ. Since the CD-R is only a "Drive Disc" ™ may go with "WBWB" for this track [sacrilege!]. Glad finally got "WBWB" [enjoy the tracklist/always prefer being in chronological order though], even though it's nowhere near the ultimate SQ for The Who on CD. Time to start burning!
The mix is lacking (except Keith is almost always center in it thankfully!) but the fidelity is not, not to the extent implied, imo, on those Talmy 3 track recordings and as evidenced with the mixes to quasi-stereo. They were well enough recorded based on that, imo. The Japan 2012 2 CD MG set is also a better mastering of that much anticipated 1st remix to 'stereo' cd release. Sorry I still get fired up about this topic. I think the stereo try of 'I Don't Mind' mostly stinks all around in general but for the extended or full take included. The 2014 2nd stereo (re)mix is a different beast. It seems, distinctly to me fwiw that the approach to the sound of that stereo (re)mix was to try to closely resemble the sound, the tonality, of the mono mix, whenever possible. The Talmy 'stereo' remix was not like that. We know both mixes to 'stereo' have their issues for other reasons.
