Wendell, I totally agree with you. The term "hero" is most often overused. Everbodies a hero now days. I listen to Mordern Times on a good Hi-Fi and the album just sounds right to me. Every aspect. Would you be more comfortable if I said the album is a "classic"? Classic means that over time it maintaned it's impact. I think this music will hold up over the years to come. |
Wendell,
Just compare Modern Times to Bob Dylan's "Oh Mercy", for example, take the track "Man in the Long Black Cold" and hopefully it will become clear what I mean about compression. I find Dylan's voice is uniformly loud clear and monotonous on Modern Times...sounds like compression but it might be bad miking....of course it may likely be an intentional "effect" rather than a mistake and some people may prefer it....to me it lacks dynamics of real music.
(There are often two points of view; Daniel Lanois messed up U2 sound IMHO but he was also praised for the sound "style" by many. So we may disagree simply due to preferences) |
Shadorne,
If I'm not mistaken you're a digital only guy so the assumption here is your source is a cd. I've not heard the digital release so I cannot speak to its' sonics. However, like Narrod I have the vinyl. In my system it does not display any of the characteristics you describe. I'd like to hear the digital release for comparison's sake. |
The Mp3 CD copy I listened to first sounded flat and lifeless, that's why I bought the album. It rings true, I find that to be the norm. |
"Classic"? I don't know. Time will tell. Compression? I don't hear it. I have both the LP and CD but have only listened to it in my car.
-Wendell |
Audiofeil,
You are right I am referring to CD and you may be right. The CD may be compressed mnore than vinyl ...another victim of loudness wars... |
Just to add to the music debate.
I'm on one mailing list of long term Dylan fans nearly all European.
The reaction to the album has been quite muted (more negative than how I view it).
I think the concensous amongst the Bobcats (for want of a better phrase)is that it contains three excellent songs (NM,WMB#2,AT) and a fair share of ordinary songs.
A lot of then struggle with the Jazz shuffle material (which I don't).
Finally there is a very common conclusion that there is a flatness to the record but there is much debate about how to define that-some think it's the predictability of the music,others the production or finally the arrangements. |
Ben, haven't you figuered it out by now??? America doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. |
Wendell,
If you happen to get a chance to compare the two directly through the same system - do let us know...
BTW I like Dylan too - just not pleased with the quality of this CD - that is all. |
I just got the LP today. Have got through sides 1-3, haven't done side 4 yet. I think it would be a stretch to call it a "masterpiece" and I definitely have to listen more. There is a "flatness", sound wise, to the record that Ben describes above, without a doubt. I'd bet a lot of money the original master is digital not analog. While it sounds reasonable, I think it could've sounded much better with a bit more care in the studio. I find Bob's voice to be really miked hot on side 3 and think they should've dialed him down a bit. Then again, I've got a fairly big smudge and some scuffing on that side of the album (along with some problems on other sides including excessive label glue) which may be contributing to that but I doubt it. I like how Sony has a small blurb inside the record talking about the quality control etc. with their phone #. I'll be giving them a call but will probably just keep what I've got for fear that the replacement will be worse.
Bob taking writing credits for Rollin and Tumblin and Someday Baby is a bit of a joke. While he may have twisted a few words around on these ones, they are old blues songs that have been performed thousands of times. I like Bob, but he's really stretching it there. |
My feelings pretty much mirror Hdm's in regard to sonics. While it isn't a bad sounding LP per se, there is little doubt it spent significant time on a hard drive somewhere. While you can hear some pre-echo at the beginning of a few tunes, indicating the album was tracked to analog, Dylan's voice itself is more edgy than it ought to be, and seems cut from a different cloth than the instrumentation itself. I find the album to be musically very rewarding, and while I wouldn't place it in the category of "instant classic", it will, I believe, be upheld as one of the better Bob Dylan albums from the opus. I also agree about Columbia's QC - my LP too was smudged and had several grimey fingerprints along the lead-in grooves, and around the first tracks, as if the quality inspector had just finished a grilled cheese sandwich before setting about his task. However, the surface is quiet, the pressing is flat, and overall I'm rather pleased.
-R. |
Shadorne, as mentioned previously I've not heard the digital version. However, after hearing the vinyl many times, I understand your concerns better.
I guess it's routine to record the instrumental portions first and "dub" the vocal track afterwards. What I'm hearing, you call it compression or whatever, is a "mismatch" for lack of a better term between the instrumental track and the vocals. I do not have any technical recording experience to better explain what I hear but there is a clearly defined difference between the instrumentation and the vocals in this release. In most recordings they are "blended" or "mixed" to sound as if the vocals and instrumentation were performed simultaneously I believe. In this recording it is very apparent the vocals were added afterwards; at least with my analog front end:
Basis 2800 Signature
Basis Vector 3 w/VTA
Zyx UNIverse X LO
All of course IMO |
Audiofeil,
I agree with your description. The instruments have a far away kind of sound and the vocals are edgy. Whatever is the cause, I find it has the monotonous kind of sound of much of today's pop music, which lack dynamic range due to compression in order to sound loud.
It is hard to compare Dylan to other pop music (and unfair as he is such a legend) but I would contrast Modern Times with the Oh Mercy Dylan album where the sound has huge and impressive dynamics from very soft to loud. |
I do not think they were so inept as to master it poorly.
Everything was done for a reason and it is a MASTERPIECE. |
Imagine taken the scenic route through the beautiful mountains of Colorado and not being able to focus past the glass in the windsheild.... |
I suspect that if one were to hear this recording on a highly resolving system, the deficiency would be readily apparent.
Good luck gentlemen. |
Audiofeil, so what your trying to say is that if I had a better Hi-Fi set up I would agree with all the criticism of the mix quality? That it's my stereo that is at fault. Did you not get my metaphor posted above? As far as my system goes, we won't get into that here. This thread is about music. Please feel free to check it out on Audio Asylum listed as " My analog system" rfigster |
Dylan ain't Diana Krall, thank god. Modern Times vinyl sonics are at least as good as LAT and TOOM vinyl, which is good enough indeed.
Lyra Helikon
Graham 1.5tc
VPI TNT IV
BAT P10 |
I borrowed the digital version this weekend and played it through my Esoteric P-03/D-03/G-0s combination. I agree with Shadorne's previous assessment and my vinyl findings. The mix is flawed.
Thank you |
Dylan deliberately took control of the sonic production of Modern Times as he rebels against modern CD and digital - he may be a great artist but IMHO his sound engineering skills are not up to scratch of other pros. I guess his criticisms of CD and digital are also an indirect attack on Daniel Lanois who was behind the arty and atmospheric sound of TOOM and Oh Mercy (which were both very successful albums). |
How anybody could make the assumption that Dylan's comments were an indirect attack on Lanois is beyond me.
Why use Lanois again if he hated his sound so much?
Dylan also produced Love And Theft the album before MT; this is not a new approach for Dylan on Modern Times.
It was only a matter of time before this became a "sound quality" Audiophile pissing contest.
:-)
|
I echo Ben's sentiments. I have both the CD and the vinyl. The sound is certainly better on the LP. I only own the CD because my wife hates burned CD's. I don't give a rats ass if the mix is muddy or the LP was stored on a hard drive. The vinyl certainly sounds more musically compelling. I use a Rega P-25 with a new Denon 103. The performance is the main thing. If you desire better sonics then dig out your Diana Krall or Holly Cole lp's. |
I agree with Ben that it is a real stretch to to interpret any of Dylan's comments as a personal attack on Lanois.
Frankly, I like quite a bit of the performance on MT, but I'm not so sure that it is a "masterpiece". This, of course, is entirely subjective and we can argue this until the cows come home.
What is not subjective, in my opinion, is the sound quality, and, as far as I'm concerned (I have the vinyl), that's fair game both within the context of this thread and Dylan's recent comments about sound quality. When someone states that the "production" is masterful, that's simply a load of crap. It's a mediocre to slightly above mediocre sounding recording at best as much as I might like the performance; it doesn't mean I can't appreciate the performance (I've got lots of great music that's not particularly well recorded). But if Bob is going to complain that most recent music sounds crappy, he's going to be fair game when it comes to criticism of the sound quality, particularly if he's producing it himself. I don't see that as an audiophile pissing match, but maybe Ben is just pulling our legs.
There's no doubt in my mind that if Joe Harley at Audioquest had done this record it would have sounded a ton better. If that makes me a Diana Krall or Holly Cole lover, so be it. |
Hdm and Ben,
I agree with your criticisms, no doubt my guess went way too far. A better wording might be "An verbal attack on the way modern music sounds and at the same time to take control of the sound production suggests a certain dissatisfaction with what was done previously."
Anyone feel that the sound on the MT album is in anyway similar to the Johnny Cash sound? (not the voice just the way the instruments are mixed with the vocals...just a thought) |
Pretty much Dylan's whole output since John Wesley Harding has probably disapointed him to some extent with regards what he was able to capture in the studio.
He hates the studio and nearly always struggles there.
Indeed even Blood On The Tracks was recorded twice.
It's never been his thing....he even hated Sgt. Pepper for being overproduced. |
MMDV. I consider it a masterpiece. For certain.
|
