Home Theater Forum and Systems banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,514 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In this news report Bob says:

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Maybe Dylan is over-stating his point, but there is some truth to what he says in my opinion.

I find with modern recordings, that the soundstage is so locked into a central window that you don't get the raw feel that used to come when stereo was in its infancy. Maybe a lot of members here don't recall that far back, but I sure do. Perhaps stereo recording was a novelty that the recording engineers were experimenting with, but it just sounded more real 'back in the day'. Offtimes they use to direct specific instruments to a left speaker and another to the right and leave it locked there for the whole song. Yeah, you could localize the speaker, but it just seemed more real than this "definition of nothing" that Dylan speaks of......

Any thoughts?

brucek
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
571 Posts
Yeah, most recordings these days are optimized for boom boxes etc... very few that are mastered for accuracy/quality. There are some CD's I've purchased that I refuse to listen to they are so bad.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
606 Posts
"Modern music" includes more records than I can imagine, of vastly varying quality. But I'm sure that Bob Dylan was referring to most popular music which usually has all the life compressed out of it. Some of it is truly unlistenable. On the other hand, there are lots of amazing recordings out there too. But for me its similar to HDTV programming - the content that I want is usually not in hi-def. :(
 
G

·
In this news report Bob says:

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Maybe Dylan is over-stating his point, but there is some truth to what he says in my opinion.

brucek
I also find it hard to take this as "what Bob Dylan said" as he has be a very strong and positive force in music over the years that he has been on the scene.
Amongst other things, he has a talent of choosing great opening acts for his concerts - usually young and upcoming bands - obviously a different statement from the one above.
However the quality of recording now is completely different - and that is certainly not alway that good.
I recently read a blog that was talking about the rerecording of Sgt. Pepper for the 40th anniversary - all about difference in sound - then verses now - I thought that it was an amazing project and very interesting to compare sounds.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,054 Posts
I find with modern recordings, that the soundstage is so locked into a central window that you don't get the raw feel that used to come when stereo was in its infancy. Maybe a lot of members here don't recall that far back, but I sure do. Perhaps stereo recording was a novelty that the recording engineers were experimenting with, but it just sounded more real 'back in the day'. Offtimes they use to direct specific instruments to a left speaker and another to the right and leave it locked there for the whole song.
brucek
I think this is very true, Thats one of the reasons I listen to other types of music besides mainstream Pop. I think recordings have become flat and have no depth. Jazz for example really puts you in the room, the recordings are far more complex and "full" sounding. I have several recordings by Lee Ritenour and friends that are recorded in a large studio and even have a live small audience adding to the depth of the sound.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I find myself listening to older music just because most of the new stuff is garbage, imho. But, there are always exceptions, and some of the newer music is very good. I guess it all depends on the genre of music being listen too.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top