Dylan says today's recordings sound ‘atrocious’

[yeahwho]

“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."

culled from a Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/11216877/the_modern_times_of_bob_dylan_a_legend_comes_to_gr ips_with_his_iconic_status/2) article via MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14467222/)

He does have a valid point, this is part of my love for bygone artist's such as Roy Orbison (the recording process captured and transferred the sound with quality in mind).

I have to agree grudgingly. You?

[Documad]

I still have to quarrel about Roy Orbison. I don't like lovely music that all sounds the same.

[The Notorious LOL]

yes because when Bob Dylan sings it sounds like angels dancing on a cloud :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

It's not a dig at any musicians, he say's even his sewer pipe vocals sound 10 times better in the studio (full toilet flush and all) it's a statement of the CD and technology in the world of iPods.

A degrading of sound for convenience, manufacturing, packaging and profit.

Of course I just recently purchased a turntable, I have to justify the cost. :p

[mickill]

I say no. For rock it may be true, to some degree, but musicians continue to challenge themselves just as much as they always have.

[yeahwho]

uh, er...it's not about musicians challenging themselves, oh nevermind.

durrrrrrrrr

[TurdBerglar]

most of the time the dynamic range is compressed now a days so that the music sounds good on shit sound systems or in car stereo systems that have to deal with a lot of outside sounds disturbing the music. this means that the bass is louder and the highend is lower which works well on a shit boom box but on a good stereo system that can reproduce the lows and highs well it will sound like shit.

[TAL]

Ah, so Spanishbomb808 was Dylan?

[mickill]

uh, er...it's not about musicians challenging themselves, oh nevermind.

durrrrrrrrr
I didn't actually read the first post. My fault.

Bob's right.

[Documad]

I get pretty depressed about how poor most music sounds. The more technology, the worse it gets.

Today, my cassette deck in my car died. So there's no way I can even play my ipod in the car anymore. I tried using the radio thing, but there's something bleeding over on every station in my city. Who buys those things??? And when the ipod did play, it sounded like shit.

[FunkyHiFi]

most of the time the dynamic range is compressed now a days so that the music sounds good on shit sound systems or in car stereo systems that have to deal with a lot of outside sounds disturbing the music. this means that the bass is louder and the highend is lower which works well on a shit boom box but on a good stereo system that can reproduce the lows and highs well it will sound like shit.
And 'bergler wins first place!

Plus add the fact that really low bitrate MP3s (say, under 120kbps) can have really crappy high frequencies, that static Dylan talked about is not his imagination.

To see the (looooong) article that really got people's attention about this issue, go here (http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C). This article also has about the best way to visually demonstrate what overcompression "sounds" like, eye-wise (when he says "louder" this is another way to say overcompressed):

WHY IS THE LOUDER IS BETTER APPROACH THE WRONG APPROACH? BECAUSE WHEN ALL OF THE SIGNAL IS AT THE MAXIMUM LEVEL, THEN THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE SIGNAL TO HAVE ANY PUNCH. THE WHOLE THING COMES SCREAMING AT YOU LIKE A MESSAGE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. AS WE ALL KNOW, WHEN YOU TYPE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS THERE ARE NO CUES TO HELP THE BRAIN MAKE SENSE OF THE SIGNAL, AND THE MIND TIRES QUICKLY OF TRYING TO PROCESS WHAT IS, BASICALLY, WHITE NOISE. LIKEWISE, A SIGNAL THAT JUST PEGS THE METERS CAUSES THE BRAIN TO REACT AS THOUGH IT IS BEING FED WHITE NOISE. WE SIMPLY FILTER IT OUT AND QUIT TRYING TO PROCESS IT.

I bet you couldn’t even finish reading that paragraph. Get the idea? If louder was really better, then all print media would be printed like the above paragraph.

After finding out about this recording style for newer music (and more and more older albums are being remastered this way too :( ), I realized that may be one of the reasons why so many people no longer want to buy a decent audio system anymore: if the music sounds like dog poo, why bother?

[TurdBerglar]

i would love to see a lot more use of dvd-audio

[FunkyHiFi]

I would like to see more dvd-audio also, in surround and stereo (not all music sounds right coming from 5.1 channels). But what's scary is overcompression can also be used on that hi-res ("high resolution") format. So far, severe overcompression has happened only rarely because the dvd-a labels know that most people who buy those discs won't put up with shitty sound. But I did happen to buy one of those few titles :( : Simple Minds' Once Upon A Time. This is basically a turn-it-up loud/"stadium anthem" type of 80s album so *some* overcompression would have been fine, but I can't listen to this disc at the same levels I can with other party-ish dvd-audios, like Crystal Method's Legion Of Boom (http://www.dts.com/entertainment/catalogue/music.php?upc=692860111691) or even Linkin Park's Reanimation - I'm not being whiny when I say it's like the music is almost drilling into my ears.

btw: you might know that the sacd format is dvd-audio's hi-res competitor, and most true-blue audiophiles think sacd sounds better (they also can't stand the visual part of dvd-audio discs). Many of them say sacd "breathes better" and sounds less grainy or harsh. This is almost exactly the words used for music that ISN'T overcompressed. Wellllllll, it turns out that the sacd format has a built-in protection system that prevents a recording engineer from using too much compression (I've also read of some other issues with sacd that might be artificially adding some sonic "goodness"). This little factoid came out last year in one of the numerous yelling matches that result when someone on a audio forum asks "Which sounds better, sacd or dvd-audio?"

[TurdBerglar]

well i only have a dvd-audio player with my sound card.

[Jitters]

I think most of the stuff that comes out today does sound horrible. I haven't bought an album released within this year, even if i wanted to I couldn't; music in general isn't as good as it use to be. (n)

So as much as I don't want to because of the sell out situation in the Victorias Secret ad I agree with Rob Zimmerman.................I mean Bob Dylan

[FunkyHiFi]

well i only have a dvd-audio player with my sound card.Sorry - I tend to ramble so my point wasn't very clear. :o

I also only own a dvd-audio player* because 1. I think the dvd-audio format sounds better & more faithfully shows what's on the original master tape (or hard drive for newer albums) and 2. the dvd-audio format has a lot more of the music I listen to. Right now there are only seven albums on sacd I would buy & in my present financial situation, that just isn't enough to justify buying an sacd player to hear them. And anyway, since dvd-audio discs always have either Dolby Digital and/or DTS tracks on them (what movie dvds use), I can listen to them on regular non-dvd-audio surround systems like for example at my buddy's house who has one of those $400(?) Toshiba all-in-one systems.

Sacd has about 3000 titles, but the large majority of them are classical & jazz. Dvd-audio has around 900 titles, evenly split between rock, pop and classical/jazz.


* a Pioneer DV-656A; they also sell a combination dvd-audio/sacd player for $130, the DV-588 (http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/v3/pg/product/details/0,,2076_310069745_236572701,00.html).

[FunkyHiFi]

I think most of the stuff that comes out today does sound horrible.Usually the vinyl version of a new album sounds better than the CD since because of the way the LP format works, you can't compress signals as much as on a CD or MP3. Also, traditionally speaking "vinylphiles" want better sound so the engineers don't usually master the vinyl version with overboosted bass and treble like so many newer CDs have.

[yeahwho]

Dylan may be dismissed as a has been old cranky bastard, but his brilliance has always been telling the truth in a concise "no way out" delivery.

His summary of the state of the music industry is point on.

I'm this boards biggest Dylan fan so I'll shut up now.

Still fucking blown away by his new song "Thunder on the Mountain" with the line, "I suck the milk out of a thousand cows"

SICK

[FunkyHiFi]

"I suck the milk out of a thousand cows"
O.K. I'm stumped. what does this mean?

[SwimFinFan]

I just heard that the Foo Fighters (acoustic) are opening for Dylan on some tour dates in October - does that mean they are exempt? ;)

[WhoMoi?]

yes because when Bob Dylan sings it sounds like angels dancing on a cloud :rolleyes:

(y)


and


Ah, so Spanishbomb808 was Dylan?

(y)

[yeahwho]

Is it just me? Are most people missing the point here? I mean don't get me wrong, I think it's funny as all get out. Kind of like the true test of comprehension and message board user's. He's not attacking musicians from the past 20 years. I think the last time Bob picked on any muscian is when he penned "Tweeter and the Monkeyman" for the Traveling Wilbury's.

From the National Ledger, (one of thousands of media outlets reporting on Bob's mumbles)

The last chuckle to be had from this minor yet interesting claim is from Dylan, and those who have followed his career as of late understand he is simply blowing smoke. He is the host of a brilliant XM radio show that spotlights classic songs based on a different theme each week. His albums sell at “Starbucks,” and he is a clever manipulator of his legendary image. Bob Dylan is comfortably, squarely in the 21st century, but he remains secure and knowledgeable enough to remind us that digital sound simply cannot replicate the beauty of a record album.

[Tzar]

there's too many 'artists' out at the moment who use their image as the reason why their sound is shit. they sound horrible and make shithouse songs, know it, so decide to make their visual image as 'alternative' and outragous as possible to say 'well i'm different and make different music - just look at me!'

[FunkyHiFi]

Someone made an excellent non-technical, 2 minute video that explains - via sight and sound - why so many recordings the past 5 years or so sound so lame/blah/etc and literally have no life to them:

The Loudness War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ)

This issue may seem trivial but apply this to your own music for the entire track, for the entire album and possibly for your entire music collection. Then you'll see why so many engineers and musicians are getting upset with this recording decision, usually made by clueless label accountants and CEOs simply for *marketing* purposes. :mad:

This use of what's technically called overcompression during recording or mastering is almost the exact equivalent of using those certain drugs that help calm down people with A.D.D.: sure it keeps them from being hyper, but in many cases it also turns them into zombies, with no highs OR lows i.e. they just kind of.........exist. :( But real life, like most good music, is full of ups and downs.

Hopefully Paul McCartney won't mind his little bit of music being used. Speaking of that, I wondered why the producer of this video didn't use something newer so more people could better relate to this destructive practice.........then realized that nearly all modern popular CDs have already been ruined so he HAD to use this track from 1989.

btw: I'm starting to realize possibly why so many people lately have no interest in a decent sound system: with these modern types of CDs (or downloads), a $500 component system, other than getting louder, will probably not sound any better than a $60 boombox from Target. :(

[yeahwho]

btw: I'm starting to realize possibly why so many people lately have no interest in a decent sound system: with these modern types of CDs (or downloads), a $500 component system, other than getting louder, will probably not sound any better than a $60 boombox from Target. :(

I bought a 4 gig Samsung MP3 player last night and it sounds fantastic just strolling around town or plugged into my car's stereo, but once I plug it into my home audio system it turns to garbage. The actual quiet of my house exposes just what your link displays. Plus the stereo separation seems exaggerated for some reason, like it was chopped in two, just not a very natural flow to it.

Once again your all over it, I've learned more about digital recording from you that all the other sources I've read. FunkyHiFi is in da house. :D

[FunkyHiFi]

:blushes: Thanks.

And this really isn't just an issue of sound quality, it is more an issue of musical integrity because this practice literally can suck the life out of the music itself:

along with the drums/guitar/keyboards/etc if the lead singer came to part of his lyrics where he wants to really belt it out (Henry Rollins anyone?), all WE will hear from the finished CD is his voice possibly getting rougher from yelling......but it will stay at the same volume level as when he was just "speaking" and we'll never know how *truly* pissed he was at that point in the song. So unless the engineer makes an exception for those particular parts the emotion of the music can be really negatively affected.

btw: I really do think MP3 players are great for when you can't listen in a comfortable/quiet place like home, dorm room etc.

btw2: Apple is suppsoedly coming out with a cell phone/music player early next year.

[FunkyHiFi]

A thread back from the dead (check out that last sentence in my post above - yep that phone/player thingy ended up being pretty successful :)).

Anyway, the link to the following site w/samples was posted on another forum where analog tape degradation was being discussed, and the owner of this site wanted to demonstrate that:

1) decades-old tape can survive a loooooong time

2) decades-old tape can still sound very good

http://web.mac.com/mlutthans/iWeb/Site%2052/ZD28%201.html

The music was recorded in 1958 by Nat King Cole, on equipment that used vacuum tubes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube) and especially, music that was not overcompressed.

These recordings sound great: very open, relaxed and organic. (y)

It will help to use half-way decent computer speakers or headphones to listen to these samples - really inexpensive ones won't allow the music to come alive.

FYI: the samples use the .wav format, not a lossy format like AAC or MP3, so they are really large files so if you're on dial-up they may take a long time to load.

[TurdBerglar]

something is really wrong when albums recorded in the 70's sound better then the large majority of shit released today. most people are completely unaware that cd's can sound much better and have no problem with how badly they've become compressed.


sabbath bloody sabbath is a great example. the album is so heavy, loud, big and densely layered. recorded by a bunch of guys high out of their minds... on equipment that's now considered antiquated. it blows away just about any current major recording. and a rare example when a major label remaster actually sounds great.

if it were recorded today it would probably sound like death magnetic. a horrible fizzy static mess with no definition. you wouldn't be able to hear all the dense layers. all the other instruments mixed into that album would be hidden behind the fizzy static.

[Tzar]

do not remember typing that post up at all. i sound like a pretenious wanker.

[Bob]

Bob's right.

thank you!

[FunkyHiFi]

Just wanted to add that compression itself is not inherently evil, because X amount of compression can be very useful to bring out certain sonic details of an instrument, including vocals, to make sure they are audible in the mix and don't get lost among the rest of the band/orchestra/etc.

Also, compression can be used as an artistic tool to create a certain vibe in a recording, say to give it more of an energetic or tense feel.

Compression is only bad if it is abused and that knob is turned up so high that all the life is sucked out of the recording, which in my experience also results in the recording becoming physically difficult to listen to. :(

Several organizations have formed to educate people on this issue, here's one of them:

turnmeup.org (http://www.turnmeup.org/)

"Turn me up" refers to the fact that with a properly compressed recording, the user can play it at much higher volume levels without the nasty issues I mentioned above; also because it shouldn't be the studio engineer or label exec who decides how loud a recording is, instead the user should make that choice for himself (overcompressed recordings seem to sound loud at pretty much any volume setting :mad:).

[Brother McDuff]

a few thoughts:

a) i hate people who listen to music off their phones. not on headphones, on that shitty little speaker. drives me mad.

b) most people are so used to mp3s now that they dont even realize when they're listening to shitty quality. they're ued to it.

c) saying that there's no good sound quality anymore is like saying there's no good music being made anymore. its a bogus statement. sure, if you're only listening to the radio and whatever's pushed in your face, yeah, i could imagine a meek outlook. but its out there, you just need to find it. (btw, i know most heads in this thread did not deny this, but there were a couple statements alluding that there just isn't any good stuff at all any more, sonically or musically).

d) there are more shitty musicians getting signed these days too for marketing purposes, therefore more mediocre players who lack the necessary dynamics to make a nice sounding record. therefore compression is becomes almost a must to smooth out shoddy performances (and that is definitely not an excuse :o).

e) alot of poppier stuff (outside the rock realm) is just drowned in synthetic sounds, which are already manically compressed as it is, for they are synthetic. so a song layered in a whole bunch of keyboard patch sounds or whatnot is gonna already just sound flat. plus, when mastered, thos harsher frequencies are gonna really pop out. not to mention by the time that track is converted to mp3, yikes, look out.

f) Bob kinda has a point, but he's also a bitter old man, and he's also far beyond his years. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a whole grip of things he disagrees with now that are actually pretty cool, creative innovations in music. (btw, 'Modern Times' was the last recent Dylan record I heard, I think, and if I remember correctly it was surprising how great it sounded sonically).

g) Another thing to keep in mind is when he mentions the whole "sound all over" thing. Nowadays there are just dozens, sometimes hundreds, of tracks in a single song. Wherein back in Bob's days, they could only use 4, then 8, then 16, then 24, etc. tracks. In that case it's pretty easy to create definition, when you only have 4 tracks, or even 16 to fit into a mix. once again, this also isn't an excuse for shabby engineering, but its also something to keep in mind when someone, especially from his era, gets
critical on modern day gameplay.



sorry for ramblings. i'm a recording engineer by trade, so mind moves at a million mph when reading these threads, haha.

[JoLovesMCA]

a few thoughts:

a) i hate people who listen to music off their phones. not on headphones, on that shitty little speaker. drives me mad.

b) most people are so used to mp3s now that they dont even realize when they're listening to shitty quality. they're ued to it.

c) saying that there's no good sound quality anymore is like saying there's no good music being made anymore. its a bogus statement. sure, if you're only listening to the radio and whatever's pushed in your face, yeah, i could imagine a meek outlook. but its out there, you just need to find it. (btw, i know most heads in this thread did not deny this, but there were a couple statements alluding that there just isn't any good stuff at all any more, sonically or musically).

d) there are more shitty musicians getting signed these days too for marketing purposes, therefore more mediocre players who lack the necessary dynamics to make a nice sounding record. therefore compression is becomes almost a must to smooth out shoddy performances (and that is definitely not an excuse :o).

e) alot of poppier stuff (outside the rock realm) is just drowned in synthetic sounds, which are already manically compressed as it is, for they are synthetic. so a song layered in a whole bunch of keyboard patch sounds or whatnot is gonna already just sound flat. plus, when mastered, thos harsher frequencies are gonna really pop out. not to mention by the time that track is converted to mp3, yikes, look out.

f) Bob kinda has a point, but he's also a bitter old man, and he's also far beyond his years. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a whole grip of things he disagrees with now that are actually pretty cool, creative innovations in music. (btw, 'Modern Times' was the last recent Dylan record I heard, I think, and if I remember correctly it was surprising how great it sounded sonically).

g) Another thing to keep in mind is when he mentions the whole "sound all over" thing. Nowadays there are just dozens, sometimes hundreds, of tracks in a single song. Wherein back in Bob's days, they could only use 4, then 8, then 16, then 24, etc. tracks. In that case it's pretty easy to create definition, when you only have 4 tracks, or even 16 to fit into a mix. once again, this also isn't an excuse for shabby engineering, but its also something to keep in mind when someone, especially from his era, gets
critical on modern day gameplay.



sorry for ramblings. i'm a recording engineer by trade, so mind moves at a million mph when reading these threads, haha.


See honestly I have been saying a lot lately that music sucks these days but you are right you can find good tunes if you SEEK it! But you see for me BEFORE this past decade I could put on the radio and hear a lot of songs that I really liked… Now when I turn it on (Which is almost never because I stopped listening to the radio) its all just beats and voice manipulations. I could name dozens of singers from pop to rock back in the 90’s, 80’s, 70’s and so on and they all had massive talent vocally and I don’t think we have that anymore. I mean if reality TV stars are getting record deals that tells me the music industry has been HACKED. And not even the vocals but the musical aspect too. No creativity and plus I was just talking about how a lot of songs back in the day had nice guitar or sax solos or you could hear a variety of instruments in one song. I am thankful for youtube and other outlets online that allow me to search and find good music but it is a shame those real talented folks are so underground and struggling all because they didn’t get into a cat fight on TV.

[Brother McDuff]

See honestly I have been saying a lot lately that music sucks these days but you are right you can find good tunes if you SEEK it! But you see for me BEFORE this past decade I could put on the radio and hear a lot of songs that I really liked… Now when I turn it on (Which is almost never because I stopped listening to the radio) its all just beats and voice manipulations. I could name dozens of singers from pop to rock back in the 90’s, 80’s, 70’s and so on and they all had massive talent vocally and I don’t think we have that anymore. I mean if reality TV stars are getting record deals that tells me the music industry has been HACKED. And not even the vocals but the musical aspect too. No creativity and plus I was just talking about how a lot of songs back in the day had nice guitar or sax solos or you could hear a variety of instruments in one song. I am thankful for youtube and other outlets online that allow me to search and find good music but it is a shame those real talented folks are so underground and struggling all because they didn’t get into a cat fight on TV.

well, I think the point is that one shouldn't have to be spoon-fed music. sure, it's always a bummer when a far better talent is given the shaft for some bullshit in the name of marketing, there's no doubt about that. but in the same vain, while there's more crap out there than ever (on the radio especially), the volume of intriguing music has increased as well (though not on the radio). more people making music equals more garbage, but it also equals more good music too. especially in an era where music is more or less free, no one should be complaining when they have to put forth a little effort to find the music that speaks to them. besides, with the volume of music and genres these days, one is more than ever able to find bands that are more and more narrowed down to their own specific taste, beyond the generality of simply genre even. unfortunately, though, if you're set on your favorite artist's name in lights, well, I wouldn't hold my breath.

there's so much good shit out there, new and old to be discovered. as long as people need to express themselves, there will be substantial music to enjoy.

and suffice to say, people will always need to express themselves.

[JoLovesMCA]

You have good points @Brother McDuff... I mean I am always looking for something new. I just don't like the over hype exposure and how fast people move on to the next big thing. That's me though. I don't know I was discussing this with my friend last night and she said there is an actual term for people like me and it's called a Music Snob! I didn't know how to take that lol. I guess I am one in a lot of ways but at the same time I do like some modern artists/bands. But hey I can't be too crazy if even the late Teena Marie herself said that musical talent is far less than back in her days and you really have to filter to find the good stuff. :rolleyes:

[FunkyHiFi]

a few thoughts..............Thanks for those informative thoughts! (y)