Bob Dylan says modern music is worthless

[Kontiki]

Didn't Bob Dylan really say "mehhhh heehhhhheh meeehhhh hehhhhhh ehhhhh" and someone interpreted that as a slag against audio quality?

[Nostromo]

Reads to me like he's talking sound quality of CD's. So I'd say he has a point, old fart or not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. But I recently saw an interview with him and he was shadow of his former self. He seemed old, sad and bitter.

I'm a bit sceptical about the vinyl sounds intrinsically better than CD claim. Some people claim that its BS (see my 10 lies of audio thread), others are convinced that vinyl sounds better. More often than not, its a mastering problem, IMO. A well mastered CD will sound as good as a well mastered vinyl, IMO. Not to mention that you can't never fully get rid of the popcorn in a vinyl.

[Nostromo]

There are fluctuations in quality from track to track tha you can see in the results if ripping to VBR (variable bit rate).

You're comparing vinyl and CD's based on MP3s? That's a bit unfair, isn't it? You should compare a well mastered vinyl to a well mastered CD, or a lossless rip of that CD.

[SlowwHand]

An mp3 is based off the quality of a cd wav. How is it unfair?

[Verto]

Who gives a **** about Bob Dylan, anyway? Most of his songs were mediocre at best.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Let me get this Dylan who is hardly intelligible is going to lecture on clarity of the newest forms of audio.

[SlowwHand]

This isn't about Bob Damned Dylan. Can you follow the thought process here?

He's saying artists sound better in the studio than on CD. He's right. There's no discussion on that point.
The discussion is if cd is worse than some in the past.

[Dis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Reads to me like he's talking sound quality of CD's. So I'd say he has a point, old fart or not.

oh please don't tell me you are one of those people who prefer vinyl over CD.

[Dis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"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."


I think he's a fan of reel-to-reel; but no it doesn't say that.

HA! Beat you to it.

yeah we all know reel to reel has no background noise.

[Dis]

and I thought he was talking about modern music as in all the teeny pop music bands with all the synthasizer sounds.

[Nostromo]

An mp3 is based off the quality of a cd wav. How is it unfair?

If you want the exact same sound quality than a CD, use a lossless format like FLAC. Assuming it was ripped accurately (some rippers are better than others, EAC being the best), it should be the exact same thing.

But MP3 is a lossy format, so, depending on the compression used, sound quality will suffer. For example, if you compare vinyl to a CD ripped in MP3 @ 128 Kbps, it ain't a fair comparison. If you compare it to a CD ripped in MP3 @ 320 Kbps, its another matter. I probably couldn't tell
the difference from the original CD, but some people, with uber sound systems, claim they can.

[Dis]

ahh yes, that was you who posted that audio thread. Lots of good info in there, and I agree with that article.

People only like vinyl and analog tape for nostaligic reasons. They don't sound any better.

[SlowwHand]

Lame does the compression; and again, you can see the fluctuation in quality from song to song. The fluctuation is there in wav already, you just see it on compression.

[Dr Strangelove]

You know, there's a reason why the introduction of the CD spelled the doom of vinyl records and recorded cassettes within a matter of a few years - the quality of the sound eons better right out of the package. Everyone agreed at the time. People flocked to buy CD players. Record bins disappeared from music stores. Do you think this was because the new music media was of inferior quality? Do you think that people swarmed over the new little discs saying: "Hey, I want CDs, not records." "Yeah, CDs sound like ****. let's buy some." Is there any record of Bob disagreeing about his works being put out on CDs 25 years ago?

Let's face it, CDs last longer too. I have CDs that are over 20 years old, that I've played over and over during that period and they play like new. Audio tape deteriorates over time whether you play it or not unless you're willing to store it in a hermetically sealed inert environment. Records inevitably deteriorate every time you play them, and also degrade with age. This is not so with CDs so long as you treat them with respect.

[Sikander]

The big difference isn't really about formats, most agree that CD sounds better and is a more faithful reproduction of the sound than anything that came before it. The big difference is the way it is mixed. Recording engineers try to get the best mix for the equipment that is being used by the most people.

Back in the 1970s almost everyone had the same set up, a component stereo system with a turntable providing the best quality signal. They typically had 3-way speakers, or good quality headphones. Stereo equipment was relatively expensive, but it lasted forever and was of good quality.

Today there are a huge number of alternatives. MP3 players playing relatively low quality signal over low quality "ear bud" head phones, boom boxes, noisy computer speakers, 5.1 systems designed more for movie sound etc. Systems are relatively cheap in both price and quality. Speakers have improved massively in price efficiency, but not in sound quality on average.

The bottom line is that it is much harder to balance a recording so that it sounds decent on most of these types systems, which is the aim of record companies. Getting to an optimum mix for any particular type of system is impossible without writing off significant portions of the market. So I can believe that to someone like Bob Dylan who grew up in a different era where a certain ubiquity in equipment allowed a much more narrowly tailored mix would be dissappointed in many modern mixes. I often am as well.