What's Spinning Tonight?
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
I'm playing the acoustic set now. Do you find this pressing has sibilance?
Well well well; it's been a while since the last time that I listened to this one.
1. This is a bootleg recording; so from a tape machine. ...And in 1966
2. Bob Dylan back then was selling himself, and his trademark was/still is his nose (nasal vocals), and his sharp harmonica!
3. The Rolling Stones was, and still is, raw rock-and-roll, and Bob had an idea ...
4. Bob's voice is over exaggerated (see #2), and that was his hook to get the youngs (girls and all).
5. Back then, in that hall, the mics weren't the best, and Bob wasn't a pro at distancing himself adequately from it (the mic).
6. You can easily hear the hall's reverberations (echoes). ...And the hall wasn't acoustically treated, as it washes as a wall of sounds.
7. Bob's harp playing could be quite sharp on occasions when he hits the high notes of that harp, and the distance from his harmonica to the mic wasn't always ideal. And Bob ain't a harp player in the real sense, but as an accompagnement, a supplement.
8. The clapping of the audience after each song is fuzzy, indistinct, totally 'un-live', unrealistic, and disconnected from the artist.
{But then, the mics weren't set either for that. ...Remember; it's a bootleg tape transfered to digital PCM, and also mastered on LPs.}
9. Depending of one's tweeters (made and material) from his loudspeakers, the "sibilance" (in particular from Disc 2) could be quite annoying!
10. Disc 1 is the acoustic part of the concert; and that's the one for me, which I much prefer, and without annoyance (or sibilance).
- Disc 2 is the electric part of the music concert; and it is awful! ...Yes, it's historic, but also irritating for the ears and annoying for the soul, way of speech.
And YES! ...It is "sibilant" to the extreme! ...If we agree about what sibilance means. ...In that regard of my understanding of the term, I'm with you.
* [I'm using a Rotel RCD-991 CD player, from its analog connection, with Pure Audio mode from my pre-pro; so no EQ and the DACs from my Rotel player (Burr-Brown PCM-63s in differential mode; one DAC per each channel), and no dither added, and the Pacific Microsonic PMD-100 digital filter. Plus the tweeters from my speakers are the butyl damped cotton fibres soft dome type (Super Hyperbolic Dome, multi-coated). And that's one of the main reasons why I picked my speakers in the first place; they are very smooth, and across the complete mid-high frequency band.
And, they also have decent extended bass down to 24Hz. ...No sub(s) were used during this listening session (of course not; I was in Pure Audio mode).]
______________
- So, here you go on what I think of this 1966 recording. ...From my ears, in my own room, from my own rig, right now today (I was taking notes as I was carefully listening at reference 'live' level), and its metamorphosis into digital PCM form from an analog bootleg tape of the time (forty-seven years ago).
And like I said; Disc 1 is brilliant (performance and sound quality for the circumstance of the time), and Disc 2 is historic, but "irritating" sound wise. ...Sibilant.
Last edited:
Remember too: I was mainly referring to the "Sound", and not the artistic poetry of Bob. ...And of that particular recording.
Because, after all, Bob Dylan is the artist which I own the most from my music collection;
among few others, like Van Morrison, and the rest of the gang...
Happy day! :b
Because, after all, Bob Dylan is the artist which I own the most from my music collection;
among few others, like Van Morrison, and the rest of the gang...
Happy day! :b
Similar threads
