I've had nearly 100 headphones since 2011, doing analysis with them. I've found that with a good parametric equalizer, merely fixing the colorations caused by sudden changes of volume from one frequency to the next usually makes a big difference to the soundstage. When I did a couple of minor adjustments to my wife's ATH ESW9a, she was amazed and exclaimed "You made the sound come alive". Very few headphone users know that those pesky little colorations that are fixable are contributing in a big way to the "constricted" sound that's frequently reported for closed headphones.

Michael, to paraphrase your question, you are asking "do you like sound staging realistic and better, like I can give you, or do you prefer inferior sound?"  I ain't falling for that. 

I've got an advanced modded Oppo 103 with the aftermarket Power Supply from OPPOMODS (the one with the big honking toroidal transformer) not to mention a slew of WA Quantum Chips and the Audio Magic Pulse Gen ZX installed.  In addition, I've isolated the Oppo printed circuit boards from vibration, damped the toroidal transformer and damped the capacitors, all of which are critical for any real shot at high definition and soundstage. The Woo Audio WA 6 headphone amp and Oppo 103 are isolated from structural vibration by platforms employing marble tiles and cryogenically treated high carbon miniature steel springs.  Viscoelastic damping is employed on the iso platforms to expunge any residual vibration from the top plate.  The Sennheiser HD600s have had their foam pads and metal grills removed, another absolute necessity.

cheers, Geoff Kait, Machina Dynamica

Michael Green wrote,

"Hi Geoff, How do you like the HP stage as compared to your room stage? Are there things that crossover placement wise, or do the two types of stages sound completely different to you?"

There is no doubt that speakers, when I had them, are much more capable soundstage-wise than headphones; that's certainly one of the big challenges with headphones - to get as big and open and transparent and "realistic" a soundstage as possible.  But I wouldn't say I was trying to get the soundstage my speakers, which were Fultons, had.

Geoff

machina dynamica

I went from Fulton Nuances to Sennheiser HD600s six years ago and never looked back.  I am currently using very modded Oppo 193, Woo Audio WA6 headphone amp, all cabling cryo'd and broken in on the Audiodharma Cable Cooker.  Tubes are '52 Sylvania 6SN7GT and '42 Tung Sol 5U4G rectifier.

Geoff @ Machina Dynamica

 Michael wrote,

"As far as space goes how do you see the classical recordings with your phones? How would you layout the stage? How big too?"

Funny you you should ask that question since I bought the new box set of Mercury Living Presence CDs last year, actually it's been a little more than a year ago, expecting to hear how the new reissues might vary in SQ from the original reissues from back in the 90s, but as I have gotten kind of caught up in the whole tweaking and modding thing, what with the new Oppo and WAs, and have been using a selection of old favorites to gauge how I'm progressing, things more in a popular or rock vein, I haven't gotten around to cracking open the Mercury Box set yet.  I think it's fair to say unless they really blew it on the new reissues, the soundstage of the Mercurys should be terrific.  I used to be a rabid collector of Mercury and RCA LPs.  Hopefully whoever did the production made sure they were in correct polarity.  Lol. But I suspect I will finally crack open the Mercury box set soon.

Cheers, g. kait, Machina Dynamica

Interesting thread, funny enough I also just shifted to incorporating headphones into my listening world. I realized as I was looking at various products to upgrade to that I need a definitive reference that I could trust. I personally found that in a pair of Beyerdynamics T1 recording headphones (driven either by a balanced headphone amp or my sim audio front end for the stereo. To me, these became my new reference to judge things by.

Its funny, I found using the headphones I was able to adjust the placement of my speakers to improve the sound since I knew what it was supposed to sound like in minutes rather than hours.

Also the headphone buying experience was much more pleasant than what I'm used to in a speaker world. I essentially listened to every Beyerdyanmic headphone in the line up before I got to their reference model (t1) and the only way to describe each step is the sound became more accurate and cleaner but at no point did a pair sound bad. I contrast this to speakers where some of the entry level speakers in a series really just feel thrown together.

Back to the original post, I think a good stereo system should have a soundstage as wide as a pair of headphones and should come from in front but also feel to wrap around you when the instruments are heavily paned to the left or right

I highly recommend the following accessories and mods for the headphone enthusiast.

1. NOS tubes
2. Herbies tube dampers
3. Isolating both the source component and the headphone amp.
4. Cryogenically treating all cabling including the headphone cable.
5. Isolate the circuit boards of all components with pure cork shims.
6. Cover all transformers with annealed mu metal.
7. Cover the tops of all semiconductor chips with 3M's AB5100S RFI/EMI absorbing material.
8. For Sennheiser HD600s be sure to remove the grills and foam pads inside.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I have separate headphone and speaker set up. The headphones are HD800s.

Like Geoff, I have used the headphone sound to try and get the same detail on my speakers, in particular percussion. For example, on Emmylou Harris's 'Every Grain of Sand' (from Wrecking Ball) there is a chorus with some nice rhythmic percussion detail. I never heard it with my speakers. In fact the tweeters produced the sound but it didn't get to my ears. It was very difficult to make various adjustments - speaker and listening position, an equaliser - to get this sound without making some sounds harsh (notably some female voices).

On the subject of soundstages, I've never heard a headphone with one that goes beyond the 'phones. Apparently something like the Smyth Realiser can do this, supposedly tuning it to your speaker system. The nearest I got to a headphone listening experience with speakers was when I experimented with 'The Thirds' set up (speakers and ears one third of each rooms dimension out from their respective walls. Unfortunately I never got to like that arrangement as I found too many recording anomalies that spoiled things. Now I have it seems more a less a 'Fifths' arrangement. With this I get the 2D soundstage but if I turn it up louder it seems to surround me more. I can't really do that as I live in a flat (apartment).

Interesting point on soundstage and depth with headphones. TBH would like people to jump in, but when listening to headphones you are fundamentally listening different than you would on a pair of speakers, this is why very few audio engineers will use headphones for anything more than a check. Here is the difference, when listening on your speakers a sound on only the right speaker is heard by both your right and left ear (delayed) while on the headphone it is only heard on the right (which is a bit unnatural).

The effect of this produced a noticeable difference in the representation of sound compared to the speaker. My guess is this is why your not getting that 3d sound since our brains use the time difference (between right ear and left ear) to figure out where the sound is coming from.

Given the above, I find it hard to believe that better headphones will have any effect give part of the issues is the way we hear sound.

With that said, there are some recording amp for headphones that are designed to be used in a studio that emulate this delay (its known as cross feed). SPL is a very popular brand that incorporates an elaborate cross feed system so you can potentially mix on them. I'm not saying this is better than any other amp, just designed for a different purpose

audiophile2000 wrote:

Interesting point on soundstage and depth with headphones. TBH would like people to jump in, but when listening to headphones you are fundamentally listening different than you would on a pair of speakers, this is why very few audio engineers will use headphones for anything more than a check. Here is the difference, when listening on your speakers a sound on only the right speaker is heard by both your right and left ear (delayed) while on the headphone it is only heard on the right (which is a bit unnatural).

The effect of this produced a noticeable difference in the representation of sound compared to the speaker. My guess is this is why your not getting that 3d sound since our brains use the time difference (between right ear and left ear) to figure out where the sound is coming from.

Given the above, I find it hard to believe that better headphones will have any effect give part of the issues is the way we hear sound.

With that said, there are some recording amp for headphones that are designed to be used in a studio that emulate this delay (its known as cross feed). SPL is a very popular brand that incorporates an elaborate cross feed system so you can potentially mix on them. I'm not saying this is better than any other amp, just designed for a different purpose

For,Sennheiser HD600s, at least, a few tricks of the trade relative to obtaining a more open and detailed sound and deeper and more transparent soundstage are (1) remove the metal grills, (2) remove the foam pads found inside after you remove the grills, and get an aftermarket headphone cable as the one they give you sucks.

Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I'm aware of the principle of crossfeed. I have a Headroom Blockhead which employs this. The effect is difficult to detect though.

I always find it odd that some headphone amp designers think we should use this crossfeed yet proponents of Ambiophonics introduce a screen or software to prevent speaker crosstalk.

I had the HD650s (I've not heard the HD600s). HD800s are a vast improvement to me. Firstly they are bigger so completely cover the ears instead of squashing them. That may well have some impact on what we hear as well as comfort. However they are just more open/airy then the HD650s. I too have an after market cable for the HD800s, from Toxic cables. I also use the balanced outputs of the Blockhead (I have to say that I got very respectable sound with the HD800s, original cable and the headphone output of the TEAC UD-h01 DAC).

I use cans very rarely and usually for referencing something. They make me feel captive and I need the open space of an environment to relax and enjoy music. While I certainly appreciate their virtues, I need the relative realism of the stage in front of me as opposed to being in the stage or fatigue will quickly settle in. The only ones I can even tolerate for more than 15 minutes or so are open back/over the entire ear designs. I guess it's more a matter of the stage perspective being somewhat laid-back as opposed to immersed within in it.

I'm kinda curious if you guys that enjoy cans also prefer a more forward perspective with your room rig or if you gravitate toward a laid-back perspective from your gear combination? You know, the vocal image far behind the speakers or more toward being between the speakers or even projected?

Did any of you ever hear of binaural recordings? And it's not just that, it's the fact that headphone/speaker mixes have been common for many years, especially recent years where headphones are the dominant listening medium. This entire thread is mostly negative as to headphone listening, and on a headphone forum I see that as suspicious.

I don't think anyone here is saying you can't listen on headphones, just that it is fundamentally different than listening on loudspeakers.

you post is interesting with the addition of biaural recordings, which basically references the cross talk discussion above, biaural recordings are basically using a dummy head and a microphone for each ear to account for the inter aural time differences that is associated with how we hear (a sound on the right is actually heard by both ears (just not at the same level or time due to the distance to reach the other ear).

Basically this method builds the cross talk into the recording so it should be all accounts sound amazing on headphones but would sound bad on a pair of speakers.

this point also highlights that while listening to a pair of headphones for a traditional recording will be different due to the above. Not saying its better but different. Will not the above reason is the fundamental reason why its hard to mix on headphones. Some amps employ cross talk functions, which can give you more of a speaker

I believe that with headphones the primary objective should be Transparency rather than Soundstage; the reason I say this is because - for most headphones including mine - the stereo image is presented inside the head. What can move the presentation more outside the head is an ALL OUT EFFORT to reduce distortion and noise, thereby improving transparency (as well as overall SQ). And a lot depends on how the music was recorded, in a studio with overdubs or live in the studio or live in an auditorium as to how it will sound on headphones. On some recordings it's easy to visualize the musicians out in front just like on speaker systems, well almost. As I've mentioned before soundstaging is not necessarily the raison d'être for headphones, it's the purity, the lack of distortion, the dynamics and extension. And the TRANSPARENCY.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

In a serious discussion of headphone soundstage, I think you need to do a lot more investigation into how much things like frequency response impact on soundstage. I noted such early in this discussion, but I think it's being ignored as though the typical "inside-the-head" etc. experience were really the bigger picture. If you wanted to restrict the discussion to upper price ranges only, or to headphones having "premium audiophile" reputations only, you might have a clearer case for focusing on the classic issue of that "inside-the-head" experience or whatever it is. But today's headphone market is way different from the 1990's when Sennheiser was leading the charge with the HD580, 600, and 650 (first version). Today we have lifestyle headphones of all kinds, whose frequency response is so wildly variable that soundstage is a minor issue with those. In today's headphone market even the greatly revered Sennheiser HD800 is considered too "technical" or "clinical" to be satisfactory for long-term use for a variety of music. That's not a few fringe reviewers stating that - it's Innerfidelity - the replacement for this forum recommended by Stereophile. Perhaps some qualifications or stipulations about which example headphones, and used for what purposes, would make this discussion clearer.

dalethorn wrote:

In a serious discussion of headphone soundstage, I think you need to do a lot more investigation into how much things like frequency response impact on soundstage. I noted such early in this discussion, but I think it's being ignored as though the typical "inside-the-head" etc. experience were really the bigger picture. If you wanted to restrict the discussion to upper price ranges only, or to headphones having "premium audiophile" reputations only, you might have a clearer case for focusing on the classic issue of that "inside-the-head" experience or whatever it is. But today's headphone market is way different from the 1990's when Sennheiser was leading the charge with the HD580, 600, and 650 (first version). Today we have lifestyle headphones of all kinds, whose frequency response is so wildly variable that soundstage is a minor issue with those. In today's headphone market even the greatly revered Sennheiser HD800 is considered too "technical" or "clinical" to be satisfactory for long-term use for a variety of music. That's not a few fringe reviewers stating that - it's Innerfidelity - the replacement for this forum recommended by Stereophile. Perhaps some qualifications or stipulations about which example headphones, and used for what purposes, would make this discussion clearer.

I think it best to take what anyone says, especially someone I don't know, with a grain of salt. If you look hard enough you can always find someone whose opinion jives with yours. As for the HD800s I can read as well as the next person and there are both detractors and supporters. Many actually find the 600s better all around so I wouldn't use so quick to discount older technology. That's a dangerous sport in this hobby in general anyway. I also happen to think that there are a great many factors that determine how a pair of headphones sounds in a given system. If it isn't obvious already I don't believe much in plug and play or comparing X to Z without certain ground rules. For example, I think it's absolutely silly to compare cables unless all cables under comparison have been broken in on a competent cable cooker AND cryogenically treated. I also happen to think that Sennheiser HD600s MUST have their metal grills removed and the foam inside removed before making a judgement about their sound. I also am not a big fan of solid state electronics and have very specific tastes when it comes to electron tubes. There are many others things that influence the sound one hears through headphones, obviously. This makes it difficult IMHO to make categorical statements regarding dp frequency response, soundstage, transparency, resolution, dynamics, realism, etc. When you listen to your headphones you are really listening to your entire system, no? Finally, as I intimated on some other thread, we cannot automatically conclude from someone's words what he actually means when he describes the sound he's getting. Words can be quite tricky, hyperbolic and even misleading. I ask you, how many times do you hear audiophiles use words like tinny, threadbare, congealed, rolled off, bass shy, disembodied, generic, dull, cardboard like or wooly?

Bennett Marco: "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life." - Marco in The Manchurian Candidate

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

"Many actually find the 600s better all around so I wouldn't use so quick to discount older technology. That's a dangerous sport in this hobby in general anyway. I also happen to think that there are a great many factors that determine how a pair of headphones sounds in a given system. If it isn't obvious already I don't believe much in plug and play or comparing X to Z without certain ground rules. For example, I think it's absolutely silly to compare cables unless all cables under comparison have been broken in on a competent cable cooker AND cryogenically treated. I also happen to think that Sennheiser HD600s MUST have their metal grills removed and the foam inside removed before making a judgement about their sound."

You are on point about this - my point (perhaps poorly stated) is that the vast majority of headphone-philes that I know have gravitated away from the HD600 (even moreso when things are removed to increase transparency) and toward the deliberately-colored HD650 (newer version). That would be to service the new generations of users who want warmer, bassier, whatever.

I'll leave it to you to decide how much effect the HD650, or Beats etc. have on the world of hi-fi and the future of recordings or reissues of older recordings. I'd suggest that eventually the remasterings will be done by those who grew up on the new lifestyle headphones. I'm not an expert on sound or soundstage, but I've experienced what "simple" colorations can do to soundstage and musical realism, so the current design trends seem scary to me.

The news isn't necessarily all bad. Paul Barton's "room feel" technology for headphones doesn't impress me. The current AES head who runs the Harman headphones development has said some promising things. Philips has issued a colorations exercise for headphones that has been very popular, but I have doubts about it due to cancelation effects.

[quote=Hipper]
I always find it odd that some headphone amp designers think we should use this crossfeed yet proponents of Ambiophonics introduce a screen or software to prevent speaker crosstalk.

(quote)

Headphone designers sometimes offer "crossfeed" because phones have TOO MUCH ISOLATION.

Ambisonic modification for speakers is because "speakers have TOO LITTLE ISOLATION."

On the other hand Binaural recordings using a "dummy head with ear canals" and mics INSIDE the ears---will sound exceptionally correct soundstage wise on playback through headphones.

This is because there is a transfer function comb filtered time delay between left and right ears and the brain processes this to provide spatial information.

I have heard systems using Ambisonics (Meridian).

I have heard binaural headphone soundstages.

The latter is much preferred and all I want is a system that, using regular old fashioned stereo and mono recordings---will provide left-right transfer function timing information but using speakers, not headphones.

Let me say it one more time: All I want is a real soundstage in my room. Just like binaural headphones.

Anybody know how to do this?

Don't you think, given all of the better recordings available, that some achieve a great sense of realism and most don't? In other words, the recordings alone can do the trick, but most of the providers of those recordings aren't doing it, for whatever reason.

dalethorn wrote:

Don't you think, given all of the better recordings available, that some achieve a great sense of realism and most don't? In other words, the recordings alone can do the trick, but most of the providers of those recordings aren't doing it, for whatever reason.

Someone should publish a glosser of audio terms so that we all understand what all the audiophiles terms we throw around so nonchalantly actually mean. You know, words and terms like realism, musicality, soundstage, tonality, palpability, transparency, brightness, propulsive, air, openness, microdynamics, separation of instruments. One man's reality is another man's mid fidelity, no?

Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

geoffkait wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

Don't you think, given all of the better recordings available, that some achieve a great sense of realism and most don't? In other words, the recordings alone can do the trick, but most of the providers of those recordings aren't doing it, for whatever reason.

Someone should publish a glosser of audio terms so that we all understand what all the audiophiles terms we throw around so nonchalantly actually mean. You know, words and terms like realism, musicality, soundstage, tonality, palpability, transparency, brightness, propulsive, air, openness, microdynamics, separation of instruments. One man's reality is another man's mid fidelity, no?

Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

Somebody already did. He founded the very mag wherein you scribble.

His name was J Gordon Holt. He gave me one of the biggest compliments of my entire life (so far) when he said "YOU get it."

Sometimes I really wonder at how little research is pursued by the guys that occasionally spend a fortune on gear in our industry.

A little knowledge would go a long way towards helping the more money than brains guys get some decent results out of all the gear...

Read and LEARN:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/

And by the way, please teach ME something. A day without anything new learned is a day wasted...

geoffkait wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

Don't you think, given all of the better recordings available, that some achieve a great sense of realism and most don't? In other words, the recordings alone can do the trick, but most of the providers of those recordings aren't doing it, for whatever reason.

Someone should publish a glosser of audio terms so that we all understand what all the audiophiles terms we throw around so nonchalantly actually mean. You know, words and terms like realism, musicality, soundstage, tonality, palpability, transparency, brightness, propulsive, air, openness, microdynamics, separation of instruments. One man's reality is another man's mid fidelity, no?
Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

I don't think I need to define anything - there's really no reason to. This topic already discusses unprovable things, and I'm just saying simply what nearly audiophile knows - that the quality of the recordings is a much bigger influence on the end result than the devices used to deliver the experience, given a reasonable attention to setting up one's system for best reproduction.

dalethorn wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

Don't you think, given all of the better recordings available, that some achieve a great sense of realism and most don't? In other words, the recordings alone can do the trick, but most of the providers of those recordings aren't doing it, for whatever reason.

Someone should publish a glosser of audio terms so that we all understand what all the audiophiles terms we throw around so nonchalantly actually mean. You know, words and terms like realism, musicality, soundstage, tonality, palpability, transparency, brightness, propulsive, air, openness, microdynamics, separation of instruments. One man's reality is another man's mid fidelity, no?
Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

I don't think I need to define anything - there's really no reason to. This topic already discusses unprovable things, and I'm just saying simply what nearly audiophile knows - that the quality of the recordings is a much bigger influence on the end result than the devices used to deliver the experience, given a reasonable attention to setting up one's system for best reproduction.

I see it as sort of a chicken and egg thing. If the problems, the inherent problems, in the CD player were fixed more audiophiles would probably say the problems are not all in the records and that more recordings actually sound pretty damn good. As things stand, I can certainly understand why many audiophiles might say that the problem is in the recording or the manufacturing. I also happen to think some recordings are superior to others, that is more or less a truism. On the other hand, it is possible to bring a CD that originally sounds very compressed, bass shy, thin, pinched, harsh, all those things audiophiles supposedly despise, up to a much higher level by simply addressing some of the inherent problems in the DESIGN of the CD player I am always talking about. You know, things like vibration, magnetic fields, RFI, scattered background laser light, things of that nature. Its just plain physics, I don't even have to broach the whole dodgey subject of metaphysics. And the recordings audiophiles thought sounded pretty damn good before would now sound sublime.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

geoffkait wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

dalethorn wrote:

Don't you think, given all of the better recordings available, that some achieve a great sense of realism and most don't? In other words, the recordings alone can do the trick, but most of the providers of those recordings aren't doing it, for whatever reason.

Someone should publish a glosser of audio terms so that we all understand what all the audiophiles terms we throw around so nonchalantly actually mean. You know, words and terms like realism, musicality, soundstage, tonality, palpability, transparency, brightness, propulsive, air, openness, microdynamics, separation of instruments. One man's reality is another man's mid fidelity, no?
Geoff Kait
Machinadynamica.com

I don't think I need to define anything - there's really no reason to. This topic already discusses unprovable things, and I'm just saying simply what nearly audiophile knows - that the quality of the recordings is a much bigger influence on the end result than the devices used to deliver the experience, given a reasonable attention to setting up one's system for best reproduction.

I see it as sort of a chicken and egg thing. If the problems, the inherent problems, in the CD player were fixed more audiophiles would probably say the problems are not all in the records and that more recordings actually sound pretty damn good. As things stand, I can certainly understand why many audiophiles might say that the problem is in the recording or the manufacturing. I also happen to think some recordings are superior to others, that is more or less a truism. On the other hand, it is possible to bring a CD that originally sounds very compressed, bass shy, thin, pinched, harsh, all those things audiophiles supposedly despise, up to a much higher level by simply addressing some of the inherent problems in the DESIGN of the CD player I am always talking about. You know, things like vibration, magnetic fields, RFI, scattered background laser light, things of that nature. Its just plain physics, I don't even have to broach the whole dodgey subject of metaphysics. And the recordings audiophiles thought sounded pretty damn good before would now sound sublime.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

All of this is true of course, but then you can buy any number of variations of the better CD player, and/or better cables and amps etc., and every variation will sound different. That, I think, is the big frustration for many audiophiles (esp. those on a budget of money or time) - in that they expect convergence at some point, but the target keeps moving and they can never say "Now I've solved that sonic problem for a permanent improvement, and I'm definitely getting closer."

But, it's the recordings that are night and day in quality. Take Dylan's recording "Modern Times" for example. Can anyone really say with a straight face that it's not a mess of epic proportions?

Catch22 wrote:

But, it's the recordings that are night and day in quality. Take Dylan's recording "Modern Times" for example. Can anyone really say with a straight face that it's not a mess of epic proportions?

Oh, Mercy and Slow Train Coming are for me excellent examples of what tweaking can do for the sound. On systems that are how shall we say not up to snuff, both of these Dylan classics can sound rather lame: closed in, uninspired, congealed, boring, mono tonal, perfunctory, generic, ill-conceived and drab. After a few good rounds of tweaking, however, these iconic gems will start to shine, revealing their true nature: the Daniel Lanois production atmospherics come out, the band members' musical and vocal contributions come up out of the noise floor, the intensity of the performance is revealed and the various instruments and vocals are DE-INTERLEAVED. The incredible POP and INTRICACY and INTENSITY of Knopfler's guitar is fully revealed on Gotta Serve Somebody and Precious Angel (Slow Train Coming). It's a whole new ball game. As I'm fond of saying it's like an archaeological dig, getting the information out from being buried in the dirt. There are no components, not even really expensive ones, the Class A Components, that can do this for you, you have to do it yourself. This is the reason so many audiophiles believe many CDs are badly recorded. Hel-loo!!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

It's easy to fall into the trap of trying to reach a conclusion when we aren't listening to the recording being played in the same system at the same time. We could evaluate what we are each hearing and how we describe the sound. At that point, we would have a better idea of what sort of sonic heiarchy each of us places on what we enjoy hearing and hence, our enjoyment of the music.

Modern Times is a bad recording. It's that simple. However, that certainly doesn't mean that a person can't enjoy the music. I like Dylan and I've enjoyed his last 15 years of music at least as much as his first 30 years. But, that's not making an attempt to base my enjoyment on the recording quality. I like lots of stuff that isn't particularly well recorded, I just lament how much better the music could have been had the producers and engineers done a better job. Modern Times falls into this catagory. It falls way deeper down the sonic hole than most, in fact, I can't think of another disc in my library that approaches the sonic short comings of Modern Times. But, it could have been one hell of a recording! It probably was a sonic feast when it was laid down.

Steve Guttenberg was far more kind to this recording than I am. But, my take is generally in line with his.
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1206awsi/index.html

It can be difficult to find consensus about almost anything in this hobby. Here is a snippet of a review of Modern Times on some web site called Sputnik Music, which I provide only for comparison. I ordered a new Modern Times CD this morning as my other copy has vanished into thin air, just to see what all the hoopla is all about.

"Everything about this album is better than the two that came before. The guitar work is phenominal, Thunder On The Mountain, Spirit On The Water, Rollin' and Tumblin', and Someday Baby, all feature excellent lead guitar licks and fills, as well as some toe-tapping rhythm guitar. Workingman's Blues and Nettie Moore feature the best piano work I've ever heard from Dylan, and he manages to make the parts sounds both modern and classic at the same time. Vocally this album features the best and most accessible "gravely-voiced" Dylan songs yet, either that or I have just really gotten used to the sound, I'm not quite sure yet."

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I remember Buddha being smitten big-time by this album. Rolling Stone raved about it. I was really digging what I was hearing on the radio. And then I bought the disc. Whoa! My first thoughts were that something was wrong with my copy. My second thought was to check and see if my daughter had put oatmeal in my disc player.

michael green wrote:

I would need to ask both you and Steve the same question. When you heard things on the recording you didn't like. What did you do to change this?

I think maybe the point gets missed because you guys are listening to one sound whereas I variably tune in my systems and it's probably hard to conceive of a system setup that tunes things in, much like tuning in an FM station or a TT. If you or anyone is listening to the recording off it can sound horrible. I get that, all systems do that. But there's a step beyond this and that's the part that your not getting. Recordings and systems are able to be tuned together, and when this happens it's like a whole new recording. Recordings that you think right now are terrible would sound fantastic. I did this for many of the reviewers, and maybe they should have talked about the process more, but this doesn't change the reality of variable tuning.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I think in more than 30 years of subscribing to Stereophile and buying many components they recommended, and applying tweaks they found and I found, that I've gotten pretty good at pulling the best performance out of any system. But if I tweak a system to optimize the sound with any particular recording or collection of recordings, that tweaking won't be optimal with others. There are examples of music with tremendous energy in a particular range (say, mid-treble), and examples with nearly no energy in that range. You can spend days upon days tweaking, using multiple headphones or speakers to have a balanced perspective, and the best you'll get is a compromise. With headphones, users frequently speak of burn-in time, and it's become apparent that most of the burn-in is merely adjusting to how the headphone represents different tonalities.

I will say that with the better headphones at a higher price, tweaking produces the best results on average. The Beyerdynamic T90 I'm working with is excellent (once tweaked or compromised across a few genres of music), whereas the Sennheiser HD26 I have seems a hopeless case. Out of the box the T90 is rather shrill, even on some good recordings.

First off, we're mixing apples and oranges comparing what low quality audio in a car and the critical listening ability of the listener in that environment with what is expected from a home audio system to someone who listens intently. Modern Times was getting a lot of air-play on the radio and that's what I was referring to.

My wife, for example, loves listening to XM in her car. When I attempt to get her to switch over to the radio so that I could enjoy the better sonics, she rolls her eyes and says it sounds the same to her and that I'm a nut. I'm quite sure that she represents the hundreds of thousands of people that you refer to who think Modern Times sounds just fine. For most, it's about the beat and the rhythm and for women in particular, the lyrics. And who can blame them if they consume most all their music in far less than ideal environments and in a format that is seriously flawed from the start, like XM or low resolution files on their mp3 player and through their earbuds? Hell, even I will tap my toes to otherwise crappy sounding music and go with the flow when I'm not trying to listen intently.

I don't consider my systems as particularly revealing. My stuff is quite modest by audiophile standards, but they are capable of reproducing recordings sufficiently well so as to reveal obvious shortcomings in the material being played. And, I'm not so arrogant as to think that there isn't even better sound to be had out of them with a little passed down knowledge from people who know more about audio than I do. I doubt I will ever reach the point where learning something new about audio reproduction isn't waiting around the next corner and I've met several people who have probably forgotten more about audio than I know.

Michael, I don't doubt that you are able to help people improve their sound. You've obviously got enough experience with this stuff to have learned a thing or two. But, audio alchemy hasn't been invented yet and until it does, recordings like Modern Times is still going to suck in comparison to what well recorded music sounds like.

Interesting post so far. I'll give my take on the album to add to the discussion. So I'll start that saying that I actually order the CD today given the colorful post but was able to listen to it in the interim via a streaming service (mp3) so please take that into account. I'll update everyone when I get the CD in a few days

So I'll start out by saying that the album doesn't seem to be the best recorded. There seems to be a good bit of compression, I'm sure some of this is related to the mp3, so it will expand out with the CD so I don't want to comment on that since its impossible to know how the mp3 effected the final playback. But with that said the album is actually very nice. It is very full range and has weight behind the instruments. As a note, the album seems to have a lower bass note that many albums I listen to and will likely require a good sub or large speakers to get the bass track to come into its own. The interesting thing here, is when I turned off the sub, the first song seemed overly bright and flat and my main speakers actually extend quite low. Funny thing, take the opening track, it really came into its own when you had the proper amount of bass, the splash on the cymbals was spread around the room and not overbearing. I do consider my system a bit relaxed in the highs so please take that into account. I also listened to the tracks through a pair if beyerdynamic T1 headphones, which added back some of the HF information that I wasn't getting until I turned the volume up to reference levels.

With that said, this album brings me back to an interest point I've always noticed and may be a reason some people are having issue with the song. High always seem to sound better and more "relaxed" or not as noticeable when there is also a good bit of low frequency with them. At least to me, I could see how the whole album could be rather fatiguing to the ears if you removed the lower bass octaves. (i.e. switching off my sub). I know this has to deal with the way we hear but always an interesting phenomenon, which leads to the issue with some manufactures who make speakers that can't seem to get the bass right.

Someone once said that you will never be happy until you get the bass right, its the foundation of the depth and body to the music so without it, it just doesn't sound right. I think this phenomenon is very apparent on this album

In relation to the music, for me sitting back, closing your eyes and listening to me back to a nice blues or jazz clubs with the small round tables, limited seats, and a stage center room.

I agree with Michael on this one, the album is very nice and while it may not be the best recording, definitely has a full and deep sound with a nice sound stage. I can say either the headphones or my main system got me closest to the music. Would agree with those that there are better Dylan recordings out there.