Features

I don't notice so much of a difference on my computer based near-field system but #2 seems richer to me.

File 2 provides much more detail than does 1 & 3. I can hear the individual bass notes and more detail in the vocals on File 2.

File 1: Quiet vinyl but it also sounded a bit constrained/compressed. The guitar in file 1 was clean but a bit 2 dimensional sounding. Bass was lower in level than either file 2 or file 3.
File 2: Was an improvement over file 1 but the vinyl was a bit noisy. File 2's bass was an improvement over file 1 but the mastering placed the lower level information down in the background noise and that ruined the presentation of file 2. The guitar in file 2 was improved compared to file 1.
File 3: Had quieter vinyl than file 2 and file 3 had the best and deepest bass of the three files. Overall file 3 had the best sonics with quieter vinyl than file 2 and had the best 3 dimensional presentation of the guitar.

Concur with the above assessment. The opening acoustic guitar sounds closest to real in file #3. The bass in #3 comes in a big aggressive but ultimately backs off to just right once the vocals come in - vocals also sound the most natural to me in #3.

What a test for a Monday morning - After playing them 3 times over I just ended up listening to the song. Having no-way of knowing what it sounded like in the recording studio doesn't it come down to personal preference. Listening over my computer I found myself drawn to 1 but it seemed almost too transparent, with some harmonics stripped, I thought 2 a bit murky and dull acoustically, and 3 was somewhere between 1 and 2. Which is which? My guess is 1 - Mo-Fi, 2 -Original and 3 -Sterling.

I hate to say it but the old CD is my preferred version. It is only one which got the bass right. I have bought everything possible on this one including the MFSL, SACD, original mono, Sundazed, etc and they are all a let-down. The first CD sounds best and I heard that they supposedly lost the tape used to make that one so its done now unless someone else finds another tape.

solid bass and open mids with better decay on the vocals

To these ears 1 and 2 are almost identical and I like them both. File 3 has an over pronounced sub-low EQ (compare the mic pop the first time he sings "priest"). Maybe 1 and 2 are rolled off? Anyway they sound more natural. File 3 also has a scooped mid EQ. Actually come to think of it, 3 sounds like it has the "Loudness" button of an old style hi-fi amp turned on! Don't like it at all. I only have the mono box version which sounds good to me.

Still have my original 2-eye (1B) copy and have listened to it may times over the years. Dylan's phrasing and those unmistakable popping "P's" are embedded deep into my memory.

#3 matches what I'm used to hearing. While it may not be the best sonic reproduction, there's only one original.

#1 & 2 seem corrected to sound more neutral with #1 being the most devoid of phrasing and emotional cues.

Number 3 for me. It's seems to be more finely etched. There is life where i feel the others are a little less dynamic. It's close though.

I own the MFSL, the Sony and the Sundazed and I hear more difference between them on my system. The Sony is obviously the brighter sounding of the 3, the MFSL fuller with more open bass notes and the Sundazed is more balanced but loses a little bit of energy. At home my preference is the MFSL.

You guys can hear the differences from your computer speakers? Wow!

It was close between 1 and 3 for me. I felt 2 either lowered the bass or increased the mids/treble too much. Granted I'm listening on Apple earbuds through my laptop.

I'd say 1 is the Sony reissue, 2 the original and 3 the 45 rpm pressing. I like 2 best.

I liked file one the best. The guitar sounded most natural. My guess is this is the original columbia 2 eye.

File 2 and 3 sounded more alike to each other. My guess is file 3 is the MFSL.

It seems like a minority opinion, but File 1 sounded the most natural to me.

my guesses:
#1 is mono box
#2 is orig
#3 is MFSL
I like #2 best, then #3, but on my system I would take #3 as best. What was the playback system and did you check the speed control?

I just listened on computer speakers but I like #1 the best. Bass and drums seem more cohesive and grooving to me and I find the voice clearer. It's more natural sounding to me.

I find the bass a bit loud for my taste on #2.

#3 is fine, but it doesn't grab me as much as #1.

I think #2 might be a reissue, because bass seems a bit pumped up to me. Beyond that, I don't know.

Interesting!

Jerome Sabbagh

1 is the best balanced one in my view
2 is too clinical - superb voices but muddy low end, sounds like a remaster
3 is nice and warm, the cosy one, probably the 1st pressing
Overall they are all very good versions though, this is subtle

Sorry, could not resist subject line, but in this case think really need to hear the actual vinyl. Listening to all 3 AIFF snippets + a download version (all @ 96/24 bit via Pure Music) + CBS box set SACD via Playback Merlot DAC (latter in DSD), my major takeaway — aside from what an amazing song/performance — there was so much more variance in balance between the vinyl rips vs the digital source files than within the 3 analog rips. #3 sounded very natural but through my system the bass was far too prominent and bloated, overwhelming vocal, guitar & drums. Would it sound that way on my turntable? I might have opportunity to find out as ironically just parted with my JWH vinyl circa early 80’s in anticipation of finally picking up the MoFi. Hopefully MF will not be leaving us hanging like the little neighbor boy.... (I’m thankful MF didn’t sample tracks from Blonde on Blonde; have accumulated way too many versions of that title over the years to attempt comparison)

On my inexpensive Klipsch desk top speakers Track 3 stood out as having heavier bass that was also clearer.

File 2 wins for me which I reckon is the original
File 1 is a very close second (mono box?)
File 3 is a bloated mess. I think this is the new MFSL version which if correct would be suprising as I have Freewheelin’, BIABH, B on B and BOTT by them and they are all superb.
Interestingly my preferred file 2 runs about 0.7% faster than the other two which are very close with file 3 being marginally slower. That’s all.

I have to say that 1 and 2 are very close for me. I guess that 1 is the Sony and 2 Original. 3 I guess it the MSFL. It appeared to be more relaxed, better decay, it drew me in more than it was presented at me. In the end I preferred 3 listening over my macbook speakers.

File #1 is the mono box pressing. Clean, transparent sound (relatively speaking). Arguably bass-shy compared to the other versions.

File #2 is the original pressing. Nice warm sound. Not as transparent as file #1, bass arguably a bit tubby and undefined. Vinyl background noise is higher than with the other 2 files.

File #3 is the MoFi. I don't care for this one. The bass is really exaggerated which also amplifies some of the flaws in the recording (mic pops, etc.). I agree with the poster who said it sounded like the "loudness" button was pressed. This may make for a better listen at low volumes (Fletcher Munson Curve), but to my ears these are poor mastering choices.

Listening done via Sony MDR-V6 headphones plugged straight into MacBookPro (no external dac).

Sorry I'm late to the party,but I too,am a Dylan fan.Listening to JWH mono Sterling master.Sounds sweet,harmonica not shrill or hyperbolic,bass there not disco style but very distinct. Maybe your systems' synergy is off? Mine has very good synergy.You must have relational experience with your music,otherwise...it sucks!

#3

Well, listening with inexpensive Sony MDR-7506 headphones plugged into my PC at work, #2 sounded best to me, cleanest on the vocals, followed by #1, where I thought I heard a very slight distortion, and lastly #3 which I thought was far too bass heavy, at least listening in the manner I described. But, doing this test made me want to listen to the entire album!