Death Magnetic Still Has Crappy Dynamic Range • We told you about the tech guy who analyzed Death Magnetic with Audacity and decided the over-compressed album sounds better in Guitar Hero. Now the Wall Street Journal's analyzed it against ...And Justice For All and basically came to a conclusion we already knew: You're better off listening to ...And Justice For All. Wall Street should be worrying about the economy not Metallica, but read the article (and check out the interactive analysis) anyhow.
Posted at 2:19 PM
Tags: Metallica
"Wall Street should be worrying about the economy not Metallica, but read the article (and check out the interactive analysis) anyhow."
Like Obama, the WSJ can do two things at once. Although one would hope Obama is preparing to debate, not worrying about the dynamic range of Death Magnetic, but maybe he can do three things at once.
Score = 3
i read somewhere that metallica weren't even in the studio when the album was being mixed, they just let their team of producers/engineers handle it while they were in Europe for shows, what spoiled rock star asses, that takes not giving a fuck about the end result of your art to a whole other level of suck, then again even if they were in the studio for mixes would they even say anything that would disagree with Rubin and this cronies? probably not
Score = -1
The band not being in the studio for a mix is completely normal. Actually, I doubt you can find many mix engineers that ALLOW the artist in the studio during mixing.
I don't get why so many people are zeroing in on this particular album (other than because it's Metallica and people for some reason bitch louder about them). I've heard plenty of albums come out that are much worse in this respect. I took the album and played it and it only occasionally lit my peak meters, whereas some particularly overcompressed albums constantly top them out.
I record and mix music. It's what I do. I haven't made any hit albums (yet), but I have seen more faux-audiophilia on message boards about this album than any subject ever. People bitch about this album's dynamics, but the last few Slayer albums' were worse, the SAME people who are now bitching about this Metallica album LOVED that them, and their most recent album won a Grammy.
At least admit it's about hating Metallica and has nothing to do with the sound quality.... I happen to think the Black Album's mix (and well as every other Bob Rock-era mix) is fatiguing because of the snare drum sound, and the one on Death Mag is much better than those.
Score = -1
9 out of 10 financial analysts agree: "...And Justice for All" is the superior face-melting soundtrack to economic reform.
Score = 3
I like it. Ya hipster douchebag snobs.
Your best argument to dis this album the dynamic compression rate??
Buncha fuckin' geeks.
Score = -4
songs are great, just i can't get around they were not IN the studio for the damn MIXES, dynamic range, take it or leave it, some care some don't, but I do feel the mixes could be at least a bit better but it's a fine album nonetheless for those that like metal
anyways, to shockadow obviously you are the douchbag layman listener who has no grasp of the finer subtler and more complex matters in music and probably in life in general
Score = -1
I'm far from a layman. I just don't get too caught up in what I think about it. The fact is the album is great. I have a nice system in my car and guess what??? Sounds FINE! It's more than a shame that although this band has been mediocre at best for the last 10 years, When the make a fine record they can't seem to melt the cold, cold hearts of the ANALOG AUDIOPHILE. Don't hate me for saying what everyone already knows. People like us are douchey haters. I do it to, just with crappy bands like Vampire Weekend
Score = -3
Nah, not being in the studio for mixes is pretty much par for the course. I do mixing work for some "starving artist" type bands, and even they're rarely ever with me while mixing. A lot of bands that hire a mixing engineer separate from the recording engineer won't be around in the mix room--or even in the same state. It's boring as all hell, and besides it's easier for them to hear rough drafts of the progress rather than being in the room (god I love high speed internet). You have to train your ears so you don't get bogged down in all the noise after several hours of work and end up wanting the Bass way too loud.
And the dynamic range probably wasn't crushed by the mixing engineer, that's usually done by the mastering engineer. And even they don't like smashing the mixes, it's mostly the artists (really, it's them that are doing this, none of them would blast a mix if the client wasn't asking for it) and sometimes the labels that ask for it to be as LOUD as some other popular squashed CD.
And I don't know what's up with the WSJ, ...And Justice For All is pretty much universally considered an embarrassing production catastrophe. The songs are capital-A Amazing, but there's absolutely no Bass and no impact to that record whatsoever. Why use ...AJFA as a bar to measure production values? The later Pavement records had better post-production than ...AJFA.
Score = 2
thanks for the insights huph, still, bands who don't want to be there for the mixes? that's a sad affair these days, i've been to all mixes of bands i'm in, seems important to me, a crucial stage when conceptualizing or actualizing (if you will) the sound and balance of a record comes into being, seems like some bands out there are just on autopilot - also concerning bass too loud i've been in situations where after awhile engineers want to lower the bass, then after hearing the final mix one realizes the bass should be more prominent, so it goes both ways
yeah mastering that's the other one, you're right of course that a lot of compression happens then and is primarily at fault for this issue we're posting about, I suppose Metallica weren't around for that either, and probably so they are the ones that ok'd everything anyways
and yeah AJFA is not so hot other, wonder if Newstead was pissed at the mixes? funny, such a 'boxy' sound on that record, oh well, it's only Metallica, what do I care, Pavement reissue Brighten the Corners anyone?
Score = -1
I'm glad a major publication is tackling this issue, because it's so true: 99% of albums these days sound like shit because they've no range. they sound flat and lifeless. go put a smiths cd into your stereo and turn it up full blast-- you can practically hear the room they were recording in, and it sounds amazing. then listen to the newest modest mouse for contrast. it's a sad, sad age we live in...
Score = 5
see also: this article http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm
Score = 1
hey guys sup i like this dead horse subject
Score = -5
i'll help you beat it
Score = 1
Remember kiddies...
Elvis and Robert Johnson recorded in mono.
Does that make their creations pieces of shit???
Score = 0
mono ≠ shitty dynamic range. Mono means that they didn't record on a four track, they instead used a two track with vocals on one and instruments on the other (usually, at least.) You can record in mono and not compress the sound until every part of the song (the loud parts and the soft parts) sound the same volume wise. Then you just increase the volume for the whole thing. You lose the ups and downs, the dynamic tension created by volume shifts. The thing is, if I want it loud, I can turn my own volume up. I can't remaster the whole thing so it has some dynamic range now, can I? So the next time you think you've got some brilliant comment, make sure it holds water with the facts. Elvis and the Beatles and the Doors and Jimi Hendrix all recorded in mono at some point, but they also all understood the necessity for dynamic range.
It doesn't matter to me anyways cause Metallica can only barely hold my interest. They aren't poets like their musical predecessors, and I honestly don't care much for a zillion bps or over extended and overly showy guitar parts. But if you do, that's great. I'll listen to some "crappy" band like Vampire Weekend.
Score = 1
That isn't what mono means.
And you can make a stereo recording on a 2 track machine. In fact, a stereo mix is essentially a 2 track recording where one channel (track) plays in one speaker (left) and the other plays in a different speaker (right). If everything is isolated into one side or the other, you have two distinctly seperate tracks.
Mono recording means the recording was mixed down to one channel instead of two (or 5 or 6 for surround). You can mix 48 tracks down to mono, if you like. The number of tracks available on the recording device is irrelevent.
Don't be a dick.
Score = 0
I THINK the album is great...especially the instrumental. It grabbed me the more and more I listened to it. Take it or leave it. I really wanted to love the new Wolf Parade album, yet it has failed to seduce me after many attempts. However, I'm not going to start a thread about how and why it sucks. I don't know...maybe I'm too much of a hippy, but I'd prefer if everyone just canned the negativity. People are making music...which I THINK we all love. Music that is...not all particular music. Anyhow...can't we hate on things that really ask for it? Here's a few...the police, the government, Joan Rivers...
Flame on...
Score = 0
i prefer mono recordings (that allows for dynamic range) over hyper compressed shit anyday, know what you are commenting about shockadow before you open your face hole
Score = 0
You know... I used to completely agree with the "if it's not loud enough, you can turn it up" mastering philosophy. Then I tried putting older, quieter songs on mix cds usually comes off pretty lame, even if you get your burning program to bump up the volume by normalizing. The only way to make them sound anywhere close to right with the louder, newer mixes.is to drive them into the clip zone, and there you are again. Sometimes I wish I had crappy, overcompressed, over-bassy versions of old songs. I know, it's silly, but seriously.
While we're at bitching about overcompressed mastering, let's talking about the early Beatles records.
Score = 1
How early are the Beatles recordings you speak of?
Back then, it wasn't the same thing you have today. Then, people compressed differently. They would record really hot so that the level would deliberately redline. This would natural compress the signal and add 'tape saturation' which was (and to some extent, still is) considered very pleasant harmonic distortion.
Now, when the masters are re-mastered on today's equipment it is then compressed again to add volume. This is overkill because the recording was already compressed the good ole fashioned way.
As far as your mix CDs go, sorry to hear that. I think a lot of us old farts that preach the virtues of dynamic range also prefer to listen to albums in their entirety instead of mix CDs.
Score = 0