Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday May 24 2016, @08:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the some-art,-some-science,-and-a-whole-lotta-black-magic dept.

According to many Metallica devotees, the official version of the band's 2008 record Death Magnetic is not the one worth listening to. Upon the album's release, fan forums exploded in disgust, choked with complaints that the songs sounded shrill, distorted, ear-splitting. These listeners liked the music and the songwriting, but everything was so loud they couldn't really hear anything. There was no nuance. Their ears hurt. And these are Metallica fans—people ostensibly undeterred by extremity. But this was too much.

The consensus seemed to be that Death Magnetic was a good record that sounded like shit. That the whole thing was drastically over-compressed, eliminating any sort of dynamic range. That it had been ruined in mastering. Eventually, more than 12,000 fans signed a petition in protest of the "unlistenable" product, and a mass mail-back-a-thon of CDs commenced. The whole episode provoked a series of questions, not just about what had gone wrong with Death Magnetic but about the craft in question: What is mastering, exactly? How does it work? Beyond the engineers themselves, almost no one seems to know.

An article on sound engineering, but the real question is, people listened to Metallica after 2000?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2016, @12:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2016, @12:17AM (#350561)
    No, we don't have a "few hundred years of recording audio to study". Audio recording and playback was invented by Thomas Edison only in 1877. We have at most only a century or so of experience in that art.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2016, @12:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2016, @12:38AM (#350569)

    Study of acoustics predates Edison which is part and parcel of recording.

    Oh and:

    http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/the-worlds-first-audio-recor.html [boingboing.net]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Wednesday May 25 2016, @01:12AM

      by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday May 25 2016, @01:12AM (#350579) Journal

      Audio recording and playback was invented by Thomas Edison only in 1877.

      Study of acoustics predates Edison which is part and parcel of recording.
      Oh and:
      http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/the-worlds-first-audio-recor.html [boingboing.net]

      Your statement may not contradict GP AC's. It depends on whether GP AC intended "audio recording and playback" to be one item or two. The article you linked notes that Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville had no way to play back his recordings. If you take "audio recording and playback" as one item, whoever invents the last-to-be-invented part and combines them invents the combination of those parts.

      I'm not saying anything about the history of audio recordings, just whether or not your statements are in conflict. I think you may be talking past GP AC, instead of with.

  • (Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday May 25 2016, @02:45AM

    by driverless (4770) on Wednesday May 25 2016, @02:45AM (#350621)

    We do however have some thousands of years of experience in delivering music to an audience. Mozart, Beethoven, and others never worried about:

    “to make the song competitive in the marketplace.”

    How to master classical music: Take a copy of what the musicians produced, press it to wax cylinder/vinyl/CD. There's never been any artificial need to "make it competitive in the marketplace" by adding musical MSG.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2016, @09:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2016, @09:24AM (#350707)

      The Michael Schenker Group would have sucked without MSG.

    • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:17AM

      by toddestan (4982) on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:17AM (#351852)

      It's a lot more complicated than that if you want it to sound good. You don't want the trumpets to be too loud, or the drums too soft, the flute to get drowned out, and so forth. So you typically have several microphones positioned in and around the orchestra, which you then have to mix it all together to get it to sound right. Generally you'd also want it to be in stereo too (or perhaps even surround, though that never really caught on). Yes, you can try to have one (or two) well positioned microphones and then press it right to wax/vinyl/CD/whatever but it won't sound nearly as good.

      • (Score: 2) by purple_cobra on Monday May 30 2016, @12:14PM

        by purple_cobra (1435) on Monday May 30 2016, @12:14PM (#352601)

        "...the flute to get drowned out..."
        Please send this person to record Jethro Tull!