Metallica "Death Magnetic" - Setting a few points straight

Wow, it's been an amazing few days.

Since my first post about "Death Magnetic" on Tuesday, it's been quoted by, and linked from - amongst others - Rolling Stone, the Guardian, Wired, MusicRadar and literally hundreds of others. The petition has leapt to 7000 signatures, there is a video on YouTube which has been viewed over 25,000 times since yesterday, and I've seen an extra 40,000 hits on this blog alone. (Thank-you for all the positive comments !)

This is fantastic news - as a mastering engineer I am delighted to see the "Loudness Wars" getting some mainstream press attention at last - if more people listen critically to what they buy as a result, and maybe start returning (or not buying) a few of the worst offenders, perhaps the tide will start to turn. (I always was an optimist !)

BUT:

After reading lots of discussion and comment about this over the last few days, I keep seeing some common misconceptions and misunderstandings repeated over and over. Rather than reply to them all individually, I decided to write this post to set a few things straight, "just for the record". Then I can link back to it when necessary. So here goes.

POINT ONE: I'm not saying "Death Magnetic" shouldn't be loud.

It's rock music, it should be loud ! In fact, it should be brutal, and pin you to the wall. Currently it couldn't pin up a post-it note. That's because loudness comes from contrast. "Death Magnetic" starts with clean picked-guitar intro, and then is supposed to hit you like a ton of bricks. It doesn't - it's so squashed, the intro is almost loud as what comes after it. There's no contrast, there's no impression of loudness. Now if the CD overall was at a lower level, there would be more scope for contrast. People would put it on, adjust the volume for the guitar intro, settle back and... wallop.

It's ironic, the very tools needed to make it sound loud and punchy have been sacrificed in the quest for a high-level CD. To quote user onesecondglance on the (great) Sound On Sound forum thread about this album:

power is nothing without control. light is nothing without shade

POINT TWO: Compression is GREAT

Dynamic compression (NOT data compression like mp3 encoding) is an essential tool of a recording or mastering engineer, in most genres. The Beatles discovered it when they were recording Paperback Writer and used it on Paul's bass, and never looked back. Used well, it can pull a mix together, add punch and impact or "bounce", make things warmer and fuller, more exciting and more immediate. I use it all the time, I couldn't work without it.

But excessive or clumsy compression flattens music. It squashes it, crushes it, and sucks the life out of it. You're left with something dull and blunt that gives you a headache.

Limiting or clipping, of either the analogue or digital variety, are both extreme forms of compression, where the compressor has an infinite ratio. Used in moderation, they can be the most transparent, inaudible kind of compression, and can achieve additional level boosts without many negative effects. Overused, they just smash the hell out of things, and result in a distorted, fatiguing mess.

Sound familiar ?

POINT THREE: Distortion is GREAT

Distortion is another essential part of modern music. Without distortion there would be no electric guitar, no hammond organ, no valve EQ, no tape compression, no soft-clipping, no Roland 303, no "Back in the USSR"... the list goes on and on. Distortion as a creative tool takes real talent, and when it works it's an amazing thing.

Unnecessary distortion because of over-compression, over-limiting, bad gain staging, excessive clipping and the rest just sounds nasty, makes you think your speakers are broken, and makes my teeth hurt.

POINT FOUR: I'm NOT saying the "Guitar Hero" version sounds better.

At least, I'm not saying it sounds better in every way. The key way in which it IS better is that it doesn't feature the extreme distortion of the CD. But in other ways, it isn't as good as the CD:

1. It's less exciting - the mixes aren't quite right, and don't match the CD exactly. Also:
   
2. It would benefit from a little compression (dynamic, not data)
   
3. It lacks bass and low mid, it needs to sound warmer and fuller
   
4. It's a bit to "toppy" and so sounds a little thin and slightly harsh
   
5. It is stored on the PS3 as data-compressed files, so it contains mp3-like compression artefacts, which I hate

However despite all these negative aspects of the GH version, the fact is that the actual CD release is so distorted I wouldn't ever choose to listen to it, and this overides all the other differences, for me - and, for many (most?) others too, it would seem.

Overall - the GH version needs mastering.

Actually, even that isn't true - mastering from a data-compressed file is usually a waste of time. 

But if Ted Jensen were given a decent, clean copy to work with, he could make a new master which would blow the current CD out of the water.

And if he could be given a completely new mix, with the same goals as the CD in mind but without the ridiculous distortion, this album could really live up to it's hype.

(End of rant)

OK, it feels good to have got that out of my system. The issue of level and the so-called Loudness Wars is complicated and difficult to get your head round. But at the end of the day, if a CD is distorted and tiring to listen to, it's probably because the levels have been pushed too hard in a misguided attempt to try and sound loud in contrast to other CDs.

Listen critically to your new purchases. If they sound poor, take them back, or at the very least email the record company to complain. And in the meantime, send a message to the music business - sign the petition.