Why is it so difficult to give metal recordings depth?

[neverpurify]

I would stick with mixes that go as far as Andy and no further. Study those type of mixes.

why impose those limitations? andy broke new ground with his style so why can't someone else take it further? if that is not that you are implying then I apologize.

 

[Ermz]

I don't really understand that. If we're stopping at Andy, what is exactly is the linear scale that we're following? Production isn't a collection of milestones to cross to get from point A to point B. One man's point A is another's point B in this gig. So many absolutes - I'm confused.

 

[Manbient]

For the perception of stage, you need Hi-dynamic phase-coherent monitors with a wide baffle, very stiff housing and a filter that is matched within tenths of dB's.

I'm afraid you have to spend another $40K:

http://www.stereophile.com/audaciousaudio/105sonus/

I swear by this design. Profoundly.

You mean the lack of parallel walls? Dynaudio has a speaker (Sapphire) built on the same principle (retail 18k) that i've heard many times since i used to work in hifi while i was in school. Definitely an awesome speaker, one of my favorites that i've heard... but i don't know that you can really call something significantly better than others in the same range. At least in my experience not. The best speaker i've ever heard has to be the Magico Mini. It's a monitor, but holy shit.

I do agree with the phase coherency, but wide baffles? how come? Don't narrow baffles reduce diffraction significantly? I'll be honest, i've never heard of wide baffles being preferable... what's the reason for it?

 

[Mulder]

You mean the lack of parallel walls? Dynaudio has a speaker (Sapphire) built on the same principle (retail 18k) that i've heard many times since i used to work in hifi while i was in school. Definitely an awesome speaker, one of my favorites that i've heard... but i don't know that you can really call something significantly better than others in the same range. At least in my experience not. The best speaker i've ever heard has to be the Magico Mini. It's a monitor, but holy shit.

I do agree with the phase coherency, but wide baffles? how come? Don't narrow baffles reduce diffraction significantly? I'll be honest, i've never heard of wide baffles being preferable... what's the reason for it?

Wide baffle -> Fundamental notes get a cardoid pattern and leave the baffle hand in hand with the midrange I've been told. I build some of these myself and the result is amazing. You can easily hear when classical recordings use too many supportmikes, the whole depth-image falls apart. Mine cost $500 a piece btw, make sure the frontsides are 45 degrees sawn off and don't centre the speakers, no diffraction trouble.

Next step is total phase coherancy, active linear filtering in the computer and power-matched phase-inverted impulseresponses to compensate the impulsebehaviour of the bass unit. Best thing would be some sort of motion feedback, but that would get tricky.

But metal is mixed to provoce adrenaline, everything should be running towards you. So much distorted MF in your face, how would you mix in some spatial information.. I tried several times, but it always turns out bad. Colin Richardson does some nice stuff with wide guitartracks, but again, that leaves the in-your-face adagium..

The people that tried to blend in symphonic stuff always had to get rid of the guitars... a Krank on eleven occupies the whole midrange, that's just like it is..

If you want space in a metalsong it has to be composed in the song I guess, I couldn't dial it in..

 

[TheDude]

I'm a bit of an "audiophile" (though i hate the connotations of the term), and one thing i've noticed about metal recordings is that most of them... well... they just can't sound deep, wide, tall, etc. I think it is the nature of the guitars more than anything (high distortion, the need to be wayy up front to give them punch), but metal recordings with a huge soundstage seem to be extremely rare. If some of you are fans of jazz, you probably know what i mean. Jazz is very often amazing for soudstaging (depending on who's producing/mixing), and that kind of sound i just never hear in metal.

I once listened to a Hifi system containing a CD-player, two poweramps (L and R) and Two speakers, worth $50 000 (350 000 SEK, £35 000) and the sound was simply...3D. Talk about depth. We listened to several albums, but the there was a Nick Cave (yeah, not metal, but it's a good example of depth) album where i closed my eyes and actually saw the drumkit in the room, about 7' (2.5m) away. It was a jazz kit, 1 rack and 1 floor tom with the ride in between. If you've been in the same room as a drum kit, knows exactly how it sounds.

Other albums... among them RATM and more (we sat there for a couple of hours), not so much, but I could clearly hear some bad trigging from an Alesis D4 on the RATM album. Unreal definition. I could never mix anything with those, because I wouldn't finish it. "Oh the drummers knee joint made a noise there. Damn, we have to re-record it."

Here's my attempt for an explanation: Most metal productions don't have the high end gear needed (budget) to make an album "audiophile-good". The best mikes with the best preamps into the...bla bla bla. (Check these babies out. £6599 at Thomann One of those in front of the drum kit for ambiance would be nice.) When it comes to 3D-depth, expensive gear is what it takes.

The natural sound space is easily removed with HP filters and triggers. More mikes = more phase issues = less 3D.

We all listens to mp3's more than CD's which is a disaster when it comes to 3D-closed eye-defining-distance-to-source-sounding productions.

On the other hand: There's the sheer brutality of having everything being up front, like it's a gang of maniacs standing very close in a ring around the listener only seconds away from beating the shit out of him/her. Having a rabid Glen Benton screaming in your ear is more powerful than having him screaming in the toilet, if you get my point.

 

[Exocaster]

I don't think there's some inherent issue with the music itself; rather, I think it's that "jazz band playing live in a room" vs. "modern metal" are just about at the opposite ends of the spectrum as far as production aesthetic is concerned. The only things that I could think of that are further apart are classical recordings and electronic dance music or hiphop.

There's nothing natural sounding about modern metal records, generally speaking. Multiple layers of heavily EQed guitar and bass, heavily processed drum kits with every element separated, little or no room ambience on anything, ever... It's just a completely different approach to recording. Rather than trying to capture something exactly as it sounds in a room at a given point in time, it's about creating sounds that can't possibly exist outside a studio environment. It's never going to have that degree of sonic realism because that was never taken into consideration at any point in the recording process, from mic placement to mastering. And to the vast majority of performers and engineers in the genre, it's simply not relevant. And that's not a criticism- look at where I'm posting!- metal records mostly don't sound like that because they're mostly not supposed to. (I'm sure it could be done- get a tight metal band in a good sounding room and mic 'em up like they were a jazz trio. I'm sure it would "technically" sound good, but whether it would be a genre-appropriate sound is another matter entirely.)

I think the closest thing I could think of would be Tool/Opeth/Isis, those sorts of bands. Maybe some stoner rock type stuff.

 

[Manbient]

I once listened to a Hifi system containing a CD-player, two poweramps (L and R) and Two speakers, worth $50 000 (350 000 SEK, £35 000) and the sound was simply...3D. Talk about depth. We listened to several albums, but the there was a Nick Cave (yeah, not metal, but it's a good example of depth) album where i closed my eyes and actually saw the drumkit in the room, about 7' (2.5m) away. It was a jazz kit, 1 rack and 1 floor tom with the ride in between. If you've been in the same room as a drum kit, knows exactly how it sounds.

oh trust me, i know that feeling (like i said, my stereo is worth nearly that much), that's why i get disappointed sometimes with metal, because you really don't get that.

I guess it's just the case that to really get the shit beat out of you by the music, it has to be processed so much and everything has to be so up front, which leaves no room for a soundstage. Aggressive production for aggressive music.

 

[Erkan]

...Either we are talking about different album, but atleast my copy is totally brickwalled sausage. "The way of all flesh" is more dynamic than FMTS

I wasn't talking about dynamics, I was talking about the perception of depth and space.

With that said, are you still claiming that FMTS does NOT have any sense of depth or space? Does FMTS sound like a limited death metal song where every instrument is in your face? It may be limited, but it certainly is NOT in your face, I can hear them being far away, but still so clear. I think FMTS has a great sound, it's huge. Even though their style is fast and brutal, their sound on that album doesn't interfere with that... even though one might think it should.

My 2 cents.

Edit: I take back some of the stuff I said I remembered FMTS a bit different than what it actually is. Actually, I was thinking a lot of the track Flying Whales, which has the greatest sense of depth and space of the tracks, so I kinda assumed the whole album was like that. Should freshen up my memory before claiming stuff.

 

[Metaltastic]

(account of life-changing audiophile experience)

I'm just glad I've never had one, ignorance is bliss (at least as far as money is concerned!)

 

[Ermz]

Well your issue may be that you're listening on your insanely expensive $50,000 speakers to a mix that was done on a $300 pair of NS-10s. You might lose something in translation there - just a hunch

 

[TheDude]

Well your issue may be that you're listening on your insanely expensive $50,000 speakers to a mix that was done on a $300 pair of NS-10s. You might lose something in translation there - just a hunch

Naah, you think? I wish those were mine actually. I'd sell them in a heartbeat and buy something about $40,000 cheaper, and spend the rest on amps, beer, cabs, booze, guitars, beer, and preamps.

 

[Ermz]

That's the way. I'd use $10,000 for some Barefoots and then spend the other $40,000 building a room with a floating floor and false ceiling/walls, treated to absolute hell. The acoustic benefit would be much more proportional to cost this way.

 

[Manbient]

That's the way. I'd use $10,000 for some Barefoots and then spend the other $40,000 building a room with a floating floor and false ceiling/walls, treated to absolute hell. The acoustic benefit would be much more proportional to cost this way.

ahaha, spoken like a true sound engineer In my experience monitors are made to reveal flaws in the mix and can be unpleasant to listen to at times. Completely dead rooms sound... pretty dead. Most loudspeakers are designed NOT for anechoic chambers for rooms (though they are often tested in one), and just sound weird when there's no action in the room. Overtreating a room can seriously kill the life of the music, although i agree spending a significant amount on room treatment is a good idea. I used to use studio monitors as my main speakers for a while (and do use Dynaudio BM5a's as my computer speakers), but sometimes clever masking of music to bring out only the best is much more enjoyable than hearing everything a mix has to offer. I don't even like listening to music on my monitors, it just pisses me off. They aren't smooth.

I'm moving soon into my own house, and the #1 requirement for me is an unfinished basement i can use to build the "room of doom". I don't even much care about the rest of the house, i just want my stereo to sound best.

 

[Ermz]

Haha, we're alike in one sense there. All I care about is my 'control room' (bedroom).

Treating a room doesn't necessarily mean you have to make it completely dead. You can use diffusors, and of course build splayed walls that create reflection free zones at the mix (fuck there I go again...), I mean 'listen' position, allowing the room to retain its liveliness whilst still being pleasurable to listen in.

Also, your PC speakers are better than the monitors I mix with

 

[Manbient]

haha... well the bm5a's are great monitors, i just find them to be not that enjoyable for listening. But i may also be spoiled, since just in the next room is my main stereo, which is probably 50 times the cost, and not meant for nearfield. Not really in the same league, or for the same purpose. also, that sense of "air" and soundstaging i was talking about earlier is almost non existent with the bm5a's. In that respect the difference is so night and day it's not funny.

 

[Manbient]

by the way, your mixes sound great, Ermin!

 

[Ermz]

Cheers Mikey.

I understand your qualms about studio monitors. One thing I could never understand was why NS-10s were/are the industry standard. Seriously, those things are like a glorified ghettoblaster with blown woofers. How people expect mixes from something so non-detailed and unclear to translate to amazing hi-fi systems is beyond me. I always thought that studio monitoring should be the apex of transparency and depth. How do you mix on a speaker that neglects all soundstaging and depth for systems that glorify it, if you know what I mean.

Maybe try out some Barefoot MM27s or Klein & Hummel O300s and see if you can rekindle some love affair with monitors! I've tried the KHs personally and fallen in love. Though I have a feeling you may be loathe to spend more on your system after purchasing your main set!

 

[HandsOfDespair]

Generally speaking, of course...

I think the challenge is that fast playing on low tuned instruments doesn't translate very well to many listening environments. Modern metal mixes tend to have a lot of high end and not very much bass. It's a challenge to get every note heard in every mixing environment without mixing this way.

Also, most modern metal records are obsessed with using the same guitar sounds, the same drums, etc. on each song. Consistency is nice, easy with software, but I don't think that more audiophile-friendly, analog-based bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin were worried about having the same kick drum or the same guitar sound on every song.

To have a deeper mix, I think you have to have a deeper album in terms of music as well. This isn't a knock to metal, but to me a great metal record like "Wages of Sin" isn't trying to communicate the depth of something like "Dark Side of the Moon" or "Led Zeppelin III." Many modern metal bands are focused on creating a consistent level of heaviness, shredding, great riffs, no "gay" songs etc., without much space or dynamics. Opeth is one of the obvious shining exceptions to that - and they don't care if you call them "gay."

As a mix engineer or audiophile it's easy to start looking at music scientifically, but at the end of the day it really comes down to making the production fit the music itself. Lamb Of God or Arch Enemy wouldn't sound right with a bunch of arbitrary "dynamics" or a really big sounding kick drum, or running the guitars through a vintage Supro combo instead of a high gain tube stack, etc.

I completely agree with you. I think it depends on mostly on music, some metal is made to be ''epic'', (Opeth, Porcupine Tree, Swallow the sun, even Keep of kalessin is full of balstbeats and tremolo picking but still have an atmoshpere going on), but most metal is metal metal, like lamb of god slayer etc..

Slayer is the pure example of this if you compare ''hell awaits'' with ''reign in blood'' . Even if reign of blood is considered as one of the metal classics, i prefere hell awaits. I see reign of blood as tracks following tracks, where hell awais is a more consistent album, with a really dark atmoshere going on.