Your Controversial Opinions on DT

[JayOctavarium]

ROOOOAAAAAAARRRR!

[Skeever]

Believe it or not, there are some pretty standard criteria that come into play when asking whether a album has been well produced or not. It's not just "completely subjective". There are sonic flaws to consider, like the album being too loud and clipping. There are basic questions to ask about the mix, like whether instruments can be heard clearly, whether the low end is clear, etc. There are your cleanup issues, like how much autotune has been used, and can you obviously tell it's there? I can think of a handful of pretty obvious sonic issues on several recent DT records.

Sorry to be a pedant, but it IS subjective, as there is no "standard", just criteria that a group - as opposed to an individual - have (subjectively) adopted to help the conversation.   Chris Kimsey's work with Marillion sounds nothing like Martin Birch's work with Maiden, which sound nothing like Owen Morris' work with Oasis, and while some (not all) of your criteria are common to the three, not all are, and none is "more right" in the strict sense of the word.

Granted, different styles work best with different mixes. Something like punk or black metal really doesn't need pristine production value to get the point across, and is supposed to sound loud and chaotic. What DT have been doing so far is I guess acceptable in the ears of most fans, but I'd love to hear them really mastefully produce another album.

Personally, my critiques have nothing to do with the "production" of the records, and while I do think they might benefit from their own Nick Raskulinecz, it wouldn't just be "sound quality" (whatever that is).  I kind of tune out when people start saying "it'd be a great album but for the production..." as I think really great albums transcend the production.

It's really strange that you have to preface the words "sound quality" with the "whatever that is" remark. That's like saying there's no such thing as a recommended PSI, because some people like to keep their tires (or footballs) over or under standards for whatever reason. Sure, there's some leeway, but when you get into very obvious mistakes like too much clipping, muddy sound, and unintentional evidence of autone and other correctional software, you're beyond the realm of there just being some artistic reason for the sound being a certain way.

IMO DT albums sound the way they do because DT have tried to make contemporary sounding albums without hiring producers and mixers who are known for producing great contemporary sounding albums.

[Rodni Demental]

It's really strange that you have to preface the words "sound quality" with the "whatever that is" remark. That's like saying there's no such thing as a recommended PSI, because some people like to keep their tires (or footballs) over or under standards for whatever reason. Sure, there's some leeway, but when you get into very obvious mistakes like too much clipping, muddy sound, and unintentional evidence of autone and other correctional software, you're beyond the realm of there just being some artistic reason for the sound being a certain way.

IMO DT albums sound the way they do because DT have tried to make contemporary sounding albums without hiring producers and mixers who are known for producing great contemporary sounding albums.

Thing is, all of those things mentioned, while they can be mistakes, can also be artistic choices. They can also be initial mistakes that are deliberately developed from the original 'mistake' for creative reasons. What you're describing is a preconception about the sound quality, so it's your expectation for it. The 'standard' maybe collectively upheld by an outspoken group of people, but the standard doesn't really exist, or at least, imo shouldn't be imposed onto something like art. Throw your preconceptions and standards out the window because they're what filter your experience instead of appreciating the sound/music as it is. If you measure and compare everything and expect it to be a certain way you might miss something, or worse, limit your experience. Btw, that's not to say there's no such thing as a recommended PSI as an artist is going to meet those requirements at their own leisure. A recommendation is something that might be noted or considered for probably fairly logical and valid reasons, but it's not the same as an expected standard. Throwing away your expectations doesn't mean the artist is going to go crazy and make something that'll deafin' the average person or create something so muddy it's indistinguishable, because that's not really gonna be their intention. BUT if they really wanted to have that choice, they should be able to make it. I know that might seem a bit extreme or even silly but point is; why impose a limit on creativity? If you're worried that by not have these standards there'd be 'anarchy' if you will,  then you obviously don't have much faith in the artist. Which begs the question, what is the reason you expect these things? So the artist will personally satisfy your requirements? Well you can never expect the artist to do that just for you, only you can effect how you feel about the artists choices.

I don't actually direct this at you personally, just generally using your comment as an outlet for the discussion. Your point of view is actually completely valid. But it's not the only point of view.

[The Presence of Frenemies]

Here's the crux of this debate:

At least the last two Dream Theater albums have been produced/mixed in a way that is problematic to a wide segment of this board. There appear to be two (general) possible explanations offered for it. The first is articulated well by this:

IMO DT albums sound the way they do because DT have tried to make contemporary sounding albums without hiring producers and mixers who are known for producing great contemporary sounding albums.

So basically, DT's going for something that would be "objectively" good in terms of sound quality, but for whatever reason, they're coming up short of that vision. Not short enough that they're disappointed with their product, certainly not short enough that they're commissioning remixes, remasters, etc., but still short.

The second is pretty well captured here:

Thing is, all of those things mentioned, while they can be mistakes, can also be artistic choices. They can also be initial mistakes that are deliberately developed from the original 'mistake' for creative reasons.

This viewpoint seems to hold that Dream Theater (or, at the very least, John Petrucci) approves of every little nuance in the production and couldn't imagine them getting better. All the choices were intentional and to the taste of the band members (or, at least, JP--MM's comments on the drum compression seem to betray some dissatisfaction on his part, but that's a separate discussion).

I think that if the second viewpoint turned out to be correct (which could only be proven with the sort of statement that vtgrad brought up on the last page), those who dislike the album's sound quality would voice their criticism differently. If you hold the first viewpoint, you're essentially assuming that if the album sounded like you want it to sound, that John Petrucci would also like the way it sounds--perhaps better than he likes the way the actual album sounds! If JP were to come out and explain that the way the album sounds is a reflection of his audio preferences for reasons x, y, and z, I think the dissenters would (or at least should) think "Hey, I still don't like it, but I can't blame him for doing what he did."

But, from our outside vantage point, I think that the first perspective is probably closer to the truth than the second (though anything is possible). Which seems more likely: a) that JP got DT12 to a sound quality level he felt worked and pretty much left it at that (I'm oversimplifying) or b) JP has a preference for clipping and makes sure some gets in there? B is possible, and the truth is probably somewhere in between (we can infer that he at least seems to like hot masters, after all), but A seems to be the more intuitive possibility. Dream Theater may be technical masters, but they are not perfect, as any listen to Chaos in Motion (referring to the performance, not the sound) will tell you. And just as JP will miss a note every now and then even though he wants to play everything perfectly, it's entirely possible that his production (and Chycki's mix, etc.) will fall short of the perfection of his vision in some areas as well.

And so that's why many here are so vocal about the frustration with the production. If it's an artistic choice, fine--you have to respect it, and if it's a deal-breaker, you can go find other bands that meet your personal production tastes/standards. But the band's process of and satisfaction with production and sound quality matters is not an easy thing to tease out. A lot of fans on this board prefer the band's longer tracks to shorter ones, and yet, though DT12 was almost exclusively short tracks, I didn't see many "man, the songs were too short" complaints. And that's not because everybody loves the album--as we know, response here is mixed. The reason why there weren't many complaints about the track length (or at least, one big but overlooked one) is that the band addressed why they did what they did, and while not everyone loves that decision, they understand it. So there's the "Well, fair enough" reaction. That's completely absent from the sound quality discussion, and due to the ambiguity present, we have this ongoing debate.

[rumborak]

My best guess is that it's partially an image thing too. They're trying to reach a big market, and while they won't sacrifice their core sound for it, I think they're fine with making their CD "modem sounding". Only that, while one *can* produce a modern-sounding album and still have dynamics, JP isn't the guy who can make that happen.

[Rodni Demental]

Well surmised, you've certainly found the middle ground there, which is the best way to appreciate different perspectives. I guess with my view, I'm literally taking it to the extreme and might as well be saying "who cares what JP does, if he's happy with it, then that should be good enough for us". BUT it's obviously not good enough for some people and that's fine too, you can't pretend you like something when it is actually bothering you in some way. I think the root of my argument is attempting to question people's view on what they expect in the first place. Which is why I mentioned how perceived 'mistakes' can be an artistic choice, either to leave them in there for whatever reason or perhaps sometimes they're actually not mistakes at all. I mean really, I'm not gonna change peoples mind, but it might allow some people to reassess why a type of production issue is bothering them in the first place, and if it actually matters in the end. The reason I feel this view is important is because while criticism can be constructive, valid, relevant, some of it is just pointless whining and I don't always understand what the big deal is or why some people have allowed it to bother them so much in the first place. But I can appreciate these issues as seen by others and I sometimes even agree. It's just, sometimes I prefer not to ruin my listening experience with all these preconceptions and just listen to it for what it is, and appreciate it as presented.

It's a fairly passive attitude and certainly doesn't strive to change anything specifically, it just allows the artist to have complete creative freedom to grow on their own with out any impositions. The artist will naturally make the choices they feel best serves the music and I trust them to do that on their own, I don't want to tell them what to do. I have preferences too though but I don't expect things to always match up with them, that'd probably get boring anyway.

It is highly likely that it's to do with producing a more modern contemporary sounding album, possibly at the expense of some dynamic variation. But for all we know dynamic variation in the traditional sense is not even what they're going for. You actually do sacrifice some punch and some oomph in a more dynamic mix, and as unfortunate as it seems, sometimes people won't pay attention if it doesn't catch them. I'm certainly a more modern fan, and I might not have even got into them if there weren't some of those heavier songs with really full on production that gets your attention. For shame really, I hate to admit it because I actually prefer a more natural and dynamic sound as opposed to overcompression in most cases, but sometimes I actually quite like a good ol' chunky loud guitar riff. I think they do want to keep the fans happy though so in the end I rekon they'll likely find the middle ground as they grow and learn a bit more from each release.

[abydos]

My best guess is that it's partially an image thing too. They're trying to reach a big market, and while they won't sacrifice their core sound for it, I think they're fine with making their CD "modem sounding". Only that, while one *can* produce a modern-sounding album and still have dynamics, JP isn't the guy who can make that happen.

If they are really trying to do that, then they should start listening to some contemporary soundingalbums and hear that their demos probably sound better than what DT puts out.

[Stadler]

It's really strange that you have to preface the words "sound quality" with the "whatever that is" remark. That's like saying there's no such thing as a recommended PSI, because some people like to keep their tires (or footballs) over or under standards for whatever reason. Sure, there's some leeway, but when you get into very obvious mistakes like too much clipping, muddy sound, and unintentional evidence of autone and other correctional software, you're beyond the realm of there just being some artistic reason for the sound being a certain way.

Well, this is where I diverge from the majority, and in a big way.  Unless given proof of the contrary by the band members themselves (ala Rush with Vapor Trails) I assume that what gets issued by a band has the approval - tacit or otherwise - of that band, and so the clipping, muddy sound, and... evidence of autotune" (I cut "unintentional" because I don't know how you know that) is absolutely within the realm of "artistic reason".  You're not going to convince me that someone like Lars or James - who are outspoken even in a field that is known for having it's outspoken participants - aren't going to say "our album sounds like shit" if that's what they really believe?  James LaBrie?  Gene Simmons?   I get that at some level a band may not have the juice to push back on the record company, but while there are plenty of examples of artists biting the hand that feeds them, there are way too few examples of artists biting this particular handfor it to be as "cut and dry" as some people claim. 

[Stadler]

But, from our outside vantage point, I think that the first perspective is probably closer to the truth than the second (though anything is possible). Which seems more likely: a) that JP got DT12 to a sound quality level he felt worked and pretty much left it at that (I'm oversimplifying) or b) JP has a preference for clipping and makes sure some gets in there? B is possible, and the truth is probably somewhere in between (we can infer that he at least seems to like hot masters, after all), but A seems to be the more intuitive possibility. Dream Theater may be technical masters, but they are not perfect, as any listen to Chaos in Motion (referring to the performance, not the sound) will tell you. And just as JP will miss a note every now and then even though he wants to play everything perfectly, it's entirely possible that his production (and Chycki's mix, etc.) will fall short of the perfection of his vision in some areas as well.

And so that's why many here are so vocal about the frustration with the production. If it's an artistic choice, fine--you have to respect it, and if it's a deal-breaker, you can go find other bands that meet your personal production tastes/standards. But the band's process of and satisfaction with production and sound quality matters is not an easy thing to tease out. A lot of fans on this board prefer the band's longer tracks to shorter ones, and yet, though DT12 was almost exclusively short tracks, I didn't see many "man, the songs were too short" complaints. And that's not because everybody loves the album--as we know, response here is mixed. The reason why there weren't many complaints about the track length (or at least, one big but overlooked one) is that the band addressed why they did what they did, and while not everyone loves that decision, they understand it. So there's the "Well, fair enough" reaction. That's completely absent from the sound quality discussion, and due to the ambiguity present, we have this ongoing debate.

Kudos for trying to explain this issue, and for what it's worth I think you did a good job.  But in the "from our outside vantage point" paragraph you posit two choices and I don't think the choices are limited like that.  I don't think it has to be so blunt as "I LOVE clipping!"  It can run far deeper or even far shallower than that.  How do you know JP didn't put three versions of "This Is The Life" on his kid's iPod and asked her to "tell Daddy which one sounds best"?   There are SO many variables that go into this process that it isn't as simple as "A" or "B".

There's a great quote by Geddy Lee somewhere where he is explicitly asked about the hotter levels in modern recording, and his answer is consistent (I think) with what I've written here.  I'm paraphrasing, but he says "if it was totally up to me and me alone, I would do something softer, but it isn't, there are two other band members, a producer, an engineer, a mastering engineer, and a record company, all who have different ideas on what sounds good.  Our records are thus a compromise, but a compromise I can certainly live with."   What in art (at least the art made for public consumption) ISN'T a compromise? 

[emtee]

I have tried every way possible, internally to give the band the benefit of the doubt, without knowing who makes the decisions or
what process is followed when signing off on the final product, but I'll tell you it's damn hard to understand with all the talent
in the band, the high level of attentivness to detail, and multiple highly intelligent people surrounding the process...how you can
release an album that sounds like ADToE. I have to conclude, as I posted earlier, that it was intended to sound the way it did.
For me that is the hardest part to understand. And I will say I KNOW this can't be the case but it's so damn strange that your
former drummer quits the band, a guy who has commanded front and center sound on all the albums and then as soon as he is gone
the drums sound like they were recorded in a closet with foam padding in front of the closet door. As a fan I kept wondering if
JP decided he was going to have the drums sound the way HE wanted them to sound within the mix. Weak, distant and muffled.
Again I am sure this wasn't the case but I still wonder about the subconscious of JP and JLB. Obviously that would not have been
fair or kind to MM so I'm left scratching my head as to how and why. Listening to that album is akin to trying to admire the Mona
Lisa through a distant dirty window screen. You know there is beauty there but it's pretty tough to see.

[Kotowboy]

There's A Dramatic Turn Of Events..

And there's Death Magnetic.


Give me ADTOE any day...

[TheCountOfNYC]

There's A Dramatic Turn Of Events..

And there's Death Magnetic.


Give me ADTOE any day...

This. I love Death Magnetic but it's difficult to get through the whole album because the production is so bad. ADTOE isn't the best sounding album, but it's fine by me.

[425]

Okay, sorry to be blunt about this, but it is the controversial opinions thread after all.

It's really strange that you have to preface the words "sound quality" with the "whatever that is" remark. That's like saying there's no such thing as a recommended PSI, because some people like to keep their tires (or footballs) over or under standards for whatever reason. Sure, there's some leeway, but when you get into very obvious mistakes like too much clipping, muddy sound, and unintentional evidence of autone and other correctional software, you're beyond the realm of there just being some artistic reason for the sound being a certain way.

IMO DT albums sound the way they do because DT have tried to make contemporary sounding albums without hiring producers and mixers who are known for producing great contemporary sounding albums.

Thing is, all of those things mentioned, while they can be mistakes, can also be artistic choices. They can also be initial mistakes that are deliberately developed from the original 'mistake' for creative reasons.

Excessive clipping is making an album that is unpleasant for some people to listen to for no reason. DT12 and DT12 HDTracks SOUND basically the same, from a mix standpoint, but one is not excessively clipped, and therefore not unpleasant to listen to. If someone makes an album with a lot of clipping as an artistic choice, then that artistic choice is bad. It's an atrociously awful artistic choice. Because it pointlessly makes the experience unpleasant for a portion of the audience, and yields no tangible benefit.

What you're describing is a preconception about the sound quality, so it's your expectation for it. The 'standard' maybe collectively upheld by an outspoken group of people, but the standard doesn't really exist, or at least, imo shouldn't be imposed onto something like art. Throw your preconceptions and standards out the window because they're what filter your experience instead of appreciating the sound/music as it is.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't really make sense. Certain aspects of music production are certainly matters of taste: whether to make it sound warm or cold, whether to double instruments, whether to process the vocals, how high each instrument should go in the mix. But when you say that not making an album that clips is just my personal preference and I shouldn't impose that standard on art and just appreciate the music as it is... To me, that's like saying "Hey, we've found a missing journal of Leonardo DaVinci saying he wanted to cover the Mona Lisa in a film that will make it blurry and hard to see any detail. So we're gonna do that now. What, you want to actually be able to look at the painting? Fuck you, your standard shouldn't be imposed onto something like art. Appreciate the blurry, filmy Mona Lisa as it is."

If you measure and compare everything and expect it to be a certain way you might miss something, or worse, limit your experience. Btw, that's not to say there's no such thing as a recommended PSI as an artist is going to meet those requirements at their own leisure. A recommendation is something that might be noted or considered for probably fairly logical and valid reasons, but it's not the same as an expected standard.

I'm sorry, but I do expect releases from bands on a label as big as Roadrunner to have good audio quality in the 21st century. The technology exists to do it, they just muck up the sound by trying to play the loudness game, and there's no reason to.

Throwing away your expectations doesn't mean the artist is going to go crazy and make something that'll deafin' the average person or create something so muddy it's indistinguishable, because that's not really gonna be their intention.

Death Magnetic. Have you ever heard Death Magnetic? The CD version of that is, seriously, not listenable for many people. It's just terrible. They went crazy and made something that, if not the average person, a large percentage of listeners is not going to be able to even sit through, plus it's distorted all to hell. There's no excuse for that when you're Metallica, one of the richest bands in the world. And, I'm sorry, but I'm going to use the o-word. That is an objectively bad sounding album. The production quality of it is objectively terrible. It is distorted to an extreme degree and is so pointlessly loud that it is hard for many to listen to. That album is the perfect demonstration of the fact that there is objective good and bad quality in audio production. No one is going to listen to Death Magnetic and say that it is better produced than Fear of a Blank Planet.

BUT if they really wanted to have that choice, they should be able to make it. I know that might seem a bit extreme or even silly but point is; why impose a limit on creativity? If you're worried that by not have these standards there'd be 'anarchy' if you will,  then you obviously don't have much faith in the artist. Which begs the question, what is the reason you expect these things? So the artist will personally satisfy your requirements? Well you can never expect the artist to do that just for you, only you can effect how you feel about the artists choices.

No one is saying "let's pass a law banning the loudness war." At the same time, you can't expect people to spend money on an album that is made so that it is painful to listen to for no good reason whatsoever and to have their reaction be "Eh, it was the artist's choice to make that album uncomfortable for me, and even though they did it for no reason I'm not going to have any reaction to this at all, because it's their creativity and they are always right."

Which brings me to a question that comes up in a lot of these discussions, and for which I've never seen a straight answer: If the loudness war seriously does not bother you at all in any way, great for you. But, clearly, it does bother a lot of people. This isn't ten cranky audiophiles, this is in no small part people who knew next to nothing about audio until they found that the new Dream Theater album gave them a headache. Those of us who it annoys are asking artists and producers and record companies to stop doing it, because it reduces the quality of their product. None of us are asking anyone who is not affected by the loudness war to join in. But why do those of you who do not care what the dynamic range of something is actively try to oppose us? We're saying "this makes the music a chore for us. There is no reason for them to do this. This should be fixed." If the music industry adopted our changes, everyone would be affected in one of two ways: 1) Positively or 2) Not at all. No one would be harmed by the changes we want made being made. There is no downside. So why do some of you oppose us so vehemently?

[Calvin6s]

So this is the equivalent of Death Magnetic?
Loud Noises


I abandoned Metallica long before Death Magnetic, so I only know what I hear, but not what I've actually heard.

[425]

https://youtu.be/DRyIACDCc1I

There's a brief comparison of the CD version and the version that they released on Guitar Hero, which was for whatever reason a version that had not been clipped yet.

[Rodni Demental]

I actually bought Death Magnetic on GH3 before the album was available so my conception of it wasn't tainted or predefined by anything. My GF at the time got the CD version of it shortly thereafter that I got the chance to listen to in the car on a few occasions, and never had any issues. But you'll probably think I'm as bad as Lars for passing my judgement from this perspective
I'm well aware DM is considered an overcompressed abomination, but at no point do I consider it painful to listen to, it hasn't harmed me, and it has some pretty rockin' songs on it. What I'm really questioning, is what bothers you so much about clipping issues if that's the one that's gonna be the focus of our concerns? It happens sometimes, perhaps it's not always desirable but it's sometimes not noticeable and believe it or not, it can even be an effective way to deliberately distort a sound. Also, you have quite a bit of a preconception about how you interpret and filter the 'art' don't you? Alright, if you want, I guess it is like saying you should appreciate the Mona Lisa through a blurry lens, especially so if Leonardo DaVinci specifically says that it a valid and alternative point of view to experience the art. Maybe there's something you'll miss if you can't get passed your own impositions and truly believe it's not being expressed 'correctly'. I would respond to some specific parts of your posts, but I don't think I need to because overall you're just demonstrating how strong your expectations are and to me, you're not really questioning them which is all I'm encouraging. You don't have to accept the things you don't prefer, but you can't impose yourself onto them.

Anyway, I get where you're coming from. The bottom line as you put it, there is a group of people that feel this way. Personally, I think a lot of them are a bit outspoken and love to exaggerate and whine about everything. But that is a HUGE generalisation, I don't mean to take away from the legitimate concerns of those effected by this who want to appreciate the music more, but are having trouble with doing so for varying reasons. I'd like you to know that I don't oppose your viewpoint, I concede your points, but I'd still like to bring in to question why it bothers people soo much. I think you are in control of how much is has to bother you, and that is associated with your preconception/expectation etc. Are the people that take issue with this really being physically harmed and in pain from headaches induced from the compression levels of the music? This seems bizarre if you're doing this to yourself. Or are they pretentious snobs that want everything to conform to their point of view and probably complain about anything that slightly bothers them? That last part is probably only a select minority.
And I certainly wouldn't limit it to the things I mentioned, there's probably heaps of reasons why someone would feel this way. It's just at the end of the day, we're responsible for the effect the art has on us; not the artist. They're just reflecting aspects of ourselves for us to interpret and inspect; and the reason for this is we can only ever see things from our own subjective point of view. That's why objectivity really is only a collective illusion if you actually consider it from all angles, because you'll realise that there's always observational and environmental bias even when considering collective agreements (objectivity) that are taken for granted. I would take this a step further and say that even 'facts' are a type of belief, because you can't determine them to be true until you believe something to be true about them. And if something changes, the fact would need to be updated or discarded not unlike words in a dictionary. They're not absolute but that's getting into an entirely different discussion.. Although certainly related to my point.

Am I making any sense here or ?   

[rumborak]

I can simply say for myself, it has happened numerous times where I'm at work and listening to my music on shuffle. So, there's songs by Steven Wilson, Opeth, Depeche Mode, Genesis, and they all nicely follow each other.
And then, occasionally, a DT12 song comes on. And that event is usually followed by either a) me ripping out my ear buds or b) a desperate scramble to get my mouse pointer over to the volume slider.
It is just an insanely loud album, and for absolutely no reason. Even when I specifically listen to it, at some point while working I suddenly realize that I've been barraged by this sonic wall, and when the break in IT comes around, it's like stepping out of a really loud bar. Sure, you could still understand things, but the sheer volume just wears you out.
No other album in my collection does that. And that's a bad sign for DT12.

[Rodni Demental]

That's it though, is it really entirely a sonic quality issue? Or is it a relative comparative issue based on an expectation of this 'standard'? Or are people just overly dramatic because it doesn't quite fit as neatly into their collection of music? Does DT12 actually sound bad, or does it require one to just turn the volume down a tad by comparison? Possibly a combination of all of the above, it may appear as I'm taking an extreme opposing view, but really I'm just trying to point out an aspect of this issue that isn't really being considered, and the answer is probably somewhere in between. I mean your situation is fair enough, I've even experienced a similar scenario with DT12, but it's nothing dramatic, and certainly nothing damaging unless I deliberately subjected myself to a really high volume, but you can do that with anything.

[rumborak]

Twist it any way you want, but DT12 stands out, to my, in a bad way out of my entire music collection (which is pretty big at this point).
As a general comment, Rodni, I think you would do well not constantly assigning ulterior motives or other such things for people who disagree with you.

[Rodni Demental]

Sure, I'll take note. I certainly can't speak for other people and I didn't intend to come across in this way if that's how you see it. Truth is I'm actually incredibly neutral on the subject. But I do encourage people to question their beliefs and the things they take for granted, and perhaps consider why they feel a certain way about it in the first place, and most importantly, if it actually matters.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, but it's too fucking loud.

[Prog Snob]

Agreed.  I've heard worse but from a band like Dream Theater you expect so much more in a finished product.  It's a CD of some really great songs that you don't get to experience the way they were meant to be heard.

[Skeever]

Yeah, it's way too loud and compressed sounding. That can good for a metal band, but in this case it's like DT wanted to make a record that sounded like Periphery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEygCZ4LrEA) but instead of hiring the guy who does Periphery, they did it by themselves and hired the guy known for his work with Rush to help.

Again, what they were going for in theory wasn't bad, and I believe they had the best of intentions. But in their case doing it in house or getting their usual cast of Rush and Maiden producers wasn't going to do the trick.

[BlobVanDam]

DT12 is too loud how ever you want to spin it. Sadly, it's pretty representative of modern metal albums, so it's not a relative thing, it's just tiring to the ears to listen to those volumes.

And there's no good listening volume for an overcompressed album. If you turn it down, it's still a wall of sound, but it somehow sounds too loud and too soft at the same time, and you can't make out anything. And if you turn it up, it just hurts. Whatever happened to using the volume control to turn it up?

[KevShmev]

Maybe it's because I always listen to the HD version, but the sound of DT12 does not bother me.  I am not saying it sounds as awesome sonically as Awake or FII, but it's fine by me.

[gmillerdrake]

I'm really thankful that I can just listen and enjoy DT or any band for that matter and not really care how it's mixed. It all sounds good to me....I'm not that picky I guess

[erwinrafael]

The earlier example of DT12 songs jumping out in a playlist that includes Genesis, Steven Wilson, and Depeche Mode is, in my opinion, invalid, because these other artists are not in the metal genre. As Blob has said, if you compare the DT12 music to the music of other metal bands nowadays, the loudness is relatively comparable.

My favorite mix for DT albums is Falling Into Infinity for the not-so-aggressive sounding songs, and Train of Thought for the aggressive sounding songs. I think we have to consider that DT's music has changed from the FII days, tilting towards the more metal side, so the mix for FII would not necessarily translate into the best-sounding mix for new DT songs.

That said, the loud mixing of DT songs started around the Systematic Chaos period. I tried to look at the context at why would metal bands engage in a loudness war starting from this period. The answer that I came up with is that the record labels are adjusting to the conditions of how music is being consumed. More and more, music is being consumed using mobile devices. The prevalent listening output device is the earphone, not hi-fi sound systems or even headphones. Music is listened to more and more in outdoor settings, while commuting to work, while walking in the park, etc. And music is listened to more and more on an individual track basis, not as a whole album, with users now able to create their own playlists, which they can put into shuffle settings. Because they do not listen to whole albums, they don't really experience the fatigue of listening to whole loud albums.

This morning, to test my hypothesis that this compressed "loud" music fits the context that I described, I arranged a playlist on my mobile phone that consists of Peruvian Skies, Endless Sacrifice, Constant Motion, Bridges in the Sky, and Behind the Veil. I used my best earphones that are NOT noise-canceling or in-ear. I listened to the playlist in my regular commute, where I have to take public transport and walk through thick crowds of people. My experience sort of confirmed that dynamic range means shit when I am in a crowd, in an outdoor setting. The best sounding songs in the said context was Constant Motion and Behind the Veil. I was able to hear the bass guitar, the cymbals, the riffs had power. And surprisingly, the MM snare in Behind the Veil sounded good in this environment. I can actually understand why producers would go for a loud mix if we assume that this is the context of the average consumer of music nowadays.

That said, I would want a much better mix next time, preferably an FII one. I actually have high hopes that the mix would improve towards that direction because of one trend: the increasing popularity of in-ear phones. Noise-canceling mobile listening equipment is the fastest-growing segment in the earphone market, and loudly mixed music is really overbearing with in-ear phones.

[425]

I actually bought Death Magnetic on GH3 before the album was available so my conception of it wasn't tainted or predefined by anything. My GF at the time got the CD version of it shortly thereafter that I got the chance to listen to in the car on a few occasions, and never had any issues. But you'll probably think I'm as bad as Lars for passing my judgement from this perspective
I'm well aware DM is considered an overcompressed abomination, but at no point do I consider it painful to listen to, it hasn't harmed me, and it has some pretty rockin' songs on it.

Well, yes, a car stereo is not exactly the ideal listening environment when trying to detect sound quality. Besides that... Clearly you're one of the lucky ones who isn't affected by it. But I think it's important that you acknowledge that some of us are. I listened to the CD version of DM a total of once. I know the album pretty well from having heard non-CD versions, and agree that the songs are good, but for me and for a lot of people, the CD version is nigh unlistenable as is. And for some people it isn't, and good for them.

What I'm really questioning, is what bothers you so much about clipping issues if that's the one that's gonna be the focus of our concerns? It happens sometimes, perhaps it's not always desirable but it's sometimes not noticeable and believe it or not, it can even be an effective way to deliberately distort a sound.

Okay,

1) As the comparison video in my last post demonstrates pretty soundly (and that's YouTube audio quality!) a highly compressed album just sounds worse than one that hasn't been highly compressed. Usually the difference in this area is minor unless it's a hatchet job of Death Magnetic proportions, but it definitely does.

2) It causes, for me and other people, fatigue to listen to a whole album of highly compressed music. I don't know the reason for this, something to do with the constant loudness or something, but it definitely does. I experienced this with Systematic Chaos before I hardly knew what clipping was or that SC was considered brickwalled. That's a long, brickwalled album, and by The Ministry of Lost Souls I would typically feel some discomfort in my ears, and in some cases a headache. That has gone away since I've switched to the HDTracks version, which is a far less compressed master.

It's not noticeable to a lot of people, yes. It's not noticeable in some instances, yes (Falling Into Infinity and Metallica's Black Album are both somewhat compressed, though not to the degree of DM or SC, and they sound pretty good). But in instances where it is taken to a certain point (I would say SC is to this point, and DM way way beyond it), it can cause that type of fatigue and discomfort for some people, myself included. I could not imagine it being a way of "distorting a sound," because it literally changes the entire album, not just one part of it. And even if it's not noticeable for you, it is noticeable and even painful for other people, so why not say "Okay, I don't experience this, but clearly it's a problem for others and it doesn't hurt me if they change it, so let's go ahead and agree, it should be changed."

Also, you have quite a bit of a preconception about how you interpret and filter the 'art' don't you? Alright, if you want, I guess it is like saying you should appreciate the Mona Lisa through a blurry lens, especially so if Leonardo DaVinci specifically says that it a valid and alternative point of view to experience the art.

Okay, but my point with the DaVinci example is that it's not optional. It's like they blurred up the original Mona Lisa and every single print, giving no one even the option of looking at the better quality version.

Maybe there's something you'll miss if you can't get passed your own impositions and truly believe it's not being expressed 'correctly'. I would respond to some specific parts of your posts, but I don't think I need to because overall you're just demonstrating how strong your expectations are and to me, you're not really questioning them which is all I'm encouraging. You don't have to accept the things you don't prefer, but you can't impose yourself onto them.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider ear fatigue and headaches to be something that I should just "get passed" in order to realize John Petrucci's true artistic vision of a shitty master. It's not just a preference, it is avoiding discomfort and pain just from listening to a damn album.

Are the people that take issue with this really being physically harmed and in pain from headaches induced from the compression levels of the music?

Yes, some of us are. It's not like a severe migraine headache, but it's bad enough to make me not really want to listen to the album again anytime soon.

This seems bizarre if you're doing this to yourself.

We like the band, we often like the music. It's just this side-effect. I liked DT12 but found it hard to listen to; once I got the HDTracks I listened to it a lot more. I don't like having to deprive myself of listening to music that I like just because someone decided to do the stupid loudness trick.

Or are they pretentious snobs that want everything to conform to their point of view and probably complain about anything that slightly bothers them? That last part is probably only a select minority.  

Yeah, and even if those people do exist, that really should not discount the totally valid complaints of many people.

And I certainly wouldn't limit it to the things I mentioned, there's probably heaps of reasons why someone would feel this way. It's just at the end of the day, we're responsible for the effect the art has on us; not the artist.

Okay, but I would argue that mastering is not the art, it's the medium. It's like someone making a movie that's intentionally blurry and saying "don't blame me for how bad the picture quality is, you're responsible for the effects that the hatchet job done by my technicians has on you, I'm not."

They're just reflecting aspects of ourselves for us to interpret and inspect; and the reason for this is we can only ever see things from our own subjective point of view. That's why objectivity really is only a collective illusion if you actually consider it from all angles, because you'll realise that there's always observational and environmental bias even when considering collective agreements (objectivity) that are taken for granted. I would take this a step further and say that even 'facts' are a type of belief, because you can't determine them to be true until you believe something to be true about them. And if something changes, the fact would need to be updated or discarded not unlike words in a dictionary. They're not absolute but that's getting into an entirely different discussion.. Although certainly related to my point.

Disagree, but that's way outside the scope, so I won't go into it.

Am I making any sense here or ?

I get what you're saying, though I still don't totally understand even calling into question the simple idea of "stop doing things that fuck up the sound quality for no reason."


#lastminuteedit:
I agree 100% with rumbo, Hef, Prog, Skeever and Blob.

[emtee]

For whatever it's worth I'm appreciative that some people here who are closer to the band than most of us have the courage to
speak freely about the sound issues. It gives me hope that there may be others close to the band not afraid to speak up. In the end
we all just want an album that sounds represenative of the talent and intelligence of the people involved with it.

[Stadler]

Excessive clipping is making an album that is unpleasant for some people to listen to for no reason. DT12 and DT12 HDTracks SOUND basically the same, from a mix standpoint, but one is not excessively clipped, and therefore not unpleasant to listen to. If someone makes an album with a lot of clipping as an artistic choice, then that artistic choice is bad. It's an atrociously awful artistic choice. Because it pointlessly makes the experience unpleasant for a portion of the audience, and yields no tangible benefit.

It's not just you, there are others echoing the same point, but the fact is, no matter how you slice it, it is STILL just your opinion.  Even calling on a certain standard to be your measuring stick makes it YOUR opinion.

At the end of the day, absent a comment from JP (or other rep from the band) saying "Wow, that fucker is just too loud, and the clipping is WTF", there is no other assumption that can be made besides "he/they wanted it this way".   Whether it makes sense or not, whether you would do it or not, or whether it is "pleasing" or not is irrelevant.   Yoko Ono has made a lucrative career out of making sounds - musical sounds - that are patently unpleasing to the ear.

I'm sorry, but I do expect releases from bands on a label as big as Roadrunner to have good audio quality in the 21st century. The technology exists to do it, they just muck up the sound by trying to play the loudness game, and there's no reason to.

Can you please show me where we all - I mean every single listener to music on the planet - have agreed to this universal standard of what "good audio quality" is?   Haha, I'm trying to be funny, not a dick, but hopefully you'll get the point.   

Death Magnetic. Have you ever heard Death Magnetic? The CD version of that is, seriously, not listenable for many people. It's just terrible. They went crazy and made something that, if not the average person, a large percentage of listeners is not going to be able to even sit through, plus it's distorted all to hell. There's no excuse for that when you're Metallica, one of the richest bands in the world. And, I'm sorry, but I'm going to use the o-word. That is an objectively bad sounding album. The production quality of it is objectively terrible. It is distorted to an extreme degree and is so pointlessly loud that it is hard for many to listen to. That album is the perfect demonstration of the fact that there is objective good and bad quality in audio production. No one is going to listen to Death Magnetic and say that it is better produced than Fear of a Blank Planet.

That is NOT OBJECTIVE.  You can have your own opinions, but you CANNOT have your own facts.  Make whatever case you want as to why a band SHOULD do things your way, but you cannot say that there is a right or wrong.   As a basic example, who said that an album HAS to be "easy" to listen to?   Where is that been decreed?   

And Metallica is a great example, because - and this is my opinion, only - I think people are being VERY hypocritical when talking about Death Magnetic as being "horribly" produced, and citing all the irrelevant facts about their "money" and "influence".  If you REALLY look closely at their catalogue, they have never taken the "easy" way on any level, and the sound of their records is but one aspect of it.  But I have absolutely not one doubt that Lars and James intended that record to sound exactly as it does.   PURELY artistic intent.  ...AJFA is an incredibly difficult album to digest; incredibly (for them) long songs, odd mix with little to no bass (thus overemphasizing the mid- and treble-registers).    SKoMonster; incredibly difficult album to digest; little in the way of melody to latch on to, almost no guitar playing in the traditional sense of the "rock solo"... Lulu; incredibly difficult album to digest; no lyrical touchstones to readily latch on to, odd (as in non-traditional) performances, etc.   I could go on.   

No one is saying "let's pass a law banning the loudness war." At the same time, you can't expect people to spend money on an album that is made so that it is painful to listen to for no good reason whatsoever and to have their reaction be "Eh, it was the artist's choice to make that album uncomfortable for me, and even though they did it for no reason I'm not going to have any reaction to this at all, because it's their creativity and they are always right."

Then don't spend the money.  Vote with your wallet.   And I guarantee you - I mean, I literally guarantee you - you will see two things happen:   one group of bands will noticeably turn down and tailor their released output for the audience that is spending the money on their work, and a second group of bands (and I believe with all my heart that Metallica will be here) will continue to make challenging records that sound like they want them to because that is what they do (see: Lulu).   

Which brings me to a question that comes up in a lot of these discussions, and for which I've never seen a straight answer: If the loudness war seriously does not bother you at all in any way, great for you. But, clearly, it does bother a lot of people. This isn't ten cranky audiophiles, this is in no small part people who knew next to nothing about audio until they found that the new Dream Theater album gave them a headache. Those of us who it annoys are asking artists and producers and record companies to stop doing it, because it reduces the quality of their product. None of us are asking anyone who is not affected by the loudness war to join in. But why do those of you who do not care what the dynamic range of something is actively try to oppose us? We're saying "this makes the music a chore for us. There is no reason for them to do this. This should be fixed." If the music industry adopted our changes, everyone would be affected in one of two ways: 1) Positively or 2) Not at all. No one would be harmed by the changes we want made being made. There is no downside. So why do some of you oppose us so vehemently?

I have answered this question repeatedly, but I think the underlying assumptions are different enough that it negates what I'm saying.  I don't oppose your opinion, I oppose you telling artists what to do.   I HATE that.  I don't give a rat's ass what any FAN thinks, I want to know what the ARTIST thinks.    This is in part why Ritchie Blackmore is by far my favorite musician of all time.  Do I love the renaissance stuff? Beyond Candace being hot, no, I would MUCH rather see RB on one knee at the front of stage left ripping off a kick ass electric solo in "Highway Star".  Or melting my eardrums on a super-charged "Burn".    Hell, I'd even settle for a raucous "All Night Long".  But his muse is somewhere stuck in the 1500's and that's what we get.  And I wouldn't DREAM of having it any other way, because at least I know it's PURE.    I pay my artists to give me their take on things, not the take of the loudest members of the audience as filtered through them.  Isn't that what we castigate pop music for?  Isn't that the knock on the Justin Beibers of the world? Taking the easy, fan-favorite way out?   I am not exaggerating when I say this:   I think if DT or Rush or Metallica redid their albums based on the way you and yours want it, as opposed to the way THEY want it, they are now no better than Justin Beiber.   

[Lucien]

We just want it to stop sounding like shit

[BlackInk]

We just want it to stop sounding like shit

Yeah, this about sums it up.

[emtee]

So I guess what this all boils down to is whether DT wanted the last 2 albums to sound like they did.

[425]

It's not just you, there are others echoing the same point, but the fact is, no matter how you slice it, it is STILL just your opinion.  Even calling on a certain standard to be your measuring stick makes it YOUR opinion.

Okay? My opinion is that it's bad to have shit sound quality. In this case my opinion is right essentially by the definitions of "bad" and "quality."

At the end of the day, absent a comment from JP (or other rep from the band) saying "Wow, that fucker is just too loud, and the clipping is WTF", there is no other assumption that can be made besides "he/they wanted it this way".   Whether it makes sense or not, whether you would do it or not, or whether it is "pleasing" or not is irrelevant.   Yoko Ono has made a lucrative career out of making sounds - musical sounds - that are patently unpleasing to the ear.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between the music itself and the production. I really don't care what Yoko does, but DT is not intending to make music that is unpleasant to hear (most of the time). That is obvious. It's just the production that is unpleasant. It's not like JP is sitting there in the studio saying "eh, let's fuck it up so none of 'em can hear it right." It is clear that his intent is to make something that is pleasant to hear, but whoever is brickwalling it is causing the opposite effect to happen.

And it is not at all irrelevant whether it is pleasant to the ear. Because if it's not pleasant I'm not going to listen to it, because I am not a masochist. And if it would ordinarily be pleasant but is made unpleasant for no good reason, I'm going to be pissed about that (whereas if Yoko makes something intentionally unpleasant I don't care because I'm not going to listen to that anyway).

Can you please show me where we all - I mean every single listener to music on the planet - have agreed to this universal standard of what "good audio quality" is?   Haha, I'm trying to be funny, not a dick, but hopefully you'll get the point.

Not everyone has to agree to something for it to be true. Death Magnetic has objectively awful sound quality. It distorts, it is clipped all to hell, it has no dynamic range. Even if Lars is all "eyyyyyy it sounds great on my car radio" that does not mean that we say "oh, someone disagreed so now we have no way of knowing if it's truly good or not." It's still objectively bad sound quality, even if Lars thinks otherwise.

That is NOT OBJECTIVE.  You can have your own opinions, but you CANNOT have your own facts.  Make whatever case you want as to why a band SHOULD do things your way, but you cannot say that there is a right or wrong.

I really cannot believe that I'm spending time arguing about this. Honestly, this is just a weird and incorrect thing to say. There are facts in this world. I know that some people want to believe that everything is a subjective social construct so that they never have to be wrong and never have to really take a stand on anything, but there are facts in this world. When we talk about sound quality, we're talking about the ability to hear and understand sounds well on a particular release. A CD where the sound is distorted from its originally recorded version, that is brickwalled all to hell causing listener fatigue from the monotony of the same volume with no dynamics is of poor quality. It is objectively of poor quality. Just like how a blurry video is objectively of poor quality as compared to one that is in HD. It is not "eyyyy maybe you prefer HD but that's just your OPINION man.... HD is no better or worse than this video I shot on my Motorola RAZR."

As a basic example, who said that an album HAS to be "easy" to listen to?   Where is that been decreed?

It doesn't have to be, but if it's truly grating then it's a shit album, in my opinion. And if it's an album that intends to be easy to listen to, but has a subtle production quality that makes it harder to listen to, then the production is very clearly contradicting the intent of the album and therefore the production is objectively bad for that album. I suppose if you were making an album of the noises of silverware being dropped in garbage disposals and the screeching of nails on a chalkboard (God knows why, but let's say you were), then you would probably want the album to be brickwalled and fuzzy as all hell just to perfect the awfulness of it all, and in that case the shitty brickwalled production would be the perfect choice. But 99% of albums are trying to be enjoyable to listen to, and for those albums, clear, dynamic production is objectively right.

And Metallica is a great example, because - and this is my opinion, only - I think people are being VERY hypocritical when talking about Death Magnetic as being "horribly" produced, and citing all the irrelevant facts about their "money" and "influence".

Don't care about money or influence myself. It's just horribly produced. Unlistenably bad.

If you REALLY look closely at their catalogue, they have never taken the "easy" way on any level, and the sound of their records is but one aspect of it.  But I have absolutely not one doubt that Lars and James intended that record to sound exactly as it does.   PURELY artistic intent.

You are suggesting that Lars and James took the time to write a selection of moderately complex, dynamic songs with the goal in mind of making them hard to comprehend and obliterating all dynamics. That's what you're suggesting.

...AJFA is an incredibly difficult album to digest; incredibly (for them) long songs, odd mix with little to no bass (thus overemphasizing the mid- and treble-registers).    SKoMonster; incredibly difficult album to digest; little in the way of melody to latch on to, almost no guitar playing in the traditional sense of the "rock solo"... Lulu; incredibly difficult album to digest; no lyrical touchstones to readily latch on to, odd (as in non-traditional) performances, etc.   I could go on.

You don't have to convince me that Metallica has made some shit albums in their day. DM is not one of them, production excepted. Neither is Justice, which is poorly produced, though the long songs have really nothing to do with that.

Then don't spend the money.  Vote with your wallet.   And I guarantee you - I mean, I literally guarantee you - you will see two things happen:   one group of bands will noticeably turn down and tailor their released output for the audience that is spending the money on their work, and a second group of bands (and I believe with all my heart that Metallica will be here) will continue to make challenging records that sound like they want them to because that is what they do (see: Lulu).

Do you really understand what the loudness war is? The loudness war is not "making challenging records." It is literally just ruining good records by making them sound bad. The production of Death Magnetic is not a "challenge for the listener," it's seriously just bad. It's not a movie with a complex plot, it's a movie shot on a Motorola RAZR with coffee spilled on the film before it's shown in the theater. All for no good reason.

Of course, artists like Steven Wilson really care about sound quality. They take effort to make sure that the production on their albums sounds pristine and does not hit the listener over the head with brickwalling.

I don't oppose your opinion, I oppose you telling artists what to do.   I HATE that.

I really don't get this. I'm not saying "John Petrucci, you must write an epic about Santa Claus that includes reindeer noises and a 13 minute guitar solo." I'm saying "John Petrucci, please for God's sake make a CD that has good sound quality." That's akin to me writing a letter to Steven Spielberg and saying "please shoot your next movie with really good cameras." If you really hate people asking that albums don't get ruined for them... I don't even know what to say. I would say that's touchiness to a fault that almost crosses over into spite for listeners with sensitive ears.

I don't give a rat's ass what any FAN thinks

Which is why you took the time to write a lengthy post expressing your disapproval of what the fans think.

I want to know what the ARTIST thinks.    This is in part why Ritchie Blackmore is by far my favorite musician of all time.  Do I love the renaissance stuff? Beyond Candace being hot, no, I would MUCH rather see RB on one knee at the front of stage left ripping off a kick ass electric solo in "Highway Star".  Or melting my eardrums on a super-charged "Burn".    Hell, I'd even settle for a raucous "All Night Long".  But his muse is somewhere stuck in the 1500's and that's what we get.  And I wouldn't DREAM of having it any other way, because at least I know it's PURE.    I pay my artists to give me their take on things, not the take of the loudest members of the audience as filtered through them.

Okay, again, this is musical style and not production. I'm not telling artists what kind of albums to make, I'm just telling them to make the albums have some slight modicum of sound quality.

Isn't that what we castigate pop music for?

Speak for yourself; I like pop music.

Taking the easy, fan-favorite way out?   I am not exaggerating when I say this:   I think if DT or Rush or Metallica redid their albums based on the way you and yours want it, as opposed to the way THEY want it, they are now no better than Justin Beiber.

You heard it here first folks. If DT makes the next album have decent sound quality, they'll have sold out. And be no better than 20 year old Canadian kids whose name no one can spell correctly. I before e except after c.

We just want it to stop sounding like shit

Yup.

[hefdaddy42]

^Yeah, Stadler, I don't even understand what you are arguing.^

You seem to be arguing about the musical content, but that's not what anyone here is talking about.