I have a friend who told me that when you look at the sound waves for a song, there should be dynamics, and it shouldn't just look like one big block going across the screen with slightly serrated edges. He says professionally produced albums have range.

I imported some songs into Audacity and found that it seemed partially true. All my old albums had soundwaves with varying heights, but my newer albums tended to look like big blocks.

I did some research about The Loudness War, how in modern times labels and artists are pushing to have the loudest CD's and in the process they end up with clipping and less dynamics.

Although, strangely enough, newer albums sound better than old ones production-wise. Old production has a charm, but I love how much louder new albums are. I'm thinking maybe The Loudness War is a problem for pop music, but in metal it makes things better because we like it loud and proud.

I also know very little about music production, so if anyone could clarify this I would appreciate it.

Slightly related to the topic, but can anyone point me to a release with heavy amounts of distortion together with noticeable dynamic playing? (e.g. less compression, more attack, more volume changes in the guitars...)

Just crank up the volume on an old album and viola! loudness.

I hate how that's not even possible in the new shits. I can't stand the production in Funebrarum's 2009 and Cemetery Urn's 2007 albums, they're both unbearably fucking loud. It's a shame, because I absolutely love the death metal they play.

BTW NEW CEMETERY URN IS HERE

Well, that won't work on earphones. Full-blast is still quiet because everyone's afraid to get sued for hearing damage these days.

A good dynamic range in a mix is only necessary if the music being written and performed has a lot of dynamics to begin with. For something like extreme metal, this isn't really necessary. However if you have equal loudness throughout an entire track, you lack another method of reinforcing suspension and climax, tension and release (which are pretty important compositional tools).

You've exactly summed up a well-known psychoacoustic phenomenon (say that 10 times fast!). Louder typically sounds better to untrained ears.

Well many new albums (especially death metal albums) have shitty production, tried changing the EQ settings?

As always, there's a right way and a wrong way. I used this example earlier and I'll use it again: alot of, say, more recent Manowar albums are incredibly loud, but still enjoyable because the production was well done. On the other hand, we've got Death Magnetic, which also is an incredibly loud album, but the sheer volume is paid for via a compromise in real quality (guitars lack low end, clipping, etc).

So sure, the loudness war can very well be a good thing - with a good producer. It can also be a less-than-good thing, with a worse producer.

Funebrarum's newest album has great engineering. I love it.

Yeah, I love the way new Manowar albums sound. The production is amazing. I thought Death Magnetic sounded kind of bad, though, when compared to something like The Black Album. Now that had good production.



Well, I just can't stand it quiet. I feel the urge to make things louder like I feel the urge to sneeze.

I can tell when something is loud but badly produced, though. But if something's well-produced but quiet, I'm not sure it's much better.

I disagree, many death metal albums have great production, where all instruments are basically audible. The problem is that everything's too loud as well, and I mean like slammed to 0 db with no headroom. I admire production jobs like the one on Graves of the Archangels by Dead Congregation. It's slightly less loud than Funebrarum's, but hell does it bring an incredibly dark atmosphere to the music.

EQing works of course, but I would much prefer to spend less time reaching for the EQ whenever I hear those excessively loud ear-piercing mids and spend more time just enjoying the tracks.


Again, same problem. I can only listen to Nex Monumentum without having to adjust anything, although that's mainly because I get treated with a calmer yet amazing passage midway through the song.

Blame ipods, mp3s, car stereos, crappy "hi-fi" boomboxes, computer speakers, digital music downloads, polyphonic ringtones. All these contributed to people expecting loudness over dynamic and producers yielding to the fact that the music they are producing will be played over airport loudspeakers, shitty radios, ipods and phone lines. Most of all blame people who treat music as a commodity.

The Loudness War is ruining Metal, that's for sure. It's really tough for an audiophile to get good quality sound. You shouldn't blame iPods and .mp3's for the Loudness War, the blame is on crappy stereo systems. Most people have such crappy stereo systems that dynamic records don't sound good on it. Making it louder fixes that problem, and it makes the listener happier. Of course, if you have good equipment like me, then you really hear the flaws in your music, especially clipping.

Ha, yeah that must be it; I listen to my music through a bunch of cheap garbage. That must be why I'm after volume so much.

I personally hate the whole loudness war and dynamic compression (and FierceBlackAndWicked, get some good open headphones like the Sennheiser HD-555 or 595, in-ears are shit. My 595s can reach well over 100dB running straight from my PC). In the name of making it "louder" (which a turn of the volume knob could do), this stupid trend has literally sucked the heavy out of metal. The volume spikes caused by drum hits, more intense playing, shrieks, etc. create most of the "impact" of listening to music, and the old albums have far more kick than anything released after 1992 or so. Compare the thunderous drumming of Agent Orange to the weak-ass, pussied-out plastic bucket sound that is common these days. Drums are ruined, guitars are flattened, the bass disappears, the singer is drowned under the ball-less husk of a guitar tone.



Yes. Yes you are. These are relatively cheap and if in-ears are all you're used to, they'll blow your fucking mind:
http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD555- ... 016&sr=8-1

first album that comes to mind is Metallica's Death Magnetic for me. production was so loud that it was a pain to listen to the album, i had to download the guitar heroes version which was NOT the loud mix to actually have a proper listen.

too much loudness causes gain and static, if you are an audiophile enough, it is totally unbearable, unless of course you are talking about raw black metal and stuff, then its a different story.

Since when did "raw" come to mean "let's make it sound as unbearable as possible" rather than "unpolished and not produced with much care towards sounding pretty"? If you're intentionally uglifying the sound (as boosting the volume and compressing it to hell would be), you're doing raw wrong.

what i meant was production quality-wise, if its meant to sound raw then people shouldnt be complaining about the sound quality. but if its so polished that it turned out "raw" then its unbearable.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to complain about the sound quality if it's artificially "raw" bullshit like Nattens Madrigal (which sounds like a fairly normal production that Garm molested in the studio) rather than something that is actually raw like Deathcrush.

That actually is it. Ask anyone who works in the audio engineer industry. The Loudness War began because of this.

And yes, buy yourself a good pair of headphones, along with DAC, and a good amplifier to drive and synergize the headphones. Don't forget to have a good source (sound card, iPod, etc.), and high quality music files (get FLAC if you can, non compressed music). I myself own a pair of Denon D7000, and they sound very good with Metal, but they do reveal ALL the recording and mastering flaws of a bad album (Death Magnetic for example). Metallica's self-titled is a very well recorded and mastered album, try opening that in Audacity and look at the waves.

The same friend I mentioned in my OP owns a 100 buck pair of headphones. Next time I'm over his place I'll try them out, just because I'm hesitant about jumping into spending that much money. A couple years ago I spent 50 bucks on noise-cancelling headphones that ended up just not having enough volume to satiate me, even though the quality is great. I tend to use my in-ears more because they really put it to me. I want something that's good but eardrum-beatingily loud, you know. I'm listening to some metal now with my noise-cancelling ones, and I find myself slowly adjusting to the less volume but better quality, but it's hard man.

A perfect example of too much loudness is Alice In Chain's latest album. There are no dynamics, only loud.

U';d suggest trying to 'find' the Guitar Hero version of the Metallica, I was skeptical, myself, both was told and had read that it was supposed to be done the way it should have been, and amazingly enough it does sound significantly better

Noise-canceling headphones are shit.

Also, you don't want headphones eardrum-beatingly loud, that will fuck up your hearing very quickly. 85-90 dB should be enough for anyone. If you want something that's extremely loud, you should invest in a decent stereo (although that will be expensive). A stereo won't damage your hearing at high volume nearly as much as headphones will.

If you blast your headphones too loud, you will regret it in a few years.

How can I check how much dB I'm getting? Is there a way I can tell with my computer? Probably no way to check with my walkman.

I'm sure there are instruments available to test, but I just approximate it using benchmarks. A loud garbage disposal is around 80 dB. A fairly loud alarm clock, a motorcycle at 10 yards, or someone yelling is around 90 dB. Anything above 90 dB will eventually damage your hearing, especially through headphones.

Best way to check the dB amount is using MP3Gain software. Not only does it tell you the loudness, but it will equalize ALL your songs to 89.0 dB (standard), and remove clipping from ALL your tracks. It removed all distortion and clipping from Death Magnetic for me.

Also, I will have to disagree that in-ear monitors and noise canceling headphones suck. There is some very good gear out there, head over to Head-Fi.org for a website dedicated to GOOD equipment. You guys most likely are basing your conclusions on crappy brands like Bose, Skullcandy, Shure, etc.

One thing though if you're looking to spend lots of money on good gear: 60% of the time, better equipment will make Metal sound worse. Fact. It reveals all the recording/mastering flaws of the music. Of course, there is some decent music that scales very well with equipment (Opeth, Cynic, and Dream Theatre are great examples), but for the most part, it doesn't scale very well.

Yeah, it's hard to tell. I just did some tests. If I put my earphones down I can still hear the music clearly from 15-30 feet away. If I close the door and go in another room, I can hear my earphones through the door/wall but only very lightly. They're not as loud as a motorcycle, but if I put them in my ear canal I guess...well, it's hard to compare really. Yeah, I guess it's like a motorcycle.

I don't really need it louder than that, though. I'm probably above 90 dB but I don't know how much. I don't have a stereo system to use, either, other than my car.



I downloaded the software and checked my songs, most are coming up between 90-100 dB. But, is that at my computer's max volume or at what is considered normal volume?

on the other hand, loudness junkies who try to up the volume using mp3gain will add all the distortion and clipping to the song cos it adds gain, not volume. kinda tried that before and had to re-rip all my cds lol.

if you compare metallica's latest album to say master of puppets, you can see the vast differences in the volume haha.

I just did that to a few songs. Oh my God, I love this. I can target all my songs to 105.9 dB. I'll just ditch the earphones and listen to it through over-the-ear ones so I don't have to worry about hearing damage.

Thanks everyone for the advice. I learned a lot.

Woah 105.9 dB is fairly loud, you should stick with the standard 89.0 dB volume. The best thing about this is that it removes clipping.

Here's an example for everyone, download Nuke The Cross by Toxic Holocaust (song), put it on your iPod, and turn on any EQ setting. Now, listen to the song, and you will hear distortion and clipping at the very beginning when the riff starts and the drum starts hitting once. Now, process this song through MP3 Gain, and put it on your iPod, and all the crap will be gone.

So, would it be fair to say that this 'loudness' people refer to is the lessening of dynamics in music? As in, it's attempting to be ALL LOUD all the time? Or fortissimo, if you prefer.

Problem with that is it would make my music quieter than it is already, which is the opposite of what I was trying to do. I guess if I had a better system I wouldn't need to crank it up like that, but until that day comes I'll settle for some clipping.

Yes. It's not just different parts of a song being soft and loud, but the volume even in loud parts varying naturally moment by moment as different instruments sound at different times. The transient volume spikes in earlier (1992 and earlier) metal music provides a great deal of the heaviness; the impact of a powerful drum hit or guitar chord is caused by the volume suddenly getting louder and then softer (as it does with a real live performance). With the loudness war, the music has no room to breathe and it doesn't have the power it would have otherwise had. I find a lot of modern albums sterile, weak, and fatiguing to listen to after a while.

A CD has a maximum volume that cannot be exceeded. The "loudness war" involves flattening the peaks and valleys so everything is smashed against the max. With good ears and good equipment you can hear instruments fade in and out as they "fight" for what little dynamic range is left.

I hate how some of my CD's upload to my computer as mp4's instead of mp3's, because then I can't edit them in any programs.

Rip them in Apple Lossless or FLAC instead; it sounds better (equal to CD quality since there is no data loss); will also make the contrast between older albums and newer albums more obvious as lossy filetypes damage the bass and treble frequencies in music.

Oh yeah, and don't forget to buy a porsche while you're at it. Let's be fair, people don't have the money for this stuff. Cheap equipment gives you convenience to listen to music anywhere but sounds like crap. Loudness helps with that, but makes music worse for those with good equipment. What's the answer? I don't know. Maybe treating music as more 'special' and saving up for good equipment, or just listening less on a really good system, would give companies like Sony and Teac less chance to thrive, leading to better quality goods being manufactured. But we should remember that audio reproduction has never been able to achieve the standard of live sound - at what point does it go too far, and music cease to become music because of how shitty it sounds?

I can't stand wall-of-sound production.

$130 will get you a pair of nice headphones that I linked to in this very thread. They are vastly superior to anything you will find at Radio Shack, and to any stereo that costs less than $1000. $130 isn't a lot of money, even in a low-wage job.

Would it really kill you to give enough of a shit about what you listen to to buy a pair of headphones that costs less than some people pay for their phone bill (yes, phone bills can run into triple digits if you have really nice broadband or live in some rural bumblefuck area)?