Metallica Guitar Hero Release Has Higher Quality Than CDs

Last week Metallica released a new album, Death Magnetic, on traditional CDs as well as downloadable content for Guitar Hero III. Fans quickly noticed that the sound quality on the CD version was noticeably below-par, thanks to the recording studio's decision to sacrifice range for loudness. However, the tracks released for Guitar Hero III made no such sacrifice, as proved by Mastering Engineer Ian Shepherd. NME found an audio clip comparing the two tracks. This comes alongside statements from Activision claiming that Aerosmith's recent venture into Guitar Hero is generating more success for the band than their actual albums.

Comments

Well...

[religious freak]

I wouldn't exactly call any Metallica song made after 1995 "quality"

Re:Well...

[Ethanol-fueled]

"...studio's decision to sacrifice range for loudness."

That's retarded. Loudness is no good if it sounds like it's coming out of a tinny radio, which is what too much compression and limiting can do. They apparently did such a poor job of it that the Cd signal was clipped! They certainly forgot what good "metal" is supposed to sound like.

Knowing Metallica, they probably cranked out a half-ass 10-minute session in the studio and had their "mastering" engineeer Pro-Tool the hell out of it, cut-and-paste style. Then they laughed, high-fived each other over beers, coke, and their solid gold Ferraris as they continue to be out of touch with reality.

And yes, in case you all were wondering, their new album most certainly does SUCK. Listening to Metallica is like having banged the prom queen in high school only to see her become a queen of the 300-pound welfare sort :(

Sound the XKCD alarm...

[Samantha Wright]

This comic is no longer true. :(

i can't stand this.

[Anonymous Coward]

i can control my own volume thank-you. and because of records like this, i'm forced to hit the volume every time these songs come up on a playlist. i realize there are volume normalizing pluout there, but i don't like the effect on the overall song.

you'll know what i mean if you jump from a cd made in the 80's to one made in the last 10 years.

hopefully this gets enough coverage to signal the end of this incredibly annoying trend.

Re:i can't stand this.

[Mprx]

Yet people recorded metal in the 80s with high dynamic range and it sounded perfectly "heavy". The loudness war has ruined most modern music for me, and even older music is being destroyed in remastered versions. Untrained listeners might prefer the compressed sound at first, but it's tiring to listen to for more than a few minutes. This is especially true as you get older. If you're concerned with standards, there's a new standard in planning at http://www.turnmeup.org/ . In the case of less mainstream music your fans will likely be more knowledgeable, and understand it sounds better if they turn it up themselves. Higher dynamic range could make you more popular and help you stand out from your overcompressed competitors.

Recent "loudness war" discussion on /.

[Graywolf]

FYI, the "loudness war" topic has been discussed on Slashdot lots of times, most recently here: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/23/1219205

Re:Recent "loudness war" discussion on /.

[Mprx]

Old recordings sound great if you listen on good equipment and turn up the volume. Dynamic compression destroys information, and while it's necessary for listening in noisy environments it should be a feature of the playback equipment, not forced on everybody.

Re:Recent "loudness war" discussion on /.

[Cow Jones]

Ah, here I am, replying to myself. I'm sorry, but just in case there's somebody out there who isn't conviced yet, here are a few prime examples:

one of the most cited examples
The Smiths - How Soon Is Now

The Wikipedia has a great article about it, too, as usual.

Why Sacrifice Quality for Volume?

[darkonc]

When fans can just set the volume knob to 11 on the amp?