Worst sounding Cd's ever

ibleedburgundy said:
I also always thought the old deep purple albums sound like poop IMO. And those guys rock IMO, but their mixes are not so great.
Click to expand...

I think the Purple Lps were great, wicked sound. Yet, I kind of know what you mean, at least on "Shades of..." and "In rock". It's hard to put a finger on it but something is kind of odd. I've always thought that with my "In rock" it's that Portuguese pressing !
 
In Rock had a bit of harshness, at least on my 80's era CD master. The snare and the guitars grated too much in the high mids. With that being said, its my favorite DP album. On a good set of monitors at medium volume, I actually can't really tell that harshness is there, in fact it adds to the "rock" factor. But some speakers, like my 5.1 PC speakers, at a high volume, it gets kinda grating.

Machine Head and Burn sound great though, although my CD masters have a bit too much 2-buss compression and limiting. Lots of nice juicy mids. Sometimes Ian's bass drum is a bit too punchy and "quick" sounding for my tastes, but it works.
 
Waltz Mastering said:
Do you like how the cd sounds? Were you reaching for the volume because it is mastered on the conservative side or to loud?

Just curious because I like the Plant - Krauss cd "Raising Sand" - but somewhere along the production process it got a little crunchy.

I imagine that's not the case with her newer stuff?
Click to expand...

I love the tone of the instruments, the vocal treatment, and the space, but if there's such a thing as too much dynamics, this CD has it. I found myself adjusting the volume to hear the detailed guitar parts, and then going deaf whenever her vocal line came in.
 
As for sheer this-is-garbage sound, I'd say the original release of St. Anger. Spending tons of cash to intentionally make something sound like a crappy garage recording is just f-ing dumb in my opinion. Didn't help that most of the sounds were crap to begin with though.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more! I think St. Anger is one of the worst sounding and overall worst albums ever! I saw this video where a rep from the record label visiting them in the studio to listen to the album and he was absolutely horrified. It literally looked like he just got shot in the nuts with a 12 gauge. He said something really funny too but I don't remember what it was. Why did this album sound so horrible? If these producers and engineers know what their doing and are getting paid tons of cash, why would they make an album like this?
 
Greg_L said:
Because it made millions of people buy and talk about it. Genius marketing.
Click to expand...

Good point! Still, makes me wonder how someone could create purposely create something that sounds horrible, just so people would talk about how bad it is!

Shame on St. Anger production team!
 
GuitardedMark said:
Good point! Still, makes me wonder how someone could create purposely create something that sounds horrible, just so people would talk about how bad it is!
Click to expand...
I think that's giving them too much credit; rarely do today's Big Name production teams put that much thought or "cleverness" into their work. Likely they were just pushing the "mo' louder, mo' better" baloney to it's extreme.

Nobody intentionally makes their stuff sound "bad". I like the analogy of big name movies. There are plenty of movies with big budgets and big names behind them that just don't turn out very good on any number of levels, whether it be editing, cinematography, acting, directing or plot. Not because they set out to spend millions on making a bad movie, but because human beings tend to make mistakes and bad decisions every once in a while, even when they are "pros".

If being a "pro" meant never making mistakes, doctors would not need malpractice insurance.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I think it's silly for fans to expect them to stay the same over a period of a couple of decades, and anyone expecting Metallica to sound today like they did back in the early 80s should just take the needle out of their arms, because that's not how life works. Not because they can't "handle" it anymore, but because most people grow and evolve as they age. Not to mention they just get tired of doing the same old crap over and over again, unless they are doing it just for the cash.
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between being happy/unhappy with the way a band's sound has evolved over the decades, though, and being unhappy with a spectacularly bad brick-walled mastering job.

I mean, the drums are audibly distorting, even on radio playback on my car speakers. It's absurd.
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
I think there's a difference between being happy/unhappy with the way a band's sound has evolved over the decades, though, and being unhappy with a spectacularly bad brick-walled mastering job.
Click to expand...
I agree. But I read a lot of complaints on both sides of that fence; there are a whole lot of fans, and not just for Metallica, who complain of being "betrayed" - or something similar, if not as strong - because an act's style changes separate from the quality of production, as if a band is obligated to conform to one idea forever.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I think that's giving them too much credit; rarely do today's Big Name production teams put that much thought or "cleverness" into their work. Likely they were just pushing the "mo' louder, mo' better" baloney to it's extreme.

Nobody intentionally makes their stuff sound "bad". I like the analogy of big name movies. There are plenty of movies with big budgets and big names behind them that just don't turn out very good on any number of levels, whether it be editing, cinematography, acting, directing or plot. Not because they set out to spend millions on making a bad movie, but because human beings tend to make mistakes and bad decisions every once in a while, even when they are "pros".

If being a "pro" meant never making mistakes, doctors would not need malpractice insurance.

G.
Click to expand...

Man o man! That just blows me away that these pros can mess something up so bad! What do they get paid for?!?!
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I agree. But I read a lot of complaints on both sides of that fence; there are a whole lot of fans, and not just for Metallica, who complain of being "betrayed" - or something similar, if not as strong - because an act's style changes separate from the quality of production, as if a band is obligated to conform to one idea forever.

G.
Click to expand...

I think there's a certain amount of truth to that with Metallica (the about face they did under the tutelage of Bob Rock, where they went with a more commercial, "slick" production and slowed down and simplified their riffs, basically going from thrash to hard rock in the span of a single album, may have exposed them to a lot of new fans, but it did so at the cost of pissing off almost all of their existing fans - they "sold out."), but that's such ancient history by the time you get to Death Magnetic that I really don't think that's the main issue with that album. And, the Guitar Hero master that isn't NEARLY so hot really isn't that unpleasant to listen to. I was never a massive Metallica fan to begin with, but I think the single biggest issue with that album isn't the content, it's the horrendous master.
 
I thought Death magnetic was a good album for Metallica. I do agree that the mastering, production, tracking, engineering was horrendous! I was absolutely shocked when I heard how bad death magnetic and St. Anger were. I thought the songwriting was pretty good but DAMN!!! Ill have to download the guitar hero version.
 
GuitardedMark said:
Man o man! That just blows me away that these pros can mess something up so bad! What do they get paid for?!?!
Click to expand...
Batting average.

Even Alex Rodriguez grounds himself into a double play or pops out or strikes out with frequency; but as long as his batting average is somewhere close to .300 and the fans still cheer him, they'll pay him the big bucks.
DrewPeterson7 said:
but that's such ancient history by the time you get to Death Magnetic that I really don't think that's the main issue with that album.
Click to expand...
For the record, I'm no expert - let alone fan - of Metallica, old or new; I just got out of that kind of music back just before they formed. All I know is that I still read complaints all over the place (and hear clients in the studio during breaks complain about) about Metallica "selling out". It's not just them, you hear it about folks like David Byrne, Elvis Costello and a million others too - just not with the frequency that you hear it about Metallica.

Yes, you're right, it's ancient history - or at least should be. Yet the volume of the complaints doesn't seem to have died over the years, at least not in my personal experience. It's as if I were still complaining about getting jilted by my old girlfriend back in the '80s. I got over her a long, long time ago. This is even worse because we're just talking about a stinking band, not an old girlfriend. All I'm saying is, "Get over it, already, folks!" ;)

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
All I know is that I still read complaints all over the place (and hear clients in the studio during breaks complain about) about Metallica "selling out".
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, my comments weren't about anyone "selling out" or not. It was more about subpar performance and bad production.
 
Many of the Rush albums, especially earlier ones, are horrible. I have heard the remasters and recently the SHM CDs, but the remasters merely remove the dullness and restore some of the sparkle. Very little imaging and the instruments sound like crap. They are a 3 piece band for cying out loud - is it too much too ask to let us hear the bass, drums, and guitar recorded cleanly, with some force and impact?? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top