A year and a half ago, I bought Clutch’s Blast Tyrant album on CD. Immediately, something seemed. . . off. I am still new to the audio nerd scene, and was newer then, and I could not place the weirdness.
Later, I read a couple articles in Guitar World about recording music especially hard rock and metal and the author discussed mixing and mastering. Also, in reading up on the loudness wars, I became more and more attuned to the concept of over-compression. As I listened to Blast Tyrant more, it seemed to me the album was mastered by a pop guy as opposed to a rock guy or at least more for a pop sound. It seems more compressed than Clutch’s other efforts. Don’t get me wrong: I think it has some of their strongest song-writing and music of their career. I just think the audio quality seems less natural and therefore off-putting.
Then, a couple months ago, I found an interview on YouTube with Neil Fallon (vocals) discussing recording techniques. He mentioned that Blast Tyrant was the first and only album Clutch ever recorded digitally. Before and since, they had only ever used digital recording for scratch tracks and as an easy tool for writing. And even though I have only ever heard their music from a digital format (aside from live), I could spot something was off. Vindication!
My hypothesis: The digital recording, mixing, and mastering process lent itself to a more compressed end result. Their other work has been done in a pure analog fashion, and not put on to CD or MP3 until mastered for the analog format. I think different media provided different sensibilities. At any rate check out the album because it rocks. And then, for good measure, check out Robot Hive/Exodus which came out the following year. It has a very different vibe. Is that because of the analog nature? Maybe. But in the end, if it is Clutch, it is going to ROCK!
To clarify, analogue tape in itself has a lower dynamic range than digital systems do (especially those at 24 bit). Analogue tape does not compress by default. One has to record at a level in excess of that for which it was designed in order for the tape particles to become saturated and produce a natural compression. Hitting a tape at +6Vu will bring about compression like artifacts, recording lower than this may well provoke other non linearity.
Overall digital recording retains all the peaks and transient detail in a source and ultimately loudness can be built in at both the mixing and mastering stage. As a mastering engineer myself it is always a good plan to discuss the merits or lack thereof of an overly loud release. there will always be some trade offs.
I am sure the dynamic range of tape is dependant on multiple factors including the quality and size of the tape being used. As for most of the rest, I need rather more info on which to operate. Where does one learn more about the things you mention?
Also, my understanding of digital reproductions of music – as on a cd – is that higher frequencies are cut or distorted through rounding or other effects. Is that the case? Listening to my records on my ghetto setup through my tube guitar amp with 12 inch, guitar-voiced speakers, it seems that the highs come through much more realistically and detailed-ly. This effect seems dampened upon listening to my records on my solid-state receiver through my Bose speakers.
Basically, on my records, cymbals and hi-hats sound more like cymbals and hi-hats. Guitars sound more Marshally and squishy and warm. Vocals sound more life-like. My brain is more engaged. My understanding of higher sample-rate (96 and higher kHz) and larger bit (24 – as mentioned) digital recordings do an extraordinarily better job at reproducing sound. But cds still come 16 bit x 44.1 kHz, and it really seems as though a fair amount is lost in the translation. Mp3’s (128 kbs, generally) actually anger me through my headphones when I pay attention. Maybe I need to splurge and get a sound-system that can exploit the higher-fidelity digital formats.
Technically, analog tends to compress more as tape it’s self is a compressor. Honestly, it might not have been the mastering engineer at all, as often the artist dictates if something should be mastered louder or not. Great catch though! : )