= TO : MEGADETH : Get back MAX NORMAN as PRODUCER =
Magnine
Im a big MEGADETH fan ,
My favorite cds are :
YOUTHANASIA , COUNTDOWN TO EXTINCTION , AND
RUST IN PEACE .
The other cds , are good too , but these sound the best to me ..
I think the best cds have been recorded , played , etc ,
with the DAVE MUSTAINE / MAX NORMAN production team !!!
Does anyone agree ??
I think the overall sound & songs are better .
Dont get me wrong , I like some of the other cds , and 2-3 songs on the new cd
, but I think DAVE needs to mend any problems , etc with MAX NORMAN , and give
it a go again , they are a great team .
Just my thoughts ,
Cheers
ROBERT
MAGNITUDE 9 - USA - Melodic Prog Metal !!!
New cd - MAGNITUDE 9 - " REALITY IN FOCUS "
On sale now at AMAZON.COM , CDNOW.COM , etc
http://www.mistchild.com/magnitude9
RELEASED WORLDWIDE
USA - EUROPE - JAPAN - BRAZIL - etc
PS - I really want to MEGADETH' S next guitar player !!
If the chance ever comes up again .
All
to me too, and the rest of former albums are great as well, of course
(haven´t listened to the new one yet)
So Max Norman has been the best producer for megadeth!!
Please, tell me something...
Have you included Mustaine´s way of playing/composing as an influence in
your own playing? If you´ve done it I´ll buy your CD, ok?
I think Mustaine plays and composes in a way it´s never been heard before
him, and (the most strange thing) nobody has followed!!! Unbelievebable,
´cos he´s a genius!
Don´t you think so?
By the way... great cover, man!!!! (it could be included in the youthanasia
booklet!!)
Magnine escribió en mensaje
<20010519214501...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
Calysto79
I agree, Max Norman was an excellent producer. Dave Mustaine does not have any
problems with him to mend. Max Norman went on to do computer animation or
something like that. I don't think he's even producing anymore.
Cathy
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>
>Hi ,
>
>Im a big MEGADETH fan ,
>
>My favorite cds are :
>YOUTHANASIA , COUNTDOWN TO EXTINCTION , AND
>RUST IN PEACE .
>
>The other cds , are good too , but these sound the best to me ..
>
>I think the best cds have been recorded , played , etc ,
>with the DAVE MUSTAINE / MAX NORMAN production team !!!
>
>Does anyone agree ??
>
>I think the overall sound & songs are better .
>
>Dont get me wrong , I like some of the other cds , and 2-3 songs on the new
>cd
>, but I think DAVE needs to mend any problems , etc with MAX NORMAN , and
>give
>it a go again , they are a great team .
>
Max Norman was trying to change the band.
He was decent, considering that he was a digital producer, but there are better
rock/metal producers out there.
Jakkal
"Learned in Calculus in high school: "The Dominatrix rule of calculus
clearly states that a vertical assymptote will lead to rectumlinear
motion." -- Rev. Devi, #779
http://members.tripod.com/~PeanutChew/index.html WUSSNET!!!!!!!111!11
Slaytanic Vader
He was decent, considering that he was a digital producer, but there are better
rock/metal producers out there.>>
What is with this "anti-digital" thing that you have? Digital is great, when
done right.
He was more than decent. The production to Countdown was FANTASTIC. I dont like
Youthanasia's production, however. Too muddy.
--
"All things dead must rise again when twilight blankets fall...Splattered red
you'll find my dead, blood dripping from the wall"--Slayer -Born of Fire"
---Emulation Page-http://www.geocities.com/ROMDude666/
---Send email to-ROM...@yahoo.com
Cassidy
>
> He was more than decent. The production to Countdown was FANTASTIC. I dont
like
> Youthanasia's production, however. Too muddy.
What is this anti-muddy thing you have?Muddy can be good if done right.
:)
cheers
All
>Youthanasia's production, however.
I´ve never heard a production like youthanasia´s one, and I´ll never heard
it again... I wish I´m wrong, but no production can be compared to
youthanasia´s. simply perfect
/\v/\ Mechanix
Slaytanic Vader
Hey, muddy can be good, just not for Megadeth
: ]
Slaytanic Vader
(Just finishing an unfinished post.)
Slaytanic Vader
Really? I despise it...Mainly for two things...
1-Too much reverb on the drums. The obvious flaw.
2-Muddy, almost grungy tone on the guitar. Step down from the tone of
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>
><<Max Norman was trying to change the band.
>He was decent, considering that he was a digital producer, but there are
>better
>rock/metal producers out there.>>
>
>What is with this "anti-digital" thing that you have? Digital is great, when
>done right.
>
>He was more than decent. The production to Countdown was FANTASTIC. I dont
>like
>Youthanasia's production, however. Too muddy.
>
The problem with digital is that it doesn't really sound realistic. For some
types of music it works, but i sucks for recording guitars and stuff with high
end frequencies like cymbals. Something about it just doesn't sound right to
me, and then digital compression makes it suck even more. Digital
recording.....especially at the low CD-standard sampling rate...is filled with
holes because it has a sampling rate. And it has less levels of sound pressure
capabilities than analog or than the human ear is capable of hearing. It
sounds very unnatural and unrealistic to me. Maybe when DVDs or super-audio
CDs catch on, there will be a return to more natural sounding recordings and
digital recording might actually sound good because of the boosted sampling
rate. Oddly enough.....I'm OK with the sound of a CD that was recorded and
mixed analog and mastered uncompressed digitally. The recording and mixing in
the analog stage seems to preserve the realistic sound stage better, and lack
of compression preserves this sound quality and does not make the digital
limitations and bad qualities obvious, but still gives us the good aspects of
digital--the convenience of having the music on a disc that doesn't wear out
with each playback.
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>Business!
>I Like Killing Is My Business, But The Production Could Have Been Much
>Better.
A better mix could have fixed some of the problems there. The vocals and
guitar needed to be a little louder, the drums needed to be softer. Seemed
pretty good considering their budget, though it would have been nice if they
used high quality tape. Tape sounds great but studios will charge you like $85
a reel, and if you want high sound quality from that reel, you only get 15
minutes of recording time on some of them.
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>1-Too much reverb on the drums. The obvious flaw.
>2-Muddy, almost grungy tone on the guitar. Step down from the tone of
The reverb actually gives a more natural sound because when we hear bands play,
we hear them from further back so the sound is usually not going to be
completely dry. Maybe they should have just used less reverb rather than none
at all. The guitars do sound pretty muddy on that album though. That's what
bothers me most about it too.
Slaytanic Vader
>2-Muddy, almost grungy tone on the guitar. Step down from the tone of
The reverb actually gives a more natural sound because when we hear bands play,
we hear them from further back so the sound is usually not going to be
completely dry. Maybe they should have just used less reverb rather than none
at all. The guitars do sound pretty muddy on that album though. That's what
bothers me most about it too.>>
I am anti-reverb. I like a good, clean snare sound. I dont think that not
having reverb makes it "dry" at all.
Glad you agree about the muddiness of the tone.
Slaytanic Vader
>He was decent, considering that he was a digital producer, but there are
>better
>rock/metal producers out there.>>
>
>What is with this "anti-digital" thing that you have? Digital is great, when
>done right.
>
>He was more than decent. The production to Countdown was FANTASTIC. I dont
>like
>Youthanasia's production, however. Too muddy.
>
The problem with digital is that it doesn't really sound realistic.>>
Ehhhh...No offense, but that is just your opinion.
<<For some
types of music it works, but i sucks for recording guitars and stuff with high
end frequencies like cymbals.>>
Well, I think it is great for metal, when done right. Another example of great
digital production (not mixing, though)-
Extreme: III Sides to every story (cheesy, but brilliant guitar work).
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>
>Ehhhh...No offense, but that is just your opinion.
Digital has a sampling rate and a bit depth that determines the level of sound
pressure. CD quality digital only samples sound 44,100 times a second and is
limited to a little more than 56,000 levels of sound pressure. This is far
less than the human ear is capable of detecting. Also, couple that with the
fact that our brains work on a digital method also. Our brain's sampling rate
does not coincide perfectly with CD sampling rate, therefore, we pick up a very
chopped up signal from listening to digital music. On simpler wave forms, it's
not always so noticeable, but listen to a guitar recorded analog (or just one
played in real life) and one recorded digital and the difference should be
extremely noticeable.
Analog, on the other hand, records via a continuous turning mechanism,
therefore, the sound does not have a sampling rate and we get an unbroken
recording of a wave. The unfortunate thing about analog is that it wears out
over time. Analog, for some reason or other, also seems to capture the
realistic 3-D setting of a band's instruments in the correct positions better
than digital generally does, probably because it is not as clean. Both methods
have their own distortions of sorts. Analog's is a slightly "unclean" sound
(it reproduces sound waves correctly but it is not quite as clear as digital
usually) whereas digital's is an overly-analytical clean sound (cleaner than we
hear in real life). Digital's clean sound makes it's limitations in sound
reproduction more obvious. Therefore, I think the best-produced CDs tend to be
ones that were recorded and mixed analog, because the analog tape
recording/mixing helps to mask the digital limitations of the final product. I
think compression should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, and if it is
used, it should be used BEFORE conversion to digital for mastering. Very
little tweaking, if any, should be done in the digital stage for optimal sound
quality. Just FYI, Mobile Fidelity, the company that used to make those
remastered gold discs, strived for optimal sound quality. They used a method
similar to this. They took the original master or mix tapes (spanning as few
recording generations as possible), as made digital masters of those tapes
using no compression whatsoever to achieve the most perfect sound reproduction
and 3-d soundspace possible on CD.
Slaytanic Vader
Also, as someone who does not have very many resources, it is much easier to
make a great sounding digital recording rather than an analog one. It just
sounds MUCH better.
For a cheap musician, there is no problems like tape hiss, etc.
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>
>Part of the reason that I like recording digitally IS the overally clean
>sound.
>Also, as someone who does not have very many resources, it is much easier to
>make a great sounding digital recording rather than an analog one. It just
>sounds MUCH better.
>
>For a cheap musician, there is no problems like tape hiss, etc.
>
I have an analog 4 track recorded and I must say, even with my guitar plugged
straight into it, a sound I hate (I think direct reocrding sounds like crap),
it still sounds better than recording on my computer. On the computer, a
guitar just doesn't sound like a guitar. I use digital programs like Cakewalk
to compose, but for recording, I do guitar into the 4 track (usually using 2
tracks at once for stereo), then for backing tracks, I either do another guitar
or two, or I use tracks I created on cakewalk for other instrument sounds and
record those into the 4 track.
Slaytanic Vader
>straight into it, a sound I hate (I think direct reocrding sounds like crap),
>it still sounds better than recording on my computer. On the computer, a
>guitar just doesn't sound like a guitar.
Hmmm..It really depends. You have to try different pedals/direct recording
boxes if you want to try directly, but lately I have been getting great results
by digitally miking my amp.
It really does sound great to mic an amp that way, in comparison...At least for
me. There is just nothing that beats a good miked amp, digital or not. (digital
for me)
Jakkal Maharani of Assholes
>plugged
>>straight into it, a sound I hate (I think direct reocrding sounds like
>crap),
>>it still sounds better than recording on my computer. On the computer, a
>>guitar just doesn't sound like a guitar.
>
>Hmmm..It really depends. You have to try different pedals/direct recording
>boxes if you want to try directly, but lately I have been getting great
>results
>by digitally miking my amp.
>
>It really does sound great to mic an amp that way, in comparison...At least
>for
>me. There is just nothing that beats a good miked amp, digital or not.
>(digital
>for me)
>
mic which could be causing some of the problems (the reason I record direct to
my 4-track is because I don't have a good mic). It sounds better than my
direct-to-4-track recordings for a clean sound, which is to be expected, but
not for distortion. For digital, it still sounds better than plugging direct
but when I use distortion, whether direct or mic'd, I always hear that
characteristic unrealistic sound of digital (I hear this on pretty much any
digitally-recorded distorted guitar sound, whether "pro" or demo quality, and
it drives me nuts). The standard rates for digital just aren't enough to pick
up a good distorted guitar sound. Perhaps with boosted sampling rates, such as
those used on Super Audio CDs (over 2MHz), digital will achieve a more
realistic sound for guitar, cymbals, and certain voices.
The unfortunate thing with recording digital is that once you record in a
certain sampling/bit rate, it is stuck like that forever---it can never be
improved. If we recorded more albums on analog reel-to-reel tape, that could
be converted to any digital rate at any time, as long as the analog master is
kept, and would allow for the best possible sound out of any digital medium.
miak...@gmail.com
1. There is actually a rather small amount of reverb added to the drums - they were recorded in a live room with a lot of ambience, and they clearly used some "room mics" that they slammed through a compressor - a technique as old as recording itself. This is the "hard" way of really recording big full drums...and one that takes more time than most are willing to do these days.
2. Guitar tone was meant to be a departure as Dave indicated in interview for the album even came out. It clearly isn't the basic mid scoop you'd get on a metal record.. it's bigger and more layered. Not my favorite but in no way a flaw.
And to the idiot who said the problem with Max Norman is he is a "digital producer"... are you for real? He cut so many megadeth tracks on 2" analog... using Neve and SSL consoles.. .so where is this coming from??? Naturally people moved towards digital tape and protools machines as time went on.. but to the honest - you don't seem the type of person that can even articulate what the differences are between a 2" studer 24 track tape machine and a 24 track protool mix plus system... so... wtf