Standard Hardness

Jens Bogren

Section 2

🎸

Anthemic, weight-focused section

Slower, half-time section emphasising sonic weight via low palm-muted chugs, kick drum, and floor tom; more rhythmic space and low-frequency emphasis.

Half-time Palm mutes Low-end weight Anthemic

Study Stimulus (Section 2)

Loading waveform...

0:00 / 0:00

🔊 Acoustic Hardness

4.43 Moderate

Key Predictors

Spectral Complexity 29.76

Spectral Contrast (1.6–3.2 kHz) 15.89 dB

Dissonance 0.483

HPCP Entropy 2.13

Moderate spectral complexity provides textural density while maintaining some frequency separation. Hardness remains the primary predictor of heaviness.

💥 Temporal Punch

-24.24 dB Moderate

PM95 (Peak-to-Loudness) -24.24 dB

PLR (Dynamic Range) 8.74 dB Compressed

Moderate PM95 values suggest some transient clarity, but in spectrally saturated mixes, hardness (β ≈ .688) remains the dominant predictor of heaviness.

Key Finding: While listeners perceive punch as salient, acoustic PM95 fails to track subjective punch in dense mixes. The production trade-off favors spectral saturation (hardness) over transient preservation (punch).

🎧 Perceptual Ratings

0.06 Perceptual Heaviness

Perceptual Heaviness 0.06

-1 (Low) 0 +1 (High)

Subjective Punch 0.18

Brightness 0.18

Roughness -0.09

Clarity 0.28

Key Insight: Perceived heaviness and subjective punch show strong correlation (listeners associate them), but acoustic PM95 fails to track subjective punch in dense mixes. This disconnect reveals that heaviness perception in metal is driven primarily by spectral-textural hardness rather than transient impact.

Producer Profile

Standard Hardness cluster; balanced approach with moderate spectral complexity and good transient preservation.

Aesthetic: Modern metal clarity with controlled density