OK, enough is enough.

There are two kinds of audio compression, and they’re not the same. But people get them confused all the time, and it’s driving me nuts.

Today, it was Bob Stanley from St Etienne, being interviewed on Radio 4′s PM programme. The discussion was prompted by  Neil Young‘s recent claims that the sound of music today makes him angry. You can hear PM’s discussion of this issue here, about 41 minutes in.

(Neil Young, by the way, made one of my favourite-sounding albums of last year.)

During this discussion though, they managed to completely mangle the distinctions between the two kinds of compression, and the whole ‘analogue versus digital’ debate, too.

They’re not alone though, it happens all the time.

So in an attempt to clear the water, I’m going to explain the difference, using sponges.

So what IS compression ? And what’s all this about sponges ?

Imagine you’re holding a sponge.

Now squash it in your fist.

When you squash the sponge, it takes up less space. The more you squash it, the less like a sponge it looks. But when you release it it springs back again, unharmed.

You can do the same thing to audio - that’s audio compression. Good old-fashioned audio compression, as has been widely used in pop music since the 60s at least – The Beatles started using it on Paul’s bass around the time of “Paperback Writer” and from then onwards, for example.

Using a compressor on audio does the same thing as your fist does to the sponge – it squashes it into a smaller space, so it can be packed more densely. When you record a compressed audio signal it’s like taking a photograph of the squashed sponge – the results become “locked in”. If you squash it so much that it doesn’t “look like a sponge” any more and then record it, you’ve dramatically changed the sound of the original audio.

This is known as dynamic range compression, and it’s used to control very lively sounds (like the human voice, or a bass guitar) to reduce contrast – originally to make the most of the limited “headroom” on radio and vinyl, and often as a creative effect.

In the past this was all done with analogue electronics – valves and transistors – but nowadays you can get digital audio compressors that do the same thing. Musicians and sound engineers argue about whether digital compressors sound as good as analogue compressors, but they do the same job.

If you overdo compression, it often sounds bad - and modern digital compressors have enabled people to take that to a whole new level. But that’s a whole other discussion…

Back to the sponges

Now get your sponge, and cut it up with scissors.

It no longer looks like sponge, right ?

BUT (and this is where the sponge analogy breaks down a little, I admit) if you had some magic “sponge glue”, you could re-assemble the sponge to it’s original self again, if you were careful about how you labelled the pieces in the first place.

Now of course there’s no such thing as “magic sponge glue” in the real world – that would just be silly (!) – but in the digital world of computers, there absolutely is.

Once the sponge (or the music, are you still with me ?) is recorded as digital information, it can be chopped up, re-packed into half the original size, sent halfway round the world and re-assembled again – perfectly. No magic sponge glue is required – the reconstructed digital sponge is identical to the original digital sponge.

This what happens when you make a zip file of something before you email it.

It’s called lossless data compression - “compression” because the original digital items data is re-packed into a smaller space, and “lossless” because nothing gets damaged along the way – but it’s an entirely digital process, and it’s nothing like dynamic range compression (sponge squashing) at all – either the analogue or the digital variety.

Here’s where it gets really messy for the sponge

NOW imagine that instead of cutting the sponge up with scissors, you gouge it’s heart out.

(Relax, sponge-fans, this is just a thought experiment ! No sponges were harmed during the writing of this post.)

Seriously – cut a small hole in the sponge and pick all the insides out, until you’re left with only a thin outer shell. If you’re careful, you’ll end up with something that still looks like the original sponge. It’s had it’s heart ripped out, true – but it still looks OK.

The digital equivalent of this process is also known as data-compression – but it’s different to the “chop-up-and-reassemble” variety, because at the end of the process, 90% of the original sponge is missing.

This is what happens when you make a jpeg or mp3 file, and it’s called lossy data compression. “Compression” because again, it’s been squashed into a (much) smaller space, and “lossy” because something has been lost – the 90%.

It’s important to notice that the process is permanent – once the heart of the sponge is thrown away, you can’t put it back. So, you need to be careful which bits of the sponge you pick out, and not to take too much away. In the same way, it’s vital to make a good job of using lossy compression on your audio when encoding an mp3 file.

The chances are though, looking at the digital sponge after lossy compression, you won’t spot the difference – in the same way that many people don’t notice the quality lost in an mp3 encode.

What does all this have to do with Neil Young, Bob from St Etienne and the PM show ?

Both over-squashing a musical sponge, and gouging the heart out of it, damage the sponge.

In the same way, both over-compressing music when recording it, and mp3 encoding it, can spoil the music.

And both of these happen all the time, at the moment – music is hugely over-compressed in futile attempts to win the so-called Loudness War (hint – the only way to win is to not fight) – and most people listen to music that has been through lossy compression almost exclusively.

Digital TV uses lossy data-compression, digital radio uses it, mp3 files use it, the iTunes store uses it, Spotify uses it…

So, which type of compression is Neil Young talking about, when he complains that the sound of modern music makes him angry ? Well, both, actually – in different interviews ! He has complained about both over-compression and lossy data-compression – and he’s right.

Digital technology has given us the possibility of recording audio to the standard of most professional studios in the 70s and 80s – on a laptop.

But it’s far more commonly used to squeeze the life out it – using both over-compression (sponge-crushing) and poorly implemented data-compression (sponge-gouging). The result in both cases can be music that sounds no-where near as good as decent piece of vinyl. But for entirely different reasons.

Which is probably where Bob Stanley and Eddie Mair got themselves confused, to be honest.

If only they’d known they should have been talking about sponges, instead !

(If you enjoyed this post and would like find out how to set up an audio compressor using cushions, click here.)

Original image by alancleaver_2000

What is compression ? Sponges hold the answer is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

I love live music.

I don’t go out and see live shows nearly as often as I should, in fact. [Note to self !]

And I really love hearing acoustic music live. I love enjoy loud, distorted guitars as much as the next man, but there’s something magical about hearing music in it’s simplest, most honest form.

The superb video above captures that, beautifully – and also explains in only a few minutes how the internet opens up a whole new world of possibilities for independent musicians to tour, build their audience and see the world, if they have the desire, determination and drive.

And if they’re lucky, they might even pay the bills along the way !

My personal experience of “house concerts” is limited, but fantastic – you can see a video extract here – but I’d love to go to more. Not only do you get an intimate, personal performance, you get the chance to meet and speak with the artist, maybe spend a little more time with them – priceless internet connection magic. And you’ll always know that the gig you attended was absolutely unique.

So, go to (or organise !) a house concert yourself, now. Well, as soon as possible, anyway.

To find out more, check out this excellent post by Steve Lawson:

House Concert Hosting: a Beginner’s Guide

(And in fact, Steve and Lobelia would be great people to invite for your first concert ! Or of course, Susan : )

House concert magic is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

Download (PDF, 4.8MB)

Something you may not know though, is that I also like it when I’m right : )

And the PDF above hits the spot on both counts !

Almost 3 years ago now, I wrote a blog post called

Do the kids prefer “mp3 sizzle” ? Bullshizzle !

It was a response to a study by Professor John Berger of Stanford University which he claimed showed that young people today actually prefer the sound of mp3 to CD audio.

Now, you probably already know what I think of mp3:

Why mp3 sucks, and how to hear it

- so it probably won’t come as a surprise that I disagreed quite strongly with Prof. Berger ! You can read my full response on that link, but the reason for this post is to present some new evidence that I was right.

Just yesterday, Dr Sean Olive posted a comment on my old site with a link to research he has done on the same subject, which

(a) is fully documented (unlike Professer Berger’s work) and

(b) draws the exact opposite conclusion !

The high-school students who took part in his tests preferred the sound of CD over mp3, and can hear the difference between very high quality speakers and less accurate models.

In fact, 67% of the people who took part in his test preferred CD audio.

For more detail I recommend you scroll through the PDF embedded above, or read Sean’s full article here:

Some New Evidence That Generation Y May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction

But whatever you do, next time someone tells you “no-one cares about audio quality these days” – please remember to show them this post !

Let’s start spreading the word that people prefer dynamic, lossless audio quality, as confirmed by the success of sites like Bandcamp, which offer lossless hi-res downloads as standard.

And with over a million dollars worth of sales in December alone, Bandcamp also proves that people are still happy to pay for music they love.

Happy New Year : )

 
Edit to add – several people have rightly pointed out that this is a promotional piece for Harman. Yes, it is. But the testing and methodology are sound, so I’m inclined to trust the conclusions . And yes, the “preferred” speaker is made by Harman – but personally, if a speaker manufacturer is going out of it’s way to prove that better speakers are desirable, and happen to sell a few along the way – I’m all for it !

Kids today CAN hear great audio quality – and they prefer it: new evidence is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

 
The message of this post is simple, short and sincere. In fact, it could almost be an open letter:

Dear Peter Jackson,

PLEASE ask your audio engineers to stop auto-tuning the dwarves.

Please.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Shepherd

PS. Please…

What the hell am I talking about ? Well, check out the first official trailer for the new film of the “The Hobbit”, above.

It’s a great trailer. As a massive fan of both the books and the films of “Lord Of The Rings”, I’m very excited. But after seeing this trailer, I’m also now very nervous.

Why ? Just listen to the use of auto-tune in that song. It’s not blatant – not like the X-Factor’s ill-fated experiment last year – but it leapt out at me within the first few notes, and again and again throughout the song. (The close-micing and miming doesn’t help either, but let’s stay focused.)

Now, call me a stuck-in-the-mud fuddy-duddy traditionalist, but I don’t quite recall the exact moment where Tolkien described how Gandalf fired up a quick “sound like T-Pain” charm while the dwarves sat around Bilbo’s fire and sang of gold and dragons. I wouldn’t put it past the elves, mind you, but not the dwarves…

Seriously though…

Which film in the “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy was the best ? For me, unexpectedly, it was the second – “The Two Towers”. In no small part, because it relied least heavily on CGI.

It felt more real, and personally that’s what I want from a film of Tolkien – I want a cinama experience that will immerse me as deep into the story as the books did when I first read them as a ten-year-old. And as they did again when I read “The Hobbit” to my seven-year-old for the first time last month.

And there’s nothing that will jolt me out of my state of suspended disbelief faster than hearing that most unnatural of 20th-century music tools, the auto-tune box. It made Cher sound like a robot, it makes Michael Buble sound like a robot, and it makes Thorin sound like a robot.

And if there’s one thing they don’t have in Middle-Earth, it’s robots.

There may yet be hope

I haven’t given up on the film just yet – mainly because this is only a trailer, and since the song features prominently, I can imagine some exec somewhere suddenly deciding that the dwarves’ vocal performances were a bit shaky right at the last minute, so auto-tune may well have been applied as an after-thought, and it won’t come anywhere near the finished film. I really hope so.

And in case anyone misunderstands, this doesn’t mean I want out-of-tune dwarves.

Because the good news is – its perfectly possible to improve the tuning of any musical performance, without auto-tune – even a dwarf.

How to tune a dwarf

You do it by hand.

(Stop sniggering at the back, Gimli ! Oin and Gloin, don’t even get me started on you…)

You work through the performance, note-by-note if necessary, and tweak the tuning by hand – pitch-shifting or time-scrunching the audio up and down as necessary, through a process of skill and trial-and-error to find what works.

But wherever possible, you only do it to whole notes, not within the note.

Which means, you retain all the essence of the original performance. Slight shifts and twists in tuning that aren’t problems, they’re character and emotion. Exactly the things you get from real, great vocal perfomances.

The result is something that still sounds real, true, natural – and also in tune.

It takes longer, it takes skill and patience, but it sounds so much better – especially with harmonies. Auto-tuned harmonies end up sounding like synths, somehow – or like choirs of robots out of the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy (Share And Enjoy!) Check out the dwarves in the trailer at 1’26″ and 1’42″ to hear a milder version.

Whereas well-tuned vocals, like those from a great singer (or a well-tuned less-great-singer) sound rich, and exciting, and emotional – exactly the feeling you need from a ragged band of dispossessed dwarves singing gloomily about regaining the long-lost treasure that’s rightfully theirs.

A challenge

So come on, Peter – do the right thing, if you weren’t going to already – send the songs in the film back to the studio and get them tuned by hand.

Care and attention is lavished on every other aspect of these films, the songs deserve it too. You can do what you like with the end credits (although seriously, did Annie Lennox really need autotune ?) – but in the film, it’s just plain wrong.

And if your engineers look blank, or tell you auto-tune sounds better ? Send it to me, and I’ll prove them wrong.

Why dwarves don’t need auto-tune is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

I’m signed up to the Facebook group “End the Loudness War“. Last week Harman Aaron Loučka posted a heads-up that an example of the vinyl release of the new Red Hot Chile Peppers album, “I’m With You”, had been posted on YouTube.

I headed over to check it out, since vinyl releases often show as having better dynamics (“crest factor”, to be strictly correct) than their CD equivalents in the Dynamic Range Database. I don’t have a record deck though, so hadn’t had a chance to check it out, until now.

The results were pretty clear, and I’ve made my own short YouTube clip to demonstrate the difference. Take a listen, and see if you can hear a difference, and which one you prefer.

This is not a vinyl versus CD thing

Whatever you decide, it’s important to know – what you’re hearing is NOT some inherent limitation of the quality of the CD format.

CD and vinyl do sound different, but with identical masters, they should sound very close to each other. Much closer than this.

These are not identical masters – on the CD, the crest factor is about 6 dB less than on the vinyl, and there are some EQ differences too. (And, the vinyl is playing at a slightly higher pitch)

Yup, it’s the loudness war again.

The loudness war is insane

This means that the quality of the CD version, which is theoretically a far superior format technically, is lower (in my opinion) than the vinyl.

This is insane.

At the very least, they should sound similar, so that people who prefer vinyl can choose it for it’s particular characteristics.

As it is, since I prefer the mastering of the vinyl release, the only way for me to hear this version is to buy a record deck or download an illegal rip of the vinyl. Madness !

Why does the vinyl sound different ?

Of course, it’s sadly no surprise that a RHCP CD sounds like this – “Californication” helped kick-start the loudness war in the first place, and producer Rick Rubin is a serial offender, mistakenly believing that people always prefer a more heavily compressed version – they don’t, as research shows.

What’s interesting is to notice that the vinyl was released a couple of months after the CD. Since they were all mastered by Vlado Meller at Masterdisc, the question is, why does the vinyl sound different ?

Was this simply following the ironically perverse trend of “audiophile” vinyl releases ? Or might it be in response to the generally harsh reception of the album’s sound all over the web ?

We can only hope it’s the later…

For more information on the Loudness War, click here.

PS

As an interesting side-note, notice how YouTube’s lossy data-compressed audio sounds worse for the CD version – more artefacts.

This is further proof that higher-quality, more dynamic music actually survives better when mp3-ed, and makes it even more sadly ironic that the CD master was the basis for the so-called “mastered for iTunes” version.

And, a sadly missed opportunity – since there were separate masters for CD and iTunes, the iTunes version could actually have sounded better…

Red Hot Chile Peppers – ‘I’m With You” vinyl sounds better than CD is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

This tip is so simple that when I first thought of it I almost felt as if I didn’t need to post it.

But talking to people about mastering recently, I’ve realised that it’s one of those “obvious to you” concepts that Derek Sivers talks about. I just take it as read, but I’m finding out that many people haven’t even considered it.

In fact, I’m starting to think it’s one of the key differences between online mastering services that charge as little as $20 a track, and what I consider to be the “realistic” rates that I, and engineers I know and respect, charge. Those super-low charges just never made any sense to me, before – how could anyone make any money, charging so little ?

So here’s the tip.

When mastering, every track needs it’s own optimised settings

See ? I said it was simple.

It’s not just a case of choosing a single EQ, compression and limiting setting and running a whole album through it.

The whole point of mastering is to assess each song on it’s own merits, and choose the level, EQ and any compression or limiting settings purely based on that particular song. Every time, go right back to scratch and make a fresh start.

That’s how you achieve the goal of balancing all the tracks – finding the ‘centre of gravity’ of the album, the line that leads you through the sequence and ties everything together.

That’s how mastering can make an album from a collection of songs.

Even now, typing this, I can’t believe that anyone would want to do it any other way ! But I’m coming to realise that that’s what a lot of other places call “mastering” – boost the level, add a little bass and treble and some compression, and hit “bounce”.

Whereas I can spend anything up to an hour finding the perfect sound for just a single song.

Now, all of this isn’t to say that you won’t end up using similar settings on many songs on an album – if they’ve been recorded in a single studio, by one engineer, and have similar instrumentation, it’s very common to find that there’s a general character to the sound, that just needs moving one way or another.

But it’s the smaller changes around that general sound that works the magic. It’s how even subtle changes over the course of a group of tracks can give an overall result that’s far greater than the sum of the individual adjustments. I’ve literally made changes of only a fraction of a dB on a track-by-track basis and heard the impact of the collection of songs transformed – more times than I can count.

The whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts

Or, to put it another way – mastering is not a zero-sum game.

And it can still astound me, even after all this time – while you’re working the adjustments seem tiny, trivial – too small to worry about. And then you listen to the whole sequence and the overall effect is like night and day, a transformation – it’s like… magic, almost.

In fact, it’s the heart and soul of mastering.

Make each individual song sound the best they can be – in the context of the rest of the album – and everything else follows naturally.

So, next time you’re tempted to take the easy route on the “mastering” stage – think again. Take some time, show the songs some respect, and you’ll be amazed what a difference you can make.

Image by ‘Just Justin‘

The heart and soul of mastering is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

I’m a U2 fan.

Yes, am. Not was, am. I’m still waiting for their next great album – I’ve been distinctly underwhelmed by the last few – but in the meantime their back-catalogue will do me just fine.

I preferred it when the band wasn’t such an enormous money-making machine, and their manager’s view of the modern music “industry” is clearly blinkered beyond belief, and yes of course Bono is a complete arse of the highest order (although I think he’s an arse whose heart is in the right place, which helps) – but I still think they’re fantastic.

Achtung Baby was (and is) the album that clinched it for me, and if you’ve forgotten or never knew why it’s so great, try watching this superb – and surprisingly honest – BBC documentary.

U2: From the sky down

(Watch it now, though – it’ll only be online for another 5 days.)

Even if you hate U2, I think you’ll find it pretty interesting. Especially hearing the genesis of the most famous song from that album – being born out of nothing, right in front of your ears – and, the environment that it happened in. And being reminded of how important persistence, perspiration and inspiration are, to both songwriting and production.

It’s a moment anyone who has tried to write something will recognise, and it’s magical to watch and re-live, even for musicians as supposedly jaded, cynical and washed-up as U2.

(In fact, I don’t believe that about them, which is why I’m still a fan. The fact that “No Line On The Horizon” wasn’t a huge success proves to me that they’re still striving to make something that’s fresh and real, and the fact that they missed the mark proves that they’re human, and prepared to take risks. And that’s what it’s all about at the end of the day, isn’t it ?)

There are masses of other great moments, too – watching Flood, Lanois and Eno working with the band, out-takes from “Rattle and Hum” showing how unhappy the band were by that point – as well as some obligatory cringe-worthy Bono statements and peculiarly random animated sequences – it’s patchy but still a great film, watch it.

This post will probably go down like a lead balloon with all the Kewl Kids on Twitter, since it seems to be pretty fashionable to hate U2 right now – in the same way it’s de rigeur to hate any band who are hugely successful, it seems. Like Coldplay, for example, or Keane.

But I don’t care.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say – who the hell are you to turn your nose up at a song that’s universally popular ? That’s something most of us can only dream of.

I actually think it’s pretty easy to make music that only a handful of people like, and that no-one understands. But to write a song that everybody knows, that connects with hundreds and thousands of people, that anyone can sing and recognise – well, that’s either “bland” and “corporate” and “playing to the lowest denominator” – or it’s pure and simple songwriting genius.

What about some other universally loved and admired songs ? Like – oh, I don’t know – “Yesterday”, or “Roxanne”, or “Raspberry Beret”, or “Umbrella”, or “Respect”, or “New York, New York”, or “Dancing Queen”, or “It’s A Wonderful World”, or “Nessun Dorma”, or… well, you get the point. Are they Classic, or Contemptible ? Why ?

Don’t let familiarity breed contempt, and don’t lose sight of what makes a great song.

Sometimes it’s being clever, and avant-garde, and left-field and unlistenable – and other times it’s just being honest, and simple, and direct and true.

[Instant update - looking for the documentary on YouTube to embed here, instead I found this video, made by Bono's One.org charity, which has been banned from TV for "having an overtly political message" - and I decided it was a better use of the screen space...]

What U2 can teach you about writing great songs is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

I’ve just read a truly excellent analysis of the effects of the Loudness War on the music we listen to in Sound On Sound magazine, and – hold on to your hats – according to Emmanuel Deruty:

“There is no doubt about it: contrary to general belief, there has been no obvious decrease in loudness range due to the loudness war, and brickwall limiters have not reduced the loudness range in music production.”

In fact, the article argues very convincingly that “dynamic range” is so poorly defined that’s it’s pretty much useless as a way to discuss the effect of the so-called “war”. It goes on to look at the issue in great detail, trying to find out – if it’s not reduced dynamic range that makes Loudness War casualties sound bad, what is it ?

So, as the organiser of Dynamic Range Day, does this mean I’ve been barking up the wrong tree ? That we don’t have to worry about the Loudness War after all, or that it’s NOT making modern music sound worse ?

No.

It does highlight the point that using simplified language like “dynamic music sounds better” isn’t strictly meaningful in a technical sense, but that phrase – and the whole Dynamic Range Day site – is somewhat simplified to help make the issues as clear as possible. And the article itself goes on to conclude that the over-use of limiting and compression does tend to cause

“…reduced crest factor, envelope modifications… and in the worst cases, distortion. Common sense suggests that although there is nothing wrong with these characteristics as such, they shouldn’t be on virtually all records“

Which in a nutshell, is the main message of Dynamic Range Day. We shouldn’t feel obliged to apply extreme processing to all music and styles in the mistaken belief that it will make our music sound better on the radio, or more “competitive”.

And the fact remains – the easiest way to avoid all those problems is to simply use something like the TT Dynamic Range Meter and avoid going beyond an average of DR8 in your music. Sure, strictly speaking the TT Meter is measuring “crest factor” rather than “loudness range” as defined by the EBU 3342 specification – but really, at this point we’re just in the land of semantics !

The article still contains some fascinating analysis, though – the discussion of exactly why so many people think Metallica’s “Death Magnetic” sounds terrible is particularly interesting, and concludes that it’s actually a relatively unusual special case – a combination of very low crest factor and very low RMS variability – all the time.

I’m a little concerned that all this will be mis-interpreted – mainly because the headline conclusion that “the loudness wars haven’t reduced dynamic range” may mask the underlying point that much music genuinely does sound worse when crushed and distorted – what works for rap or death metal probably won’t sound good on mainstream pop like Justin Bieber, or singer-songwriter Adele !

And even though “Death Magnetic” was a “perfect storm” of factors, just because it was a special case doesn’t mean this isn’t still a real, damaging trend in modern music production values – as the article says,

“Obviously, limiting does something ‘wrong’ with the signal, otherwise people wouldn’t be complaining so much”

However these reservations are only about the way the article may be (mis-) interpreted. They can’t take away from the fact that it’s a superb piece of analysis and comment, and if you really want to understand the issue of the Loudness Wars, it should be required reading. You can find it here in full:

‘Dynamic Range’ & The Loudness War

Meanwhile the fight goes on, perhaps with some revised technical language choices in future !

STOP PRESS – Why the Loudness War HASN’T reduced ‘dynamic range’ ! is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

I just got back from a much-needed break. We stayed with my wife’s parents on the east coast, which has a pretty special location overlooking farmland and a beautiful tidal creek.

The week started with a family gathering of over 30 aunts, uncles, grandparents and cousins and we all enjoyed a weekend of camping, swimming, kayaking, mud-bathing, night-hiking & campfires.

One of the most memorable moments though was actually in the days afterwards, when we were able to swim in the creek. The water was just the right temperature and just salty enough, the sun shone and the fish chased us – but my favourite thing was… the acoustic.

Something special happens when you get down into the water – the reeds act as a natural sonic barrier and most of the other noises of the world drop away. You’re left with a lovely soft ambience of nothing but wind, water and birds.

And the best bit of all is swimming on your back with your ears under the surface, when all you can hear is the sound of your own movements through the water.

Co-incidentally I watched this excellent TED talk on “Five ways to listen better” while I was there, and Julian’s suggestion to both seek out silence listen to the “mix” of the sounds around us meshed perfectly with the sonic experience of swimming in the creek.



It reminds me of sound engineers who go out to record different “silent” ambiences to use in film, TV and radio drama. Of course it’s not really silence at all, just very quiet recordings intended to capture the particular atmosphere of a place or time. I once did something similar, recording the live sound of rain and birds into the mix of a strange little electronic tune I wrote with some friends.

I love this idea of locking ambient sound into a song or recording to capture a time and place, or just listening carefully to the environmental sound around me.

I’m also tempted to design a studio using acoustic treatment made only from bundles of reeds !

The sounds of silence is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here

 
I know, this is my third Imogen Heap post this month. But there’s a reason. Watch this video and you’ll see.

Imogen is performing an (improvised?) piece using the ‘Data Gloves’ developed for her by Professor Tom Mitchell at the University of West England. As far as I know this is the first video to be posted to date – thanks to @snailsandsushi for the link.

Debuted at the recent TEDGlobal conference in Edinburgh, the gloves incorporate stereo wrist-mics like the ones Immi has been using in her live performances on recent tours, which allow her to sample and loop any sound within her reach.

They add a whole new dimension to this idea however, by allowing her to wirelessly control the sounds using hand movements and gestures. In this clip she: high-pass filters audio by “cupping” the audio in her hands; builds “air drum” loops from scratch; controls volume, reverb and panning by “conducting” and even uses some kind of time-scrunch/scratching processing towards the end.

Immi says the idea for the gloves came to her in a dream, although other people have done similar things years before – for example Julie Wilson-Bokowiec & Mark Alexander Bokowiec’s Bodycoder project.

As always though Imogen brings a unique accessibility to the technology. Just as she uses the internet to create genuine connections between herself, her music and her fans, so the gestures she uses with the data gloves are musical, intuitive and easily comprehensible to the audience.

We don’t see the wires, accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers working – we see a tangible, involving performance where the gloves and Immi’s movements have a real physical connection to what we are hearing – just like watching someone play a “normal” musical instrument.

Of course, it’ll be a while before systems like this are available “off the shelf”, and we can’t all have a university team building new toys for us – but there are plenty of iPhone apps with motion-sensitive controllers, and people are already building their own similar ideas – for example, here’s another TED talk.

Onyx Ashanti: This is beatjazz

(Thanks to @Zemmome for the link)

These are performances and technology fully deserving of the title “Future Of Music”, and I can’t wait to see the official TED video of Imogen’s performance – hopefully with stereo sound : )

Imogen Heap ‘Data Gloves’ video @ Wired Future Of Music 20 July 2011 is a post from Ian Shepherd's: Production Advice
Subscribe to the newsletter for great content from the archives, special offers and a free interview - for more information, click here