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

You’ve probably guessed by now, but I love prog.

Did I say that out loud ?

Well, it’s true – there doesn’t seem to be much point in denying it any more – after all, Radiohead are one of the biggest bands in the world, and they’re prog, right ?

So while it may not be exactly hip, I don’t think that enjoying progressive rock can be considered quite the crime against music that it once was.

And, being me, one thing I’ve always enjoyed about “progressive” music is that it almost always sounds superb.

I started early – the first album I taped to play in my Sony Walkman was “Oxygene” by Jean Michel Jarre, swiftly followed by Sky’s “5 Live” and “Script For A Jester’s Tear” by Marillion… and from then on I was hooked. I even got my friends to listen to “Songs From The Wood” by Jethro Tull !

Once I got to university I quickly realized the tragic un-coolness of my ways and diversified swiftly into Talking Heads, Prince, techno and later brit-pop – and since then my tastes have become more and more eclectic, especially I as I became exposed to all kinds of different genres through my career as a mastering engineer.

But lately I’ve been re-visiting the progressive back-catalogue, and finding I still love a lot of that stuff just as much as I used to – and, I’m really enjoying discovering more via new connections on social media.

Including, along the way, Steven Wilson. I actually worked with him once, in fact – authoring the Enhanced CD single of Porcupine Tree’s “Piano Lessons”, and mastering a few bonus tracks along the way. It wasn’t until his first solo album, “Insurgentes”, that I really got interested though – I made a copymaster of the album at SRT for promo purposes and got hooked.

Because of the music, but also partly because of the sound.

Everything Steven has worked on sounds fantastic to me – and his new solo album, “Grace For Drowning“, is no exception – just check out the song above, for example ! If you ever want an example of the power of perfectly balanced dynamics, that must be it.

If you’ve heard Steven’s work before, that won’t surprise you – but what might is to learn where he recorded it. Here’s a shot of his studio:

“It’s not how luxurious your room is, how good your speakers are or the quality of the acoustic space, it’s how well you know what you’re hearing, because if you know what you’re hearing, you can make good-sounding records!” – Steven Wilson

The image above is taken from an excellent article on Sound On Sound’s website:

Steven Wilson: Recording & Marketing Porcupine Tree

I strongly recommend you head over and read the full article – here’s another unexpected quote, given Steven’s reputation for unusual sounds and audio production excellence:

“A lot of the stuff I use comes free with Pro Tools. I don’t feel the need to rush out and buy the latest fancy EQ or compressor because I’m comfortable with what I know and like. Sometimes having all this stuff available is a barrier between you and creating.”

So, does this mean I want you to start adding instrumentals, unusual time signatures and even the odd bit of mellotron or e-bow to your music ?

Of course not – or not unless you want  to. And it doesn’t mean I don’t still appreciate unusual, lo-fi or even outrageously distorted music, either.

It just re-enforces the message of my last post, and this one and this one and this one that you can make your music sound great anywhere.

Even prog.

Stop worrying and love the prog 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

So we know that Peter Gabriel writes and records in a shed – how about David Gilmour ?

Well his studio is on a boat.

And what a boat… well, houseboat. Watch the video and see.

Once you’ve finished wiping the drool off your keyboard, you may be thinking –

“Well it’s pretty bloody obvious why he writes on a boat, Ian – and, if I’d sold 50 million copies of Dark Side Of The Moon, I think I’d record on one, too.”

But stop.

Rewind. Go back.

Listen again to what he says at 3’12″

In case you didn’t bother, I’ll tell you.

“We have made most of two Pink Floyd Records in this tiny room”

NOT in that enormous, beautiful control room, with it’s analogue tape machine, massive monitors and zillion-channel desk – they did all the recording in the tiny little room next door.

Sure, the technology was in that lovely big room, but the noises were made in a space not much bigger than your spare bedroom.

And they sound lovely. Don’t believe me ? Watch this – all the way through, mind you.

Now OK, I know that’s not technically a Pink Floyd song, but it’s David Gilmour still, recording superb-sounding music, in that same tiny little room – where I don’t even see any acoustic treatment, actually. Some soft furnishings and carpets, maybe. It probably has decent proportions.

[Edit to add - actually, as Richard points out in the comments, that might well be a broadband absorber above David's head (rockwool in a frame, to you and I) and perhaps even some foam in the corner behind - so, let's qualify that and say there's only minimal acoustic treatment :-p]

But at the end of the day it’s a real space, not so different from real spaces you have access to – and it’s where a musician who could literally record anywhere in the world chooses to make his records.

Yes, there are some nice mics, and a lot of expensive gear on the other end of the mic cables, but that’s not why those records sound great. Decent mics and converters are very affordable these days, and even David was recording to digital, just like the rest of us.

The recordings sound great because they’re great instruments, with great performances, recorded with care and attention to detail.

And that’s something we can all make happen.

Tell me about your unconventional but great-sounding recording spaces in the comments !

(Thanks to Bobby Owsinski for posting the original video)

PS. Here’s another great album recorded in a great, real space:

Production secrets – Daniel Lanois on making Neil Young’s ‘Le Noise’

Why David Gilmour writes and records on a boat 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

Just a very quick post to wish you a very Merry Christmas from Mastering Media !

We hope you’re able to take some time out over the next week or two, spend some time with family and loved-ones, and generally relax and be merry : )

Here are three of my favourite musical suggestions for this time of year – hopefully there’s something for anyone’s taste:

The Traditional Option

Carols for Christmas - John Rutter & Choir of Clare College, Cambridge

The “Radio 2″ Option

Christmas !

My personal favourite

This is my all-time favourite piece of Christmas music (although it’s not my favourite recording/performance of it) - I always play this when we’re dressing the tree, and first thing on Christmas morning : )

Take some time out to appreciate this one.

Benjamin Britten – Ceremony of Carols

Have a great holiday, and see you in the New Year !

Ian

PS. No, it’s not snowing here at the moment, but isn’t it pretty when it does ?

Original image by Dom McIntyre

Happy Christmas 2011 from Production Advice 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

Another great old documentary about the recording of a classic album from YouTube – this time of Peter Gabriel’s fourth album.

I’ve written before about how much I love the sound of this great-sounding album, so finding this video and being able to see the songs actually being written – well, I got a bit over-excited, actually.

There are so many fascinating and enjoyable things here that it’s hard to know where to start, but one thing that jumped out at me straight away was – look at the studio ! If you can call it a studio. In fact, you can’t – it’s just a room with a load of gear in it – a far cry from the facilites at Real World today. And all the vocals were recorded on… a Shure SM57 !

Another is the inspirational use of early sampling technology – in this era of gigabyte-sized multi-sample sound libraries, it’s easy to forget that you (and should) build the sonic signature of an entire song around the sound of nothing more than someone blowing across a metal pipe…

And finally, who knew it was so hard to smash a telly ?

Enjoy

Peter Gabriel 4 – in the recording studio 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

(And, following a conductor, revisiting old tunes and helping an orchestra get funky.)

I’ve yet to hear an orchestral arrangement of a pop or rock track yet that I’ve liked.

But having seen some of the live tracks from YouTube on the tour that prompted Peter’s up-coming “New Blood” album (see the fantastic example below) I’m really hopeful this will be the exception that proves the rule !

Peter Gabriel and Guy Garvey talk about ‘New Blood’ 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