All Wave, Kim Deal, Steve Albini, The Benefits of Analog

I recently started playing music with a drummer who is big fan of Kim Deal's bands The Pixies and The Breeders.  This caused me to go back and listen to Mountain Battles, and read up on Kim Deal some more.  I had forgotten she worked with musician/engineer/producer Steve Albini.  It also got me interested in her All Wave concept again.

All Wave is a sort of brand name for the idea of all-analog audio production.  By including the word "wave" in the name Deal emphasizes one of the things that distinguishes analog sound; it preserves[1] the wave created by the musician.  Each new copy is analogous to the original sound.  Digital recordings store a stream of numbers that can be used to recreate an analogous wave, not a direct copy of it.

But it isn't just about the sound.  It's about the performance.  In Steve Albini's short essay about All Wave on The Breeder's web site he refers to digitally manipulating "sounds separated from the dimension of time in which they were performed."

What I read there is a concern about musical integrity.  Knowing that Mountain Battles was recorded in this way I do listen to it slightly differently.  I know that each thing I hear actually happened.

This couldn't be more different from some of the electronic music I listen to.  Some of these records are entirely (or nearly so) created in software.  It may be that none of the notes or other sounds were ever "played" by a person, only programmed and edited.[2]

Like so many other things it is about the right tool for the job.  So, when is analog the right tool for the job?

A) When that is what you like
B) When that is what you are good at
C) When authentically capturing a performance is more important the details of the final product

As Deal says in this interview with Wears The Trousers:

 "I was never against [digital audio]; I was against other people making me use it and telling me it was better. [...] These days, digital can sound incredible and it’s just going to get better. It’s not just MP3; digital is way beyond that now – that was just a fad. If you get a good programmer now, people who’ve really spent a lot of money getting good plug-ins and things like that, it can sound really good."

And later in the same interview...

"I do not sit in front of a computer to make, or even write, music. The work that goes into it is just players in a room."

You would think that someone who is advocating an all analog process, even to the point of naming it and creating a logo, would also, implicitly, be taking sides--would be saying digital is bad, inferior, un-musical or the like.  She isn't.  She's saying it is a good way to record "players in a room."

I have often wondered how much editing and clean-up gets done on classical and jazz recordings, especially now that the barriers to digital editing are so low.  I wonder how many classical recordings are out there that sound like you are in the hall with the trio or orchestra but that never really "happened."  In the classical music world where virtuosity and precise recording are both valued so highly the temptation to artificially enhance a performance must be great, as would be the professional consequence if you got caught.

I am all for All Wave for anybody who shares Kim Deal's values, especially if they also like the "players in a room" process.  For music that is all about the trickery and technology, obviously it isn't a good fit.


[1] It seeks to preserve it and does so with varying levels of fidelity.  Let's just assume, for the purpose of argument, that we are talking about good equipment operated by knowledgeable people.  Within the scope of this post the same goes for digital equipment.
[2] This is also true of a lot of my own electronic music.

Bad Sound, Bad Music But Good Intentions?

When I was doing a Christian rock show on my college radio station I got a fist full of CDs from a new independent label.  It was 1990 and in the Christian music world hard rock was a big deal so I was very interested in their hard rock offerings.  One of them was Beat The Heat, by Lex Rex.

I was immediately torn.  On one had the music seemed at least OK.  I wanted to like it, but something was wrong.  Then I figured it out.  There was no bass.  I'm not talking about bass guitar.  I mean the CD sounded like somebody had turned the bass tone control on a home stereo all the way down.  So here was the hard rock band bashing it out, but the result sounded thin, tinny, and weak.

Some weeks later I got a call from the label's radio promoter.  There was an event coming up and there was a specific song on the Lex Rex record he was pushing for it.  He asked if he could count me in on playing the song prominently.  I mumbled something non-committal.  He pushed and I eventually told him, in clear terms, that I wouldn't be playing the song.

Radio Rep: "Can I ask why?"
Me: "The album sounds poor.  There isn't any bass."
Radio Rep: "Ya, I know.  It's the way it was recorded."
Me: "Well, I can't play a record that sounds like that. It's unprofessional."
Radio Rep: "But this is really important!"

But putting out a good sounding record wasn't?

This is part of what was wrong with Christian music the whole time I was involved with it.  People who knew and cared about good music were constantly being asked to make compromises based on other people's good intentions.  The same was true of that ever-redefined concept "ministry."  Whenever someone needed to undermine somebody else's standards that just had to appeal to one of these things.

"The new record by Major Artist is really good."
"But he doesn't do alter calls anymore."

"Band X is doing another video, and it's going to be professionally produced this time in stead of looking like a fan production."
"Do you think more people will get saved because they spent more money on it?"

I assume these attitudes are still prevalent.  I don't miss them. 

I love The Midwest.  I love it and I have lived here my whole life.  Therefore I am within my rights to speak my mind about it.

The Midwest is cursed with an interminable sameness.  The fields that line the highways go on forever, unchanging.  The parents at high school sporting events in every town act the same, yelling at the players, coaches and officials not only as if they were experts, but as if anyone cared what they thought.  The same people, the next day, will be as Iowa nice as the day is long.

Midwest downtowns all sport identical buildings, even in the cities.  The downtowns of Des Moines, Minneapolis and Chicago look fundamentally the same.  Chicago, of course, is older, but the only real difference is one of scale.  As you turn, counter-clockwise, starting at Chicago, through these three cities you will see that the downtowns shrink in hight and extent but otherwise do not change in their appearance, like clonal trees sprouted decades apart.

But this is only part of the story.  The Midwest can also jump out of an unseen shadow and press a surprise into your hand, not only unforeseen but unique.

Is it still a surprise if you go looking for it?  I think so.  Certainly it is if you don't know what you are looking for.

Here is where I could drag out all of my most charming stories of pleasant surprises that have come to me in all of my favorite Midwestern towns like Rochester, Des Moines, Minneapolis and little burgs in Iowa you have never heard of.  All you really need to know is that these things happened.  They are my charming stories.  You can get your own.

That's the point, actually.  You can and you should.  Among the numbing tedium that threatens to overwhelm us here in the planes/plains there are surprises to be enjoyed.  Just tonight my hostess at a sushi restaurant pointed out that even though I only ordered a few pieces of nigiri I would have saved three dollars with the "all you can eat" special.*  Now, that's my story and you can't have it but it is a legitimate, if small, example.  Nothing like that has ever happened to me in San Francisco...and on each of my trips to the Bay Area I have eaten as much sushi as humanly possible.

Get out there.  Do stuff.  Talk to people.  Be surprised.  The Midwest wants to make being here worth your time.

There isn't much to be done about the endless fields.  Grains and beans just take up a lot of space.



* Ordinarily "all you can eat" and "sushi" are incompatible concepts, for all the same reasons sushi on a buffet should be approached with extreme caution.  The sashimi was perfectly good--mild flavor, no fishy smell.  I have no idea how this restaurant is making any money.  Maybe they gouge for draft beer in their bar.  I should check on that!

More About High Sample Rates And Better Than CD Sound Quality

You may have read my November 2012 post about sound quality. I discussed ultrasound, high sample rates and expensive speakers that can reproduce ultrasound (AKA ultrasonics, ultrasonic energy). I cited various facts about music production and human hearing to make my point that, while not exactly a scam, speakers with ultrasonic treble extension aren't a good investment. Although there is evidence that humans can perceive some ultrasound there isn't any evidence that it plays a role in enjoying recorded music.

This past week someone on one of my Linux audio mailing lists (or was it an Ardour list?) linked to a fantastic article at xiph.org that goes into considerable depth on related issues, especially the high sample rate/high resolution digital audio questions. I learned a lot from this article. The author also explains certain things I already knew in the very clearest of terms. I want to comment on some of these things briefly, tip my hat to him, and digest a few of his points for those who don't have time to read his full article.

The author, who goes by Monty, makes a very convincing argument for CD quality playback (16bit/44.1kHz). According to him (and I now agree with him) 16/44.1 is the way to go for digital playback. When it comes to listening to recorded music there is no need to employ more demanding digital formats.

The article is called 24/192 MusicDownloads ...And Why They Make No Sense.[1]  The article is long (by WWW standards) and covers a lot more than the title implies. Monty delves into the methodology of audiological research and ABX listening tests, among other things. He does this to ground all of his conclusions in science, not pseudo-science or magic. It's a long read so the impatient will want to take my word that A) he knows what he's talking about and B) there are a lot of claims being made about digital audio (by vendors, enthusiasts and even professionals) that are not grounded in science.

Here are a few highlights from Monty's piece, curated (and sometimes amplified) by me.

1. Humans can not hear the difference between CDs (or CD quality files) and more expensive or resource intensive formats like SACD, DVD-A and “better than CD” digital downloads. Do not pay for them unless you have another reason, like bonus content or an improved master recording.
   
   
   For some time I believed that people could hear the difference between 16bit and 24bit, although I never had myself. My ears were right and I was wrong[2]. Just like astronomical sample rates, the science says we can't hear it.
   
   
   It turns out that the folks at Sony and Phillips made a very good choice when they chose 16/44.1 as the specs for Compact Disk audio. It captures the full pitch range of human hearing and supports the broadest practical dynamic range. Everything we can hear it captures and reproduces. What we can't it does not waste precious bits storing.
   
   
2. Digital recordings are not quantized when played back. This is counter-intuitive until confronted with what a DAC actually does. The playback device's digital-to-analog converter connects the dots of the digital recording, dots that are extremely close together. In doing so it creates an analog wave that is smooth and continuous.[3] If the recording is 16/44.1 or better and the DAC is of good quality nothing audible that went into the recording is missing from the resulting analog wave. The image of jagged, blocky, brittle sound from CDs is wrong. Some DACs are poor. That's not is not a failing of 16/44.1 or the Compact Disk. Pumping more data through a crappy DAC probably won't help.

3. 16bit/44.1Khz is good enough for listening/playback but production is different. There are practical advantages to making initial recordings in 24bit, mixing at 24bit and to higher sample rates for various types of processing. This is because the extra data can protect against certain problems, not because the recording engineer can hear the extra data.[4]

4. Lossy formats like MP3, AAC and Ogg can sound very good, right up to being indistinguishable from the uncompressed original. To preserve the music in this way the lossy encoding must be done only once, with reasonable settings and quality software. Older encoding software (or new software that uses old encoding methods) may harm the sound. It is never a good idea to convert a lossy recording to a different lossy format. If you need a different format or file size go back to an uncompressed or otherwise lossless copy for your source.

Monty says way more than this, as do the sources he cites. Thank you, Monty, for making the world a little safer for those of us who value pragmatism and reality.

[1] Don't be thrown by the fact that the title and URL look unrelated.  The title really is "24/192 MusicDownloads ...And Why They Make No Sense" and the URL really does end with the file name "neil-young.html."  You will understand why as soon as you start reading the article.

[2] I believed this because I misunderstood something I read in an interview with Roger Nichols.  He said something along the lines of "there is never any reason to record in 16bit" and I took it to mean 24bit should be preserved all the way through to the consumer.  In retrospect I suspect he was only talking about production, or maybe even just recording.   

[3] Imagine a trombone sliding between notes. The sound does not stop or jump unless the musician tells the horn to do so. The analog side of the DAC does not stop between samples.

[4] Sometimes this takes the form of headroom or some other kind of virtual padding. At other times it gives processing systems more data to work with, providing a more detailed result, even though no one could hear the extra data/detail itself before or after processing. This is an unusual circumstance when things we can not hear are, in fact, useful.

A Different Use Of The Name Digilog

Look at the top right of the record covers, above James Brown's name.  It says "DIG-A-LOG."

You may have seen my previous post about digalog, a partially digital process for cassette tape duplication.  Here, dig-a-log is a packaging concept.  Take classic (or at least old) recordings and sell the vinyl LP and CD together.

These were at Half Price Books in Cedar Rapids.  I saw Chuck Berry and James Brown titles packaged this way.  I suppose it is just another take on offering digital downloads along with a physical purchase.  Maybe that's appropriate for an age when people are ambivalent about formats.  I just thought it was odd that the same word, digalog, turned up again.  

Is it still a neologism if it is pronounced the same and based on the same, partial, pun?  Digalog.  Dig-a-log?  Di-g-a-l-og?