IEEE article - The future of music

MarcusR · Post by **MarcusR** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:19 am

Hi!

In a resent post I gave some comments on the sound of a piping recording with the intent to discuss why I sometimes feel that the pipes just don't get through on a particular soundtrack, at least with my novice ears. It would have been better to start a new thread as the discussion got tilted to concern the the piper, and his pipes instead of the media representation.

So far I have very rarely heard uilleann pipes played live that I didn't like, but there are recordings of very good pipers that just not do it, at least not for me. At the same time there are CD,s , mp3's, and even highly compressed media files that can deliver, and at least maintain the characteristics I'm looking for in a "good" pipe recording.

What makes the difference? Microphones, other electronic devises like filters or A/D converters, mastering quality, dynamic range, room acoustics, compression algorithms...?

I would be happy for comments and more input on this topic.

When I searched around for some more information I also came across these two IEEE articles about "the future of music".
I enjoyed them and though I post a link to them here.

The Future of Music: part one

multimedia version

Part two: Will Musicianship Matter? (multimedia version only)

/MarcusR

djm · Post by **djm** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:09 am

Nice articles, Marcus. Thx for pointing them out. Now if only they had software to make my piping sound like Ronan Browne ....

djm

CHasR · Post by **CHasR** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:17 pm

Yes, Id' like to discuss this...
I worked in a recording studio 10, 12 years ago, and now I perform on pipes (Uilleann, Ghb + others) on a regular basis. Even back then the things we could do in post-production, after the talent had left the booth, were criminal...transpose up a third, put it an a church and fit it into 37.5 seconds? No prob. Oh, and punch out the note that the bass screwed up.

I've noticed quite often audience reactions to hearing the UP's in person for the first time: the fascination level is good, but they often seem...unfullfilled..?

My own musicianship aside; I fully believe that the casual Uilleann-pipe audience has been pre-conditioned by recordings of pumped-up, EQ'd, mixed-to-the-max Uilleann chanters. The expectation for them is that the solo, untreated, acoustic UP will balance nicely against a full rock/folk/ceilidh band with vocalists.

Even on GHB, the perception is that the instrument is louder than it actually is. I was booked to play a minor league pregame show, in a pretty full average-size stadium. Marching out onto the field, I was followed frantically by interns with wireless mic's because I couldnt be heard. "We thought they were louder". 'Well I told you so'...

For quite some time the talent in the studio has been on the other side of the glass. Virtuouso s and artists with enough talent/clout to play producer in the control room aside, what goes on disc is largely the work of the engineering and production teams. I doubt 10% of today's pop-idols could make their voice felt in the 'cheap seats' of a concert hall without some pretty tricky machinery. Well, as they say, that' s show-biz!

As for the reduction of dynamic range, I couldnt agree more. 'Music' and 'Expression' are not as much a priority as 'data compression' and 'transferability'. The dynamic subtilties of Mahler on an I-pod...hahahaha! All this plugging-in really toys with what the human ear can discern...I can crank up a koto to 110Db's, or keep the Chichago brass section to a distant, muted 35.

I couldnt access the 'multimedia only' link; but if the question centres on 'is musicianship relevant?' That's a whole other topic. A little while ago I needed an accompanist for a gig, + I put a notice up on the net(not this site). 'Must read music' was the stipulation. Someone replied, "sheet music is for the deaf". I nearly wept.

billh · Post by **billh** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:51 am

I don't think this (what Chas discusses) is true of most uilleann piping recordings - although it's certainly true of many pop and semi-popular recordings that "feature" the pipes. Arguably true of a few (but IMO only a few) "bands" that use pipes.

The unaccompanied uilleann piping recordings and most of the duets/trios are another matter - very little post-production in most cases, a fact of which the artists are usually quite proud.

For these piping-centric recordings I think the "tricks", if there are any, are in mic placement and room acoustics. Some are made in relatively "live" rooms, without post-production reverb. (We're used to hearing acoustic solo recordings made in totally nonreflective studio cubicles these days, possibly with some digital reverb added at the end to "liven up" the resulting flat uncolored sound.)

Getting back to Marcus' point about mp3/digitization, I do think that solo piping is especially sensitive to the particular compression settings/algorithms used to encode the music. For CD and DAT-quality uncompressed samples, it doesn't matter, but many of the nice "psychoacoustic" models that work so well for most music in mp3, ogg, and their various VBR codecs seem to break down where pipes are concerned. I suspect that this is mostly due to the influence of the drones; sustained square-wave buzzing is, in most contexts, noise, not music. The result is that the drones themselves are distorted in sound - timbre and/or volume pulses and wobbles, and the presence of sustained drone harmonics interfere with the encoding algorithm's representation of the chanter's own harmonic content. Ironically, drones would be almost trivial to encode if you were writing a custom compression algorithm - but they seem not to be something that these general-purpose audio codecs were designed to handle.

Bill

CHasR · Post by **CHasR** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:22 am

billh wrote: I don't think this (what Chas discusses) is true of most uilleann piping recordings - although it's certainly true of many pop and semi-popular recordings that "feature" the pipes. Arguably true of a few (but IMO only a few) "bands" that use pipes.

The unaccompanied uilleann piping recordings and most of the duets/trios are another matter - very little post-production in most cases, a fact of which the artists are usually quite proud. For these piping-centric recordings I think the "tricks", if there are any, are in mic placement and room acoustics. Some are made in relatively "live" rooms, without post-production reverb.

As I've said,

ChasR wrote: I fully believe that the casual Uilleann-pipe audience has been pre-conditioned by recordings of pumped-up, EQ'd, etc..

billh wrote: (We're used to hearing acoustic solo recordings made in totally nonreflective studio cubicles these days, possibly with some digital reverb added at the end to "liven up" the resulting flat uncolored sound.)

And thanks for pointing that out again... that we're used to hearing the pure thing...

However, most clients who want Uilleann for their weddings/memorials/parties arent listening to these examples. There's
more Uilleann in soundtracks than there ever has been before... A layback producer in my town uses them quite frequently for anything from commercals to film scores to football features. This is what folks are hearing, for better or worse.

But this is a good point regarding square wave influence on the complex upper partials of a well-played chanter:

billh wrote:I suspect that this is mostly due to the influence of the drones; sustained square-wave buzzing is, in most contexts, noise, not music. The result is that the drones themselves are distorted in sound - timbre and/or volume pulses and wobbles, and the presence of sustained drone harmonics interfere with the encoding algorithm's representation of the chanter's own harmonic content. Ironically, drones would be almost trivial to encode if you were writing a custom compression algorithm - but they seem not to be something that these general-purpose audio codecs were designed to handle.

Bill

One can identify a bagpipe tune solely by looking at the waveform shape!

Being in the physical presence of chanter against drones is a completely seperate experience than listening to a bagpipe recording. Soundwaves are coming at you, in + out of phase, at different volumes, from several un-related angles. When the listener moves, the phase relation + source points change.

Ya just cant get this online!

It's a tough instrument to be faithful to in the recording booth. This is why the minimalist approach to recording pipes works best, as Billh has rightly said.

But in a 'real-world' production situation, with deadlines, etc... its often not a priority to satisfy the musician's quest for posterity.

BigDavy · Post by **BigDavy** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:40 am

Hi ChasR

A perfect example of crap recording for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWH7rCPJSqI

Jeez the sound is awful.

David

Beau Comiseau · Post by **Beau Comiseau** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:01 am

Ooh, man that was cold, Big Davy!

billh · Post by **billh** » Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:19 am

CHasR wrote:...
Being in the physical presence of chanter against drones is a completely seperate experience than listening to a bagpipe recording. Soundwaves are coming at you, in + out of phase, at different volumes, from several un-related angles. When the listener moves, the phase relation + source points change.

That's true, but I was thinking mainly of a less subtle point: even the most perfectly recorded pipes will be distorted when converted to a "lossy" format like mp3, wav, etc. - and more so than other instruments or the human voice.

With most compression algorithms, there will be two problems with the drones: firstly, the drones themselves will be badly represented - tone and volume will wobble around as an artifact of the compression technology. Secondly, the presence of the drone signal in the digital waveform being compressed will make it harder for the compression technology to deal with the chanter's own sound, resulting in distortion of the melody as well as the drones.

I don't know offhand which compression algorithms are best/worst, but know from experience that the choice of settings can make a big difference in the "realism" of the pipe sound.

Bill

CHasR · Post by **CHasR** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:21 am

billh wrote: I don't know offhand which compression algorithms are best/worst, but know from experience that the choice of settings can make a big difference in the "realism" of the pipe sound.

Bill

Oh absolutely!
The minimalist / realist approach would be to set up a coincident pair at a sweet spot in the room and let it roll;

The other method can really get out of hand fast: chanter transducer, drones seperately mic'd, pipes in the isolation booth.

Its far easier to toy with the signal using the 'other method'.
Perhaps (& im theorizing here) the disenchantment Marcus mentions in some recordings stem from the production team trying to 'correct' problems such as waveform distortion from compression and the chanter lacking a seperate acoustic space of its own. That could make a pig's ear of even the best piper's timbre.

But, hey! I'm glad to any good piper play, even if its on a lousy wee you-tube clip!

MarcusR · Post by **MarcusR** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:41 am

Thanks Chas and Bill for you insightful comments and observations on a quite complex topic.

It was interesting to read about your recording experiences Chas, and I have also found that the sound of pipes or other acoustic folk instruments sometimes tend to have a less favorable representation when recorded in a pop music content. This can of course be as easy as the sound engineers lack the experience to deal with acoustic drone instruments. I have similar experiences from live concerts or festivals with folk/pop band or when a acoustic folk band plays at a festival featuring mostly rock and pop.

billh wrote:... I think the "tricks", if there are any, are in mic placement and room acoustics. Some are made in relatively "live" rooms, without post-production reverb. (We're used to hearing acoustic solo recordings made in totally nonreflective studio cubicles these days, possibly with some digital reverb added at the end to "liven up" the resulting flat uncolored sound.)

This is a very good point Bill. And after reading your comments regarding compression effects on drones I kind of wonder that if this can be one of the things I'm after.

That the optimal placement and choice of microphones considering the room acoustics for the best live representation may be far from the best result after filtering and compression. I will try and look for same examples of "good and bad" (in my point of view) and check what it is that bugs me. I have the feeling, after reading both your posts that it is mixing of drones and chanter that sometimes suffers due to the reasons pointed out, and if heard separately they might sound ok by them selves.
Maybe it is a question of getting the right recording balance of drones and chanter for an optimized output after post processing and compression instead of the acoustically preferred live setting?

billh wrote: ... For CD and DAT-quality uncompressed samples, it doesn't matter, but many of the nice "psychoacoustic" models that work so well for most music in mp3, ogg, and their various VBR codecs seem to break down where pipes are concerned. I suspect that this is mostly due to the influence of the drones; sustained square-wave buzzing is, in most contexts, noise, not music. The result is that the drones themselves are distorted in sound - timbre and/or volume pulses and wobbles, and the presence of sustained drone harmonics interfere with the encoding algorithm's representation of the chanter's own harmonic content. Ironically, drones would be almost trivial to encode if you were writing a custom compression algorithm - but they seem not to be something that these general-purpose audio codecs were designed to handle.

Interesting Bill, and I agree. What do you think of the quality of audio input has before compression. What I mean is that if the compression algorithm is to blame for distortion of the drones, this should be noticed all the time. I have heard very highly compressed streamed media of pipes with a very good representation and other less compressed tracks that do seem to suffer more due to compression.

If I find some good examples I'll try to do some signal analysis and see if I can identify any differences. Dissertation is getting closer and closer so it will have to wait until I can find some spare time.

It should also be a fun and interesting task to test some of the available compression formats on a lossless recording and compare the results

Chas, do you have a good studio track that we can use as a starting point?
This should also be of interest for other types of drone instrument recordings like , hurdy-gurdy's, keyed fiddles, hardangerfiddles ...

Thanks again for contributing.

Cheers!

/MarcusR

CHasR · Post by **CHasR** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:51 am

MarcusR wrote:Chas, do you have a good studio track that we can use as a starting point?
/MarcusR

Personal taste being the deciding factor here:

I've always been preferential to a live recording made of Paddy Keenan
(1990?) at the Festival of Cornemuses d' Europe in Brittany.
(Think its on the "Ocora' label? I may be wrong there.)

He does 'The High Level', 'Harvest Home', 'Garret Barry's Jig', and a another I cant remember on 2 seperate tracks.

Although the drones are not as loud as Ive heard 'live + in person', I personally consider the recording one of the best to capture the excitement and skill of a top Uilleann piper live.

And good luck with the dissertation, MarcusR.