It’s hard to understate the impact that Compact Disc made, upon its introduction back in 1982. At the time, the music world was very different, with vinyl regarded as the only serious way to play music. Found everywhere from broadcast studios to the local youth club, LPs were the world’s favourite music format. Still, at over thirty years old, black plastic was knocking on and sales were on the wane, down 40% from its 1975 high watermark. The scene was set for the brave new world of digital audio…

What music lovers needed now was a small, convenient, high quality music carrier, and CD was it. Hailed as a miracle of modernity, it fused two technologies - a digital audio coding system developed by Sony, and a laser optical disc storage system developed by Philips.

Legend has it that Sony had wanted the new ‘Digital Audio Disc’ to be 12 inches wide, just like an LP, as they were worried that album artwork wouldn’t look good on Philips’ proposed 5″ disc.  Philips had wanted cardboard sleeves, just like LPs, but Sony insisted on a plastic ‘jewel case’ to give the product a more tangible feel. So when CD finally emerged, it was full of compromises limited by the technology and what the big companies thought the public wanted.

SOUND AFFECTS

Given that the average early eighties turntable could scarcely spin at the right speed, the new digital disc was a revelation. Sonically CD was was streets ahead of most people’s vinyl experience - and had the added benefit of being immune from surface noise, static crackle and disc wear too. There were some golden eared hi-fi hacks around who didn’t like its sound, describing it as a little stark and two dimensional. But by and large, CD was a quantum leap forward…

Despite Philips’ famous description of it as giving “pure, perfect sound forever”, people soon started noticing problems however. Compared to analogue, early 16-bit digital could sound spiky and hard, giving cymbals and female vocals a coldness that just didn’t seem right. Lab measurements showed that whilst CD’s 16-bit digital system gave very low distortion on the loudest parts of the music, it distorted heavily on the quieter bits - the exact opposite to how analogue LP behaved. Worse still, the digital system was prone to distorting most in the upper midband and treble, just where the ear is most sensitive…

This was down to the way digital audio encodes the analogue musical waveform, and it applies to every format that uses the Pulse Code Modulation digital system, such as CD, MP3, AAC and FLAC. With PCM, the two basic factors that determine the sound quality are bit depth (which determines the quality with which the analogue signal is digitised), and the sampling frequency (which is the number of times per second that the analogue signal is digitised). CD is a 16bit, 44.1kHz system, giving a frequency response of 5-22,000Hz and 96dB dynamic range.

To understand this more clearly, it’s helpful to imagine taking a digital photo of a squiggly line. The more megapixels the camera that you use has, the higher resolution the snapshot will be and the smoother the squiggle will look. This is the visual equivalent of bit depth. Then try and imagine photographing that squiggle thousands of times a second.

The more snapshots you take per second, the more accurately you can track the way the line moves, kind of like seeing a flicker-free TV picture on a top television. Liken this to the sampling frequency, and you can see how the musical waveform (squiggly line) is captured digitally.

So the more bits you use, the more natural the music sounds, and the faster the samples, the wider the frequency range. CD’s 16/44.1 digital system was state of the art in 1982, but it didn’t take long for it to get past its sell-by date.

Malcolm Hawksford, Professor of Psychoacoustics at Essex University, reckons that, “CD’s digital specification was almost good enough for audiophile music reproduction. It was near the limit, but in my view probably a bit marginal. Ideally, at least 20-bit resolution at 60 kHz sampling frequency would have been better”.

BIT BETTER

Compact Disc became a technological time trap for audiophiles. Its almost-good-enough digital specification put the development of digital in suspended animation, locking us in to an outdated nineteen eighties way of digitising music. No surprise then that in recent years, many hi-fi purists have been turning back to vinyl which - being analogue - offers almost infinite levels of resolution. “Analogue audio systems are limited not by digital bits, but atoms,” argues Hi-Fi World magazine’s Paul Rigby. “Where LP record playback fails is in the mechanical tolerances of the playback equipment, such as bearing friction and so on, rather than the resolution of the format itself. With digital though, it can only be so good and no better.”Happily, DVD-Audio and Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD) arrived at the end of the nineties to save the day, offering far superior sound to CD. With the former offering true 24bit resolution, it came over as punchy and powerful with tremendous detail, plus a wonderfully smooth low distortion sound right across the audio band.

“I have seen some really good recordings over the last decade where 16-bit was just not enough to hold all the information,” says B&W digital research engineer Albert Yong., “and given the opportunity to then listen to those recordings in 24-bits, they just blew the 16bit version out of the water”.

Although 24-bit DVD-A sounded superb, it never got off the ground commercially. It was expensive, you needed a special type of DVD player and most importantly of all, retailers simply didn’t want to sell it. With DVD video discs making the stores a mint (at the time), there was no reason to devote shelf space to less commercial audiophile music releases. DVD-Audo’s life was over just a couple of years after its inception, and no one missed it except a select bunch of audiophiles who’d heard 24-bit digital and couldn’t go back. But, whilst the disc went the way of the Dodo, its coding system would live on…

Just as DVD-A’s sun was setting, so digital file downloads began making great inroads into the music marketplace. The MP3 format was no great shakes sonically but it was only the first wave; it might have sounded bad, but it ushered in a new way of obtaining music that no longer had any limits. Whereas CD was frozen in time and space, committed to its dated 16-bit, 44.1kHz flavour, internet distributed music could arrive in a way that suits the artist, label and listener.

Enter Free Lossless Audio Codec in 2001 - which was an altogether more intelligent way of encoding music. Rather than the compressed system that MP3 used  which reduces file sizes by about 80% by cutting out most of the music you can’t hear (and some that you can), FLAC used a clever ‘lossless’ packing system that doesn’t remove any music at all, and saves about 30% to 50% of space. “It’s a problem-free system,” says Professor Hawksford, “if the arithmetic is performed correctly and the compressed files are not corrupted then there are no errors in the reconstructed output.”

Whilst we’ve seen a number of lossless systems, from Apple Lossless (ALAC) to Windows Media Audio Lossless (WMA Lossless), the Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) has emerged triumphant for music-loving hi-fi buffs. The spirtual successor to MP3, it’s an open-source system that’s not tied to any one manufacturer, which explains it success. Better still, it comes in more than one resolution. Whilst you can encode your CDs to FLAC keeping their 16-bit, 44.1kHz resolution, FLAC can also come in 24-bit form too. “The system is so flexible that it can take anything from 4 to 32 bits and sample rates up to 655350Hz in 1 Hz steps - it can certainly replace 24/96 DVD-Audio”, says Albert Yong.

BETTER THAN CD

Compared to the mastertape, CD gives a decent but unsophisticated facsimile. Its 16/44.1 specification boasts a dynamic range of around 96dB, which is ample for most music work. The trouble is though, the quieter the signal is, the more the system distorts using the PCM digital system, which effectively sucks out the atmosphere - all the subtle ambient details - of a piece of music. In a direct A-B comparison with the mastertape, “16-bit sounds slightly vague,” says Paul Rigby, “like a primitive digital camera it simply loses the subtlety and fine detail; it’s less easy to live with than hi res digital”.

By comparision, Portico Quartet’s ‘November‘ via 24bit FLAC showcases the superior dynamics of the hi res file. A supremely atmospheric track, permeated with gently ringing kettle drums right through, it’s a far more engaging and arresting experience. “Most people tend to think wider dynamic range simply means a louder, punchier sound”, says Paul Rigby, “but in a sense it’s closer to the reverse. Basically, it means all those quiet subtle sounds are far better resolved; there’s a far greater sense of space and atmosphere, and the contrast between a gentle tap of cymbal and a smash of a snare drum is more faithfully rendered. The music just sounds more organic, and less like hi-fi”.

Theoretically, 24-bit digital has a resolution of 144dB, which is more than enough (130dB is the threshold of pain for the human ear), but the problem is, as Professor Hawksford notes, of actually finding studios capable of recording at anywhere near this resolution. “Not many recordings fully exploit the capabilities of CD, let alone higher resolution formats”, he notes…

Bowers &Wilkin’s Albert Yong agrees that we’re a good way away from achieving true 24-bit masters, but still we can do much better than old fashioned 16-bit, and people can easily hear the difference.

“We have seen some extremely good recordings lately, when the entire recording chain is done right. We can potentially get up to around 20 to 22 bits at the moment, and they do sound a lot better. The difference is in the detail. Sounds generally are more open, and there is an extra level to airyness to the music. Voice and instruments sounds closer to live, and more dynamic as well”.

THE MECHANICS

Like any other music file, you can either ‘rip’ FLAC copies of your existing CDs, or download load them from music sites such as Society of Sound. We’ve structured our site to make downloading FLAC a breeze. After you’ve logged in, you will be taken to the ‘Your Music’ section and you’ll see a menu of everything available. It’s then simply a case of choosing an album and downloading the format you want.  On Windows PCs, you can right-click on the link to save it to your desktop; with Macs, when you click on the download link it will go direct to the Downloads folder. Then you can simply copy-and-paste the file to where you want to keep it. We suggest having a folder labelled ‘FLAC24′ or suchlike, so you know where your hi-res music has gone.

If you’re looking to build up a FLAC library of your existing CD collection, then a good starting point for ripping is Exact Audio CopydBpowerAMP . which is a freely downloadable application for Windows, commonly thought to be one of the best sounding and most bug-free. Another much loved Windows FLAC tool is

Mac Users can try running this via crossoverMac or downloading MacFlac .

Once you’ve downloaded your FLAC music, or ripped it from CD using the aforementioned applications, you’ll need to play it. Currently, neither Microsoft’s Windows Media Player or Apple’s iTunes support FLAC without modifications.

If you wish to import FLAC files to iTunes on MacOS we recommend you try a program known as Max for MacOS X 10, which can convert and rip PCM files and import them to your iTunes library.  For more information please see here.

Both have their own equivalent (WMA Lossless and Apple Lossless) but these are tied to the operating system providers, whereas FLAC is of course a free, open source system like MP3. So for Windows-based systems, we recommend you download Winamp which is a highly flexible media player that also supports burning 16-bit formats to CD.  There are other media players you may wish to try such as SongbirdMedia Monkey and Foobar2000 generally agreed to be the best sounding on the Windows platform. When you start up your music player, it should automatically search for all your digital music and add it to the library. SongBird will even go online and look for the artwork too, just like iTunes or WMP. which is a slick player for both Windows and Mac, with a nice clean interface. There are many other FLAC players, with

Through their bundled music players, both Microsoft and Apple have chosen to support certain file formats (WMA and AAC respectively). Whilst these players offer some flexibility (they both play MP3, for example), they’re both committed to their own Lossless formats. so FLAC is excluded. However, there are now ‘bolt on’ FLAC players for iTunes emerging. Fluke is freeware that works as ‘plug in’ for iTunes (Mac platform), but it is buggy and so can’t be universally recommended yet. The forthcoming version Amarra Mini by Sonic Studio is a more sophisticated system that piggybacks on to iTunes, replacing much of its audio code with a superior sounding and more flexible system. It is expensive though at $395 US, and only works on Mac OS, so most users will choose to stay with a freely download separate player like SongBird.

It’s easy to burn 16-bit FLAC files on to a CD-R for playback in a conventional hi-fi or car CD player.  Winamp is a free player which also supports burning FLAC16 files to CD.  If you wish to use a proper CD authoring software, then Roxio RecordNow MusicLab 10 (Windows, $29.99) or Roxio Toast Titanium (Mac. $99.95) are worth considering because the standard Windows or Mac music players won’t handle FLAC, either 16 or 24-bit.

However, burning 24-bit FLAC is a more involved process, not helped by the fact that some popular software will appear to burn it to disc but actually down-samples it to 16-bit.

Once you’ve got your 24-bit FLAC files and FLAC player; now it’s time to get the music out to your ears. There are several ways of doing this:

• The simplest is to take an analogue line output from your computer soundcard. This is likely to have a 3.5mm mini-jack plug; we recommend a high quality bespoke cable such as Chord’s iChord for around £30. Although it will give a decent sound, particularly if you have a good quality soundcard, it is not ideal because computers are electrically ‘noisy’ environments, and it is best if at all possible to pipe out the digital signal away from the PC or Mac.
• A good external soundcard like M-Audio’s Transit will always be a better sounding solution. This is a full 24/96 capable card, powered by USB. This provides a high quality S/PDIF optical digital output. It has an electrical coaxial digital output too, but it is always preferable to use the optical to eliminate computer-borne electrical noise. Run a good quality optical lead into a modern DAC such as a Cambridge Audio DAC Magic and you have a proper, high quality 24-bit FLAC playout system, that will give superior sound to almost any CD player. It’s important to note here that Windows users should download the latest ASIO drivers; these provide a ’source direct’ function, ensuring the digital datastream goes direct from the FLAC software player to the USB digital output. Some of the latest DACs, like the Cambridge DAC Magic, also have USB inputs that can be driven directly from computers, but it’s always preferable to isolate the electrically noisy computer from the hi-fi by using an optical digital link.
• Wireless streaming is the third, and for many the preferred option. Logitech’s Squeezebox Touch ,£259,  is one of the most inexpensive and convenient ways of getting full 24-bit FLAC replay at up to 96kHz sampling rate. It comes with bespoke playback software that lets your computer control it via your home wireless network, giving an iTunes-style user interface. Generally, these work very well and are an excellent way of giving multiform functionality. Although it has built-in line level analogue outputs which are ideal for use in a second system, again audiophiles should use its digital output into a hi-fi DAC, such as the aforementioned Cambridge Audio DAC Magic.

You can also check our recent 24-bit blog post to see how fellow audiophiles listen to 24-bit FLAC

THE EDGE

There’s an old maxim in the hi-fi industry, borrowed from the early days of the computer pioneers - “garbage in, garbage out”. Any speaker can only be as good as the system driving it, and any system is limited by the quality of the original source material. That’s why B&W, as a manufacturer of premium, leading edge loudspeakers, takes FLAC very seriously. In 24-bit form it’s the modern day incarnation of digital’s finest hour, DVD-Audio, but even better because it’s almost inflnitely upgradeable and future-proof. Professior Hawksford gives it the nod. “FLAC has a place in the future for high quality audio. It is good for transporting files on the Internet as it typically halves download time. It is unlikely that for lossless compression there will be significant improvements”, Hawksford believes.

The ease with which it can be delivered to a computer means that anyone who’s capable of sending their friend a digital photo can now download and play high resolution FLAC files, and the benefits are clear for all to hear.

“FLAC is as good as it can get for now. I think what it brings is not limited to quality of audio, but the added convenience as well”, says B&W’s Albert Yong. The only drawback is the sheer scarcity of quality recorded music in 24-bit FLAC format, and that’s where B&W’s Society of Sound comes in.

Meticulous attention to detail across the whole recording process with the latest high resolution digital recording systems, makes for music of unalloyed purity. That’s why we’re so keen for you to experience 24-bit for yourself; once you’ve got the habit you’ll never look back.

DIGITAL TIMELINE

1841     Augustin-Louis Cauchy first proposed sampling theory.

1928     Harry Nyquist presents sampling theory to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers

1937     Reeves proposed pulse code wave modulation (PCM) as a way of storing audio1948     John Bardeen, William Shockley and Walter Brattain’s bipolar junction transistor, which made compact digital circuitry a reality.1958     C.H. Townes and A.L. Shawlow invented the laser.

1960    I.S. Reed and G. Solomon’s work on error correction codes gave us the technology that would be directly applied to Compact Disc twenty two years later

1967     Japan’s NHK Technical Research Institute publicly demonstrates a digital audio recorder running 12bit resolution and a 30kHz sampling rate.

1969      Physicist Klaas Compaan uses a glass disc to store black and white holographic images using frequency modulation at Philips Laboratories.

1977     Sony, Mitsubishi and Hitachi demonstrate digital audio discs

1980     Sony signs up to Philips ‘Red Book’ laser disc; Compact Disc is born.

1982     Sony and Philips launch first commercial CD players.

1987     Sony launches Digital Audio Tape (DAT) with 16bit, 48kHz digital PCM system.

1994     MP3 (MPEG 1 Audio Layer 3) finalised. A compressed, lossy 16/44.1 format using approximately 20% of the space of a WAV file, it ushers in online music  distribution.

1999     Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD) launched, offering high resolution digital sound using the Direct Stream Digital (DSD) system, with effective 20-bit resolution.

2000     DVD-Audio is launched from the DVD-Forum; offering up to     24bit, 96kHz resolution from a DVD.

2001     Josh Coulson finalises Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) v1.0.

Simon Gogerly is a renowned mix engineer, who has worked on a number of Hip-Hop and R&B remixes for artists such as Missy Elliot, Busta Rhymes, Lil’ Kim, Rakim, Mase, Jamiroquai and Simply Red. He also won a Grammy at the 2006 Grammy Awards for his work on U2’s album “How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb”.

Jim Irvin is the former singer with the band Furniture, and is now a songwriter signed to Warner Chappell. He’s also a journalist, and is a regular contributor to Mojo and Word magazines.
Steve Sasse is Head of A&R at Atlantic Records, and is therefore involved heavily in the partnering of musicians with producers. He has worked with Paolo Nutini, James Blunt, Leftfield, Razorlight and the Propellerheads.

What is a producer?

The role of the record producer equates closely to that of a film director – albeit with original connotations of actually producing the finished product, records. It is their job to get the best out of the musicians/actors and make the creative vision these people have into something that the rest of us can enjoy.
Steve Levine explains how it works: “When a songwriter or a band say ‘how can we make it like this?’ You’re then trying to interpret their wish, their dream or aspiration”
It also appears as though the relationship between artists and producers have changed in recent years, and whereas once an artist had no concept of a production and was simply given a producer, so there’s much more of a two-way relationship, especially as many emerging artists have already laid down tracks at home using Pro Tools and even Garage Band.

KK claims that the producer maybe isn’t the magical figure he once was: “The studio is not this big mystery that it used to be. And there isn’t this kind of dogma and mystique surrounding how to record anymore.

Steve Sasse of Atlantic Records agrees, and says that when a band has already had some experience of recording, and has developed their own ‘sound’ he tries to encourage them to keep that sound with their debut ‘professional’ recordings, and find a producer who facilitates that. “James Blunt has an affinity to that kind of west coast American tradition,” he said. “And found a producer in Tom Rothrock that gave him that sound and you know, whether you like him or loath him, I think he has sort of achieved what he wanted to.”
It’s almost as though producers are doing their own A&R, and getting involved with new artists early on and taking that completed sound to the record label. Surely that can only be a good thing for the quality of the music we have to look forward to, but what about that other important matter: sound quality.

Sound quality in the modern age
Compression is an important, and controversial topic in modern music production, especially as far as people concerned about sound quality is concerned: how much influence does a producer have on the sound quality of modern music. With recent debates over the boosted loudness of albums by Metallica and Lily Allen, mastering engineer Simon Gogerly was obviously well placed to discuss how mastering a record effects the quality of the sound the listener gets out of a hi-fi at the other end of the process!
The loudness wars seem to be affecting more and more artists, with Gogerly explaining how an increasing number of artists are coming back to him saying how they love the mix, but it isn’t as loud as some CDs they have, for example.

“Because things are getting mastered so hot and compressed and limited so much, people are expecting to hear that when you are mixing their stuff as well. So it is colouring how you can mix something. I mean I personally am not such a big fan because you know it kind of, the reduction of the dynamic range of the track is just squashing out a lot of the space, that it’s nice to have in a track.”
This arms race towards loudness, as KK called it, seems to be taking priority over sound quality in a lot of modern masters, and seems to be a sticking point for the recording industry, when it comes to making great sounding releases. Steven Sasse explained how the record companies felt about it, and why it was prevalent: “It is a fear thing I think,” he says. “A band or a label or manager does not want their track to come on the radio and sound quieter than the track that was just on before it.”
However, while compression is a by-word for bad sound nowadays, Steve Levine pointed out to us that it was actually originally a very useful tool for producers, and some of the world’s finest music benefited from compression, including Phil Spector’s Wall of Sound and the Motown sound.
“Berry Gordy would specifically listen to his mixes in his office,” Steve explained. “He would have them cut on to an acetate and he would play them through a transistor radio to hear how they would sound on a radio and would then use mastering compressors in those days to make sure that they sounded as powerful as they would on radio. That is one of the big differences between certain CD reissues and your recollection of them in the vinyl world, they actually sound different because the engineers and producers who originally cut the records had a totally different approach, primarily because they could not get the level on the physical vinyl disk of the day.”
But today things are different, and the loudness war is resulting in albums where every track is produced like a radio friendly single, and it can be very fatiguing. The latest Metallica album was a good case in point, and sparked off lots of debate, especially as the version available for download in the video game Guitar Hero was less compressed and therefore sounded better than the CD release!
And it’s not only heavy metal acts who strive for loudness, as Steve Levine explains, “One good example is Snow Patrol. I cannot listen to two tracks in a row from them. It is so loud and so in your face that my ears get fatigued by the time the first verse is coming of the next song. It is just too much.”

But it’s not all bad news, as artists such as Mercury Music Prize winning Elbow made a conscious effort not to use these kind of mastering techniques, and it resulted in a top quality album that also sounds great on a quality hi-fi system.
As the band itself say, if you want to hear it louder, then turn your system up a bit. We couldn’t agree more.

Other panelists included the Editor of stereo institution Hi-Fi World, The Deputy Editor of What Hi-Fi and a former Pioneer product manager who was heavily involved in the first players capable of handling both the SACD and DVD-Audio multichannel music formats.

We expected there to be multiple opinions on a sound topic as contentious as surround sound and our panel of experts didn’t disappoint.

Martyn Ware (Musical innovator and sound artist)
“Stereo is a particularly ubiquitous format, which works for most situations. But it is far from impressive when you compare it with an equivalent that is deliberately mixed in surround.”

Dominic Dawes (Deputy editor of What Hi-Fi? Sound & Vision)
“Surround sound has very much succeeded in making people feel like they are in the cinema… I don’t know what it has really done beyond that for the average punter”

Andy Walter (Surround sound mastering engineer at Abbey Road Studios)
“The band are in front of you across three speakers. Bono is in the centre and you have The Edge and everything going on. But behind there is the ambience of being there at a gig with 80,000 people… it’s stereo plus!”

Click here to download an MP3 of the full discussion.

to download an MP3 of the full discussion

In a small recording studio in East London, four industry professionals – and passionate music fans – met with Martyn Ware to discuss this all important question. Given the huge technological advances enabling anyone to make an album in their bedroom that sounds as if it were recorded at state of the art studio, surely music does sound better today.

Listen to the podcast below to hear what they thought:

Podcast

Martyn Ware (Musical innovator and sound artist):
“The thrill of live music and the full dynamic range of it is something that you simply can’t get off the internet.”

Tom Dunmore (Brand director of Stuff magazine):
“I would say that the benefits that you get from the freedom of the internet and of iPod and MP3 devices is far greater than the loss you get in terms of quality.”

Rob Kelly (Strongroom Studios director and engineer):
“The majority of music produced in studios today sounds less good to my ears than they did 20-30 years ago.”

Stephen Budd ((Manager of producers, songwriters, Franz Ferdinand and many others):
“I’m looking forward to this period that’s gonna come when high quality audio is as easy to access as poor quality audio. And when that happens I think that will create it’s own demand.”

Tim Lawrence: (Senior lecturer in music culture and author)
“I think there has been an incredible democratisation of music through the spread of iPod technology and through the spread of MP3s.”

The premiere of the John Cage’s 4′33″ was given by David Tudor on August 29, 1952, at Woodstock, New York as part of a recital of contemporary piano music. The piece was composed for any instrument, or any combination of instruments. The score instructs the performers to remain silent during each of its three movements. “Tacet”. The experience of hearing the piece changes according to where it is performed, or recorded. The audience at its premiere reacted variously, some whispering to one another, some walking out. Rather than silence, the audience heard perhaps for the first time the sound of their environment, and the sound of themselves interacting with their environment.

The features of the sound world we inhabit have attracted more and more attention from artists and composers since the beginning of the 20th century. As new technologies, materials and activities become a part of our day to day existence, so the sound world changes. The project of Sound Art originally was to remark on these changes in our acoustic environment.

In 1913, the Italian futurist painter Luigi Russolo set out a manifesto for distinguishing the “inviolatable and sacred” world of music from the unpredictable world of sound in his treatise “The Art of Noises”. He called for artists to observe the noise of industry in their works, in the same way that his contemporaries were observing new modes of travel and warfare in their visual pieces.

Since then, Sound Art has begun not only to observe the acoustic environment, but to manipulate it.

Janet Cardiff’s 2001 work ‘Forty Part Motet’ is a recording of Thomas Tallis’ ‘Spem in Alium Nunquam Habui’ which is played back employing an individual loudspeaker for each voice.

The speakers are arranged in the round, and listeners are invited to climb inside the music. They can move between voices during the performance, favoring bass over tenor for example. They also hear the sound of the choir preparing, they catch fragments of the live audience’s discussions and movements as they enter the auditorium.

The experience is completely immersive.

Cathy de Monchaux's 'Sweetly The Air Flew Overhead, Battle no 4', which featured sound from Martyn Ware

“Our sensitivity to sound as human beings is immense, and like smell, it affects us powerfully.” The unconcious processing attributed by our brains to processing extremely important survival-influencing data has inevitably atrophied over the millenia, but how much of this latent power yet remains to be revealed?

In the Lab over the coming months we are going to be exploring why the experience of our sound world is so important, how and why it is going to change, and which technologies are driving these changes.

Through a series of interviews in audio and video, my blog entries, and these pieces I will be looking at both avant-garde and everyday ways in which sound can affect our lives. This month I talk to Cathy de Monchaux and Charlie Morrow about the part sound has played in their work.

Cathy de Monchaux is a sculptor living and working in London. Her sculptures frequently use materials such as glass, paper, metal and leather. Since 1988 she has shown internationally, frequently in America, and her work is part of public collections in the Tate Gallery London, the Hirshorn Museum Washington, and Albright Knox New York, amongst others.

On the podcast I discuss a project we collaborated on together with Vince Clarke at her home in Hoxton – you can hear some of the sounds that we used to accompany her sculptures in the Podcast.

Charlie Morrow, pictured here interacting with a heartbeat sensing machine.

Charlie Morrow is a conceptualist living and working in Chelsea, New York. He has been instrumental in developing the manipulation of sound for public spaces, events, commercial soundtracks and museum installations.

Charlie and I discuss how he came to work with sound, and how his work with sound will change in the future.