Engineer Hugh Padgham - Quality Comes Down To A Simple Question: Does It Sound Any Good?
Part 1 of a fascinating conversation with Engineer/Producer Hugh Padgham, who was behind some of the greatest recordings of the 1980s and 1990s era, working with Sting, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, XTC and others. Padgham talks about analog and digital, working with artists, engineering approaches, and more, in this excerpt from Howard Massey’s Behind The Glass Volume II, which features more than 40 all-new, exclusive in-depth interviews with many of the world’s top producers and engineers, as well as Foreword written by George Massenburg.
+- Print Email Share Comments (1) RSS RSS

behind the glass
To acquire "Behind The Glass: Volume II" from Backbeat Books, click over to www.musicdispatch.com. NOTE: ProSoundWeb readers can enter promotional code NY9 when checking out to receive an additional 20% off the retail price plus free shipping (offer valid to U.S. residents, applies only to media mail shipping, additional charges may apply for expedited mailing services).
Related Tags
  Recording, Behind The Glass, 1990s, Hugh Padgham, 1980s

Ah, the eighties. Every record sounded like it was made in a stadium, every singer working their uppermost range until it seemed as if their vocal cords were about to leap out of their throat, every hit wrapped in a glossy package of shimmering guitar leads and silky bass.

And, of course, every snare drum was passing through a gated reverb.

Hugh Padgham is largely responsible for many of those sounds—particularly the latter— but he’s also responsible for crafting many of the greatest records of the era, The Police’s “Every Breath You Take,” Genesis’ “Tonight’s the Night,” and Phil Collins’ “In the Air Tonight” among them.

His ultra-clean signature sound raised the bar for every engineer and producer of the era and had a major impact on the shift from the dead, close-miked records of the seventies to the open, ambient sounds of the nineties and beyond.

Padgham’s unique abilities and versatility are probably best reflected in the fact that he’s won four Grammys in four different categories: Album of the Year (Collins’ 1985 No Jacket Required), Record of the Year (Collins’ 1990 “Another Day in Paradise”), Best Engineered Album of the Year (Sting’s 1993 Ten Summoner’s Tales), and the 1985 Producer of the Year award.

Padgham’s career started at London’s Advision Studios, where he served as tea-boy (the British equivalent to a runner), but it wasn’t until he moved to Landsdowne Studios in the mid-1970s that he received formal training, quickly rising through the ranks from assistant engineer to chief engineer.

In 1978, he took a job at Richard Branson’s Townhouse studio (which sadly closed its doors only recently), which gave him an opportunity to engineer for various Virgin artists, including XTC, Peter Gabriel, and Phil Collins.

It was also at the Townhouse that Padgham first met a young bass player by the name of Gordon Sumner. . . soon to be known to the world as Sting.

A couple of years later, just as Sting’s band The Police were poised to reach the heights of international fame, Padgham was brought onboard to co-produce their massive hit album Ghost in the Machine.

We met up at his West London studio, Sofa Sound, one bright summer afternoon, where the affable Mr. Padgham, looking more like a ruffled professor than a superstar pop producer, shared his unique perspective on the evolution of record-making through the past two decades.

Howard Massey: Are you fully sold on digital recording these days, or do you still use tape?

Hugh Padgham: I’m not anti-digital per se, because you’ve always got to stay as current with things as you can. But people who grew up with analog gear can hear the difference, and there’s no doubt in my mind that analog sounds better: it’s kinder to your ears, and not as harsh.

Hugh Padgham
Having said that, there’s also no question that digital now sounds better than ever before. These days I’m running all my sessions at 96k, 24-bit, and that’s a big improvement over 44.1 or 48. Of course, the original RADAR, which was 44.1, 16-bit, sounded a lot better than other machines, so I think a lot of it is down to the converters.

.

One thing I really miss about analog recording is tape compression, though. By using it carefully, you can actually get some 10 dB of extra level before a well-recorded transient signal like a snare drum clips.

That’s one reason that digital sounds so harsh—because you’re not getting any of that nice rounding off of the transients. So these days, I tend to do my initial tracking onto 24-track tape and then copy that into Pro Tools. That way, at the very least, my drums, bass, and guitars hit tape.


Comment (1)
Posted by curious_of_sound_recs  on  01/30/10  at  11:52 AM
A really nice interview with one of those people who have few decades of (vintage-)audio expiriences in professional ways. His opinion reflects much of my personal sonic cognition if I compare sound development of the last 40 decades. I'm born at the beginning of the 1980's so I only grew up with the 90's and 2000's sound. I didn't have the chance for live-listening to 1950's - 1980's stuff or even to live this time period's philosophies of life (which always takes influences on artistic work like music)...but since I started my own recording business few years ago (mainly multi-channel orchestral-church recording /downmix to stereo in the studio) and actively listened to music ( especially its sounding) I also go a lot vintage. The reason is quite simple : based on long-term considerations quality- and detailful productions will win (back) recognition on the market as it is overwhelmed with low-budget-maximum-effort-sounds at the moment. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all those home-recordings made by busy musicians...but I don't like record labels that do quick shots with this type of quality, selling it for "normal" prices to get a short-time effort. OK, we could discuss a lot about what is major and what is minor quality now - it's always the same in artistic business. But one fact you really can't discuss is that most of today's player's quality is disgusting...just think about a mass-storage-USB-device that has an additional built-in-feature named "MP3 Player"...I have heard a lot of "well sounding" MP3-players (let's not discuss wether MP3 sounds bad or good compared with uncompressed audio at this time) but these are too expensive for the average consumer who expects anything from one cheap device. Doesn't matter if it sounds crappy as long as no high quality audio has been heard as reference. But why is it like that? The human ear has a resolution a thousand times higher than the eye (at 25 frames / second we recognize a moving scene instead of single frames ; to do the same thing with the human ear you need to take at least about 32.000 samples / second or more!)but the problem in this case is the cognition of our envirnement which takes place about 80% via eyes - the rest belongs to other senses like hearing. So normally our hearing is not trained very well as its full capabilities are barely used.
Back to top
Post a Comment

Name:

Email:


 View comment guidelines

Remember me

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please type the 5th letter of the word "array":



ProSoundWeb Book Store 

YouTube in Music Education
By James Frankel, Thomas Rudolph

The first complete music educators’ guide to harnessing the power of YouTube for students, YouTube in Music Education teaches instructors how to tap into the excitement of YouTube with students by creating, posting, and promoting videos on the… View this book

Confessions of a Record Producer
10th Anniversary Edition, Revised and Updated, By Moses Avalon






Improve your skills as producer, audio engineer, or live sound professional with Berklee Music, the online continuing education division of Berklee College of Music.