There are differences which depend not only upon the bitrate, but also the harmonic content of the source material. Lossy CODEC algorithms have (hopefully) careful criteria for determining what data they can safely afford to lose. For MP3 these are based upon “perceptual coding” for popular music. The more inharmonic signal is present, the worse the approximation will sound. So at 192kbps, a singer with acoustic guitar might sound decent, but a percussion performance might not. I found out quickly that encoding percussive, atonal, or otherwise noisy music in MP3 was a waste of time. This is when I switched to using Real Audio. Just kidding, I usually use FLAC. Some say I am snobby for avoiding MP3s, but honestly, most other CODECs I’ve tried have sounded a lot better.
Modern? The Beatles sound in the 1960s was basically the work of the EMI engineering labs, especially that of George Martin.
I take your point, although that was visionary work at the time. But yeah, you are right, the history of recorded music and creative engineering are pretty much inseparable, when you think about it.
By Jove, we have achieve coffee cable technology! Coffee! Why is everyone ignoring the important part?
George Martin - The Song of Lennon and McCartney?
It would explain why the band’s characters keep getting killed off.
Turns out I got this wrong - thanks for correction below. It’s the Monkees, Randy Scouse Git
I was obviously too busy working for Cambridge Entrance to pay attention to exactly who was singing the lyrics.
I thought it was from A Whiter Shade of Pale. In my defence, the scansion of the two sings is very similar.
“The four kings of EMI
Are sitting on the floor”
George Martin was the de facto fifth Beatle and the fifth king of EMI; it was his unique skills on the mixing desk that made the sound possible, which is why they never did live performances. So yes, in a way he created an entire fantasy world, and one which has so far proved more durable than the one created by George R Martin.
[my informant re. Martin was a one time director of EMI. I read the Wikipedia article and I think the PR fairy breathes its magic over it.]
The history of music and creative engineering is pretty much inseparable. There is nothing “natural” about a violin or a trumpet; they are engineering solutions to the problems of making loud noises the way somebody wanted them. The violin and piano were developed to be louder than their predecessors, and I am sure there were plenty of people at the time complaining that the piano was musically inferior to the spinet or the harpsichord.
Every new instrument comes with a background chorus of naysayers.
Well yeah, but that’s kind of an academic point. Way back at the beginning of the thread, we were talking about audio cables and hi-fi, so my comments are specifically referencing music reproduction.
I’m making the philosophical point that a violin is a device for reproducing music too. Music is the stuff in the composer’s head or on paper. In the 19th century, to hear music, you needed an orchestra, with players to interpret the marks on paper and a conductor to sync the players, and musical instruments. In 2015, you need a computer to interpret the ones and zeroes on a memory device, an amplifier chain and loudspeakers. Speakers are actually musical instruments, they just have a coil or an electrostatic plate to move the vibrating membrane rather than a bow or a drumstick.
Magical audio cables are just part of a long tradition which, for instance, assigns huge amounts of value to a Stradivarius even though, if Mozart was to hear a modern Yahama, he might well jump up and down and shout “Ja ! Das ist, was ich hören wollte !”
See also: the National guitar (and a host of other resonator instruments), the electric guitar (et alia), Adolphe Sax’s eponymous 'phone, and Sousa’s 'phone which while developed for marching bands also solved a problem with sound direction (and so also volume).
For sheer volume, it’s hard to top [Jason Gorski’s chosen instrument] (http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1997/09/7186).
Not sure what cables would help in the accurate in-home reproduction of the latter.
Read to the end of my comment. I address this point. George Martin was a lot more modest than many of the others around the Fab Four, but look at the Beatles work, read the Wikipedia article carefully, et, si monumentum requiris, circumspice.
FTFA:
Peaking at 140 decibels, the stomach-clenching volume and wild
harmonics force the Fogmaster to wear head-to-toe protective clothing
while performing his concerts.
That is so f’n metal. A gig with him and those Tesla coil guys would be… something.
begins writing Concerto for Tesla Coils and Foghorns in D Minor
Great. And now I have a bug in head, about how to design a Tesla coil (or a plasma speaker) with comparable loudness!
Also auxetophones plz.
It’s an interesting point you make, I agree.
Every Sousaphone I’ve ever played sounds like a beer bong with one end jammed into a pile of manure when compared to a concert Tuba. Yes they’re directional, but they’re not nearly as loud, and when you try to play them quietly, they go inaudible due to their absurdly high required airflow, or as warm, or as comfortable to use as a tuba. It’s a very specialized solution, and makes a lot of compromises.
I played mostly Fiberglass-belled sousaphones, but I did play some all-brass ones too, and they all sound awful, don’t have the range of tone and don’t have the proper breath resistance needed to be played well. Air-hungry monsters. One day I’ll build a bag-a-phone, and then I won’t have to take a breath every bar when I play the Sousaphone.
A Sousaphone isn’t just a differently shaped tuba. It’s different from a tuba in the same way a Hummer is different from a Humvee. One is much nicer to drive and more comfortable than the other.
/End rant from an old concert tuba player who was drafted into the pep-bands.
have you had any experience with the Helicon?
Nope. Though it looks like it probably wouldn’t use quite so much air as a Sousaphone. Looks a little easier to play.
From the Wiki the Sousaphone’s gooseneck mouthpiece coupler being an issue is definitely correct.
I was almost never able to get a good seal between the gooseneck and the sousaphone. It would bend and deform, it’d wobble around. Me and the other Sousaphone players would do rock paper scissors to decide who gets which Sousaphone, and then we’d use plumbing tape to try and seal up the joint in a position that worked for the individual player.
I’m sure half the problem is that they were school Sousaphones, and were a little beat up. But those goosenecks I swear were invented by some mad sadistic engineer to frustrate the users into a major depressive episode.
