I was thinking about downloading some mp3 files of a recording I had lost.
Would this be the equivalent of learning from 78s in 'the good old days'?
I am well aware that some people think that there is a loss of sound quality on mp3. But wouldn't the same be true of listening to masters of 78 recordings? Given time restrictions, sound quality etc. etc.
Is this a case of 'the more things change the more they stay the same"?
If you learn a tune this way isn't always going to be a case of 'this is how I play it' as opposed to " 'this is what 'insert name here' plays' "
The loss between CD and MP3 is noticeable, if you have a good ear and listen really well. It's an insignificant difference compared to any modern format versus old 78s. So no, it's not the same thing, not even close.
And I can't imagine that learning from an MP3 will throw your style off so far that you have to apologize for the difference. Where is that notion coming from?
As I said, just some idle thoughts.
Perhaps I'm getting a bit worried about my loss of hearing or maybe I'm just woolgathering about sound purists who want everything between 20 and 20 billion hertz.
In any case isn't it what you think you think you hear that you will play as opposed to what you actually heard?
So does it matter whether your source is mp3, 78 or other? I know I'm no paragon of style so I'm not to bothered about that at all.
"If you learn a tune this way isn't always going to be a case of 'this is how I play it' as opposed to " 'this is what 'insert name here' plays' "
Surely the whole point of playing this (or any) music is that this IS how I play - and not what "insert name here" plays. If I wanted people to hear how Mr Insert plays then I'd play them a recording.
If you use mp3 don't use 128kbps - you'll get much better results if you record at 192kbps and upwards. The distortion is lower and there is less cutoff of the high frequencies (>16KHz). Most people would be pushed to tell the difference between an original and a 192kbps+ mp3 copy, and would probably need top of the range audio playback equipment to notice that difference anyway.
david_h:- I use Creative Media Source version 1.01.82 which came installed on my pc. It slows MP3s down without any stutter or flutter or loss of tone. I don't know what it costs or anything; but they have a web site.
There's no better quality than a vinyl record played through top audio equipment as opposed to mp3. Vinyl play sound in anologue wave patterns where as mp3 is digital "pips" that fill in what your ear needs to hear.
The only snag is every time a record is played it loses quality as the needle scratches lower into it every time. Albeit it takes years to notice the effect but that's the bottom line.
Anyhow how the hell is that going to effect your playing?
Wax cylinders? Too modern. If you want really old school recordings, go to the oldest form of recording known...
Oh, wait, we don't like sheet music around here...
I think I would have to agree with you Floss, the thing is though as I was thinking about obtaining a download of a recording I had lost, it occured to me that perhaps the mp3 would be the modern equivalent of a 78. How emigres would bring home records from America. And we all know what wonderful sound reproduction came from them. I was wondering how much modern playing had been influenced by 78s as opposed to the ubiqiuty of the mp3.
I was fortunate enough to be sitting in on a nice session in Dunvegan Isle of Skye the other night and I suggested to a fellow sessioneer a tune that might sit nicely in a set she already played. Out came the mobile phone....
mp3 vs 78
mp3 vs 78
I was thinking about downloading some mp3 files of a recording I had lost.
Would this be the equivalent of learning from 78s in 'the good old days'?
I am well aware that some people think that there is a loss of sound quality on mp3. But wouldn't the same be true of listening to masters of 78 recordings? Given time restrictions, sound quality etc. etc.
Is this a case of 'the more things change the more they stay the same"?
If you learn a tune this way isn't always going to be a case of 'this is how I play it' as opposed to " 'this is what 'insert name here' plays' "
Just some idle thoughts...
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by john knoss
Re: mp3 vs 78
I don't pay attention to sound quality.
An mp3 is much better than a 78 by any comparison,
even on what it could have been back then.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by dogmageek
Re: mp3 vs 78
The loss between CD and MP3 is noticeable, if you have a good ear and listen really well. It's an insignificant difference compared to any modern format versus old 78s. So no, it's not the same thing, not even close.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by Marklar
Re: mp3 vs 78
And I can't imagine that learning from an MP3 will throw your style off so far that you have to apologize for the difference. Where is that notion coming from?
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by Marklar
Re: mp3 vs 78
As I said, just some idle thoughts.
Perhaps I'm getting a bit worried about my loss of hearing or maybe I'm just woolgathering about sound purists who want everything between 20 and 20 billion hertz.
In any case isn't it what you think you think you hear that you will play as opposed to what you actually heard?
So does it matter whether your source is mp3, 78 or other? I know I'm no paragon of style so I'm not to bothered about that at all.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by john knoss
Re: mp3 vs 78
After the real thing, I prefer to learn from a wax cylinder.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by Jumper
Re: mp3 vs 78
"If you learn a tune this way isn't always going to be a case of 'this is how I play it' as opposed to " 'this is what 'insert name here' plays' "
Surely the whole point of playing this (or any) music is that this IS how I play - and not what "insert name here" plays. If I wanted people to hear how Mr Insert plays then I'd play them a recording.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by showaddydadito
Re: mp3 vs 78
With a scratched 78 you don't need a metronome.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by RichardB
Re: mp3 vs 78
If you use mp3 don't use 128kbps - you'll get much better results if you record at 192kbps and upwards. The distortion is lower and there is less cutoff of the high frequencies (>16KHz). Most people would be pushed to tell the difference between an original and a 192kbps+ mp3 copy, and would probably need top of the range audio playback equipment to notice that difference anyway.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by Trevor Jennings
Re: mp3 vs 78
I find mp3 removes the temptation to slow stuff down - sounds awful.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by David50
Re: mp3 vs 78
david_h:- I use Creative Media Source version 1.01.82 which came installed on my pc. It slows MP3s down without any stutter or flutter or loss of tone. I don't know what it costs or anything; but they have a web site.
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by gam
Re: mp3 vs 78
There's no better quality than a vinyl record played through top audio equipment as opposed to mp3. Vinyl play sound in anologue wave patterns where as mp3 is digital "pips" that fill in what your ear needs to hear.
The only snag is every time a record is played it loses quality as the needle scratches lower into it every time. Albeit it takes years to notice the effect but that's the bottom line.
Anyhow how the hell is that going to effect your playing?
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by upmine3
Re: mp3 vs 78
'There's no better quality than a vinyl record played through top audio equipment as opposed to mp3.'
That's so true. I was recently sent a a copy of a remastered to CD Bothy Band album and, boy, what a pipsqueak it is compared to the original!
# Posted on August 20th 2009 by MacCruiskeen
Re: mp3 vs 78
Wax cylinders? Too modern. If you want really old school recordings, go to the oldest form of recording known...
Oh, wait, we don't like sheet music around here...
# Posted on August 21st 2009 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: mp3 vs 78
I think I would have to agree with you Floss, the thing is though as I was thinking about obtaining a download of a recording I had lost, it occured to me that perhaps the mp3 would be the modern equivalent of a 78. How emigres would bring home records from America. And we all know what wonderful sound reproduction came from them. I was wondering how much modern playing had been influenced by 78s as opposed to the ubiqiuty of the mp3.
I was fortunate enough to be sitting in on a nice session in Dunvegan Isle of Skye the other night and I suggested to a fellow sessioneer a tune that might sit nicely in a set she already played. Out came the mobile phone....
# Posted on August 21st 2009 by john knoss