Did I claim it was?I'm pretty sure in the case of Portishead the crackle is a real analogue turntable being manipulated by a real live DJ/turntablist type human. It's not a digital effect added later.
Did I claim it was?I'm pretty sure in the case of Portishead the crackle is a real analogue turntable being manipulated by a real live DJ/turntablist type human. It's not a digital effect added later.
What, and miss out on the all the palaver of finding what you want to play, squinting at the tiny writing on the spine of the record sleeve, putting an LP on the turntable, cleaning it and carefully lowering the needle to the surface, not to mention the faff of getting up every ~20 minutes to change sides.
In spite of the ASR's fixation and charter for I/O measurement and accuracy of that gear.Everyone here is fixated on the gear, just different ways. ;-)
Did I claim it was?
A like for your examples, but not for the @krabby sentiment. I mean, it's lo-fi, but it's the real thing, yes?
This research went to great lengths to find out what (if anything) accounted for the preference for vinyl. Spoiler: it wasn't the sound, which was rated worst in controlled tests. Using effects to make your recordings sound worse seems a bad idea. Differences in mastering were controlled out, so the possibility remains that in some cases the vinyl master is better than the CD one, but I doubt effects are going to make up for that either.
That was the implication I got.
Who cares whether it was a real TT or a plugin? Not me. Making a CD sound like crapped-out vinyl was, um, 'interesting' at first, then became a gimmick from overuse. That's how musical production fads go. The quality of the music is what really stands or falls with time.
I'm glad 'crackly LP' CD had its moment; I'm glad it mostly went away.
I feel the exact opposite: that going to the cinema is expensive, inconvenient, annoying in very many ways, and often gross
Good thing that fads like that have the shelf life of potato salad.Even though I enjoyed many pastiche and electronic genres, I also got tired of the "adding vinyl crackling" trend back then too.
(And for that matter, the trend for quite a while in electronic music to have breathy female vocals on seemingly every track....)
I think we're talking about different studies since the details you quote don't match at all:That study comes up fairly often here, and as this forum has "science" in the title it's worth a reminder:
To gauge people's impression of sound quality between vinyl/digital, that study used a single song example (Frank Sinatra), played on a lower priced turntable (bottom of the line Project table), no mention of the cartridge. And the study itself reminds us they were testing regular consumers with cheaper consumer gear, and the authors suggest that "High-end equipment will most certainly produce a different listening experience between vinyl and compressed music formats."
Scientists would be extremely cautious about hanging much on a single, limited, as yet un-replicated study, much less leverage that limited data in settling anything about the issue.
Well, it was you that brought it up. Why indeed ...?Why would it even matter?
Are we arguing whether it counts as an 'effect'?
I well remember being told off in strong terms by two film makers whom I had offended by questioning the complexity and cost of their method of shooting on film which is then digitized. The grain! They were really offended that I should consider this questionable.In digital film restoration cirrcles much importance is afforded to preserving the film grain of the image and that is still plainly in evidence on the restored version of Out 1. But the tape hiss is gone! Is the tape hiss not an equally important part of the authentic experience as the film grain? Although the restored version certainly looks a lot better – grain and all – I feel something is somehow lost with the hiss-free soundtrack ...
That was true on the first album. Notoriously Barrow resorted to all manner of artifice to create such effects for the second, including having vinyl made and then degrading it. Stories were he near drove himself mad trying.I'm pretty sure in the case of Portishead the crackle is a real analogue turntable being manipulated by a real live DJ/turntablist type human. It's not a digital effect added later.
Well, it was you that brought it up. Why indeed ...?
That is, after all, the subject of this thread. But if we are arguing about anything then it is about whether Portishead's use of 'vinyl crackle' is somehow an unnecessary affectation 'added' to the music or whether it is an integral part of the music. I would argue the latter. In fact I believe the music could not exist without it since it is part and parcel of its creation.
Yes, that's how I see vinyl too.For me, a large part of playing vinyl is the amazement that anything so crude can sound as good as it does.
Relative to streaming on a phone I miss sleeve notes and good artwork. There are lots of good examples. Just for one, even when I'm listening on streaming I want the LP sleeve of Mimaroğlu & Hubbard Sing Me a Song of Songmy in my hand. There's a great deal of interest there and the music can be understood in a different way because of it.I find I don't really miss any of those elements of the vinyl ritual.
Relative to streaming on a phone I miss sleeve notes and good artwork. There are lots of good examples. Just for one, even when I'm listening on streaming I want the LP sleeve of Mimaroğlu & Hubbard Sing Me a Song of Songmy in my hand. There's a great deal of interest there and the music can be understood in a different way because of it.
But I don't miss sleeve notes enough to go back to using mainly vinyl.
I think your on about a different study. This one used 2 songs, neither by Frank.That study comes up fairly often here, and as this forum has "science" in the title it's worth a reminder:
To gauge people's impression of sound quality between vinyl/digital, that study used a single song example (Frank Sinatra), played on a lower priced turntable (bottom of the line Project table), no mention of the cartridge. And the study itself reminds us they were testing regular consumers with cheaper consumer gear, and the authors suggest that "High-end equipment will most certainly produce a different listening experience between vinyl and compressed music formats."
Scientists would be extremely cautious about hanging much on a single, limited, as yet un-replicated study, much less leverage that limited data in settling anything about the issue.
I think we're talking about different studies since the details you quote don't match at all:
* It used 2 tracks, neither by Frank Sinatra
* Turntable is not specified, other than being "calibrated using a set of test records" and checked by the mastering engineer who had just cut the record, prior to digitisation.
* The study doesn't describe the participants of either test section as regular consumers (or in much other detail), doesn't describe their gear, and doesn't contain the quoted text about high-end equipment.
I'm talking about "Analogue Hearts, Digital Minds" by Michael Uwins, Linear Audio Vol.10 September 2015. It is still a single, limited and (so far as I know) un-replicated study though.