Didn’t we all move on from the crackle and pop into seamless digital reproduction of the studio tracks years ago?? Like in 1984!?????
Oh yeah nostalgia =$!
What’s with this anti vinyl obsession? Just don’t buy it.
I don’t like the added noise of crackle and pops that are inherent with vinyl as a format. Why anyone would want to hear that on top of the music is beyond me.
I’m genuinely curious as to why, when there is a format which does not contain that added noise, people still choose to use it. Do they just ignore the clearly audible crackle? Do they tell themselves it’s “warm”? I would love to understand the “why”.
I like the size of the artwork, it looks better than CD artwork… So, in some cases I buy the vinyl for the packaging while I listen to CDs.
If you have a lead on Brisbane 21 August 1992 - CT version, for the love of Bob, let me know. Please!
I know you were posting that in fun, but c’mon JP, just cos there’s noise in one area or generally, doesn’t mean you need to accept it in places it can be avoided.
You’re welcome. Signed Mr. Buzzkill.
If you have a lead on Brisbane 21 August 1992 - CT version, for the love of Bob, let me know. Please!
What’s with this anti vinyl obsession? Just don’t buy it.
I don’t like the added noise of crackle and pops that are inherent with vinyl as a format. Why anyone would want to hear that on top of the music is beyond me.
I’m genuinely curious as to why, when there is a format which does not contain that added noise, people still choose to use it. Do they just ignore the clearly audible crackle? Do they tell themselves it’s “warm”? I would love to understand the “why”.
I like the size of the artwork, it looks better than CD artwork… So, in some cases I buy the vinyl for the packaging while I listen to CDs.
I have an original Blue Note 1957 pressing of Sonny Rollins that doesn't have a single crack. I also have hundreds of Cure vinyls and they all sound like new (except for the ones I used to listen to when I was young and drunk).Take care of your records, use good stuff to listen to them and that's all.
I don’t like the added noise of crackle and pops that are inherent with vinyl as a format. Why anyone would want to hear that on top of the music is beyond me.
I’m genuinely curious as to why, when there is a format which does not contain that added noise, people still choose to use it. Do they just ignore the clearly audible crackle? Do they tell themselves it’s “warm”? I would love to understand the “why”.
I like the size of the artwork, it looks better than CD artwork… So, in some cases I buy the vinyl for the packaging while I listen to CDs.
I have an original Blue Note 1957 pressing of Sonny Rollins that doesn't have a single crack. I also have hundreds of Cure vinyls and they all sound like new (except for the ones I used to listen to when I was young and drunk).Take care of your records, use good stuff to listen to them and that's all.
Crack being physical damage, or audible crackle? Those are different things.
If you have a lead on Brisbane 21 August 1992 - CT version, for the love of Bob, let me know. Please!
Nope. They're 2 different things. Mastering doesn't affect the mix as it effectively works from the finished mix to make it sound optimal for the medium it's being released on. Which is why digitally mastered vinyls are a complete waste of time, as they're mastered for a digital medium. Remixing is where each individually recorded track (guitar, bass, vox, keys, drums, etc) is tweaked to create the final mix. That can be panning from channel to channel, levels increased/ decreased, expanding/reducing the stereo width & so on.