SAMPLING CDs AND ADDING VINYL CRACKLE...WHY ???
Ian_D
120 Posts
Right..i was at work today and some dude comes in buying CDs at random and i hear him saying "yeah that'll be good for sample clearance" and stuff so he comes to the till and i say " sampling off CD?? i'm a vinyl junkie myself" and procced to say how great digging and sampling is then he says " thats old fashioned if i want that vinyl thing i'll just put the sound of vinyl crackle over it.." what the fuck is the point of dat ??????? I'm not anti-expanding your sample scources but come on....discuss sampling CDs and why it's generally a crappy thing to do or am i "old fashioned"
Comments
+
+
=the wave of the future
What if he didnt choose to own a turntable and didnt give a damn about vinyl?
That is possible. Adding static/crackle is so last century.
true, i just find the CD/Vinyl sampling thing interesting not saying you make better stuff by digging for vinyl...but generally you do.
There are CD and DVD-ROM's with audio files with nothing but crackle. I could get a record, record one minute of crackle, then reverse it, then play it at 33, 45, 78, and I'd have my own CD of nothing but crackle. There's some idiot out there (and hopefully a couple of rich idiots at that) who have made some money off of something some producers could care less about. It might give something "authenticity". I know we like to bring up ol' Josh, but I remember an interview where someone asked him about sampling and his sources, how he said he was vinyl only and generally didn't use CD's. Yet he hinted that he would not hesitate to add crackle. That went uner the radar. Now go listen to the intro to "You Can't Go Home Again", how it first that song sounds like an old 78 and during the last 5 seconds of that sample, it opens up to where it's crystal clear. No one ever said shit about that five years ago, probably because no one cared. I know, "wah wah wah wah wah".
Just make music, and worry about the lack of crackle credibility later.
The dudes beats probably suck anyway...
Is this for real? Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
- J
yeah this thing is fucking stupid.
I think some folks here use (+ crackle) to mask the fact that they're sampling Real Headz mp3s.
sampling CDs is what's old fasioned, is all about MP3s
For real though, the crackle plug in makes sense if you have live instruments and you want to give it that sample type sound. Think about it guys.
yeah, i scratch my records to VG- to make sure they got that sample sound....
i dont understand what this means. old recording techniques?
yeah, thats part of it. Also that sort of lo-fi aesthetic that you just dont get very easily recording live instruments in pro tools. It doesnt sound like it came off a record. Go listen to the second portishead album. Im pretty sure alot of that is live instruments, but they worked very hard to get it to sound like samples. Its harder than it sounds like to pull off. For further reference, check the "mama i made it" track off kingdom come that khalil did. thats all live recordings, but it sounds like records. Or check that track on the ghostface album that just blaze had to redo live when the sample wouldnt clear. Older records have a limited range of frequencies that they can reproduce, so you have to eq new recordings differently to get it to sound right. also, the effect you get when you pitch something down on vinyl is different than just playing an instrument in a different key. Its not so much getting it to sound like its coming off a record though as it is getting it to sound like hip hop. which should be a bit grimey if you are doing it right.
you are a drummer, so you should also know that recording your kit straight into a 002 is very different from sampling skull snaps into a drum machine. That gritty, dirty sound comes sometimes from records, or some say from the circuitry from older machines like the sp1200. dithering down to 8 or 12 bit samples in cool edit or pro tools will not give the same effect, you need the machine noise.
i understand, been messing with my own recordings to get them sounding right lately..
It's all just a matter of texture. Texture adds character to what are otherwise uninteresting/not so interesting sounds. I agree that recording straight to 1s and 0s can sound a bit thin and weak, but it's easily remedied through layering and careful equalization. In general I think that using plug-ins--aside from basic stuff like EQ, Reverb, Echo, etc.--is kinda lame.
Why limit yourself to saying this is legitimate and this is corny, in the end its how the track sounds. I think people are either very insular, or are just not creative enough to know when and how to use certain effects. I can understand old school analog heads dissing digital across the board (pro tools, cds, mpc, even digital reverb,) but to make a blanket statement about "plugins"?
Because its about taste, and for my taste that's what works. Personally, I think its lame to use a plug-in that is just an aglomeration of other plug-ins, and it sounds sterile.
It wasn't a blanket statement about plug-ins, it was a blanket statement about certain kinds of plug-ins. I know dudes who forego hands on editing in light of using a plug-in. The problem with this is that your shit sounds the same as everyone else's, and most people don't pay for plug-ins (which presents a potential copyright infringement should you ever sell your work). When you use a plug-in like a bit-crusher, or maxxbass you're more limited in textures than if you do the edits and processing yourself.
I'm not trying to impose laws of recording and editing techniques for everyone else, but this is what I go by. If you're happy with the results you gte from plug-ins I would never shit on you for that, because everyone should just be enjoying making music.
plug ins arent copywritten. I work in a studio that has probably one of the illest collection of outboard gear here on the west coast, and i still see alot of big name mix engineers that work entirely in the box. Honestly, thats the future. Obviously there is no substitute for a quality source recording, and alot of people get too crazy with loading tons of them on, but to say that plug ins are lame? I think you should do some more research. alot of these plug ins can mimmick the original gear to the point where professionals cant even tell the difference, plus theres no messy recall sheets to fuck with. Dave Pensado is one of the illest engineers in the game, and hes completely digital in the box. Read a little bit of what he has to say about things and it could change your mind.
that album is all live (except for one or two samples). they recorded all the instruments to 2 inch tape, pressed them on dubplate then sampled them, arranged them, then back to tape.
i've yet to hear a soundcard or plug in that can replicate the warmth and grit of analog tape. one day it could happen.
This i can get down with, its just the blanket dismissals of "plug ins", which really run the gamut, from corny to extremely powerful and nearly identical to their analog counterparts, not to mention recallability mentioned earlier. Just saying dont be closed minded...
On the subject (sort of), anyone heard these:
Is there a plugin that emulates the sound of old samplers like the sp1200??
that might be cool if it sounded right
Yeah, the difference though is that the engineers you are talking about know what they are doing and understand the physical attributes of the original compressors, preamps, etc. that the plug-ins are trying to model. The thing with plug-ins these days is that too many people just slap one on and fiddle with some buttons without understanding how the sound is actually being affected in a more analytical sense.
The tools you use are just a matter of preference. Ultimately, it's how you use and understand them that will make all the difference.
There's the fx2100 by acquit - http://www.vst-archiv.de/downloads/zeigePlugin?pl_id=198;
It's sounds pretty good, and is way better than just a bit crusher.
The thing with plugins is that you do need to know what you're doing, otherwise it just sounds so obvious. I think a mix of good outboard and quality plugins can't be beat. I mean noone can deny the impact Waves have had can they? I think too many things get slammed through an L2, but they are topnotch plugs regardless.
In terms of adding crackle, i'd say that was pretty lame. Things i have done in the past to make CD samples grittier are; Recording to cassette first, then resampling. Recording to VHS, then resampling. Overdriving through the mixing desk.
I dont think i'd ever add crackle. But if you dont got the Vinyl and you NEEEEEEED that sample... then theres nothing wrong in sampling CD.
I might have mentioned this before, but my old band once did a gig where our live sound was done by Portishead's sound-tech Dave McDonald, and a friend's band did a couple of tours with Dave as their sound man. Anyway, Dave once told us this story about the sessions for the second Portishead album, and how on one occasion, they went into a high-end London studio to record a 40-piece orchestra replaying a sample (I don't remember which). They then mastered the recording onto an old battery-operated cassette recorder using the cheapest cassette they could find, then they stuck it in an Akai S-950 and used that on the final track.
This might be triphop folklore, but I've heard they actually recorded an album of "samples" and pressed it on vinyl before making the second Portishead album.