The resurgence of Vinyl & the end of CDs?

[Starius]

Wired.com has a commentary entitled "Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin" in which the author writes about the resurgence of record album's popularity by both collectors, music artists, and fans, and how they stand to continue on past the marketplace lifespan of compact discs.

I thought I would share it with you here, I thought it was a interesting piece, since I still usually come back home with a few old records every time I go to a flea market or thrift store.

Obviously the common Lounger probably has a predisposition to the vinyl record, but what do you all think? Think the record still has good life left in it?

 

[Foofoogal]

fftopic: a bit. I am wanting one of those repros of the record player cd things that look like an old timey radio but not sure if they are junk and also wonder how or if I would be able to get more needles if I need them to it. I have alot of old records and want to play them.

 

[pigeon toe]

I wouldn't be surprised if that did happen. Maybe I'm a jerk, but I no longer buy CDs. I download a lot of my music, and if I really love it, I buy it on vinyl. It's cheaper, sounds better and has a certain preciousness to it.

 

[kpreed]

Good article on vinyl and I have some old records too, but playing any must wait as my hands shake and that is hard on them and the needle.
Foofoogal, my experience is the new stuff does not last that long, why I now have a vintage one now and I have no problem finding new needles too.

 

[zaika]

heck yes! vinyl still has a lot of life in it. i rarely buy CD's anymore. it's either digitally downloaded to my iPod or on vinyl.
great article!

 

[Starius]

fftopic: a bit. I am wanting one of those repros of the record player cd things that look like an old timey radio but not sure if they are junk and also wonder how or if I would be able to get more needles if I need them to it. I have alot of old records and want to play them.

There is a thread on some of those players, I have one myself. I'm satisfied with it, for what it is, but I do miss my father's 70s Pioneer component setup. He sold the whole setup for 15 bucks.... it would take me over 1000 to piece it together again now. One of those things that continues to drive me nuts....

 

[kpreed]

Foofoogal: Just my two cents, but I did the repro route and when it needed to be repaired (a year and a half later) I found it cheaper to get a new one (aw the throw-away world we live in now). It did sound good, but the dial light bulbs went out (4) after a few months one by one. I now have a vintage one at 1/4 the price and it looks and works very well. I do not know if this is typical or not, but I would go vintage if I was doing it again, there a bunch out there and they are fixable if needed.

 

[Pilgrim]

I come at this from a different angle. I was a DJ in college and afterwards, and I'm acutely aware of the shortcomings of vinyl. Every record I have owned that I played more than once had noise from playing wear, and some of them were significantly damaged. Cueing records on a turntable in a radio station was just about guaranteed to cause wear if the stylus wasn't absolutely optimized. I have literally played LPs on a turntable with a bad stylus and watched a curl of vinyl coming off the record - basically it was using the turntable as a lathe. But this doesn't happen with CDs. You can play them indefinitely, cue them, play them backwards, doesn't matter - they always work, and they're never damaged by the process.

Not to mention that vinyl takes up more room, weighs more, is easier for temperature or mis-handling to damage, is harder to clean, and is more vulnerable to dirt and fingerprints....than is the lowly CD.

And although some early CDs were badly equalized because engineers hadn't learned how NOT to compensate for the shortcomings of vinyl and turntables, today's CDs sound every bit as good as vinyl to me - and BETTER than most of the vinyl records I hear. No pops no cracks, no hiss.

To me, the CD blows vinyl into the weeds in every way. More durable, more practical, eaiser to store and carry, and sounds just as good.

I'd love to transfer my vinyl to CD and get rid of it - or better, find it all on CD cheap, and not bother with the transfer. But that's not economically feasible.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Albums are still produced on Vinyl LPs.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

I'd love to transfer my vinyl to CD and get rid of it - or better, find it all on CD cheap, and not bother with the transfer. But that's not economically feasible.

Here you go, Pilgrim.

Ion Audio USB Turntable


Lee

 

[LizzieMaine]

Vinyl? Feh -- too much audio processing, too many fake stereo effects, too much annoying reverb. Give me shellac every time -- there's still plenty of 78s I haven't heard, so I'll stick with those, thanks.

But seriously, CDs are fine until you make the mistake of getting scratches or nicks on the playing side of one or otherwise compromise the surface.

 

[Elaina]

I just spent 3 days cleaning all my dad's vinyl records. I'm sick of them right now. I own a few, have a turntable (admittedly it's my dad's in the room), but I have preferred CDs since they came out. I'm a lazy listener: I have a 3 CD changer, I can pop in some CDs and not have to worry about messing with the record, turning it, or fighting with the cats/dogs/kids to make sure nothing happens to it while it's playing.


But I copy them to a CD-RW to play. If I lose them, I'm not out my master copy, and I've managed to fall down and break a few, and it also takes care of the scratching problem. Vinyl...even copied I still have to play it in my CD.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

Count me as one of those FOR the return of vinyl. I absolutely love the reverb. When I was growing up I bought MOST of my music on LP -- not only did I think it sounded better, but it had bigger, better pictures

Then I started buying those evil cassette tapes for some reason.

I've tried to buy as much vinyl as I possibly could during the 90s and 2000s. I'm probably in the minority, but I adore pops, static, and hissing. It gives the music a certain character. This is also why I don't mind buying 20s and 30s music on CD -- the static is already there!!

 

[Woland]

Quote from the linked article:

Golden-eared audiophiles have long testified to vinyl's warmer, richer sound.

Being a golden-eared audiophile (who does it for a living) I will have to protest vehemently to this statement.
It is symptomatic for a certain kind of tech-angst which bothers me intensely.

Shellack vs. Vinyl vs. CD is a matter of taste.
When it comes to accuracy of reproduction, no analogue technology comes close to digital.

What is being refered to as "a warmer, richer sound" is simply distortion of the original session and/or recording.
Let me point out that I am a great fan of distortion my self, but I must insist that the main objective of a recording is: to reproduce the original as good as possible.

One can of course find the shellack, waxplate, steelwire or vinyl distortions pleasant.
Each to his/hers own...

For those interested:

Overview History of the Technologies for Recording Music and Sound.

Puh...

 

[Starius]

I think I tend to look at the situation more from the view of a collector.
Records, with their large lush album art, detailed music inserts, and just significant physical presence are much more attractive to me than CDs.
I feel much more happy owning a record than I do with a CD. Audio quality aside, CD's feel less valuable to me. Certainly their smaller size gives them a advantage in practicality, but for the same retail price of $14.95 between a new CD or a new record, it still feels like I'm getting less with the CD.

This is much the same reasoning why I continue to buy Laserdiscs occasionally, even though I don't have a LD player.

I think reasons like this are partly responsible for the resurgence. People wan't to "own" their music, which is someting the music industry is losing sight of.
If you blinked, you may have missed the last audio format war that was intended to replace the common CD. DVD-Audio discs debuted in 1999 and the Super Audio CD (SACD) format debuted in 2000. Both offered a multi-track audio format in higher quality to CDs, yet both have ultimately failed to garner any considerable consumer support.

It will be interesting to see how the HD-DVD vs Blu-ray wars turn out, but to put that into perspective.... if you were to combine both HD-DVD and blu-ray movie sales together, they're still getting outsold by VHS movies alone.

I forgot where I was going for this.... oh yes, obviously there is still a market for anything that still has a demand for it and I think records themselves are one of those interesting things where consumer interest outweighs industry interest. But perhaps that is starting to change, if this article is any indication.

 

[Starius]

Being a golden-eared audiophile (who does it for a living) I will have to protest vehemently to this statement.
It is symptomatic for a certain kind of tech-angst which bothers me intensely.

Shellack vs. Vinyl vs. CD is a matter of taste.
When it comes to accuracy of reproduction, no analogue technology comes close to digital.

I both agree and disagree with what you say here. I have no doubt you are more knowledgeable in the area than myself but I wanted to make a point here.

I do agree that ultimately it is a matter of personal taste, but I do think that the digital CD format is just as fallible in terms of accuracy as the record, albeit in a different way.

First, that "warm distortion" in the days of analog tape recording and tube amps was part of the technology and as a result, many musicians made their albums to take advantage of these sound properties.

Today, in the creation of CD albums, lots of digital music recordings get compressed and distorted to fit the media and also to emphasize certain tones to sound louder than it was originally recorded. Here again, the sound engineers are taking advantage of the nature of digital compression to use to their advantage just as previous engineers took advantage of analog qualities.

So, a album from 40 years ago, reproduced on CD today, may not sound the same as it was originally intended to be heard.

Also, digital solid state sound playback is just as unequal as various analog tube based playback. Not all sound processors are created equal, there were always be variation from playback source to playback source.

At any rate, my point is, often the limitation of the mediums becomes part of the intent on how it is heard.

 

[Pilgrim]

Quote from the linked article:

Golden-eared audiophiles have long testified to vinyl's warmer, richer sound.

Being a golden-eared audiophile (who does it for a living) I will have to protest vehemently to this statement.

I also take issue with that statement. I agree that an accurate reproduction of the original performance should be the goal of musical recording. However, I have never found that vinyl recordings are "warmer" or "richer". My ears just don't tell me that. Sure, I've heard some badly engineered CDs - but I've also had some lousy vinyl recordings.

To me, is simply "t'aint so, McGee."

And I often find myself wondering whether - if such a difference exists - what kind of stereo system is required to hear the difference. I don't spend thousands on stereos - I shop for great bang for the buck, often buying speakers in pawn shops or on Ebay (after doing research that tells me which model I want). All the components of my primary stereo system cost less than $800.

I suspect that if there actually is a difference, it takes a very high-end stereo system with VERY high end speakers to hear it. If that's the case, then the difference doesn't matter to me, because I'll never own a system that allows me to hear it.

I don't want to be a thread killer, and I'm sure others have opinions to the contrary - trot 'em out!
Please note: I DO NOT want to offend those who prefer vinyl. I understand and respect your preference, and I realize there are few things more intensely personal than ones' tastes in sound reproduction. Those who prefer vinyl are absolutely entitled to their preference, and I respect it. I'm just making "I" statements - assertions which are only my personal tastes and observations.

But in my personal, subjective opinion, although vinyl is likely to survive as an enthusiast medium, I don't believe there is any chance of it returning as a dominant sound reproduction medium. That day has passed, and CD and DVD recording took over the market in the 90's. Further, the market is rapidly moving onto portable digital media on handheld devices and bypassing discs. Of course, most digital music is compressed according to various algorithms and this has an impact on the sound (I won't go into technicalities of lossy compression or sound masking), but to most listeners - on a commercial basis - this clearly doesn't matter.

 

[Woland]

First, that "warm distortion" in the days of analog tape recording and tube amps was part of the technology and as a result, many musicians made their albums to take advantage of these sound properties.

Indeed!
And this technology is still alive and kicking, thank heavens.
I am in no way "against" analogue technology, far from it.
A calculated & creative use of whatever technology is available can be nothing but good, (when it comes to artistic expressions that is ).

I still use analogue techniques in my work, in order to reach the end-result of my desire.
And I most definitely will want said end result to be presented for sale on a digital media.
Because; from an objective point of view, vinyl kinda sucks when it comes to accurate reproduction.
So it is, and so shall it be...

Today, in the creation of CD albums, lots of digital music recordings get compressed and distorted to fit the media and also to emphasize certain tones to sound louder than it was originally recorded. Here again, the sound engineers are taking advantage of the nature of digital compression to use to their advantage just as previous engineers took advantage of analog qualities.

That is both wrong and right.
Digital compression (and thus distortion) is extremely seldom an issue anywhere in the creative process.
There is simply no need as we do not lack neither digital processing power, nor sufficient space for data storage.

In sales the story is quite different.
Data-compression can be quite catastrophic, especially if the music is organic and rich in overtones.
I hate MP3 with a vengeance.
Itunes to will compress the data of the music-file.

Audio CDs not bad at all, although I would wish that the media be used to its full capacity with a larger bit-rate and higher sampling frequency.
(But I tend to be a tad hysteric on the subject...)

So, a album from 40 years ago, reproduced on CD today, may not sound the same as it was originally intended to be heard.

That depends.
It is really the producer (read record-company) who decides.
The original recording is in most cases stored on analogue tape with little or no possibility for re-mix.
The original production is of course done under the technical limitations of the time.

If there is a digital re-mastering involved, most technicians will use advanced hard & software in order to remove tape-hiss and unwanted distortions.
If the mastering engineer is worth anything (and they often are), he/she will do their best to keep the original intention and integrity of the recording.

At any rate, my point is, often the limitation of the mediums becomes part of the intent on how it is heard.

Ain't that the truth...
It is really a question of how we remember...
When Martin Scorcese did "The Raging Bull", he insisted that it had to be done in black&white, (although that proved to be more costly than using colorfilm).
His argument was that he remembered watching boxing matches on a small b&w television, and that he was unable to relate properly to the film if done in colors.

 

[scotrace]

...the common Lounger...

I read this and had to smile. Makes us sound like a new species.


"The habitat of The Common Lounger is being rapidly depleted by modernization, mass-production and high auction prices, placing it on society's Endangered list..."

 

[Woland]

And I often find myself wondering whether - if such a difference exists - what kind of stereo system is required to hear the difference.

A regular stereo system.
The difference is usually described as a soft distortion and compression in the high frequencies.

Much ado about nothing, if you ask me.