The resurgence of Vinyl & the end of CDs?

[Gilbey]

I have several CD's myself as I've amassed a collection of them since their debut in 1990. I got very excited at first expecting to hear a perfect musical reproduction of distortion free music from this magical silvery disc. They were smaller than LP's and the convenience was superb with the remote control (not counting the less cleaning required than you would dusting an LP). Sound was rich with a fuller dynamic range. Who would want to go back?

Well, I never left! I never got rid of my LP collection either since I knew that some recordings would never be reissued on CD's. And I still kept my old Dual 701 which still works flawlessly after 34 years! They built them like a tank (they don't make them like this anymore) ...

As for warmer sound, it's just hot talk. The LP's are actually pretty close contenders to CD's compared to cassette tapes with their hiss. I like playing my LP's due to pure sentimentality and aesthetics. I like looking at a record spinning on the platter as it plays. I like adjusting the tonearm to exact tracking and antiskating forces on every phono cartridge I use. I enjoy cleaning my records before playing them. It's things like these that gets me "involved" and makes it interactive in a way that keeps me loving my record player and LP's more and more.

 

[GeniusInTheLamp]

Like Pilgrim, I used to work in radio and can tell you all about the joy of cue burns. In college, I was in charge of maintaining the station's music inventory. I can't tell you how many vinyl records I've been given by displeased on-air staff or my PD, usually with notes complaining about someone frying chickens or making breakfast during the song.

As for the article itself, it says nothing new. They've been talking about vinyl's comeback for the past 15 years. Personally, I don't see it breaking out of its current niche market status.

I grew up with vinyl, but when the CD came around, I switched and never turned back. I prefer the cleaner, more detailed sound; the convenience of travelling with it and playing it in my car; and the space it saves in storage. I feel no more nostalgia for vinyl than a housewife with a washing machine has for a washboard.

 

[Starius]

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.

Thanks for your responses to my responses, Woland.

And you make a excellent point here. It seems that, more often than not, the original music artist has limited or no control of how their finish product will sound after the post production process, at least in terms of micromanagement. But ultimately, you figure that everyone involved is working towards the best sound possible using the resources and technology available for the widest possible listening audience. And you can't ask much more than that, ultimately, even though anyone in any step of the whole process from playing the instruments to pressing out the media in the factory may do their part differently than someone else.

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..."

Hahahaha.... I just had a mental image of a national geographic documentary style video of men in ties and fedoras running about, being secretly filmed and studied.

As for the article itself, it says nothing new. They've been talking about vinyl's comeback for the past 15 years. Personally, I don't see it breaking out of its current niche market status.

I certainly can't reasonably disagree with you there. Looking at records in terms of the collector's point of view, that nature of niche and limited availability is actually desirable. When you get that record you're after, it's even that more of a treasure. For records both new and old.

 

[Starius]

Well, that commentary on wired.com must have had something to do with this Wednesday's PBS Wired Science episode which features a segment on analog vs digital.

After it airs on Wednesday, a video of it should appear on their website:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/episode

I just thought I'd mention it here as it may be related.

 

[John in Covina]

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.

**********
Crosley has a web site, google it and you'll see they have that kind of stuff.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's another point for our audiophile contingent to discuss --

Most of the advantages of digital formats seem to me to apply mostly to material that originated as digital recordings. But I've been universally disappointed with the results of "digital remasterings" of vintage analog recordings -- no matter how advanced the processing, something is lost in the translation.

I don't just say this as a casual listener. I have personally done mastering work on 1930s and 1940s radio transcriptions, many of which offer remarkable audio quality for the technology of their time. But when I hear the "digitally restored" versions of these very same recordings, the sound has been noticeably deadened by all the efforts to "enhance" them, to remove surface tics and pops and otherwise make them "sound digital." I don't think you can blame the CD format itself for all this, but I do think such reissues end up doing lot of damage to the reputation of the sound quality of vintage recordings in the name of making them more marketable to a generation which has no idea what a good analog recording properly played can sound like. This is a big reason why I avoid CD reissues and prefer to stick to my 78s.

 

[Fletch]

Sound quality is by and large trained into most of us. I know it's true with musicians and engineers. The latter, especially, spend their careers retraining. Or they don't have careers.

Every time a quantum leap is made in frequency response, signal/noise ratio or that elusive quality called "fidelity," they have to recalibrate their mind's ear to it. Everything else becomes clearly and quantifiably Not Good Enough.

Removing eensy noise artifacts at the cost of - what? "ambience"? "warmth"? something non-quantifiable, surely - is a purely rational decision to the professionals. It takes the old source material from Not Good Enough to Good Enough. And since that material was made on obsolete technology to begin with, Good Enough equals As Good As It Gets. End of story; put the product thru; go on making a living.

The optimum analog sound is more and more a luxury for specialists. In 1997 and '99 when my bands recorded, I was told in not so many words that I didn't really want that sound. Now my CDs sound dry and sterile to me, mastered in a theoretical acoustic clean room.

 

[John in Covina]

I went to a super high end audio expo with some Video being displayed there too. It was held at one of the big Hotels down on Century Blvd by the airport here in Los Angeles last Spring I think. I was invited to go with my friend Matthew, who is the audiophile of my group of friends. I got to see and hear some amazing sound systems and in the high end stuff both CD and vinyl sound reproduction was astounding.

Every time Matthew does an upgrade of sorts to his system either for vinyl or the cd portion, usually there is a revelation of sorts, where when listening to a favorite record or cd it seems as though another veil has been lifted from the sound and more of the actual recording is revealed. The thing that always stuns me is that this part of the recording was always there and now it has been allowed to come out from behind to be clearly heard.

The changes are sometime dramatic, and he has tried stuff at his house that did not work out too. Sometimes cds can be chillingly precise with the equipment.

I have some cds of old recordings where you can heard the limitations of the original source material.

Vinyl is alive and digital is compeling for the convenience.

 

[Woland]

Most of the advantages of digital formats seem to me to apply mostly to material that originated as digital recordings. But I've been universally disappointed with the results of "digital remasterings" of vintage analog recordings -- no matter how advanced the processing, something is lost in the translation.

Agreed.
Yet; all translations, be they across languages or "formats" will always be an analogue to the original.
If the company who owns of the audiogram are willing to spend some doe, the result might be great.
Top notch professionals will let the integrity of the original recording come before the odd hiss, snap, crackle and pop.
The audio engineering craftsmanship in the days of yore was IMHO more than excellent.
Give a real bona fide artist limitations, and you can bet your last dime they will,

A: Work around it.

B: Put the limitations to constructive & creative use.

When The Beatles was digitally remastered, Mr. George Martin proclaimed to be more than happy with the end result, but couldn't help feeling irritated by the fact that he now was able to hear all the nasty 1/4" tape edits he had done.

Yet; I love the Swedish tenor Jussi Bjoerling.
Greatest singer since Caruso.

What would I give to have the opportunity to hear both these voices in a full tone recording?

I have nothing against 78s.
And your argument is more than valid.
But...

 

[Atomic Glee]

I don't remember the last time I bought a physical CD. Nearly everything has been bought & downloaded from iTunes, here. A few new albums that I really like, I have bought on vinyl (Brian Wilson's "Smile" sounds just wonderful on vinyl).

 

[Twitch]

I question why we have to decide one over the other. I spent several years in the CD/DVD replication industry and if for no other reaason I can tell you that replication machinery has dropped in price pretty dramatically over the years. There are many, many smaller CD replicators out there. Yet even in L.A. there arena no more than 3 companies that still press vinyl.

You gotta understand that the replication process is nothing more than making CDs or DVDs from a master and metal stamper. Whether you are ultimately going to make LP, CDs or tapes you begin by going into a studio and laying down your tracks. With a DAT- digital audio tape in hand you go to a mastering facility. OK now it is dicey. You gotta have a very, very good one with a fine reputation. This is where your music passes to the next critical place.

I can't see how you have anything different in the creation stage if you have a DAT in hand. Studio recordings could probably only end up as a reel of tape if they didn't do a DAT. Then have fun finding a mastering place that can handle that. At the studio level it's all digital!

Talking about volume and compression means nothing because your studio makes your master DAT to your ultimate satisfaction. Sure I've come across tons of dummys that never listened to their final studio output and got bad surprises after the replicator made 2000 copies. YOU Mr. artist are responsible for volume, fade and all aspects of how each track will sound by working with studio personnel.

You may find a place that masters as well as replicates but you are probably better served to find a stand alone mastering house. Mastering is done in a sterile clean room environment. The create a glass master and then a metal stamper. The stamper is the mold the replicator uses to punch out CDs. And unless you use a facility with stone age equipment and/or people who are complete dorks, distortion and compression is not a factor at all.

Up to this point of mastering you can still go any way you want , LPs, CDs, cassettes and the cost so far is equal.

Now we haven't even thought about artwork for your packaging. Few printers specialize in CD booklets and inserts or cassette inserts. Fewer still can produce LP jackets. And cardboard LP jackets are costliest of all to maunufacture!

You have to have a graphic artist who works with Mac design programs to be universal in the arena so you can take his design anywhere. The PC crossover programs are acccetable. Getting the design to spec is critical so that all the printed inserts fit.

CD packaging has become ridiculously cheap. Plastic jewel boxes have dropped to near nothing with competitive suppliers worldwide and bottom line costs over all simply favor the CD industry through all manufacturing stages on a cost per unit basis.

Artists will still do some vinyl today but at a small ratio compared to CDs of the same title. But even large record companies do not attempt to be all things for all titles. An artist that does music like rap which lends itself to DJs spinning LPs is a minority and they will not invest in a run of LPs for the average artist.

You can like what you want and listen to your LPs and love them but the truth is the industry is NOT going back producing LPs over other media.

 

[John in Covina]

When the specialists produce 180 gram vinyl and the like, they tend to be the filter as to what you are going to get but never the less there is product out there and the list grows daily in the vinyl offerings.

Japanese pressings are often superb, too and worth searching out.

At the Sound expo thingy there were two or there companies or suppliers there with rooms full of audiophile albums.

 

[nobodyspecial]

I keep my old stereo and vinyl in the garage and fire it up from time to time just because it is fun. Also, I have music on vinyl that I do not have on cd's so it's fun to listen to old songs from time to time. I buy records at thrift stores for little money.

Brandi Carlile sold vinyl copies of The Story at a show this past year. I picked up a copy so I have modern vinyl as well.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

So many people, unlike happyfilmluvguy and nobodyspecial to name two, have no idea that there is still new vinyl to be had.
To me, CDs are just for portablility since I don't have one of those car record players. Heck, same with cassette tapes.
Or CDs are a way to get a re-release of a record I don't own, if in a crappier form. Better than just listening to it in my head! .
Oh, and I prefer mono.

 

[Flivver]

Oh, and I prefer mono.

I like mono too. I actually have a mono system set up in my living room made up of 1950s components. I use it mostly to listen to my Orthophonic-era 78s. It's unbelievable how good these can sound when played back with the correct equalization curves.

 

[Woland]

Mono is great!

We were not allowed to do anything but mono the first year of my education.
Thus learning depth-perspective.

To quote my teacher:

Any idiot can make things sound good in stereo, mono demands thought and skill.

 

[Twitch]

Beguine- there are a few artists having short runs on vinyl done but RELATIVE to CDs the amount manufactured is nothing. Nobody is doing releases on vinyl only either.

 

[Starius]

Beguine- there are a few artists having short runs on vinyl done but RELATIVE to CDs the amount manufactured is nothing. Nobody is doing releases on vinyl only either.

Well, except for small specialty collectable stuff. I have 2 copies of the Doom 3 theme song on vinyl, both autographed by Chris Vrenna of Nine Inch Nails. Limited to 500 copies, and as far as I'm aware, no CD soundtracks of this were released.

But you are correct, by no means do I believe vinyl will superseed CDs in popularity. Though, I do think it IS entirely possible the use of records could outlive them.

It is quite interesting that records do continue to live though. Since the debut of the CD size format, the only new formats which have survived at all are formats that use the same size as CD audio discs and offer backward compatibility (Such as DVD, CD-Rom, Upcoming HD-DVD, Blu-ray, most game discs, etc). All other optical disc formats which use different physical sizes, such as laserdiscs, sony mini-discs, even Nintendo's GameCube discs, have had limited commercial longevity in comparison to the standard CD-Rom disc size. Its a format that allows a path of seemingly unlimited development forward with each generation of improvements offering backward compatibility with the previous formats which use the same disc size. That is far too convenient a aspect for it to die easily.

Records, on the other hand, due to their very physical nature can never compare to that convenience and will probably always remain a niche market... but never the less, its still impressive how it is a market where the same tried and true technology can continue unimpeded while the compact disc formats are always scrambling and clawing ahead towards progressive improvement.

 

[Quigley Brown]

In my opinion the only reason vinyl is still being produced is for the dance club DJs to use.

 

[Starius]

Here is a link to the Wired video I mentioned earlier, regarding Analog VS Digital:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/video/212-audio_files.html

Both sides of the argument in this video definitely have valid points. Ultimately, as far as industry practice goes, I think the ease of use with digital is going to maintain it's current dominance.

But, as the sound test indicated, its terribly hard to tell the difference based on the recording. However, I think it is easier to tell the difference between the hardware used to playback the recording... tube vs digital solid state.