Vinyl revival continues to gain steam

[Beck]

I saw a piece on my local CBS affiliate tonight. I can’t find the exact story online, but here are a few related links.

Music back in black (vinyl)
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...96/LOCAL190106

Vinyl Is Back In The Groove
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...e=search_story

Vinyl revival
http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/p...803090311/1002

Vinyl sales spin skyward
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/app...803090309/1619

[jjones1700]

I've been keeping an eye on the upswing in of vinyl. Really makes me smile. Now all I need to do is get a better turntable after my Pioneer decided to crater.

[mshilarious]

Josh Groban sold something like 5 times as many CDs last year . . .

Anyway, if current trends continue, vinyl will catch up to CD sales in 2024, with total volume of 20 million units each . . . hardly cause for celebration among musicians, I would think . . .

[jjones1700]

Originally Posted by mshilarious

Josh Groban sold something like 5 times as many CDs last year . . .

Anyway, if current trends continue, vinyl will catch up to CD sales in 2024, with total volume of 20 million units each . . . hardly cause for celebration among musicians, I would think . . .

Nobody ever claimed vinyl would ever match CD sales. It's just nice to know that it might be just popular enough for artists to offer a limited run on vinyl. Besides, CDs are getting killed off by worthless mp3s anyway.

[trancedental]

Many new bands over in England are now pressing limited edition vinyl copies of their LP releases. Many are hard to get hold off a few months after initial pressings sell out.

Also seems to be more 7" singles coming out by new artists as well.

[jpmorris]

Originally Posted by trancedental

Many new bands over in England are now pressing limited edition vinyl copies of their LP releases. Many are hard to get hold off a few months after initial pressings sell out.

I don't suppose you know who's doing the pressings? The recent discussions of vinyl here have made me curious about it, but of course the recommendations were all for US firms.

[jjones1700]

Originally Posted by jpmorris

I don't suppose you know who's doing the pressings? The recent discussions of vinyl here have made me curious about it, but of course the recommendations were all for US firms.

If I remember correctly, I think someone bought out the old EMI plant and is getting things back to speed over there in the UK. I don't remember the details about it though. They were refurb'ing the old presses, at least the ones that were still salvageable.

[7x7]

I wouldn't trust trends too much, I'm afraid it's just a fab. For the average consumer, sound quality and nostalgia won't win from the size and discomfort of vinyl... Reel got killed by cassette, cassette got killed by cd-r, cd-r get's killed by harddrives and storage cards... Resurrection of vinyl? It won't happen.

I'm in Europe, Holland, and for the kind of music I make vinyl is still very popular, except for some compilations hardly any of my music ever made it to cd; there's no market for that at all and it isn't interesting for our distribution to even consider a small cd-issue. But when I travel in the US, Japan, Australia and even eastern europe, I notice that people from 'my' scene are more and more switching to digital formats; for them, downloading from Itunes or Beatport is far easier, faster and cheaper than shipping CD's, let alone shipping vinyl. Even the less 'underground' dance scene, which also has been far more devoted to vinyl than the rock scene in the past 2 decades, is stepping down from vinyl. I sell as much vinyl copies as dj Tiesto... And that sounds better then it is

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by jjones1700

Nobody ever claimed vinyl would ever match CD sales. It's just nice to know that it might be just popular enough for artists to offer a limited run on vinyl. Besides, CDs are getting killed off by worthless mp3s anyway.

Yep. My point is not that vinyl will go away too--I don't think it will--but that somebody in the very near future, artists will be doing limited runs of collector-edition CDs too.

Which would all be fine if there was enough money from some major source to fund projects like that, but once music stealing kills off all the labels . . . it's easy to say, hey, let's do a run of 10,000 LPs at $18 a crack, and pressing costs $5 (or whatever it costs, I don't know). Cheap and easy $130K, right? But to move that many LPs, that's probably a major act--where are they gonna get the $100K to foot the studio time if it can't be split over 500,000 CDs???

[mshilarious]

Oh, I should add I recently acquired a turntable myself, the parent's didn't want theirs no more. Lots of good old LPs, and many more crap ones. Unfortunately, my parents had really bad taste--no Elvis, no Beatles, no Dylan (Gary Puckett or the Letterman, anyone?) A boxed set of Motown though

I bought the expensive Shure stylus, and as soon as my backordered phono pre arrives, I'll have a listen. I still need a way to clean the LPs too . . . anyway, I don't think I can do a direct comparison, since I don't have a CD in common with any of these LPs. The best I can probably do is the Beach Boys "Endless Summer" on CD against the Ronco "Beach Boys Super Hits" (the first LP I owned, dunno how it ended up in the 'rents collection). But not all of those mixes are the same; "Endless Summer" has several tracks that suffer notably from "stereo" mixes (from 3-track originals, and a mono master). "Help Me Rhonda", in particular, is missing the lead vocal during the chorus.

Some of my brother's LPs are in there too, I think he might have had "Sychronicity". I have that CD, so if it's there, it will have to do.

My MIL is gonna get rid of hers too--word has it she has some original Beatles pressings and lots of the King

[Beck]

When the public rediscovers an old technology it doesn’t trend like a new technology. It took CD many years to overtake LP sales… about ten years from its introduction in 1982.

Vinyl, on the other hand, has a flash fire potential, like any renaissance. You have to look at it more like the 50’s fad in the mid 70’s. These things build relatively quickly. How long they last depends on many factors. Certainly a segment of the market is buying vinyl because it’s cool… the same reason their predecessors bought CDs 25 years ago.

But something else is happening among real music lovers. For years we’ve been anticipating the format that would replace CD. And naturally assumed it would be sonically superior… SACD, DVD-Audio, etc.

What did we get instead? MPEG Layer-3 … a lossy compressed format inferior to CD and for that matter sonically inferior to high quality cassette. Perhaps MP3 is the final straw for people that were able to just tolerate CD.

We’re in a time when manufacturers are trying to give us as little as they can get away with for our money. There are likely some surprises in store. Ironically, as MP3 and other lossy digital formats displace CD it’s making room for vinyl at the other end. And remember cassette is no longer a player (no pun intended). What this means is that vinyl’s traditional rivals, cassette and CD will both be dead.

As I’ve said before, some bright young record company exec could save the record industry if they simply told the truth… that MP3 (and CD honestly) are fine for casual listening, but you won’t have the real McCoy unless you buy the record. The marketing model would be unbeatable. You can’t rip vinyl like you can digital formats without loosing its sonic attributes. Sure, you can transfer to a digital format for your car or iPod for convenience just like we transferred to cassette back in the day, but the record companies get their money from record sales in the process… something that’s not happening for them right now.

That would be good news for musicians.

[Tim Gillett]

There's a very good sonic reason SACD and DVD A didnt replace CD's. CD's were already sonically very good. SACD's and DVD A's have largely failed because the sound of CD's hardly needed improving.

People use mp3 for convenience mobility and storage reasons. It was never designed to replace CD standard sound. And mp3 is not necessarily poor sonically. It's a moveable feast where you can pick and choose the quality/storage trade off, a bit like we used to do with multiple tape speeds and track widths.

It was only "natural' to assume the replacement of CD's would be "sonically superior" if one believed CD's were already sonically inferior. But the vast majority all over the world have decided from over 20 years of actual listening that CD's are sonically and practically better than vinyl. For most people it's not even a point worthy of serious discussion.

The articles cited are meaningless unless they quote side by side the actual sales figures of both vinyl and the digital carriers that have largely replaced them.

[7x7]

I think for the majority, quality is hardly a subject nowadays. The whole loudness war started partially because people are listening to music over tiny headphones in loud street noise. People are used to crap sound, and now a whole generation is growing up with even bigger crap.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

There's a very good sonic reason SACD and DVD A didn’t replace CD's. CD's were already sonically very good. SACD's and DVD A's have largely failed because the sound of CD's hardly needed improving.

...Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop using emoticons... and sometimes they're just not enough.

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

People use mp3 for convenience mobility and storage reasons. It was never designed to replace CD standard sound.

Nonetheless, you would have to been living in a cave for the last few years to not know that CD is being replaced by formats that weren't designed to replace it.

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

It was only "natural' to assume the replacement of CD's would be "sonically superior" if one believed CD's were already sonically inferior. But the vast majority all over the world have decided from over 20 years of actual listening that CD's are sonically and practically better than vinyl. For most people it's not even a point worthy of serious discussion.

I'm happy to report and eternally grateful by the way, that I am not most people.

But I don't know, Tim... it seems like a forum entitled "ANALOG ONLY" is a likely place to have serious discussions about these things. You might want to wait for the Digital Only forum to come out.

It's also worth pointing out that this latest discussion was started because of a piece I saw yesterday on our evening news... and quite a long segment interviewing teens and twenty-something’s that preferred the sound of LPs.

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

The articles cited are meaningless unless they quote side by side the actual sales figures of both vinyl and the digital carriers that have largely replaced them.

Yes, yes… the articles cited are always meaningless unless they conform to the world as seen from Gillett’s Island.

The increase in vinyl sales as measured against past vinyl sales is the only statistic needed. They are increasing. The only question is why.

[Beck]

Originally Posted by 7x7

I think for the majority, quality is hardly a subject nowadays. The whole loudness war started partially because people are listening to music over tiny headphones in loud street noise. People are used to crap sound, and now a whole generation is growing up with even bigger crap.

True, and quality has not been the reference for many years. We are in a post Hi-Fi age, and have been for some time.

But perhaps the crap has reached a threshold where more than just golden ears are feeling the pain.

It may never encompass “Most people” because most people don't know shit from shinola ...but the circle of the discontented is growing larger.

[trancedental]

[QUOTE=Tim Gillett;2894369]

It was only "natural' to assume the replacement of CD's would be "sonically superior" if one believed CD's were already sonically inferior. But the vast majority all over the world have decided from over 20 years of actual listening that CD's are sonically and practically better than vinyl. For most people it's not even a point worthy of serious discussion.

QUOTE]

CD's replaced vinyl records for convenience, durability & compactness / portability (car CD / walkmans ect) reasons & that they were easier & later on cheaper to make, more than any supposed perceived "sonic" advantages. Not to mention lack of jumps, scratches, & hiss / crackle!

Cassettes had the same similar initial success, despite lacking in sonic reproduction compared to other formats.

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by 7x7

I think for the majority, quality is hardly a subject nowadays. The whole loudness war started partially because people are listening to music over tiny headphones in loud street noise. People are used to crap sound, and now a whole generation is growing up with even bigger crap.

1. Those tiny headphones can give amazingly good sound. Some of the top of the range types give very good sound, even in the low bass.

2. When listening to recorded music in any noisy environment compression is exactly what you need. Granted the same compression when you're listening in a quiet context is annoying, but I guess the marketers are pitching to the likely listening environment.

3. I believe record producers sometimes compress the recording to anticipate the loss of ambience in low bitrate mp3 but that's hardly a defect in the CD carrier, just a production and marketing decision.

3. Compression has been used for decades, way before digital came along, especially for vinyl, tape and radio with their limited dynamic range. CD was the first real consumer release format which didnt need nearly as much compression of the original master recording for it to "fit" onto the CD without noise and distortion.

[Obi-Wan zenabI]

I have "Story of the Ghost" and "Farmhouse" on vinyl, bought new in 2000 or 1999 or so. Rock vinyl pressings have been going on all along, I'm sure.

Most of my music is on vinyl. I think I have something between 2000 and 3000 records.

I happen to enjoy the experience of vinyl in an average home stereo more, but now that I have a pretty decent audiophile setup in a treated room, I can hear that some of the subtleties that are lost in even my VG+ vinyl come through on my CD copies. Mostly the little mess-with-the-stoners stuff, though.

Records still win as far as I am concerned. Nothing like a little analog warmth, if you ask me.

Most of my studio is walled in vinyl:



bonus: the weight of a MIJ Marcus Miller...

[funkytonk]

There are at least 10 vinyl record pressing plants in the U.S. that I know of. Compare that with the number of reel tape manufacturers in the U.S. The largest plant in the U.S. (United Record Pressing) ave 40,000 records pressed per day.

All the vinyl I have ever had pressed sells better than cd's.

Although I don't think vinyl is going to take over the market again, I do think it has it's place and is here to stay for a while.

If you read some of the info on the websites of these pressing plants, vinyl went through some really rough times in the 1990's. Somewhere around the mid 90's vinyl started becoming popular again in niche markets and has been picking up steam ever since. As of recent I think URP has doubled in size every year for the past three years. So if it is just a fad, it sure is having alot of durability for a fad at 10+ years of vinyl resurgence.

Alot of folks I know do not buy cd's anymore. They buy digital downloads, for convience sake, and buy vinyl for home listening of their favorite albums.

On a final note, I have pressed both vinyl and cd, and have found that cost difference is minimal. The last pressing i sent in cost about $200-300 more than a cd pressing of the same album would have. This statement made by mshilarious is way way off base.

Originally Posted by mshilarious

it's easy to say, hey, let's do a run of 10,000 LPs at $18 a crack, and pressing costs $5 (or whatever it costs, I don't know). Cheap and easy $130K, right?

The $200 - $300 extra is a small price to pay when our vinyl sells twice as fast as any cd we have pressed.

http://www.urpressing.com/about.php

[Obi-Wan zenabI]

Originally Posted by funkytonk

Alot of folks I know do not buy cd's anymore. They buy digital downloads, for convience sake, and buy vinyl for home listening of their favorite albums.
http://www.urpressing.com/about.php

Yep. That would be the way that I consume music now. Next purchase will be the NIN Ghosts Lp's. Excellent way to market-- the free/cheap download whet my appetite.

[mshilarious]

Originally Posted by funkytonk

There are at least 10 vinyl record pressing plants in the U.S. that I know of. Compare that with the number of reel tape manufacturers in the U.S. The largest plant in the U.S. (United Record Pressing) ave 40,000 records pressed per day.

That would be 10 times the total sales cited in Beck's article (250 day workyear).

I switched to CD in 1989 because CDs sounded better to me I didn't have near the setup back then I have now. I see that some of my old classical LPs survived in my parent's collection (I listened mostly to classical at the time I switched), so I will be able to revisit my conclusion of 20 years earlier, with much better analog and digital signal chains. Should be interesting, anyway.

[Dr ZEE]

Originally Posted by Beck

CD is being replaced by formats that weren't designed to replace it.

heh heh, good one
...
and that damn format was designed to????.... - to do one and only one damn thing , and it was - to make the damn file size small enough so a user could use the internet as the "delivery system" of a damn file.
There were NO!!!!!!!!! And I repeat - NO! any other reasons what so ever.
Then, the one and only reason for why mp3 replaced CDs was? - because a user could get damn file for FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Getting free "tunes" was pretty damn "cool". As a matter of fact, it was soooo cool, that nobody could do a damn thing about it.
After realising that the "situation" really suck, the "beast" had to get out that mess somehow.
Couple new devices were "introduced", but had a rather short life, untill one day a stale fruit company have come out with a "brilliant" final solution. And then? ...
And then, - the only reason for why yayPod replaced CD-players was??? - simply because it was sooooooo damn "cool" thing to have.
There was absolutely NO any other single reason what so ever for that "replacement".
*************
snically this... sonically that.. blah blah blah - B.S., convenience, storage ..blah blah blah- B.S.! - , I mean -
"Format" - my FOOT!

and, btw,
I'm not arguing' here. I am reminding about what actually have happened.

[Tim Gillett]

Originally Posted by Beck

:
But I don't know, Tim... it seems like a forum entitled "ANALOG ONLY" is a likely place to have serious discussions about these things. You might want to wait for the Digital Only forum to come out.

Yes this forum is as good a place as any to have such a discussion and so I'm joining in the discussion as others are, and have done for some time. Got a problem with that?

I wouldnt want to be a part of a "digital only" forum if it mean all opposing views were banned, like a few regulars attempt (unsuccessfully) to ban on this forum.



Tim G

[Beck]

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

Yes this forum is as good a place as any to have such a discussion and so I'm joining in the discussion as others are, and have done for some time. Got a problem with that?

I wouldn’t want to be a part of a "digital only" forum if it mean all opposing views were banned, like a few regulars attempt (unsuccessfully) to ban on this forum.

Tim G

So you’re backing away from your statement in post #12?

Originally Posted by Tim Gillett

But the vast majority all over the world have decided from over 20 years of actual listening that CD's are sonically and practically better than vinyl. For most people it's not even a point worthy of serious discussion.

That sounded to me like an end-of-discussion statement. Thus I responded with the reply you just quoted.

I don’t have a problem with your bumbling shadetree mechanic approach to recording… there’s nothing wrong with that. But when you try to engage in technical discussions that are clearly over your head you only demonstrate how little you understand about digital or analog. Your attempt at playing digital apologist (your primary role here) makes digital and digital proponents look idiotic. You’re not doing them any favors.

You’ve no doubt learned some things here, but not without acting the clown in the process. Who can forget analog head bump and your poking fun at me because you had never heard of it, and a hundred other disputes along those lines… only to discover in the end yet another widely known concept you weren’t aware of before. That’s your downfall… if you don’t know about something it doesn’t exist. You certainly bring new meaning to learning the hard way.

A wise man in your position would lurk and learn, unless of course you’ve acquired a taste for your own foot... stranger things have happened I suppose. If anyone is trying to control this forum and dumb it down to their comfort level, its Tim Gillett.

I only have a problem with condescending buffoons that present themselves as experts in areas they barely comprehend. That's no secret to the members here.

[Tim Gillett]

Just because "most people" believe something doesnt of itself make it true, just as neither does it make it untrue.
In the same way, just because you or I or anyone makes an utterance, doesnt of itself mean it's true but neither does it make it untrue.

"Who can forget analog head bump"? Well I've forgotten it. Refresh my memory.

If I made an error, having had it pointed out, I hope I would be gracious enough to admit to it and thank you for correcting me. Or is that to you a sign of weakness?

Tim G