Why does vinyl still exist?

[mav52]

Do you not agree with Michael Fremer? My point was simply that he is the most relentless proponent of the superiority of vinyl over digital that I know of. I quite understand if you don't wish to be thought of as like minded to him, though.

 

 

 

You are still missing the point. As I and others have pointed out, the CD and LP sound different for very good reasons. You are basing your scepticism on an invalid comparison. To compare like with like, you need to listen to a competently made digital recording of the LP being played back on your own system. There is general agreement that the result is extremely close to the sound of the LP playback.

 

 

"" competently made digital recording of the LP ""

 

Spot on Don, That's the real key

 

And I will just mention, without LP's we would not have a lot of the downloads we have today.

[Jud]

My point is that LP replay is wonderful and if needle drops were identical upon replay in all respects, it seems strange that record labels haven't been able to harness this apparently simple solution instead of issuing the ( to my ears) inferior digital copies they've been producing over the last 3 decades.

 

 

My own experience, as mentioned in a prior comment, is that the entertainment companies are only too happy in many, many cases to submit classics to "loudness wars" treatment. I referred to Gaucho in an earlier post, but I neglected to mention what I think is the worst example I've personally heard, Nirvana's Nevermind. A huge part of Kurt Cobain's repertoire was the quiet verse followed suddenly by the screaming, thundering chorus, and that's all been utterly homogenized in the recent digital versions and even most of the vinyl remasters. See here: Album list - Dynamic Range Database

 

But then look at the digital downloads of In Utero to understand that even for the same company and band, the care (or lack of it) taken to preserve the original sonics can vary wildly from recording to recording: Album list - Dynamic Range Database

 

I really think these gross remastering differences matter more than such a necessarily general categorization as digital vs. vinyl.

[PopPop]

Here: Audio Advisor puts the question to rest. We like playing with our tone arms.

 

http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=80e5a8d1b82a27eb253d67a95&id=66387e72ca&e=a359a4863d

[lucretius]

I really think these gross remastering differences matter more than such a necessarily general categorization as digital vs. vinyl.

 

I agree. Good mastering includes optimizing for the specific media, not a one-size-fits-all solution.

[bluesman]

Here: Audio Advisor puts the question to rest. We like playing with our tone arms.

 

Vinyl Sales Up 52%

No one loves vinyl more than I do - but I think it's important to look at the data. Vinyl sales totaled $320.8 million last year, per the RIAA. Streaming revenues were $1.87 billion and CD sales totaled $1.85 billion. So some of us like playing with our tone arms, but we're a sufficiently small segment of the music buying public to be a rounding error on the income statement.

 

Sobering!

[michaelD]

Kind of picking up on Bluesman comment about total sales of Vinyl, CD and Streaming I just wonder if starting fresh how many of us would choose vinyl. Many of us came from two camps - we have keep up with our hobby since our teens and others like myself stopped for awhile then jumped back in with little or no existing equipment.

 

For those that have been building for years you most likely have tons of LP's with some CD's - I know I did back in the day so its natural to keep going with LP's. When I got back in I was very familiar with the hassle of LP's - space, cleaning, tone arm/cartridge adjusting, extra associated equipment i.e. MC amp etc. and just did not want to go down that path again. However for those that had the LP's and space it was quite easy to keep on going. Was it better or convenient?

 

Then for those like me who came back in in a big way during the last few years. I saved my CD's since I did play them occasionally on other players. So it was convenient to start with a higher quality CD player and associated equipment. I have since moved beyond that to a DAC and could not be happier. Was it better or convenient?

 

The third example would be a younger person starting out like my son. Not sure he even knows what a LP looks like let alone all the cost to get into that format. So naturally he is going digital. Initially with a Parasound integrated amp/Sonos streaming Tidal but soon to add a Aurender N100H. Cost wise, soundwise and future proof wise a smart way to go. I know LP sales have moved up but with what age group? People like my son are used to streaming but just want much better quality. Was it better or convenient?

[Jud]

No one loves vinyl more than I do - but I think it's important to look at the data. Vinyl sales totaled $320.8 million last year, per the RIAA. Streaming revenues were $1.87 billion and CD sales totaled $1.85 billion. So some of us like playing with our tone arms, but we're a sufficiently small segment of the music buying public to be a rounding error on the income statement.

 

Sobering!

 

Well, I dunno - that would give vinyl about 8% of revenues. All those kids buying LPs are the music business's profit margin!

[realhifi]

Well, I dunno - that would give vinyl about 8% of revenues. All those kids buying LPs are the music business's profit margin!

 

I know the owner of a decent record store in my area and he says its not kids as much as 30-50 yr olds that are the bulk of his business. He sells used turntables and other hifi also and he's doing a comfortable business.

[bluesman]

Well, I dunno - that would give vinyl about 8% of revenues. All those kids buying LPs are the music business's profit margin!

If revenue were profit, beggars would fly. I can't find P&Ls for music sales, but I suspect that the operating margins are grossly different. The cost base certainly is, with production & delivery of a physical medium and its packaging. I'd love to know if those vinyl producers are making money yet. The "f" in FLAC stands for "free"

[Jud]

If revenue were profit, beggars would fly. I can't find P&Ls for music sales, but I suspect that the operating margins are grossly different. The cost base certainly is, with production & delivery of a physical medium and its packaging. I'd love to know if those vinyl producers are making money yet. The "f" in FLAC stands for "free"

 

I know - perhaps I should have used a "winkie," as it was meant humorously. Still, 8% of revenue is actually quite a bit more than I thought the vinyl market represented.

 

Cost bases and thus profits are not straightforward (as if I need to tell you) because the physical distribution system is age old and has had efficiency and profit for the music companies maximized, while there hasn't been time to do so for digital media. The companies make far more from each physical sale than from each download or especially each stream.

[Norton]

I know - perhaps I should have used a "winkie," as it was meant humorously. Still, 8% of revenue is actually quite a bit more than I thought the vinyl market represented.

 

Cost bases and thus profits are not straightforward (as if I need to tell you) because the physical distribution system is age old and has had efficiency and profit for the music companies maximized, while there hasn't been time to do so for digital media. The companies make far more from each physical sale than from each download or especially each stream.

 

Revenue is no measure of SQ, but as the subject has been raised, I imagine new LPs are but a fraction of annual vinyl turnover. I spend plenty on vinyl but rarely on new.

[bluesman]

I know - perhaps I should have used a "winkie," as it was meant humorously. Still, 8% of revenue is actually quite a bit more than I thought the vinyl market represented.

 

Cost bases and thus profits are not straightforward (as if I need to tell you) because the physical distribution system is age old and has had efficiency and profit for the music companies maximized, while there hasn't been time to do so for digital media. The companies make far more from each physical sale than from each download or especially each stream.

So here's our next start-up, Jud - let's create a system to download a 3D laser scan of an album and print it on a dedicated 3D printer. The scanning technology is already in widespread use for everything from WeatherTech car mats to precise dental imaging for creation of restorations. Of course, we'll also have to find or develop a sprayable medium that will congeal or otherwise solidify into discs at least as good as vinyl, along with the printer platform to turn out ready-to-play records. The liner notes and album jackets could be printed onto blank stock (which we would also sell) using standard printers. So we'd have multiple back end revenue streams - blank paper stock, print medium, etc. And this system would enable easy creation of replacement discs in the event of damage, wear, warpage, and other causes of degradation in SQ over time. No more skips & pops!!

 

The image described above would be made from a physical master, so the actual playable medium be as analog as a "real record". We'd also offer an option to create the printable image from a digital sound file, so downloads and streaming would continue as they are now....but you'd also be able to create a physical album from them that's playable on a standard TT (kinda like a mechanical DAC). Not only would this obviate the costs of record production, storage, transportation, insurance, etc in the business model, but it's also way cool! Whaddya think, everybody - are we ready for crowdfunding?

[PopPop]

Revenue is no measure of SQ, but as the subject has been raised, I imagine new LPs are but a fraction of annual vinyl turnover. I spend plenty on vinyl but rarely on new.

 

". . . . The quality of sound is twice blest, it blesses he who buyeth and he who selleth . . "

 

In my opinion the SQ of vinyl is different but not superior to the SQ of digital CA. People have differing tastes and needs.

[bluesman]

". . . . The quality of sound is twice blest, it blesses he who buyeth and he who selleth . . "

 

In my opinion the SQ of vinyl is different but not superior to the SQ of digital CA. People have differing tastes and needs.

The SQ of / from each record is dependent on its history and how it's been played. Beyond the obvious issues of program content, e.g. quality of performance / recording / mastering / etc, there are the physical issues of the vinyl itself, the disc made from it, the transducer(s) that turn physical waves into electrical waves, etc. Vinyl is viscoelastic - it deforms under pressure (e.g. from a stylus in a groove) and springs back to almost exactly its pre-deformation shape. It's not 100% elastic (which would mean that it resumes its exact pre-deformation shape), so it's permanently altered (for the worse) each time it's played - and so is the sound generated by electrically mirroring the wavy walls of its grooves. Further, because highs have much shorter wavelengths than lows, the groove walls are more finely rippled for highs. This makes them more susceptible to permanent deformation that will be audible, since the stylus pressure (not force - pressure, i.e. force per square area) will be higher on the peaks of a high frequency impression - and the peaks will be narrower. So the pressure from the stylus on the vinyl will do more damage, and a micron of change will be a greater percentage of the overall dimension of a high frequency peak in the waveform of the groove walls than it would be on a low frequency peak. Short version: there's frequency-dependent loss of highs from each playing that gets worse as the frequency increases.

 

It's been my experience over decades that most people do not obsessively check and maintain their tonearm's operating parameters, nor do they check their styli for wear as often as they might. Imperfect tracking, balance, pressure etc will accelerate and heighten the above changes, as will stylus wear or damage (e.g. bent shank). Here's an excellent in-depth discussion of all this from Shure. There are some real gems in this, e.g. "The average flat on a worn diamond spherical tip measured .00145". Even this amount of wear results in distortion, increased noise and excessive record wear [emphasis added by me]. To obtain a flat of .00075" required 140 hours of use. To obtain a flat of .001" required 300 hours of use. To obtain a flat of .00125" required 700 hours of use. To obtain a flat of .0015" required 1,500 hours of average use; this degree of wear resulted in reduced tonal response, high noise level, greatly increased distortion and a considerable amount of record wear." 1000 hours of use means playing about 3 albums a day for about 3 years. And the above assumes perfect setup and geometry.

 

Then there are the effects of time, use, storage etc on the disc itself. The ravages of physical handling, house dust, skin oils, heat & humidity (or lack of same) etc also degrade the integrity of what was once a flat, pristine (but imperfect) replica of the stamper that pressed it. Those stampers wear too, which is why the standard for the industry was no more than 250 records from each. Metal stampers wear even from the seemingly simple act of pressing a hot pellet of soft vinyl - so those who do not believe that scraping that vinyl with a hard diamond multiple times causes audible wear on the vinyl may well be in error (see how politely I said that - imagine the alternatives I rejected...).

 

Bottom line - the more you play a record, the more it differs physically (and therefore audibly) from its original unplayed state. Those of us with still-serviceable hearing who have owned and played many of our records for decades can attest to the fact that they've lost a little something. Sure, virgin pressings of well recorded great performances made with virgin stampers on 200 gm pellets of virgin top quality vinyl sound great. But generalizing from this to "all vinyl sounds better than all digital" stretches reality.

[davide256]

The SQ of / from each record is dependent on its history and how it's been played. Beyond the obvious issues of program content, e.g. quality of performance / recording / mastering / etc, there are the physical issues of the vinyl itself, the disc made from it, the transducer(s) that turn physical waves into electrical waves, etc. Vinyl is viscoelastic - it deforms under pressure (e.g. from a stylus in a groove) and springs back to almost exactly its pre-deformation shape. It's not 100% elastic (which would mean that it resumes its exact pre-deformation shape), so it's permanently altered (for the worse) each time it's played - and so is the sound generated by electrically mirroring the wavy walls of its grooves. Further, because highs have much shorter wavelengths than lows, the groove walls are more finely rippled for highs. This makes them more susceptible to permanent deformation that will be audible, since the stylus pressure (not force - pressure, i.e. force per square area) will be higher on the peaks of a high frequency impression - and the peaks will be narrower. So the pressure from the stylus on the vinyl will do more damage, and a micron of change will be a greater percentage of the overall dimension of a high frequency peak in the waveform of the groove walls than it would be on a low frequency peak. Short version: there's frequency-dependent loss of highs from each playing that gets worse as the frequency increases.

 

It's been my experience over decades that most people do not obsessively check and maintain their tonearm's operating parameters, nor do they check their styli for wear as often as they might. Imperfect tracking, balance, pressure etc will accelerate and heighten the above changes, as will stylus wear or damage (e.g. bent shank). Here's an excellent in-depth discussion of all this from Shure. There are some real gems in this, e.g. "The average flat on a worn diamond spherical tip measured .00145". Even this amount of wear results in distortion, increased noise and excessive record wear [emphasis added by me]. To obtain a flat of .00075" required 140 hours of use. To obtain a flat of .001" required 300 hours of use. To obtain a flat of .00125" required 700 hours of use. To obtain a flat of .0015" required 1,500 hours of average use; this degree of wear resulted in reduced tonal response, high noise level, greatly increased distortion and a considerable amount of record wear." 1000 hours of use means playing about 3 albums a day for about 3 years. And the above assumes perfect setup and geometry.

 

Then there are the effects of time, use, storage etc on the disc itself. The ravages of physical handling, house dust, skin oils, heat & humidity (or lack of same) etc also degrade the integrity of what was once a flat, pristine (but imperfect) replica of the stamper that pressed it. Those stampers wear too, which is why the standard for the industry was no more than 250 records from each. Metal stampers wear even from the seemingly simple act of pressing a hot pellet of soft vinyl - so those who do not believe that scraping that vinyl with a hard diamond multiple times causes audible wear on the vinyl may well be in error (see how politely I said that - imagine the alternatives I rejected...).

 

Bottom line - the more you play a record, the more it differs physically (and therefore audibly) from its original unplayed state. Those of us with still-serviceable hearing who have owned and played many of our records for decades can attest to the fact that they've lost a little something. Sure, virgin pressings of well recorded great performances made with virgin stampers on 200 gm pellets of virgin top quality vinyl sound great. But generalizing from this to "all vinyl sounds better than all digital" stretches reality.

 

I remember selling replacement stylii using the numbers and story you are telling... its valid for the 1 piece phonograph solutions sold in the 60's and 70's with spherical stylii tracking at 4 grams of pressure. However the up scale Shure sale was far different, elliptical stylii on classics like the Shure M91ED and Shure V15 type III which tracked at 1.25 to 1.5 grams, lasted far longer. And products like Nitty Gritty record cleaners in the 80's demonstrated that you could impact record and stylii wear significantly by cleaning the non vinyl "grit" off your record before it became embedded and increased the wear factor and surface noise issues. And most significantly in the 80's the advent of correctly engineered turntables and tonearms that tracked imperfect record grooves like a premium sports car suspension, opening up dynamic separation between surface noise and the recorded music.

 

As to what happens when you play a clean record over and over again with an unworn elliptical stylus, you basically wear the highest frequencies flat. Which goes nicely with those of us whose high frequency hearing isn't there anymore but may matter if you are in your 20's, still able to hear over 14khz.

 

On the stampers, I'd be surprised if it was wear, more likely that beyond 250 presses the surface was too contaminated from vinyl that didn't release or that the stamper would develop out of tolerance shape from pressing force

[esldude]

Adjust+

 

I haven't used this software, but having setup some TT's and no longer having as good an eyesight nor steady hands, I would give this a try for precise geometry adjustment if I had a TT myself. Which I no longer do. It uses the output of the LP to be sent to an outboard USB sound card or ADC. Which allows software to compare results with the test record and advise you on precise adjustment.

 

BE WARY: of a heavy bass note in this video. Turn things down a little bit at first.

 

I agree wholeheartedly about good arms that hold adjustment. Older Linn's weren't so good in this respect though they could sound great in a high state of tune. One of the better older arms I used were the Souther Linear Tracking arms. Now its every adjustment effected everything else. That meant really wrapping your head around how it all fit together. Once you did, it was reasonable, and the setup adjustments you made would hold fine with no issue. So a bit of noodle twister to do, but you didn't have to repeatedly tune it up again.

[Jabs1542]

I use Adjust+, it's most useful with getting azimuth aligned properly. It uses the crosstalk across the channels to dial in a near perfect balance. Of course this is only useful if you have a tone arm that provides azimuth adjustment (most don't).

[mav52]

I use Adjust+, it's most useful with getting azimuth aligned properly. It uses the crosstalk across the channels to dial in a near perfect balance. Of course this is only useful if you have a tone arm that provides azimuth adjustment (most don't).

 

Adjust + works that's for sure.

[whoozwah]

for the music I listen to (mostly rock and metal) my vinyl does tend to sound a bit nicer because it's mastered better. The DR score on some of my vinyl is in the 11-15 range. The DR score on most of my FLAC rips from CDs is in the 4-7 range. If the record companies were using the vinyl masters on CD I would not be buying vinyl.

[lucretius]

I'm curious to know what tools folks are using to measure DR? Is the tool in Media Centre (JRiver), or foobar accurate? Thanks!

[whoozwah]

I personally use the foobar plugin for music I already have and the Dynamic Range Database when shopping for new stuff.

[徐中銳]

Me, I've collected many CDs because... Can appreciate people having collected vinyl and...

Simply, how would you describe the following photo ?

 

[tmtomh]

A note on the DR meters: DR readings on digitized vinyl aren't terribly reliable. Typically a rip of an LP made from the same digital master as the CD will still rate 1 to 3dB higher on the DR meter than the CD.

[sandyk]

If people REALLY want a similar size medium to an LP that doesn't wear out, and has similar covers for those who like the look of the large glossy covers, and the amount of detail they can provide, then we would be better off revisiting the 12" Laserdisc. The problem is that due to no artificial mechanical resonances and colouration etc. and the larger dynamic range achievable, it's more likely to sound like a normal CD, or could even have 24/192 or better on it ! Photos and short video content could also be included on the disc itself.

[Norton]

If people REALLY want a similar size medium to an LP that doesn't wear out, and has similar covers for those who like the look of the large glossy covers, and the amount of detail they can provide, then we would be better off revisiting the 12" Laserdisc.

 

Or just buy one of these ELP Laser Turntable |