Why does vinyl still exist?

[徐中銳]

I'm not all that sure that the likes of Lewis Leyton of RCA, Bob Fine of Mercury, or Bert Whyte of Everest records would have used multi-mike, multi-channel technology even if they had it!

 

Lack of recording and mixing channels yesteryear dictated low mic count and the result was sometimes fabulous because the performance in the real acoustic space was better preserved.

 

The same could be done digitally today however, it's just that, in the main, it isn't.

 

News, a couple of days ago :

« Burberry and Bowers & Wilkins are renowned for innovation' date=' craftsmanship and a deep passion for music and the two have come together with Burberry Acoustic musicians for a new recording and performance project. [/b']

 

Four artists were invited to record four tracks each at the iconic London recording studio RAK Studios, capturing the raw energy of their live performance using an innovative technique with just one microphone and positioning the musicians around the room to create the sound of the final recordings without further mixing.

Over the next eight weeks, see British singer-songwriters George Cosby, Rosie Carney, Ten Tonnes and Fenne Lily perform live tracks for Burberry Acoustic and hear their ‘Live For Burberry' EPs on Apple Music.

 

In this film the artists discuss their influences and producer Kevin Bacon introduces the recording concept. »

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Well, yeah! But I'm not all that sure that the likes of Lewis Leyton of RCA, Bob Fine of Mercury, or Bert Whyte of Everest records would have used multi-mike, multi-channel technology even if they had it! I'm not even all that enamoured of Fine's three spaced omnidirectional mike setup, but I must admit that he got some spectacularly good stereo recordings with it.

 

I have a fair number of those recordings and others on LP, as well as digital remasterings on CD and/or SACD. I tip my hat to many of them for being great sounding recordings - but only for their day. The remasterings are somewhat variable, as I said earlier. Some, especially on SACD, are sonically outstanding and do not require a vinyl front end costing big bucks to enjoy in excellent sound.

 

If it is "oldies" you are interested in, then vinyl is a rich source for great music from an earlier era. But, genre makes a big difference. In the classical music I prefer, do I want to hear Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Fritz Reiner, etc. conducting the very same repertoire, the same Beethoven Symphonies or whatever, I can hear played by modern performers with modern sound? Take your choice. I, personally, would rather hear that music, mostly, in the very best sound in some newer interpretations. The interpretation of the same works of music then vs. now may or may not be as "good", totally subjectively, but the sound in the modern recordings, if one is selective, is much, much better. I am no longer locked into the notion, from my youth and earlier inexperience, that there is only one "best" interpretation of a classical work that will never be bettered. There is much unjustified sentimentality associated with much of that. If that were true, classical music might as well die right now. I just as well should not go to a current live concert because it could not possibly be as good as when Toscanini or Furtwaengler conducted it.

 

In other genres, like rock or jazz, the music is more spontaneous and specific to one recorded take which seldom is as good in attempts to redo the same music. Some magic happened at a certain recording session, and it is unlikely to ever be duplicated, even by the same performers in a later remake, if that is even attempted. Most all remakes just do not compare, in my experience. That music in those performance takes is precious, and the sound is really quite secondary. The sound does not have to be great at all to capture great music with great lasting appeal. There are countless examples of that in all genres, starting with Enrico Caruso and before.

 

I say say all this because I think it is important not to lump everything together. There is sound and there is music. I can groove to great music on my car stereo or my clock radio. I do not need great sound to totally enjoy the music. But, when I sit down for serious music listening, I for one want the best sound coupled with the music I enjoy. Personally, I do not get that from LP even on some outrageously expensive vinyl setups. The music, yes, but not the very best sound. YMMV.

 

If we are talking about just the sound, then I will tell you that I can spot the colorations, the lower S/N and channel separation, the lack of dynamics, the compressed mono bass and other distortions (actually they are measurable), the general lack of transparency, etc. a mile away, even assuming the ticks and pops have been totally scrubbed away. I grew up with all that and I accepted it for many years. But, the music from that era can be awesome, I agree.

 

Let's just try not to conflate the emotional high from the music with the quality of the sound: two different things. It is about sentimentality for a bygone era. It is not about the sound. It is not about ancient history in mike technique. We have much better recorded sound today by miles with digital, with decent engineering, of course.

[gmgraves]

I have a fair number of those recordings and others on LP, as well as digital remasterings on CD and/or SACD. I tip my hat to many of them for being great sounding recordings - but only for their day. The remasterings are somewhat variable, as I said earlier. Some, especially on SACD, are sonically outstanding and do not require a vinyl front end costing big bucks to enjoy in excellent sound.

 

Sure. In fact, even High-Res LPCM or SACD is not really necessary to get spectacular results from these old recordings. JVC, with their XRCD process has been making Red Book CDs from RCA Red Seal, Mercury Living Presence, and Decca FFSS masters from the '50's and '60's for years. They sound better than the vinyl original pressings (which command such high prices these days) and better than any high-res re-masterings that I have heard. They certainly sound better than the BMG SACD releases of RCA Red Seals of the same material! But here are the "rubs". Many of these performances will never get released on any digital media, and even if they are released digitally, very few of those will get the care that they deserve and which techniques like XRCD can deliver. In these cases if you want great performances by legendary performers*, you will have to go back to the original LPs.

 

If it is "oldies" you are interested in, then vinyl is a rich source for great music from an earlier era. But, genre makes a big difference. In the classical music I prefer, do I want to hear Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Fritz Reiner, etc. conducting the very same repertoire, the same Beethoven Symphonies or whatever, I can hear played by modern performers with modern sound? Take your choice. I, personally, would rather hear that music, mostly, in the very best sound in some newer interpretations. The interpretation of the same works of music then vs. now may or may not be as "good", totally subjectively, but the sound in the modern recordings, if one is selective, is much, much better. I am no longer locked into the notion, from my youth and earlier inexperience, that there is only one "best" interpretation of a classical work that will never be bettered. There is much unjustified sentimentality associated with much of that. If that were true, classical music might as well die right now. I just as well should not go to a current live concert because it could not possibly be as good as when Toscanini or Furtwaengler conducted it.

 

If modern interpretations were EQUAL to those of yesteryear, then I would agree with you, but most classical music and jazz aficionados seem to agree that none of today's conductors (as well as jazz performers) are the caliber of such men as Bruno Walter, Eugene Ormandy, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Sir Thomas Beecham, Erich Leinsdorf, Fritz Reiner, etc. Nor are any modern jazz performers the calibre of or innovate like: Satchmo, Stan Getz, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, etc. Even if there were modern jazz performers of the same caliber of some of these I've mentioned, each performance is unique, and therefore unrepeatable. You want that performance? You have to buy that performance by that musician, and if it hasn't been transferred to digital, or transferred right, you have to go back to the vinyl release.

 

In other genres, like rock or jazz, the music is more spontaneous and specific to one recorded take which seldom is as good in attempts to redo the same music.

 

Agree, 100%. In jazz (can't speak for rock though. Don't know anything about it) the performance is the thing. It can never be repeated, even by the same musician and that musician's sound is his/her trademark. It's that performance and only that performance. I remember hearing Dave Brubeck;s quartet live once. They (of course) played Take Five. It was recognizable as Take Five, but it sounded nothing like the legendary Columbia recording that was included in the Brubeck album, Time Out. In jazz, then, you can't do it again!

 

Some magic happened at a certain recording session, and it is unlikely to ever be duplicated, even by the same performers in a later remake, if that is even attempted. Most all remakes just do not compare, in my experience. That music in those performance takes is precious, and the sound is really quite secondary. The sound does not have to be great at all to capture great music with great lasting appeal. There are countless examples of that in all genres, starting with Enrico Caruso and before.

 

Agreed, again.

 

 

I say say all this because I think it is important not to lump everything together. There is sound and there is music. I can groove to great music on my car stereo or my clock radio. I do not need great sound to totally enjoy the music. But, when I sit down for serious music listening, I for one want the best sound coupled with the music I enjoy. Personally, I do not get that from LP even on some outrageously expensive vinyl setups. The music, yes, but not the very best sound. YMMV.

 

While I too want the very best sound that I can afford, and have frequently been disappointed with the sound I get (from ANY medium, including LP) still, to me, the music comes first. I'd still rather listen to Toscanini's 1941 performance of Beethoven's Symphony #9 transcribed from a national broadcast originated from Studio 8H in Rockefeller Center in dead mono, than listen to Tilson Thomas conduct the SF Symphony in the 9th on SACD and in surround sound! Why? Because Toscanini's 1941 live performance with the NBC Symphony Orchestra is electrifying in a way that his 1948 TV performance and his 1953 LP performances are not, even though BOTH the later performances sound better. And certainly, Tilson Thomas' recording sounds very good (I've never heard the surround mix) and his conducting is certainly workman-like and extremely competent, but it's not exiting in the way the 1941 transcription is. When the music is all important, these things become not just important, but actually vital.

 

If we are talking about just the sound, then I will tell you that I can spot the colorations, the lower S/N and channel separation, the lack of dynamics, the compressed mono bass and other distortions (actually they are measurable), the general lack of transparency, etc. a mile away, even assuming the ticks and pops have been totally scrubbed away. I grew up with all that and I accepted it for many years. But, the music from that era can be awesome, I agree.

 

Talking about sound, I totally agree. While minimalist recordings from the stereo age can sound as good or better than any modern recordings, IF properly remastered for digital media. It usually isn't. And a lot of the sound from these still revered recordings from the '50's and '60's is due to the fact that they were minimalist recorded in real stereo, or because of the performance, a proper real stereo digital recording will beat these "classic" recordings seven ways to sundown. I know, because I've recorded symphony orchestras both in analog (1/2-track tape, 15 ips) and digitally (16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, and DSD). A good digital stereo recording is the ne plus ultra, better than which you cannot get.

 

Let's just try not to conflate the emotional high from the music with the quality of the sound: two different things. It is about sentimentality for a bygone era. It is not about the sound. It is not about ancient history in mike technique. We have much better recorded sound today by miles with digital, with decent engineering, of course.

 

Well, I will agree that we can have much better sound today by miles with digital, but mostly we don't. And please don't you confuse my interest in vinyl and shellac as simply another source of music with any preference for these earlier technologies. They are merely a means to an end, and that end is to have the music I want by the performers I value on the best medium available, whether that medium be 78 RPM records, mono or stereo LP, reel-to-reel tape, Compact Cassette, CD, SACD, DVD-A, high-res LPCM, Blu-Ray, downloads or streaming audio.

[christopher3393]

Sure. In fact, even High-Res LPCM or SACD is not really necessary to get spectacular results from these old recordings. JVC, with their XRCD process has been making Red Book CDs from RCA Red Seal, Mercury Living Presence, and Decca FFSS masters from the '50's and '60's for years. They sound better than the vinyl original pressings (which command such high prices these days) and better than any high-res re-masterings that I have heard. They certainly sound better than the BMG SACD releases of RCA Red Seals of the same material! But here are the "rubs". Many of these performances will never get released on any digital media, and even if they are released digitally, very few of those will get the care that they deserve and which techniques like XRCD can deliver. In these cases if you want great performances by legendary performers*, you will have to go back to the original LPs.

 

 

 

If modern interpretations were EQUAL to those of yesteryear, then I would agree with you, but most classical music and jazz aficionados seem to agree that none of today's conductors (as well as jazz performers) are the caliber of such men as Bruno Walter, Eugene Ormandy, Wilhelm Furtwangler, Sir Thomas Beecham, Erich Leinsdorf, Fritz Reiner, etc. Nor are any modern jazz performers the calibre of or innovate like: Satchmo, Stan Getz, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, etc. Even if there were modern jazz performers of the same caliber of some of these I've mentioned, each performance is unique, and therefore unrepeatable. You want that performance? You have to buy that performance by that musician, and if it hasn't been transferred to digital, or transferred right, you have to go back to the vinyl release.

 

 

 

Agree, 100%. In jazz (can't speak for rock though. Don't know anything about it) the performance is the thing. It can never be repeated, even by the same musician and that musician's sound is his/her trademark. It's that performance and only that performance. I remember hearing Dave Brubeck;s quartet live once. They (of course) played Take Five. It was recognizable as Take Five, but it sounded nothing like the legendary Columbia recording that was included in the Brubeck album, Time Out. In jazz, then, you can't do it again!

 

 

 

Agreed, again.

 

 

 

 

While I too want the very best sound that I can afford, and have frequently been disappointed with the sound I get (from ANY medium, including LP) still, to me, the music comes first. I'd still rather listen to Toscanini's 1941 performance of Beethoven's Symphony #9 transcribed from a national broadcast originated from Studio 8H in Rockefeller Center in dead mono, than listen to Tilson Thomas conduct the SF Symphony in the 9th on SACD and in surround sound! Why? Because Toscanini's 1941 live performance with the NBC Symphony Orchestra is electrifying in a way that his 1948 TV performance and his 1953 LP performances are not, even though BOTH the later performances sound better. And certainly, Tilson Thomas' recording sounds very good (I've never heard the surround mix) and his conducting is certainly workman-like and extremely competent, but it's not exiting in the way the 1941 transcription is. When the music is all important, these things become not just important, but actually vital.

 

 

 

Talking about sound, I totally agree. While minimalist recordings from the stereo age can sound as good or better than any modern recordings, IF properly remastered for digital media. It usually isn't. And a lot of the sound from these still revered recordings from the '50's and '60's is due to the fact that they were minimalist recorded in real stereo, or because of the performance, a proper real stereo digital recording will beat these "classic" recordings seven ways to sundown. I know, because I've recorded symphony orchestras both in analog (1/2-track tape, 15 ips) and digitally (16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192, and DSD). A good digital stereo recording is the ne plus ultra, better than which you cannot get.

 

 

 

Well, I will agree that we can have much better sound today by miles with digital, but mostly we don't. And please don't you confuse my interest in vinyl and shellac as simply another source of music with any preference for these earlier technologies. They are merely a means to an end, and that end is to have the music I want by the performers I value on the best medium available, whether that medium be 78 RPM records, mono or stereo LP, reel-to-reel tape, Compact Cassette, CD, SACD, DVD-A, high-res LPCM, Blu-Ray, downloads or streaming audio.

 

Just wondering if there is a point you could summarize or if this is a private conversation?

[gmgraves]

Just wondering if there is a point you could summarize or if this is a private conversation?

 

I would have thought that was clear. It's not vinyl vs digital. It's that you get the music where you can find it. If it's not available digitally, then one is forced to find it on other media, such as vinyl, or even in some cases even 78's - that is if one truly wants the music and is not just an audio or technology junkie!

[徐中銳]

Haha,

:

 

Obvious questions' date=' obvious answers.[/font']

 

Also, previously, they deleted then

[徐中銳]

« Yoko Ono, 75 Dollar Bill, Yo La Tengo, Sharon Van Etten, Matana Roberts and others performed during Other Music’s festivities to mark the store's closing. »

 

« The New York record shop Other Music will close its doors on June 25' date=' after over two decades in business. We asked the co-owner Josh Madell about the records that represent the soul of his store.[/b'] » :

[gmgraves]

I have a fair number of those recordings and others on LP, as well as digital remasterings on CD and/or SACD. I tip my hat to many of them for being great sounding recordings - but only for their day. The remasterings are somewhat variable, as I said earlier. Some, especially on SACD, are sonically outstanding and do not require a vinyl front end costing big bucks to enjoy in excellent sound.

 

I take issue with your statement "but only for their day". These older recordings from the '50's and the early '60's are still highly sought after for their natural and often spectacular sound. It's too bad that analog audio tape is as perishable as it has turned out to be. If the master tapes hadn't deteriorated as much as they have these recordings would still be essentially state-of-the-art. I don't think that recording technology has advanced that much in the last 55-60 year. Oh, sure, on paper it looks like it has, and the recording medium itself has improved (digital, hi-res) but the recording practices have actually degraded since then for mainstream releases and all of the electronic "toys" that the engineers have to play with (and insist on using), these days haven't improved things one iota. In fact, they make things sound worse most of the time. Oh, I'll admit that some of the tools that engineers have at their disposal for restoring these old analog master tapes like fixing drop-outs and removing tape noise (without affecting the music) are brilliant and I applaud the use of them. But classical music would be much better served IMHO, if the recording engineers went back to the simple arrangements used by Fine at Mercury, and Leyton at RCA and others and go directly from a true 2- mike (ok 4 mikes for Fitz's surround sound, if he insists ) stereo arrangement (XY, A-B, ORTF, M-S, etc) to a modern DSD or 24/96 LPSM recorder.

[bluesman]

I take issue with your statement "but only for their day". These older recordings from the '50's and the early '60's are still highly sought after for their natural and often spectacular sound. It's too bad that analog audio tape is as perishable as it has turned out to be. If the master tapes hadn't deteriorated as much as they have these recordings would still be essentially state-of-the-art.

Absolutely! I'm fortunate enough to have all of my family's records, a collection dating to about 1920 that includes original multiple disc albums by Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra (about 3/16" thick and cut only on one side), amazing jazz and classical 78s (with gems like Ella's A Tisket, A Tasket, dozens of Broadway show albums, Sigmund Romberg, Nat Cole, big bands), many early LPs, and just as many early stereo LPs. My sister got one of the first RCA stereo record players to take to college with her in 1958 or 9, as I recall. After hearing the potential even with that rudimentary device, I started buying stereo LPs at the age of 13 and still have all of our early stereo vinyl including the RCA demo record that came with her player, called "Sounds in Space" -

 

 

 

The musical and sound quality of many of these recordings (excluding Sounds in Space, of course...) is stellar and clearly audible, despite the technical limitations and the tendency of many producers to grossly overdo both channel separation and gimickry. "Monophony" may have been a limitation on accuracy of sound stage, instrument placement etc, but it was absolutely not a limitation on listenability or enjoyability of the recordings. When you think about it, sitting in the back of a large venue makes the band or orchestra a virtual point source anyway. Unless you're in a well designed concert hall, reflections and resonances make precise localization of the players difficult. The same is true for small group jazz in clubs and bars. But the music sounds great because the instruments are well reproduced and the exuberance of live performance lifts players and listeners alike. If you shed preconceived notions and prejudices and just listen to those early recordings (even mono), you'll find and enjoy some great recordings of great performances. And you'll be surprised by the realism.

[gmgraves]

Absolutely! I'm fortunate enough to have all of my family's records, a collection dating to about 1920 that includes original multiple disc albums by Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra (about 3/16" thick and cut only on one side), amazing jazz and classical 78s (with gems like Ella's A Tisket, A Tasket, dozens of Broadway show albums, Sigmund Romberg, Nat Cole, big bands), many early LPs, and just as many early stereo LPs. My sister got one of the first RCA stereo record players to take to college with her in 1958 or 9, as I recall. After hearing the potential even with that rudimentary device, I started buying stereo LPs at the age of 13 and still have all of our early stereo vinyl including the RCA demo record that came with her player, called "Sounds in Space" -

 

 

 

The musical and sound quality of many of these recordings (excluding Sounds in Space, of course...) is stellar and clearly audible, despite the technical limitations and the tendency of many producers to grossly overdo both channel separation and gimickry. "Monophony" may have been a limitation on accuracy of sound stage, instrument placement etc, but it was absolutely not a limitation on listenability or enjoyability of the recordings. When you think about it, sitting in the back of a large venue makes the band or orchestra a virtual point source anyway. Unless you're in a well designed concert hall, reflections and resonances make precise localization of the players difficult. The same is true for small group jazz in clubs and bars. But the music sounds great because the instruments are well reproduced and the exuberance of live performance lifts players and listeners alike. If you shed preconceived notions and prejudices and just listen to those early recordings (even mono), you'll find and enjoy some great recordings of great performances. And you'll be surprised by the realism.

 

+1