Why does vinyl still exist?

[audiozorro]

Baxtus, this forum can be quite amusing. Isn’t that great to have a website that is both informative and fun. What a great way to enjoy this hobby when we’re not consumed with listening.

 

Isn’t it amazing that so many audio aficionados prefer vinyl over digital despite all the warts that vinyl has. We talk about what others can’t possibly hear at the same time we discount measurements of sound to be possible spurious crap and distortion artifacts.

 

Decades later we still praise the combined efforts of the best brains from Sony and Phillips to create the “Perfect Sound Forever” while many an audiophile is still in search for the holy grail of music. Don’t trust your ears and blindfold your eyes is often the advice. If only we could work touch, taste and smell into the mix. I take that back, my LPs and CDs are touchy feely things and I would rather not deal with things that taste or smell bad.

 

Free your inhibitions and limitations - Long live computer audio!

 

 

[Ashley James]

Audiozorro

 

We made up-market separates between '89 and early 2008, when we finished a CD player, a 200 WPC Integrated Amplifier and floor standing speakers cost $7000, so high end. Throughout this period sales of optional phono stages ran at about 5% maximum of the total.

 

I believe vinyl sales are less than 1% of the present market, but you can follow this link to check it out: http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/news/neilson-soundscan-2008-sales-f/

 

As for why people love it, the answer is simple, it's because they are used to it and scientific experiments show that to be the case. This link will show what I'm talking about and how the present generation prefers the sound of iPods.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article5847674.ece

 

Ash

 

[audiozorro]

Oh how the present generation prefers the sound of iPods. Only an audiophile could love vinyl.

 

Ashley thanks for the links, still trying to understand all the facts and numbers presented.

 

“In 2008, sales of LPs were up by an impressive 89%, from 990,000 in '07 to 1.88 million this year. It's an astounding number considering that the combined sales of CDs, LPs and digital files fell 14% this year.”

 

“the total number of all units of music sold this year (CD, digital, LP, ringtones combined) was over 1.5 billion, up a decent 10.5 percent from 2007.”

 

“But there's no indication that LP sales stand any chance of cutting into CD or digital album sales (65.8 million, up 32 percent from last year).”

 

Let’s see, sales of LPs up 89%, astounding

CD, digital, LP, ringtones combined up 10.5%

CD or digital album sales up 32%

But CDs, LPs and digital files down 14%

 

So discounting the possibility of fuzzy math, I have to assume that:

1) The small niche market of LPs is booming at +89%

2) The growing digital market is healthy at +32%

3) Despite healthy or booming digital and LP markets, CDs are in a serious decline at something greater than -14%

 

So I will add LPs to my live long and prosper farewell.

 

As to the article “Young music fans deaf to iPod’s limitations”, the comments speak for themselves.

 

“Research has shown, however, that today’s iPod generation prefers the tinnier and flatter sound of digital music”

 

“the young no longer appreciate high fidelity”

 

“Professor Berger says that the digitising process leaves music with a “sizzle” or a metallic sound”

 

“Other musicians have said that compression robs a song of its emotional power by reducing the difference between the loudest and softest sounds.”

 

“What you are hearing is that everything is being squared off and is losing that level of depth and clarity. I’d hate to think that anything I’d slaved over in the studio is only going to be listened to on a bloody iPod.”

 

“After three songs you need to put something on that’s been recorded in the 70s.”

 

“To my ears iPods are not even as good quality as cassette tape”

 

Long live LPs and computer audio.

Z

 

 

[baxtus]

Hey Z!

 

I love my iPod. May it never die! And it sounds a lot better than my Nakamichi, Sony, & Luxman cassette decks that could never ever maintain azimuth alignment!

 

 

Baxtus

 

[Ashley James]

There's nothing wrong with the sound of an iPod as long as the ear pods are in properly, some are really good and embarrass hi fi, but that wasn't point of the article. Basically the experiments showed that people liked what they were used to, regardless of the quality of sound reproduction.

 

Ash

 

[tfarney]

"So discounting the possibility of fuzzy math, I have to assume that:

1) The small niche market of LPs is booming at +89%

2) The growing digital market is healthy at +32%

3) Despite healthy or booming digital and LP markets, CDs are in a serious decline at something greater than -14%

 

So I will add LPs to my live long and prosper farewell."

 

...just don't put any serious money on it until you consider the fact that the LP's audience attends far more funerals than weddings. Its days are numbered, present company included.

 

And the problem with iPods is earbuds. Plug in a good pair of ear canal phones or full-sized phones efficient enough to be properly driven by an iPod's amp and put on a good recording - even an mp3. If you tell me it is thin and tinny, you'll be lying to one of us. Probably not me.

 

Tim

 

[shenzi]

Back in the late 90s or early 00s, when DVD-A and SACD were the new boys on the block, a columnist from Hi Fi World compared them to his vinyl and said "Thank goodness they aren't better".

 

At that point I realised the magazine had forgotten the meaning of the two abbreviated words in its title and it was time to stop buying hi fi magazines.

 

It would be more honest (and more fun to read) if they renamed it Nostalgia-Fi World

 

[DavidJPettifor]

Listening to my iPod Shuffle with a pair of Sennheiser PX 100s is an all-round pleasant experience. Admittedly, I playback AIFF files, which sound glorious but even 128kbps AAC files sound fine.

 

--

djp

 

[tino]

I have an ipod myself and think it sounds ok with good headphones, but nowhere near the sound via my pc, uncompressed.

 

What does suprise me on this site as a whole though, is the number of people involved in technical arguments / explanations that will dissect things down to 0.001's of whatever parameter to try and win an argument, only to appear in another discussion saying that ipods and massively compressed sound are "high fidelity", just because they are digital and convenient..................

 

 

 

[jcbrum]

I've been using, buying, and making, hifi kit and recordings for the last 40 years, and I've had and used some pretty posh stuff. (still do !)(I've just sold two racks full of Studer-Revox kit)

 

How anyone can say iPods are not Hi-Fi is beyond me.

 

A good example which I use myself, frequently, is an iPod shuffle straight into AVI speakers with a sub. Playing good files it will give a better sound than pretty well anything from previous generations of equipment. Including valve amps and horn loudspeakers. (are you listening coops).

 

I can only conclude that the - " I like what I've got and am used to" - syndrome applies.

 

A good Mac laptop, can, just, beat it, but I can't agree with the "no-where near" assessment.

 

A lot of '70's, '80's, and particularly '90's kit was awful, mentioning no naims, considering what it cost.

 

Regards JCBrum

 

 

 

 

[tfarney]

"What does suprise me on this site as a whole though, is the number of people involved in technical arguments / explanations that will dissect things down to 0.001's of whatever parameter to try and win an argument, only to appear in another discussion saying that ipods and massively compressed sound are "high fidelity", just because they are digital and convenient.................."

 

-- That would be surprising if it were true, but we're not saying iPods are hifi "because they are digital and convenient." We're saying they're hifi because of the way they perform. If you'd like to dissect things down to 0.001, we can do that, but listening to lossless files, straight off of an iPod into really good, efficient phones or a really good system should do the trick.

 

Tim

 

[BEEMB]

 

"but listening to lossless files, straight off of an iPod into really good, efficient phones or a really good system should do the trick"

 

I believe Tino was probably referring more to the MP3's and AAC's that he has bought from iTunes. Some have sounded pretty shocking.

 

In theory, lossless compression such as ALAC should sound good; it's like zipping up a file on a PC. The original data remains intact and nothing is lost. Apparently.

 

 

Never really thought of simply outputting the digital stream from an IPod directly into my AVI's. This is interesting; I'm trying to think of the downside and what, if anything, is there to affect the audio stream. If you've got a DAC that can reduce the jitter to next to nothing, the sound should, in theory, be spot on.

 

 

[BEEMB]

JCBrum,

 

Shuffle straight into the AVI's? Does it have a digital output? Thought it was analogue only on the shuffle. I'll give it a try!

 

All,

As for compressed vs uncompressed; Some of the earlier 128kps MP3's sounded pretty ropey, but more recent AAC files are a big improvement. Where possible I still tend to listen to uncompressed or FLAC files. If the option is there to download higher resolution material for an extre few pence/cents then why not as storage is so cheap. I still can't work out in my head how squeezing a file from 1411kps to 128kps can not fail to affect sound quality but I've certainly heard some wonderful sounding MP3's - though they do tend to be higher bit rates.

 

 

Matt.

 

 

 

[Ashley James]

I've always thought the anti compressed music arguments were daft because there's never anything nasty about them at any level of compression and because some iPods sound better than some expensive hi fi. The Shuffle is a £32 stunner!

 

However what Hi Fi cannot do that my iPod can is to identify Back Yard Birds from one of the many applications available for it. Sadly not the beautiful Kingfisher perching outside my office window over the Nailsworth Stream though because it's a British bird and the iPod's Back Yard birds are North American.

 

Ash

 

[tfarney]

BEEMB -- iPods don't have digital outs, so even with lossless files, you'll have to use the tiny little DAC, which must be almost free, inside the iPod. That's the downside, but I'll bet you'll be surprised by how small that downside is. Try not to think about how much trouble Ashley and Martin went to in packing a top-flight Wolfson DAC into your AVI's. Just listen.

 

And Tino is right, of course, that some compressed files don't hold up all that well. But some are exceptional, depending on the complexity of the music, I think, and the recording quality. Are you a bluegrass/acoustic music fan at all? If you're interested in investing a couple of bucks in the experiment, I'd encourage you to go to iTunes and download 256kbps (or even 128 if they're still available) files of a song each off of "Allison Krause & Union Station Live" -- "Choctaw Hayride" or "Baby Now That I've Found You" should do the trick -- and Jorma Kaukonen's "Blue Country Heart." I recommend "Red River Blues."

 

Crank it up. Let me know what you think.

 

Tim

 

[BobH]

...........but I can heartily recommend the Alison Krauss on 180g vinyl, if anyone's interested. It is a truly wonderful recording.

 

[BEEMB]

Tim,

 

For a moment I wondered whether Apple had given us the combined analogue/digital output on iPods that we see on Mac's.

I think you're statement 'depends on the complexity of the music" sums it up pretty well.

I shall give your suggested tracks a listen and report back.

 

BobH,

 

I agree with you. I have some 180/200g vinyl. No pops/cracks and that wonderful open sound.

I have great and awful sounding music in all formats!

 

Matt.

 

[BEEMB]

Eek - definately eaten too much garlic.

 

[Ashley James]

Because of all this dismissal of MP3s we played that Alison Krauss Album at the Bristol HiFi Show to packed and enthralled audiences including members of the Press. I really enjoyed explaining that it was an MP3 that a customer had downloaded. Everyone was amazed that they sounded so good in an environment with a 10 dB signal to noise ratio!

However we paid price for mocking "committed audiophiles" because posts appeared on Pink Fish on the first evening of the subsequent show criticising everything including our choice of music.

The truth is that many MP3s sound better than many CDs so it's best to be open minded.

Ash

 

[BEEMB]

 

Tim,

 

Just download "Baby, now that I've found you" and had a listen.

Sounds good, more so when you hear just the instruments alone; can't work out whether her voice sounds as natural as it could though..

 

Matt.

 

[BEEMB]

 

Ash,

 

I'm sure that, if certain music is mastered for release on compressed formats, it can and does sound great. But if I rip something a little more complicated to my computer in both formats, I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference. A chorus becomes less listenable; where you were happy to leave the volume where it was, you may wish to lower it slightly. I'll certainly try to have a play this evening and experiment a little.

 

But Tim's suggested track does sound very good.

 

Matt.

 

[mpmct]

VBR: Variable Bit Rate encoding is a whole other thing,

for both audio and video.

 

Crudely ... VBR does an initial 'first pass' on an uncompressed

file, and sniffs out the whole ordeal. Then the lossy

compression pass is made, based on the challenges

revealed in the first pass. 'Loss' is controlled this way.

Google 'variable bit rate encoding'. It's not your father's MP3. ;-)

 

As I've posted previously, with non-intensive recordings,

and using ABXer for Mac, I cannot win the battle in picking

an AAC/VBR file from an AIFF, with AKG 701 phones.

 

All this is very cool, because it allows me to flood my

iPhone with AAC versions, with very little if any loss, with more

of my favorite recordings. On my main system, I'll continue

to do Apple Lossless because as many have suggested, and

I happen to agree, hard drive space is so inexpensive, relatively speaking.

 

Point is, it just gets better all the time, for those of us who love music.

 

 

[DavidJPettifor]

mpmct wrote:

As I've posted previously, with non-intensive recordings,

and using ABXer for Mac

 

What's the ABXer for Mac you're referring to mpmct?

 

--

djp

 

[mpmct]

Go here ...

 

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/358301-24-vs-16-bit-not-audible-8.html

 

Scroll to the post dated:

 

25th January 2009, 06:44 PM

 

Download the Zip file attached to that post.

 

I have used it with impunity since it was posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DavidJPettifor]

Thanks mpmct. I'll take a look.

 

EDIT: Damn, only runs under Leopard. Still running Tiger here.

 

--

djp