The Observer view on the vinyl revival: LPs are the antidote to a frenetic digital world

[MattHooper]

Sorry, I cannot let it pass. If I do, it perpetuates the myth.

Understandable.

I speak up to try and correct that myth when I have the chance too.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I'll take that as a no, then. As in you no no more than we do.

Whatever makes you happy. Not interested in fighting about vinyl preferences. You either accept it or deny it. Either way it is what it is.

 

[IAtaman]

I was gonna say I'm surprised no one has done a piece on the environmental impacts of vinyl, then I found this :

Nightmares on wax: the environmental impact of the vinyl revival

From toxic wastewater to greenhouse gas emissions, the boom in vinyl has dangerous effects – but streaming isn’t as clean an alternative as it looks

www.theguardian.com

 

[Galliardist]

I was gonna say I'm surprised no one has done a piece on the environmental impacts of vinyl, then I found this :

Nightmares on wax: the environmental impact of the vinyl revival

From toxic wastewater to greenhouse gas emissions, the boom in vinyl has dangerous effects – but streaming isn’t as clean an alternative as it looks

www.theguardian.com

That article is not so honest about streaming. Sure, there's more being played that way, but in fact the data centres that host the streaming servers are pretty much holding them as an afterthought: the other uses of the server farms are such that most of the time music streaming is not actually adding much to energy or server use at all. The thing is that it is totally unclear what they are adding "not much" to.

Of course, streaming - like EVs, a source of controversy here as well, are only as green as the power that runs it, and unlike EVs you have no idea where the streaming service is sourcing any particular song you play from. I guess we need an energy audit for each streaming service, if we care what we are doing there: but the larger companies they outsource to are unlikely to provide any more information than that Thai petrochemical company.

I guess used LPs have already polluted.

 

[benanders]

The observation i posted in the OP is factually incorrect and should never have been printed in a respectable newspaper and this is likely the only place it will be pointed out. No one has ever said anything about people's preferences so please don't conflate the two.

I wonder if the issue is just that so many people conflate what sounds different with what sounds “richer/warmer” (in the case of The Guardian, not the least of which is min 2-fold! ), or any other subjective adjective you could put to it. Sigh.

I guess used LPs have already polluted.

As long as used LP’s get resold and shipped, they’ll keep polluting. Begs the question “What are your food music collection miles?” Sigh again.

 

[Berwhale]

I was gonna say I'm surprised no one has done a piece on the environmental impacts of vinyl, then I found this :

Nightmares on wax: the environmental impact of the vinyl revival

From toxic wastewater to greenhouse gas emissions, the boom in vinyl has dangerous effects – but streaming isn’t as clean an alternative as it looks

www.theguardian.com

I'm surprised that you didn't notice that I'd already posted that article

Post #25

 

[IAtaman]

I'm surprised that you didn't notice that I'd already posted that article

Post #25

I am surprised I can manage to log in to the forum everyday
Sorry, did not see indeed. You posted and commented on it - you are two steps ahead of me.

 

[JayGilb]

My pet theory remains: people like the groove noise.

I have a vst plugin iZotope Vinyl that adds groove noise (rumble, clicks and pops). It would be an interesting experiment to take a digital recording and add some distortion to see if people liked it over the original.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I have a vst plugin iZotope Vinyl that adds groove noise (rumble, clicks and pops). It would be an interesting experiment to take a digital recording and add some distortion to see if people liked it over the original.

Wrong distortions. IZotope also has great filters to remove pops, ticks and wow. Maybe some added groove noise might work. Definitely not pops ticks and rumble

 

[Multicore]

For everyone's sake, I do hope that as a purveyor of news they can see past our other favourite pastimes these days - ignoring facts, ignoring science, ignoring truth.

It's The Observer. The piece is fluff that readers can get croissant crumbs on.

 

[krabapple]

g

Wrong distortions. IZotope also has great filters to remove pops, ticks and wow. Maybe some added groove noise might work. Definitely not pops ticks and rumble

groove noise, crosstalk, imperfect pitch stability, add 'em all. Vinylphiles love 'em.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

g

groove noise, crosstalk, imperfect pitch stability, add 'em all. Vinylphiles love 'em.

Cross talk should be quite popular on ASR given the response to BACCH filters. Vinyl has as much as 30 db channel separation but conventional stereo has 5-10 db channel separation. Multi channel even less. Enjoy

 

[krabapple]

Always love the ''as much as" construction that vinylphiles use when they mean, 'on a good day'. Should I retort that digital has as much as 'infinite' channel separation?

"But conventional stereo have 5-10 dB of channel separation"? Is this a gear switch from a format-level claim to a recording practice claim?

Tell me more.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Cross talk should be quite popular on ASR given the response to BACCH filters. Vinyl has as much as 30 db channel separation but conventional stereo has 5-10 db channel separation. Multi channel even less. Enjoy

That seems like an odd statistic. Where did you find that information?

Jim

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Always love the ''as much as" construction that vinylphiles use when they mean, 'on a good day'. Should I retort that digital has as much as 'infinite' channel separation?

"But conventional stereo have 5-10 dB of channel separation"? Is this a gear switch from a format-level claim to a recording practice claim?

Tell me more.

Channel separation varies from one cartridge to another. Check the measurements of the specific cartridge. Never seen one under 24 db separation. All of which is masked by any conventional stereo’s cross talk. Have you measured the cross talk of your system? Just curious.

 

[kemmler3D]

some members of the forum continuously belittle anyone who does not share the two ideals of the forum, transparent reproduction and low price.

For what it's worth I think most (maybe not all) members of this forums will only belittle you if you conflate expensive gear with high performance gear. If you want something expensive with poor performance, most of us are willing to acknowledge that as a valid choice, if it's a well-informed choice. If you know what transparency is and decide to go in another direction anyway, that's also OK.

I think we respect any informed choice here, and we won't belittle "bad" choices made without good information, as long as folks are willing to learn.

But if you just say "B&W sounds the best because it costs the most" you'd better duck.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

That seems like an odd statistic. Where did you find that information?

Jim

From Edgar Choueiri

 

[Deleted member 21219]

From Edgar Choueiri

1) You're talking net acoustic separation in-room, at the listener's ears, correct?

2) What are you calling "conventional" stereo? Conventional versus what? I don't understand.

Jim

 

[krabapple]

Channel separation varies from one cartridge to another. Check the measurements of the specific cartridge. Never seen one under 24 db separation. All of which is masked by any conventional stereo’s cross talk. Have you measured the cross talk of your system? Just curious.

I hope we aren't only talking about that lovable obsolete technology that no one can explain the popularity of?

Explain in what sense, and reasons why, conventional stereo only has 5-10 dB of channel separation, please. And multichannel much less.

 

[Robin L]

My vastly unpopular guess is that such noises cover up small problems in the playback system, probably speakers. Anywhere but ASR I'm sure I'd be tarred and feathered

My guess is that some ears interpret surface noise as extended treble. I've compared three different masterings of some 1930s recordings (the Artur Schnabel Beethoven Piano Sonata cycle) and some people claim that the transfers that have less surface noise have less treble. But there always was a limit to the high frequency response of 1930s microphones, and when I listen to transfers with less filtering, I hear more surface noise, but I don't hear more treble. The most recent transfers, on Warner Brothers, retain a slight amount of surface noise, but have just as much treble content coming from the instrument. I chalk that up to more sophisticated noise removal.

Another thing is that many LP playback systems have boosted treble compared to digital playback.