Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Robin L]

Why "used to have?"
I do have the Tommy Dorsey 1940-42 set and more plus entire Capitol Years CD collection.
Good luck finding anything from then on LP or 78 that doesn't sound like absolute hell.
I do believe your memory of even the best discs pressed way back then is very colored with a nostalgic tint.


View attachment 358754

View attachment 358758View attachment 358759

I had the LPs at the same time I had some of the CDs, compared the two at the time. Somebody in Fresno unloaded the Capitol LPs sometime in the early 2000s, so I found clean copies in bargain bins at the local record and thrift stores. I had an Oppo DVD/SACD/CD player at the time, as I recall. Also had a Strathclyde 305 turntable with a SME III arm at the time. This one has a Micro Seki tonearm. I was using a Shure 97xe cartridge then, they roll off the treble so clicks and pops would be less noticeable than with other cartridges, like the Audio Technicas. Had a VPI record cleaning machine that I used on all of them:

 

[MattHooper]

Is it too much of a stretch to think that the vinyl resurgence is due some of the modern music sounding better through a LP filter and with a tad more dynamic range?

Yes.

Just to expand on my answer.

I think, as RobinL indicated, the overriding factor for the vinyl revival has to do with the physical factors, the form factor, aesthetics, tangibility, nostalgia for some, turntables being kinda cool, and the way the physical LP medium affects how many feel and interact with music.

First to your point: I don't see anything to suggest that modern music sounds better on LP. There may be some preferences that way, but I think that would still be niche given the majority of the population are quite happy with digital streaming. As to the dynamic range differences, there's some controversy over that, but ultimately that is more audiophile nerd concerns. The vinyl revival is WAY bigger than the audiophile nerd market, it's gone pretty mainstream, and I'd think the vast majority of people buying vinyl (a lot being Taylor swift fans!) have no inkling about the issue. Most people aren't thinking "there's not enough dynamic range coming through Spotify!"


As for the sound, I think it trails those factors, but it is still a significant factor in a way. It's very clear that "the sound of vinyl" is often a subject that articles and many vinyl enthusiasts talk about. But it's a big mishmash of issues. Some vinyl fans just accept the claim without thinking about it much. The fact is vinyl does tend to sound different, to one degree or another depending on everything from the mastering, pressing, and all the variability in the user end of turntable/cartridges/set up etc. And then of course there are the vinyl artifacts of noise, pops, ticks

So there is often going to be a real sonic difference to notice. And the reactions there are varied: some notice and think it sounds "better" than what they are used to however they listen to their digital sources. Some think it sounds worse, but will put up with it because they enjoy the other aspects, they don't even care that it sounds worse. Some think it sounds worse, but they say they LIKE it...I've seen quite a few vinyl enthusiasts, almost always newbies/young people, who say they love the ticks and pops and distortion! Then there are some who hear a difference but don't care. And then you have some who declare they often prefer the sound of vinyl.

So I do think "the sound of vinyl" is a pretty wide-spread element associated with the revival, but it's a big mish-mash of attitudes, biases, etc. But since you can find people on all sides of the issue about the sonics, yet almost ALL of them will agree the physical aspects of the medium is hugely important, I'd put the physical aspects as the main common denominator in the revival.

 

[Sal1950]

Also had a Strathclyde 305 turntable with a SME III arm at the time. This one has a Micro Seki tonearm.

Now there's a killer collectable vinyl recording for sure. LOL JK Ya

 

[Robin L]

I'd put the physical aspects as the main common denominator in the revival.

Like I said, there's more "there" there. Both good and bad, but for vinyl collectors there's a physical object with high-quality graphics to point to as a big inducement.

My experience indicates that Atmasphere is right, the quality of LP playback is highly dependent on the playback gear. There were a lot of turntables with high mass arms mated to high compliance cartridges resulting in a lot of issues such as peak warp wow. Also, cartridges with high output coupled to phono preamps that clipped prematurely. I was lucky enough to have a high quality, low mass arm coupled to a high compliance cartridge - lucky in that the turntable was given to me. These sorts of things make an audible difference. It's no wonder that so many people heard their first CD player and dived right in. Particularly classical music fans, with so many classical compositions having the loudest passages at the very end, accentuating IGD in the process.

I just got this 5 CD set in the mail, Artur Schnabel's Schubert recordings for EMI in transfers from 2018. Some of the source material is from 30 ips tape recordings of 1950, the rest from 78 masters of the 1930s. I'm sure all of this can be streamed from multiple sources, but it's good to know I have these recordings in my collection and not worry about them suddenly disappearing from Spotify, it's good having the physical object in hand:

 

[Robin L]

Now there's a killer collectable vinyl recording for sure. LOL JK Ya

Yeah, this is one of the titles flooding the bins of thrift stores, many landing in landfill:

 

[AaronJ]

I just honestly love having to get up a flip over a record. I love the little anxious feeling in my stomach after 16 minutes knowing I’ll need to get up in a minute or two. I love interacting with a turntable. I love the dopamine I get when I walk into a record store wondering what I might leave with. I love music from the 60’s and 70’s that was mastered to be enjoyed on a turntable, and knowing that I am not at the mercy of whatever digital version is available for streaming (and doing my research on modern reissues if it comes to that, but care is generally taken on the genres I am looking for).

I absolutely hate being attached to a computer/phone/tablet to play music unless I’m actually sitting at my computer, and even then I also have a turntable at my desk. I could not be less connected to the music experience when I’m streaming.

I am far from an analog purist and can’t imagine owning a system that isn’t running DSP ever again.

I’m sure this has all been stated many times, but just trying to further drive that point home.

 

[Jaxjax]

but it's good to know I have these recordings in my collection and not worry about them suddenly disappearing from Spotify, it's good having the physical object in hand:

Yep ... exactly why we don't get rid of our large collection cd's or are small collection of LP's. If the computer goes down I will need my music as I want it beyond the radio.

 

[MattHooper]

I just honestly love having to get up a flip over a record. I love the little anxious feeling in my stomach after 16 minutes knowing I’ll need to get up in a minute or two. I love interacting with a turntable.

Yup. I find the 20 minute-ish amount of time sitting for a record side to feel just about right, and getting up to change the record keeps me from feeling like I'm becoming a couch mushroom. Gets the air through the lungs/blood going again ready for the next side. And I never tire of interacting with the turntable.

On the other hand, when I've been listening to records for several days and I go back to my digital source, I love not having to get up to flip records, and just sit there without any care at all that way. And that too can sometimes get me in to the music.

So I just go back and forth, appreciating aspects of each, and mixing it up keeps each fresh for me.

 

[Newman]

I love music from the 60’s and 70’s that was mastered to be enjoyed on a turntable

The studio masters were not ‘mastered to be enjoyed on a turntable’. However, by definition, the vinyl masters were, so that’s moot. But what was the target audience using? For the music I think you refer to, they were generally using plastic bedroom all-in-ones with a simply terrible stylus, and the studios knew this, and prepared seriously dumbed-down masters. Enjoy.

I fully agree with your post, which runs through many perfectly valid reasons to enjoy vinyl…none of which have anything to do with “all about the music”, nor sound quality. The vinyl craze is non-sonic at its heart. I too appreciate it on those terms. The little gear-heads in us with their feel-good factors getting their warm fuzzies massaged. Nice.

But anyone who is “all about the music”, meaning nothing else, just the glory of the music itself and its exact sonic attributes, bringing the opportunity into our homes to ‘get’ what the production team ‘got’ with high standards of reproducability, consistency, repeatability, reliability and accessibility… “all about the music” and nothing else… any such a person would see far better alternatives and walk straight to them without a backward glance.

cheers

 

[Basic Channel]

Just to expand on my answer.

I think, as RobinL indicated, the overriding factor for the vinyl revival has to do with the physical factors, the form factor, aesthetics, tangibility, nostalgia for some, turntables being kinda cool, and the way the physical LP medium affects how many feel and interact with music.

First to your point: I don't see anything to suggest that modern music sounds better on LP. There may be some preferences that way, but I think that would still be niche given the majority of the population are quite happy with digital streaming. As to the dynamic range differences, there's some controversy over that, but ultimately that is more audiophile nerd concerns. The vinyl revival is WAY bigger than the audiophile nerd market, it's gone pretty mainstream, and I'd think the vast majority of people buying vinyl (a lot being Taylor swift fans!) have no inkling about the issue. Most people aren't thinking "there's not enough dynamic range coming through Spotify!"


As for the sound, I think it trails those factors, but it is still a significant factor in a way. It's very clear that "the sound of vinyl" is often a subject that articles and many vinyl enthusiasts talk about. But it's a big mishmash of issues. Some vinyl fans just accept the claim without thinking about it much. The fact is vinyl does tend to sound different, to one degree or another depending on everything from the mastering, pressing, and all the variability in the user end of turntable/cartridges/set up etc. And then of course there are the vinyl artifacts of noise, pops, ticks

So there is often going to be a real sonic difference to notice. And the reactions there are varied: some notice and think it sounds "better" than what they are used to however they listen to their digital sources. Some think it sounds worse, but will put up with it because they enjoy the other aspects, they don't even care that it sounds worse. Some think it sounds worse, but they say they LIKE it...I've seen quite a few vinyl enthusiasts, almost always newbies/young people, who say they love the ticks and pops and distortion! Then there are some who hear a difference but don't care. And then you have some who declare they often prefer the sound of vinyl.

So I do think "the sound of vinyl" is a pretty wide-spread element associated with the revival, but it's a big mish-mash of attitudes, biases, etc. But since you can find people on all sides of the issue about the sonics, yet almost ALL of them will agree the physical aspects of the medium is hugely important, I'd put the physical aspects as the main common denominator in the revival.

Your initial answer was well deserving of my "point".

I agree with what you and RobinL largely say and would buy LPs myself of special stuff purely as a sort of artefact. I am 40 so people half my age probably never owned CDs so they could feasibly do the same with CDs. Vinyl is also just cool, like a proper coal/wood fire or a reel 2 reel film projector.

I actually like the clicks and pops, and listen to music that would sample such stuff too. We almost all listen to stuff where there is some 'distortion' from things like hitting tape a bit hard. I'd be open to the idea that some people would prefer less dynamic range. We are rather open to the idea that less is more musically speaking, but when it comes to something sounding better we are always convinced it must have more of something. That said, I will now do exactly that.

To my original point, I heard Radiohead's King of Limbs and thought the vinyl can't be that compressed and went and got a FLAC rip of the vinyl. Sure enough, it wasn't quite so squashed. For me the difference is rather obvious, and I much prefer the vinyl FLAC. With the exception of a Talking Heads album as old as me, I've never noticed inner groove distortion. The digital 24 bit version of that Radiohead album has a provably lower noise floor/etc/etc, but for me the dynamics are more audible than the noise floor beneath the noise of the radiators (and my street).

Edited to remove reference to loudness database based on the following post by @Newman

 

[Newman]

Sorry @Basic Channel but Ye Olde Loudness Wars Database is completely useless and misleading as a guide to dynamic compression of LP vs CD.

Which is not to say King of Limbs and numerous others aren’t actually less dynamically compressed on LP….but you can’t use that tool as evidence.

You are new so you may have missed the long and oft-repeated coverage of this issue on this site. Start digging and you will soon see.

cheers

 

[levimax]

But what was the target audience using? For the music I think you refer to, they were generally using plastic bedroom all-in-ones with a simply terrible stylus, and the studios knew this, and prepared seriously dumbed-down masters. Enjoy.

Recorded music history is much more nuanced. While some music from the 60's and 70's was mastered for cheap TT's and AM radio this was mostly released on 45's and limited to some genres such as Motown and some pop. LP's were not played on bedroom TT's and earlier in the history of recorded music "sound quality" was a very important part of the hobby/ industry and many companies and artists strived to release "Hi-Fi" recorded music (unlike today where everything sounds clean and loud and can be cheaply and easily produced to sound this way). The LP technology of the day didn't help but especially in the 1970's many popular artists made very high quality recordings that are still sought after and in many cases exceed the sound quality of what is being produced today. Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Steely Dan, The Police, The Eagles, Heart, Linda Ronstadt, Neil Young, and many more. I agree with @AaronJ that I enjoy listening to well recorded music from the 60's and 70's on both the original LP and on later digital remasters. It is amazing the quality of some of these recordings especially considering the technology they had to work with and the mastering of the day catered to a different aesthetic compared to current recording and remastering styles.

 

[MattHooper]

Recorded music history is much more nuanced.

More nuanced? Not possible! We don’t do nuance here

While some music from the 60's and 70's was mastered for cheap TT's and AM radio this was mostly released on 45's and limited to some genres such as Motown and some pop. LP's were not played on bedroom TT's and earlier in the history of the recorded music "sound quality" was a very important part of the hobby/ industry and many companies and artists strived to release "Hi-Fi" recorded music (unlike today where everything sounds clean and loud and can be cheaply and easily produced to sound this way). The LP technology of the day didn't help but especially in the 1970's many popular artists made very high quality recordings that are still sought after and in many cases exceed the sound quality of what is being produced today. Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Steely Dan, The Police, The Eagles, Heart, Linda Ronstadt, Neil Young, and many more. I agree with @AaronJ that I enjoy listening to well recorded music from the 60's and 70's on both the original LP and on later digital remasters. It is amazing the quality of some of these recordings especially considering the technology they had to work with and the mastering of the day catered to a different aesthetic compared to current recording and remastering styles.

Well put.

I have 60s and tons of 70s LPs that sure don’t sound “dumbed down” for crappy turntables and sound stellar on a good turntable.

 

[DSJR]

More nuanced? Not possible! We don’t do nuance here




Well put.

I have 60s and tons of 70s LPs that sure don’t sound “dumbed down” for crappy turntables and sound stellar on a good turntable.

Deep Purple had to re-cut one of their albums (In Rock) I think, as first pressings caused pickups in typical BSR autochangers (which sold in the thousands and used in cheap stereo players to a lot of younger rock music lovers) to jump. Maybe just a UK thing, but cutting engineers fifty odd years ago really did need to be careful for a while. By the mid 70s, it seems that in the UK, the old Garrard and BSR changer based decks had been upgraded to the then famous Pioneer PL-12D which set rather higher standards and which sold in almost the thousands a week I gather (our two home-counties stores sold thirty of these between us on a Saturday alone regular as clockwork).

 

[deweydm]

Just to expand on my answer.

I think, as RobinL indicated, the overriding factor for the vinyl revival has to do with the physical factors, the form factor, aesthetics, tangibility, nostalgia for some, turntables being kinda cool, and the way the physical LP medium affects how many feel and interact with music.

First to your point: I don't see anything to suggest that modern music sounds better on LP. There may be some preferences that way, but I think that would still be niche given the majority of the population are quite happy with digital streaming. As to the dynamic range differences, there's some controversy over that, but ultimately that is more audiophile nerd concerns. The vinyl revival is WAY bigger than the audiophile nerd market, it's gone pretty mainstream, and I'd think the vast majority of people buying vinyl (a lot being Taylor swift fans!) have no inkling about the issue. Most people aren't thinking "there's not enough dynamic range coming through Spotify!"


As for the sound, I think it trails those factors, but it is still a significant factor in a way. It's very clear that "the sound of vinyl" is often a subject that articles and many vinyl enthusiasts talk about. But it's a big mishmash of issues. Some vinyl fans just accept the claim without thinking about it much. The fact is vinyl does tend to sound different, to one degree or another depending on everything from the mastering, pressing, and all the variability in the user end of turntable/cartridges/set up etc. And then of course there are the vinyl artifacts of noise, pops, ticks

So there is often going to be a real sonic difference to notice. And the reactions there are varied: some notice and think it sounds "better" than what they are used to however they listen to their digital sources. Some think it sounds worse, but will put up with it because they enjoy the other aspects, they don't even care that it sounds worse. Some think it sounds worse, but they say they LIKE it...I've seen quite a few vinyl enthusiasts, almost always newbies/young people, who say they love the ticks and pops and distortion! Then there are some who hear a difference but don't care. And then you have some who declare they often prefer the sound of vinyl.

So I do think "the sound of vinyl" is a pretty wide-spread element associated with the revival, but it's a big mish-mash of attitudes, biases, etc. But since you can find people on all sides of the issue about the sonics, yet almost ALL of them will agree the physical aspects of the medium is hugely important, I'd put the physical aspects as the main common denominator in the revival.

Then what about the dog that hasn’t barked, Matt? (Yet?) Where’s the CD renaissance? I suspect it’s not coming, and a big reason why is that the sound of CDs is less reliably differentiated from streaming than LPs. (Disclaimer: I’m saying LPs sound reliably different than streaming, not better. Even an LP with the same source master as streaming will sound different when cut to vinyl.)

I know the Target corporation hires anthropologists from the University of Minnesota. I wonder if they’ve ever asked them to study why some people are still buying records.

 

[CleanSound]

Poked my head in to see if the craziness died down here. . .nope still going strong.

Someone fill me in with the latest vinyl claim, who got put in timeout or other bickering going on here.

 

[stringer]

Nothing I like better than listening to a crusty old vinyl record straight from the flea market while I get caught up on the vinyl renaissance thread.

 

[MattHooper]

Poked my head in to see if the craziness died down here. . .nope still going strong.

Someone fill me in with the latest vinyl claim, who got put in timeout or other bickering going on here.

No way! You have to do your own homework!

I suggest starting, say, page 237, and that should catch you up to how we got here

 

[Newman]

Recorded music history is much more nuanced.

No doubt. But I guessed from his wording that AaronJ was talking about the pop and rock phenomenon that took off in the 60s and extended into the 70s, becoming the totally dominant sales force for records (and cassettes).

While some music from the 60's and 70's was mastered for cheap TT's and AM radio this was mostly released on 45's and limited to some genres such as Motown and some pop. LP's were not played on bedroom TT's

The LPs (of the music I was talking about, and I think AaronJ too) were bought by the same people as bought the 45s. Huge numbers of them were school kids. Industry execs could not afford to assume they were avoiding terrible record players. The weakest link sets the specification.

and earlier in the history of recorded music "sound quality" was a very important part of the hobby/ industry and many companies and artists strived to release "Hi-Fi" recorded music (unlike today where everything sounds clean and loud and can be cheaply and easily produced to sound this way). The LP technology of the day didn't help but especially in the 1970's many popular artists made very high quality recordings that are still sought after and in many cases exceed the sound quality of what is being produced today. Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Steely Dan, The Police, The Eagles, Heart, Linda Ronstadt, Neil Young, and many more.

That's a very small subsection. You are focusing on the elite. I'm focusing on the industry.

I agree with @AaronJ that I enjoy listening to well recorded music from the 60's and 70's on both the original LP and on later digital remasters. It is amazing the quality of some of these recordings especially considering the technology they had to work with and the mastering of the day catered to a different aesthetic compared to current recording and remastering styles.

Again, we are talking about personal standards, mixed with selective examples.

I suggest the reason some of those artists you mentioned are so prevalent in off-the-top-of-the-head lists of good-sounding recordings of the day, and so dominated sales of remasters over the years, is precisely because they are the exception, not the norm.

Industry execs and fast-track-production-line sound engineers of the day generally had to cater to the weakest link, especially since the weakest link (bad record players) was going to be one of the most-used.

I grew up in the timeframe being discussed, and my dad's record player, not the kid's bedroom player but the living room player, that played the Beethoven, Mozart, Mantovani, and my my more modern LPs, was a frikkin console unit. It had speed settings of 16, 33, 45 and 78. It had a 5-inch tall spindle with a stacker section. Its tonearm/headshell unit was bakelite. I can only imagine with a shudder what the needle was. And it was less than 10 years old.

And when he replaced it in the early 70s with what would have been a very respectable budget hifi system of separate full-size components, the belt-drive TT and Sansui tonearm were complemented with the stock cartridge, that didn't even have a brand written on it. Probably the cheapest thing imaginable.

These are the norms. The industry knew that. The product fitted that.

cheers

 

[levimax]

No doubt. But I guessed from his wording that AaronJ was talking about the pop and rock phenomenon that took off in the 60s and extended into the 70s, becoming the totally dominant sales force for records (and cassettes).

The LPs (of the music I was talking about, and I think AaronJ too) were bought by the same people as bought the 45s. Huge numbers of them were school kids. Industry execs could not afford to assume they were avoiding terrible record players. The weakest link sets the specification.

That's a very small subsection. You are focusing on the elite. I'm focusing on the industry.

Again, we are talking about personal standards, mixed with selective examples.

I suggest the reason some of those artists you mentioned are so prevalent in off-the-top-of-the-head lists of good-sounding recordings of the day, and so dominated sales of remasters over the years, is precisely because they are the exception, not the norm.

Industry execs and fast-track-production-line sound engineers of the day generally had to cater to the weakest link, especially since the weakest link (bad record players) was going to be one of the most-used.

I grew up in the timeframe being discussed, and my dad's record player, not the kid's bedroom player but the living room player, that played the Beethoven, Mozart, Mantovani, and my my more modern LPs, was a frikkin console unit. It had speed settings of 16, 33, 45 and 78. It had a 5-inch tall spindle with a stacker section. Its tonearm/headshell unit was bakelite. I can only imagine with a shudder what the needle was. And it was less than 10 years old.

And when he replaced it in the early 70s with what would have been a very respectable budget hifi system of separate full-size components, the belt-drive TT and Sansui tonearm were complemented with the stock cartridge, that didn't even have a brand written on it. Probably the cheapest thing imaginable.

These are the norms. The industry knew that. The product fitted that.

cheers

I also grew up in the 60's and 70's and I have a different take. The AM pop stations played the super hot and short 45 versions of hit songs and the FM underground/ album rock stations played the longer and higher quality LP versions. Back in the 70's many FM stations broadcast fairly hi-fi signals and there were a lot of decent "receivers" and large Monkey Coffin speakers around that sounded OK together. The TT's the radio stations had were good by any standard. I think many prople listening to current satilite radio or the new digital FM stations would be surprised by how good FM could sound back in the day. FM was how a most higher quality music was listened to and the stations wanted good sounding recordings to play. There was also much more enthusiasm for ever better sound quality in a way that doesn't exist today and most artist and record companies were looking to stand out not just by being the loudest but also the best sounding. I would argue LP's in general were not compromised sonically for lower quality plaback gear except that was the job of the 45's.