Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[ronniebear]

Sales statistics for physical media -- vinyl records, compact discs, even cassettes - are measured based on either the number of NEW PRODUCT units sold or dollar volume. There are no meaningful sales statistics documenting the enormous secondary market for pre-owned media. In that regard, sales volume of pre-owned (used) vinyl records has massively surged compared to the early 2000s.

Those who were around circa 1995-2005 may recall those years, when vast quantities of used turntables and records could be had for very cheap prices or even for free. Thrift stores were so overwhelmed by donations that items which didn't sell within a month (for 50 cents or whatever) were tossed in the dumpster, they just didn't have enough space. Ditto for turntables, these were often in high stacks and you could easily buy a VERY nice Denon/Technics/Pioneer turntable in perfect working condition for 5 to 10 dollars. Swap meets and yard sales were also filled with abundant quantities of records and turntables. This massive flood of pre-owned hardware and media made it difficult (though apparently not impossible) for LP pressing plants and turntable manufacturers to stay in business. To their credit, a tiny number of specialty businesses retained the ability to press vinyl records, to manufacture new turntables, and manufacture and even develop new cartridges.

From 2004 onward, it was a long and winding road for consumer demand to re-emerge for analog record technology. The real beginning of the "vinyl renaissance" was seen on the secondary market, and in sales for accessories such as cartridges, styli, and record cleaning stuff. Over time, those massive piles of giveaway-priced turntables sold off and huge quantities of records changing hands for as little as 10 cents or tossed in the garbage dump disappeared.

So for those of you under the age of 30, you might have been unaware of just how dramatic the decline of the vinyl record really was.

A great irony was that the vinyl industry inexplicably missed out on a huge marketing opportunity this summer! June 17th marked the 75th anniversary of the launch of the Long Playing (vinyl) Record. This was a giant disruption for the recorded music industry, which up to that time offered 78 rpm shellac media with 4 minutes per side of playing time.

While I personally am getting away from vinyl records due to space considerations and other reasons, I hope this little history discussion is helpful to underscore how vinyl records almost (but not quite) disappeared from the public mainstream before the "vinyl renaissance'.

 

[Newman]

I'm tempted to reply to every future post on this thread with....


"bin said before"

"bin said before" would be the most "said before" thing said.

 

[Newman]

What sounds different or is so fucking awful here?

The potential for cherry picking of the vinyl section, and the lack of any need for cherry picking of the digital.

There is no such thing as 'representative' vinyl, because the variability / inconsistency is so huge. So 'one sample' of vinyl (or 10, or 100), is still no indication of what vinyl is really like.

So you can do what you just did as many times as you please, it means nothing except to speak to the potential of vinyl, which is actually a mirage that evaporates as soon as one gets involved with the reality. Whereas the potential of digital is pretty much 100% realised in practice, except for mastering sometimes being directed at goals that the individual listener does not share.

cheers

 

[USER]

The potential for cherry picking of the vinyl section, and the lack of any need for cherry picking of the digital.

There is no such thing as 'representative' vinyl, because the variability / inconsistency is so huge. So 'one sample' of vinyl (or 10, or 100), is still no indication of what vinyl is really like.

So you can do what you just did as many times as you please, it means nothing except to speak to the potential of vinyl, which is actually a mirage that evaporates as soon as one gets involved with the reality. Whereas the potential of digital is pretty much 100% realised in practice, except for mastering sometimes being directed at goals that the individual listener does not share.

cheers

"I'm thinking, wouldn't it be good to begin to establish a sort of baseline from which to engage?"

It's the cynicism that makes people ignore the criticism here. 170+ pages and nothing accomplished. Good job.

 

[Newman]

I think what I described is the realistic baseline for discussing vinyl, and your 'peak potential non reality' is exactly what should not be called a baseline.

So, indeed, I am doing a good job.

 

[USER]

Did you read what I wrote? Not peak potential. Old recording. Every component cost less that $250 except cartridge which cost me $350. It's just knowing enough to use it right. Try again, bud.

 

[USER]

Ok, this delicious silence from you now has me intrigued as to why you seem "triggered" by the sample. Putting my friendly hat on, without anything to prove or debate, and taking it as one random sample, may I ask if you listened to the samples? I am wondering why you used the phrase "peak potential non reality." Could it have sounded...decent? I promise not to take your response as any declaration of vinyl matching digital (because I don't believe that). But I am trying to consider a subtle, alternative understanding of what you folks are arguing about and I do think we can bracket things judiciously to maybe get at a certain point I have in mind. Reminder: few think the vinyl community needs a kick to the arse as much as I do. I just think there are better ways to get at that.

 

[Newman]

If I provided a sample where the vinyl was clearly scratched - a very common phenomenon - what is everyone supposed to learn from that?

…I do think we can bracket things judiciously to maybe get at a certain point I have in mind.

Don’t play games, tell us what end point you have in mind, and tell us why you think it is indisputable. Don’t forget to explain how your sample is critical to proving this end point’s merit.

PS I am not welded to my computer, so be a bit more patient and understanding instead of making asinine comments about “delicious silence” after 1 hour. Play nice.

 

[USER]

I did. It's in the post you didn't read well but I don't want to force people to it if they are interested in listening to the samples.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I hope this little history discussion is helpful to underscore how vinyl records almost (but not quite) disappeared from the public mainstream before the "vinyl renaissance'.

Yes, thank you for taking the time to give a nuanced and knowledgeable account of the situation. I still remember well the events described. Meanwhile, as time has progressed, the prices for old turntables are unfortunately spoiled, or there are fewer and fewer used ones in really good and unaltered condition to get.

 

[computer-audiophile]

... but I don't want to force people to it if they are interested in listening to the samples.

Excuse me, if I want to judge the analog sound of a record, I can't use a digital recording of it played back over a digital audio-system. I have to listen it directly with the adequate analog means. Here at ASR, however, one often finds such well-intentioned but ultimately ineffectual experimental approaches.

 

[antcollinet]

Excuse me, if I want to judge the analog sound of a record, I can't use a digital recording of it played back over a digital audio-system. I have to listen it directly with the adequate analog means. Here at ASR, however, one often finds such well-intentioned but ultimately ineffectual experimental approaches.

Why do you think that?

Digital recording is easily able to capture every nuance of a vinyl playback system. The digital reproduction can perfectly reconstruct that into an audibly identical signal for amplification.

There is nothing magical about an analogue reproduction chain.

 

[computer-audiophile]

There is nothing magical about an analogue reproduction chain.

Apart from the fact that it's purely analog.

 

[Leporello]

Apart from the fact that it's purely analog.

Why is this relevant? It is a relatively poor analog representation of an analog original.

 

[antcollinet]

Apart from the fact that it's purely analog.

You ascribe magical properties to that?

 

[computer-audiophile]

You ascribe magical properties to that?

As a purist I also do not mix water and wine.

 

[Leporello]

As a purist I also do not mix water and wine.

Wine already contains a huge amount of water.
Where is the purity in analog?

 

[computer-audiophile]

Where is the purity in analog?

I don't want to start a big discussion or shit storm about it. After all, I've been at home on both sides for a long time: digital and analog.

With my own analog chains, which are very simple in terms of overall circuitry, I associate the idea of signal integrity.
I don't mind if someone else sees it differently, because we mostly live in different musical worlds anyway.

 

[antcollinet]

As a purist I also do not mix water and wine.

You'd have no problem though with mixing wine with some more identical wine from the carafe instead of the bottle.

And once again, we find analogies don't work. You are on a science based site. Bring the science.

 

[antcollinet]

With my own analog chains, which are very simple in terms of overall circuitry, I associate the idea of signal integrity.

That is fine - you can continue to do that.

But please don't try to suggest that people who understand the science and engineering sufficiently to know that is, in reality, not the case - are somehow "well intentioned, but ineffectual"