Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Newman]

There are some interesting statistics in there at least. The one that struck me after all the wasted pages here: only 15% of the survey respondents disagreed that vinyl brings the best sound quality.

The other interesting result underneath all of it is that most collectors were not overly concerned about the cost of vinyl.

I'm not convinced of some of the method here, in particular a reliance on sellers as a source of information: the emphasis on community in the "revival" shows that he got only part of the revival group, and probably got fewer audiophiles in the mix since I remember a few years ago that many of the references in forums to buying showed a reliance on online purchases.

The author is an advocate which often skews results no matter how careful you are.

Good analysis. Thank you. Did you notice the complete and total absence of classical music from the paper? Basically it's a Boomer-centric pop-rock ode to the roots of that form. And at the other end of the time frame, the author seems to have zero, and I mean zero, awareness of the central role of rap and hip hop in the creation of a perception of hipster-coolness for LP in the younger generations....and which is the real spur for the ripoff-profiting-industry-dominated revival of vinyl in the sales charts.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There are some interesting statistics in there at least. The one that struck me after all the wasted pages here: only 15% of the survey respondents disagreed that vinyl brings the best sound quality.

Yes, but not surprising. Back when our sources of music were FM, vinyl, and RTR, there wasn't much disagreement that RTR was the best quality sound. LP dominated the market because it was a fraction of the cost of RTR, the players were cheaper, and it was more convenient. It took some mojo magic from high end mags in the 1980's to do some alchemical transformation into the idea LP was the sine qua non reference. In reality LP was the MP3 of its day.

 

[Robin L]

Did you notice the complete and total absence of classical music from the paper?

The first to adopt CDs were Classical music consumers. I remember working at a Classical music specialist store, starting in the late 1980s when there was a rush to release Classical music CDs. Lots of budget and mid-priced re-releases, particularly of older analog recordings. The labels specializing in Classical music were quick to remainder their vinyl issues. I think the issue of IGD was very important, along with off-center or warped pressings with varying pitch. The end of the groove was where the climax would be with Classical music, and most folks were using elliptical styli on their cartridges at that time. Not quite as noticeable with Rock, but very noticeable with Classical (and New Age). I was hearing problems with CD resolution back then, but that was with early, budget, CD players. I'm not hearing that problem anymore.

I have every reason to doubt that the market for Classical Music on LP will ever grow at the same rate as that for popular music on LP.

 

[HammersRocco]

Or that cognitive bias distorts perception...which, being indisputable, is far more likely than your conclusion.

One and the same. Adapting reality to own biases produce the satisfaction. In some people of course - outside of ASR! I am obviously better than that, of course! Again, I like it because I like it. Period.

 

[krabapple]

leapin' lizards, this thread is still going....can no one solve this profound mystery once and for all??

 

[dlaloum]

Yes, but not surprising. Back when our sources of music were FM, vinyl, and RTR, there wasn't much disagreement that RTR was the best quality sound. LP dominated the market because it was a fraction of the cost of RTR, the players were cheaper, and it was more convenient. It took some mojo magic from high end mags in the 1980's to do some alchemical transformation into the idea LP was the sine qua non reference. In reality LP was the MP3 of its day.

Ahem.... if we are discussing the late 70's and the 80's.... cassettes were the MP3's... and the Walkman revolution!

I had a cassette player in my bedroom long before I managed to scrape together the funds for amp & speakers and then finally turntable...

Although my parents and grandparents were totally vinyl centric.... with the "console" taking pride of place in the lounge room sometime in the early to mid 60's.... (it had AM/SW but I don't think FM was there, and of course a changer turntable)

 

[HammersRocco]

leapin' lizards, this thread is still going....can no one solve this profound mystery once and for all??

It's solved! It's a choice based on personal preference. Simple.

Thread still going because once in a while people find the it and cannot grok that. They assume it is because of perceived superiority of the format, dismissing the fact that we all are in ASR and know stuff. They want people to drop vinyl because they don't agree that personal preference is reason enough.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ahem.... if we are discussing the late 70's and the 80's.... cassettes were the MP3's... and the Walkman revolution!

I had a cassette player in my bedroom long before I managed to scrape together the funds for amp & speakers and then finally turntable...

Although my parents and grandparents were totally vinyl centric.... with the "console" taking pride of place in the lounge room sometime in the early to mid 60's.... (it had AM/SW but I don't think FM was there, and of course a changer turntable)

I was thinking earlier. I agree for 70s and 80s it would be cassettes.

 

[Galliardist]

Good analysis. Thank you. Did you notice the complete and total absence of classical music from the paper? Basically it's a Boomer-centric pop-rock ode to the roots of that form. And at the other end of the time frame, the author seems to have zero, and I mean zero, awareness of the central role of rap and hip hop in the creation of a perception of hipster-coolness for LP in the younger generations....and which is the real spur for the ripoff-profiting-industry-dominated revival of vinyl in the sales charts.

The paper is largely about collectors and people buying from some types of seller, so it's hardly surprising that it accurately reflects... part of the reason.

I still hold that the "vinyl renaissance" is actually about a revival in availability, and most or all of the traits behind it were present even as supply (rather than the entire market) collapsed in the 1990s. Sure, the market was smaller as digital took over, but it never went away.

There was, for example, practically no fall off in turntable sales through most of the period between the mid nineties and the GFC, when there was a blip (when very high priced turntables continued selling but the lower end fell off for a couple of years), and through to increased sales in the audiophile sector overall only after 2018.

Books went through a kind of similar process. Stores decided that there was no mass market for books in the early 2000s and a lot of high street stores closed ahead of a perceived drop off in the market (I know, Amazon, but...)

The paper also refers to the revival starting in 2014: this thread has posts showing an earlier start at least among audiophiles.

So, the full story with all its complexities escapes this paper, yes.

I note that the age peak in this paper's cohort seems to be in the late 30s and 40s by age though. That generation would have seen vinyl disappearing during their childhoods - or maybe are the younger relatives and friends of people who kept vinyl, and learned some of those habits to start themselves, as LPs and the money to buy LPs became available to them.

 

[Galliardist]

The first to adopt CDs were Classical music consumers. I remember working at a Classical music specialist store, starting in the late 1980s when there was a rush to release Classical music CDs. Lots of budget and mid-priced re-releases, particularly of older analog recordings. The labels specializing in Classical music were quick to remainder their vinyl issues. I think the issue of IGD was very important, along with off-center or warped pressings with varying pitch. The end of the groove was where the climax would be with Classical music, and most folks were using elliptical styli on their cartridges at that time. Not quite as noticeable with Rock, but very noticeable with Classical (and New Age). I was hearing problems with resolution back then, but that was with early, budget, CD players. I'm not hearing that problem anymore.

I have every reason to doubt that the market for Classical Music on LP will ever grow at the same rate as that for popular music on LP.

I just checked one outlet - Presto Music. They have 1,721 “classical” LP releases available, that being probably a largish subset of releases from the last few years. There are a lot of new recordings among the first few pages of items.

Something is going on there.

Also, the same seller has around 20000 jazz vinyl releases, another music form missing in that paper’s analysis.

That ratio seems to hold among commercial recordings of classical and jazz by broad category: suggesting that there is a strong revival in the classical music market, just that that market is smaller overall, though what I’ve looked at here is hardly in depth research.

 

[Galliardist]

It's solved! It's a choice based on personal preference. Simple.

Thread still going because once in a while people find the it and cannot grok that. They assume it is because of perceived superiority of the format, dismissing the fact that we all are in ASR and know stuff. They want people to drop vinyl because they don't agree that personal preference is reason enough.

OK, let’s turn the stat I pulled from that paper on its head. 51% of respondents agreed that vinyl does bring the best sound quality, and 34% sad they didn’t know.

I think is valid to ask whether at least some of that 85% may be expressing an ill-informed preference?

 

[antcollinet]

OK, let’s turn the stat I pulled from that paper on its head. 51% of respondents agreed that vinyl does bring the best sound quality, and 34% sad they didn’t know.

I think is valid to ask whether at least some of that 85% may be expressing an ill-informed preference?

I'd suggest the don't knows are also don't cares. They are not in it specifically for the music quality.

For the 51% - could be ill informed - or probably for many or most the expectation of sound quality is just one small part of the preference - the rest being all the reasons people have (repeatedly, over and over and over again) given over the last... *looks* ...393 pages.

 

[HammersRocco]

I think is valid to ask whether at least some of that 85% may be expressing an ill-informed preference?

Of course - read again. I stated it was a preference, based on their biases. I did not say it was well informed, in fact or that it had to be. Or it can be well informed as in my case. Given that is a preference it doesn't matter.

That some people cannot accept that digital is the measurably better performing platform does not make me to want to drop vinyl. As I am sure the luxury and sports cars owners in the group won't drop them because I consider them stupidly impractical.

YO DO YOU! (Again )

[ Edit: Or in other words, just because I don't care they are wrong, doesn't mean I believe they are right. Well, sometimes I care... I have even tried to correct them and have them defend the experience, NOT the sound, ASRer in the end...]

 

[Galliardist]

I'd suggest the don't knows are also don't cares. They are not in it specifically for the music quality.

For the 51% - could be ill informed - or probably for many or most the expectation of sound quality is just one small part of the preference - the rest being all the reasons people have (repeatedly, over and over and over again) given over the last... *looks* ...393 pages.

If the preference is ill informed on one count, it may well be on others, including most of the other things that have indeed been raised over the last 393 pages.

I'm asking this as a question. I don't have the answer. And it is not meant as a personal slight on anyone here. In fact I've found when addressing newcomers here asking about how to get decent sound from vinyl or wanting it to include it in their first setup, that there is often something else behind that, for example an inherited or donated collection they want to continue playing.

But let's face it, there are plenty writing in magazines and working in hi fi stores that are absolutely pushing the idea that vinyl sound is superior, that you have to have ultra expensive equipment to play back vinyl properly, that you have to start with vinyl and then do the ultra expensive upgrade treadmill, buy all the other unusual items, and that every step along the way you will hit those revelatory moments of veil-lifting magic.

Well, smack me in the face if that isn't exactly the argument that ASR regulars go in for so hard with equipment... but vinyl is suddenly a "preference" and supposedly fine. It's still expensive and inferior, and people who prefer the high fidelity enterprise and an objective standard have a right for our views to also be respected in these parts.

Ultimately, the vinyl superiority lie sits at the heart of the industry. It's the first one that many newcomers to audio fidelity run into, and it appears to be the first that many believe. It's also the hardest to combat, because unlike cables and million dollar DACs and magic tubes and the rest, there are all those other valid reasons to have vinyl playback. It's also a myth that makes more sense to outsiders. And anyone who swallows that one is cued up for other things that "we can't measure", now ripe for magic cables, quantum fuses, resonators, special ethernet switches to make their digital playback a bit less inferior, and who knows what after that?

So... the expectation of sound quality even as "just one small part of the preference" is still enough that you should not be surprised when it is called out by someone here.

Of course - read again. I stated it was a preference, based on their biases. I did not say it was well informed, in fact or that it had to be. Or it can be well informed as in my case. Given that is a preference it doesn't matter.

If it's your preference... fine. Maybe try being a bit more confident in your preference and take a comment like the one I made a bit less personally.

However, preference does matter.

Another central myth from the audio media is that preferred sound equates to objectively superior sound, more generally: hence because cable x or ethernet switch y caused a subjective shift in reviewer or potential buyer z's listening on a particular day, it must be because of cryogenic treatment or the audiophile fuse or some reduction in a special unmeasureable form of RFI (or indeed, a particular EQ treatment of the sound, or some other distortion of a type welcomed or allowed by quite a lot of ASR "objectivists" - why don't I add a few more enemies here while I'm at it?).

The problem isn't preference as such - but the ease with which too many people take that next step.

 

[antcollinet]

So... the expectation of sound quality even as "just one small part of the preference" is still enough that you should not be surprised when it is called out by someone here.

I'm not, and I care little. But please don't feel you have to call out the vast majority of users here who are under no illusions.

I spin vinyl for many reasons (basically it is just fun) other than superior sound quality. In fact one of the things I enjoy is how good it can sound in spite of the known technical disadvantages.

Even so - if I encounter someone who is convinced of the superiority of sound I'll try to gently disabuse them of that.

 

[Robin L]

I just checked one outlet - Presto Music. They have 1,721 “classical” LP releases available, that being probably a largish subset of releases from the last few years. There are a lot of new recordings among the first few pages of items.

Something is going on there.

Also, the same seller has around 20000 jazz vinyl releases, another music form missing in that paper’s analysis.

That ratio seems to hold among commercial recordings of classical and jazz by broad category: suggesting that there is a strong revival in the classical music market, just that that market is smaller overall, though what I’ve looked at here is hardly in depth research.

I just checked their website. Those "Classical" titles include "Guardians of the Galaxy" and Jeff Beck's "Wired". Also, there are many older productions (such as Herbert von Karajan's 1960's Beethoven Symphony cycle) as part of the mix. As early as page two, we have the Karl Bohm/VPO recording of Beethoven's Pastorale. Wonderful, but nothing like a new production. Doubtless new transfers (with digital intermasters), but still older productions that collectors shouldn't have much trouble finding in their original incarnations, if they're willing to look. There are also a lot of titles marked "coming soon", meaning they're stuck in the pipeline, blocked (no doubt) by Taylor Swift LPs in seven different colors of vinyl. I'm not about to look at the whole list, but 1700 + "Classical" releases is not only optimistic, it isn't true either.

As regards Jazz, that genre has always been highly collectible in the LP format as long as I can remember. Reminds me of the recent reissue of Thomas Pynchon's 1966 "novel" "The Crying of Lot 49" as a hardback edition, just so people can own a copy with the original cover. Not a perfect reproduction, the back of the jacket has blurbs for "49", the type and font inside is different and clearly computer generated, and the binding is just glue, no stitching. Even though Blue Note LPs were far from state of the art sonically, they have long been held as a signifier of high-end audio. Many collectible Jazz LPs are less than stellar sonically, clearly nostalgia is a big selling point for the new vinyl incarnations.

 

[krabapple]

It's solved! It's a choice based on personal preference. Simple.

But wait...wasn't that very solution proposed almost immediately? And yet there's 400 more pages.

Surely it can't be the right solution, given this?

No, I think this mystery must be very profound indeed, my friend. It might need another hundred pages of lengthy, verbose posts to even begin to answer.

Carry on. I'll check back in another few months.

 

[MattHooper]

As this thread has detailed, people come to vinyl for a wide variety of reasons.

There are certainly a number of themes one can find among those reasons. And so it is interesting too try to identify various commonalties.

But attempts to reduce it to just one or two reasons, like nostalgia or hipsterism or whatever, results in a superficial and lazy analysis.

 

[HammersRocco]

I just checked their website. Those "Classical" titles include "Guardians of the Galaxy" and Jeff Beck's "Wired". Also, there are many older productions (such as Herbert von Karajan's 1960's Beethoven Symphony cycle) as part of the mix. As early as page two, we have the Karl Bohm/VPO recording of Beethoven's Pastorale. Wonderful, but nothing like a new production. Doubtless new transfers (with digital intermasters), but still older productions that collectors shouldn't have much trouble finding in their original incarnations, if they're willing to look. There are also a lot of titles marked "coming soon", meaning they're stuck in the pipeline, blocked (no doubt) by Taylor Swift LPs in seven different colors of vinyl. I'm not about to look at the whole list, but 1700 + "Classical" releases is not only optimistic, it isn't true either.

As regards Jazz, that genre has always been highly collectible in the LP format as long as I can remember. Reminds me of the recent reissue of Thomas Pynchon's 1966 "novel" "The Crying of Lot 49" as a hardback edition, just so people can own a copy with the original cover. Not a perfect reproduction, the back of the jacket has blurbs for "49", the type and font inside is different and clearly computer generated, and the binding is just glue, no stitching. Even though Blue Note LPs were far from state of the art sonically, they have long been held as a signifier of high-end audio. Many collectible Jazz LPs are less than stellar sonically, clearly nostalgia is a big selling point for the new vinyl incarnations.

1.- Classical vinyl is what it is. It is not, however, my preferred format for Classical Music. Even this vinyl aficionado recommends CDs for Classical Music for those into physical media. I would be careful to use "doubtless" this or that before or without doing full research, so watch out. Some series like The Original Source by DG are exactly what is expected.. Analog transfers, nice analog sound, WHEN AND IF you get a good pressing! (you see, I know the issues with vinyl)

2.- Do not quite understand the issue with the quality of sonics in older releases. True or not true that they are overrated re: the sonics, both sides contend that "we are only in it for the music" so, in the end, what does it matter? Many Blue Note releases hold a high place in recorded music history because of their artistic achievement.

I always throw this gauntlet to subjective audiophiles who claim they do what they do in the service of music. You like Classical Music ? You like Beethoven? Well, what about this:

BEETHOVEN: Symphony No. 9 (Weingartner) (1935) - 8.110863 | Discover more releases from Naxos Historical

Conveniently buy, stream or download at Naxos anytime. Add 8.110863 from Naxos Historical to your classical music collection today.

www.naxos.com

Weintgartner's Beethoven can be obtained from 1935 recordings and boy, do they sound like it. And they are some of the best Beethoven interpretations in recorded history IMHO (and there is also some critical consensus, of course) by a legit conducting giant, trained in the tradition, master composer and Mahler successor in Wien. ( note aside, I do wish Mahler had lived a little longer and we could have gotten some recordings. He was also one of the best conductors in history according to critical consensus of the time)

The most common comment is "I can't take these old recordings; I can't take the sound" . I KNOW I KNOW I am getting into "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy territory. I KNOW. Yet I think this means something. That said, I want to ask: how many here appreciate these kinds of recordings? Are we here in ASR more willing to be in it "just for the music" than subjective audiophiles?

I do want to get back to the idea of personal preference. I probably have no right to call out people on this either. Nor does my appreciation of the vinyl experience jives with "only for the music" idea!

But no one is one thing and I assure you that most of my daily listening does happen in the digital realm. Because, after all, I am an ASRer. And again, IMHO, there is no better format for Classical Music than CD or even streaming, except that you don't get those nice booklets common in Classical Music releases. And now that I think about it, probably for Jazz too... and... and... and...

Accepting that no one is one thing and that NOT everything you do is the product of a deep intellect (be it your hate, disdain or love of vinyl) is key to closing this thread. Sometimes you just like something.

 

[Robin L]

1.- Classical vinyl is what it is.

Whatever it may be, it isn't Jeff Beck's "Wired" A fine release, but not "Classical Music", even if the producer is George Martin, who has produced more than a few "Classical" releases (including "Songs for Swinging Sellers")

2.- Do not quite understand the issue with the quality of sonics in older releases. True or not true that they are overrated re: the sonics, both sides contend that "we are only in it for the music" so, in the end, what does it matter? Many Blue Note releases hold a high place in recorded music history because of their artistic achievement.

But they still show up all the time in Absolute Sound and Stereophile as exemplars of sonic quality, thus my reaction.

I always throw this gauntlet to subjective audiophiles who claim they do what they do in the service of music. You like Classical Music ? You like Beethoven? Well, what about this:

BEETHOVEN: Symphony No. 9 (Weingartner) (1935) - 8.110863 | Discover more releases from Naxos Historical

Conveniently buy, stream or download at Naxos anytime. Add 8.110863 from Naxos Historical to your classical music collection today.

www.naxos.com

Weintgartner's Beethoven can be obtained from 1935 recordings and boy, do they sound like it. And they are some of the best Beethoven interpretations in recorded history IMHO (and there is also some critical consensus, of course) by a legit conducting giant, trained in the tradition, master composer and Mahler successor in Wien. ( note aside, I do wish Mahler had lived a little longer and we could have gotten some recordings. He was also one of the best conductors in history according to critical consensus of the time)

The most common comment is "I can't take these old recordings; I can't take the sound" . I KNOW I KNOW I am getting into "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy territory. I KNOW. Yet I think this means something. That said, I want to ask: how many here appreciate these kinds of recordings? Are we here in ASR more willing to be in it "just for the music" than subjective audiophiles?

Preaching to the choir. Although I have yet to hear Weingartner's Beethoven, I have the Artur Schnabel Beethoven recordings (both the piano sonatas on Warner Classics and the very close to complete edition of his recordings of Beethoven on Naxos) the Busch Quartet recordings on Warner Classics and a few electrifying Mengleberg recordings from the late 1920s. Not to mention the Louis Armstrong Hot Fives and Sevens and the first recordings of the Carter Family, both from the 1920s. All on CDs, all more or less cleaned up. The Billie Holiday set of all of her 78 sides for Columbia (and related labels) on Sony might be a little too cleaned up. I've got no problem enjoying them, but I'd never confuse them with SOTA sound.

Here's a halfway decent sounding transfer of Weingartner's Eroica, from a 1950's LP collection of the Nine Symphonies:

Complete Symphonies Of Beethoven : Felix Weingartner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Tracklist: Disc 1: 1. Symphony No. 1 In C Major, Op. 21 - I - Adagio Molto; Allegro Con Brio 2. Symphony No. 1 In C Major, Op. 21 - II - Andante Cantabile...

archive.org