Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[krabapple]

It’s still a damaged record that should have been returned for replacement.

whoosh!

We can also hear when transients are clipped off in digital releases. We already went through that example in this thread with a Rush song - it was obvious the transients were missing in the digital release.

You 'can' hear it if the clipping is bad enough. It's not like you can always hear clipping.

Strictly speaking the same holds for vinyl warping. But a held note will be *very* revealing of even a small amount of warping or off-centeredness. I would guess, if it was possible to compare them, that listeners are more sensitive to a little pitch variation than a little clipping.

Neither, of course, is an inherent flaw of their respective media.

 

[krabapple]

There are plenty of examples where the "content" on the LP is better than later digital versions due usually to the master tapes being damaged during the time between the original LP and the later digital version.

Yes, and if new vinyl production comes from those master tapes...the same still holds.

Another example is that there are thousands of historical recording where the digital version used "records" (78's or LP's) as their source. While the digital versions are most likely indistinguishable from their "record" sources it is certain that the digital versions are not "better".

They can be, if they have been treated to address flaws or damage present in the source 'records'.

 

[Leporello]

The manufacturing consistency is certainly Higher overall, but they won’t last Forever, as some naively seem to believe…

Do they? Most cd fans do realize that nothing lasts forever. Do you believe that those cd fans actually believed that there will not be a single faulty disc among the billions and billions that were manufactured?

 

[rocksteady]

Still using a pair of these (output of one runs into the input of the other [works great for everything from Reel to Reel, cassette decks, (CD's, DVD's Blu Ray, 4k audio) & of course, turntables.


View attachment 457748View attachment 457747View attachment 457749

Hey, that's a top quality Preamplifier! May I ask why do you use Two in tandem? Perhaps to extend the No. of available Inputs? And which Outs do you use, Tape Outs or Pre-outs?

 

[Robin L]

Thats NEW sales not overall sales. I'll bet over 50% of current record sales, along with CDs and some cassettes, aren't recorded transactions. A buddy just bought a collection of 350+ records for 300 dollars at a yard sale. At least 45-50 had never been removed from the original wrapper. LOTS of Tower Records store stickers too.

Streaming numbers are pretty easy or at least more accurate to track. Yes?

The numbers I cited are all for new titles.

 

[krabapple]

Do they? Most cd fans do realize that nothing lasts forever. Do you believe that those cd fans actually believed that there will not be a single faulty disc among the billions and billions that were manufactured?

It's amusing, no? The standard CDs are being held to -- they need to last 'forever' now. And none can ever have manufacturing flaws.

The sound quality of a bog-standard CD remains *literally the same* over its lifetime. A lifetime which so far encompasses 40 years.

For vinyl to match that, its output has to be *exactly the same* at year 0 of play versus year 40 of play, in line with the absurd criteria some vinylphiles are proposing.

 

[krabapple]

The numbers I cited are all for new titles.

Yes, and since when is private selling of collections factored into industry/media sale figures?

The rules are so charmingly different for vinyl!

 

[Robin L]

I remember vinyl quality going southward in second half of the 1970s -- the oil crisis played a role as the cost of petroleum-based ingredients went up. Records were too often flimsier, noisier, warped or off-center than they had been previously. (The music got shittier too ;>)

I remember going to Capitol's pressing plant (I think this one was in Glendale) where they were taking defective David Bowie records, removing the record labels from their centers and grinding them up. Thus; regrind, found in many reissue/budget labels during that golden age of analog sound.

 

[Robin L]

Yes, and since when is private selling of collections factored into industry/media sale figures?

Mind you, the culture of collecting vinyl has a lot to do with the inherent fragility of the medium. There's a limited amount of certain desirable titles, limited even further by how many copies of that title are damaged to the point that they are no longer playable. So there's a sector of the retail market that sells old records for jacked up prices. That didn't happen with CDs as they didn't wear out fast enough.

 

[Robin L]

Another example is that there are thousands of historical recordings where the digital version used "records" (78's or LP's) as their source. While the digital versions are most likely indistinguishable from their "record" sources it is certain that the digital versions are not "better".

How many historical recordings do you listen to? How long have you been listening to historical recordings?

It wasn't until World War II that it was possible to record to tape. The Germans came up with that technology. Reissues of "Historical Material" is, and always has been, all over the map. The odds of getting a decent transfer from 78 source material is much greater with digital formats than with LPs. For example, the most recent CD reissue of Robert Johnson's complete recordings from 2011, "The Centennial Collection", has carefully selected styluses, 24 bit recording and sophisticated digital de-noising. It's the best transfer of this problematic material I've heard, and by a very wide margin. I could point to other digital reissue series, like Warner Classics reissues of Arthur Schnabel or their big box of the Busch Quartet, both featuring the best sound I've heard from recordings that I have listened to many, many times. Knowing how the original 78 sounds like, as I used to collect, them my take is that the kinds of tools we now have for editing, de-noising, adjusting eq make the experience of listening to good digital transfers of historical material better than listening to the originals.

As for transferring recordings from the analog tape era from LPs, that usually happens when the original tape (or some sort of a tape) isn't available (or someone is cooking up some sort of illegal bootleg off of commercial discs). Most Digital transfers of LP era titles come from the original analog tapes, some from remixes of the session tapes or stems. As regards the remixes, it's a matter of taste if one finds the results superior to the originals.

 

[levimax]

How many historical recordings do you listen to? How long have you been listening to historical recordings?

It wasn't until World War II that it was possible to record to tape. The Germans came up with that technology. Reissues of "Historical Material" is, and always has been, all over the map. The odds of getting a decent transfer from 78 source material is much greater with digital formats than with LPs. For example, the most recent CD reissue of Robert Johnson's complete recordings from 2011, "The Centennial Collection", has carefully selected styluses, 24 bit recording and sophisticated digital de-noising. It's the best transfer of this problematic material I've heard, and by a very wide margin. I could point to other digital reissue series, like Warner Classics reissues of Arthur Schnabel or their big box of the Busch Quartet, both featuring the best sound I've heard from recordings that I have listened to many, many times. Knowing how the original 78 sounds like, as I used to collect, them my take is that the kinds of tools we now have for editing, de-noising, adjusting eq make the experience of listening to good digital transfers of historical material better than listening to the originals.

As for transferring recordings from the analog tape from LPs, that usually happens when the original tape (or some sort of a tape) isn't available (or someone is cooking up some sort of illegal bootleg off of commercial discs). Most Digital transfers of LP era titles come from the original analog tapes, some from remixes of the session tapes or stems. As regards the remixes, it's a matter of taste if one finds the results superior to the originals.

If the only available source of historical music is a "record" then a digital copy can never contain "more" or "better" information than is on the "record" the capture was made from. It can be "reprocessed" to remove information (like noise) or even digitally "reconstituted" like some of the Beatles albums. I agree that this technology has advanced from early "no noise" (which to me usually sounds worse than the noise) to a point where some recordings can sound better after be reprocessed/ reconstituted (but they still don't contain more/ better information than the original record). I made my comment as an example in response to a claim that a record can NEVER have better quality content than a digital version. Reprocessing is another issue and is independent of the source.

 

[krabapple]

If the only available source of historical music is a "record" then a digital copy can never contain "more" or "better" information than is on the "record" the capture was made from.
It can be "reprocessed" to remove information (like noise)

In what sense is noise "information"? One might want to preserve it for forensic reasons, but for enjoyment of the 'signal' (as in S/N)...?

 

[RickS]

Not surprisingly, do not see any different content here than on the first few pages of this thread. The OP is gone and maybe it is time for this thread to follow. Will give it some time for those who might like to plea to commute the impending death sentence!

 

[MattHooper]

Not surprisingly, do not see any different content here than on the first few pages of this thread. The OP is gone and maybe it is time for this thread to follow. Will give it some time for those who might like to plea to commute the impending death sentence!

I would certainly plea for a continuing. This is clearly been an ongoing watering hole for people discussing vinyl. Some of it is repetitious, occasionally it does not. Much like everything else in the forum.

I think it’s ongoing survival, and the fact that it is still generating plenty of discussion shows it’s serving a purpose for members here.

I mean from early on in the thread there have been non-vinyl enthusiasts chiming in
“ nothing new here.” Well maybe not of interest to them but clearly of interest to others who are commenting and reading.
There have been plenty of interesting diversions. And there have been ongoing updates on the vinyl revival.

I hope you don’t close the thread down based on what might be your own lack of interest, whereas it has been serving the enthusiasm of other members.

 

[RickS]

I would certainly plea for a continuing. This is clearly been an ongoing watering hole for people discussing vinyl. Some of it is repetitious, occasionally it does not. Much like everything else in the forum.

I think it’s ongoing survival, and the fact that it is still generating plenty of discussion shows it’s serving a purpose for members here.

I mean from early on in the thread there have been non-vinyl enthusiasts chiming in
“ nothing new here.” Well maybe not of interest to them but clearly of interest to others who are commenting and reading.
There have been plenty of interesting diversions. And there have been ongoing updates on the vinyl revival.

I hope you don’t close the thread down based on what might be your own lack of interest, whereas it has been serving the enthusiasm of other members.

Fair point, but it is not the only vinyl thread here and the OP is anti-vinyl. Would not remove the thread.

May be a new thread could summarize this one for vinyl enthusiasts? I recall something of a raw material shortage in the past. Has the state of the technology improved in any way in the last few decades?

I am interested and, if I was not considering its value to other members, would have already closed this thread.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Oh yes it is, absolutely and every single time.

Well you would be provably wrong. You can search this thread to find those examples. You can start by searching for the Rush example, then the Tool example, I could go on but you should get the point by then.

I remember vinyl quality going southward in second half of the 1970s -- the oil crisis played a role as the cost of petroleum-based ingredients went up. Records were too often flimsier, noisier, warped or off-center than they had been previously. (The music got shittier too ;>)

And you think what happened in the 50yrs ago applies to the records of today???

whoosh!

For what? Stating that only you would rip a warped record rather than exchanging it? Then yes, whoosh for me.

You 'can' hear it if the clipping is bad enough. It's not like you can always hear clipping.

Whoosh! Clipping was only 1 example. You can watch this video where mastering engineers describe 3 other artifacts heavy use of limiters introduce into digital recordings:

I would guess, if it was possible to compare them, that listeners are more sensitive to a little pitch variation than a little clipping.

Or you could claim the opposite… All you are doing is guessing - at least you admitted that much.

But I won’t guess, but measure and I don’t call this a little bit of clipping:

Queen of the Stone Ages - Songs for the Deaf on CD:

So ya, I will take a little wooble only noticeable on long sustained notes over the above any day of the week. Maybe you are ok with listening to that, I am not, your preferences are after all your own.

 

[Robin L]

Fair point, but it is not the only vinyl thread here and the OP is anti-vinyl. Would not remove the thread.

May be a new thread could summarize this one for vinyl enthusiasts? I recall something of a raw material shortage in the past. Has the state of the technology improved in any way in the last few decades?

I am interested and, if I was not considering its value to other members, would have already closed this thread.

I was very much involved with LP playback for well over 50 years, have experience in LP retail activity at the peak of vinyl sales and think my presence often offers a reality check. It's not so much being anti-vinyl as being more aware than most about the likely problems. Also, like others here I am interested in keeping a check on any technological improvements that might be happening.

 

[SuicideSquid]

If the only available source of historical music is a "record" then a digital copy can never contain "more" or "better" information than is on the "record" the capture was made from. It can be "reprocessed" to remove information (like noise) or even digitally "reconstituted" like some of the Beatles albums. I agree that this technology has advanced from early "no noise" (which to me usually sounds worse than the noise) to a point where some recordings can sound better after be reprocessed/ reconstituted (but they still don't contain more/ better information than the original record). I made my comment as an example in response to a claim that a record can NEVER have better quality content than a digital version. Reprocessing is another issue and is independent of the source.

While this is technically true, a digital copy can contain the best possible copy of the existing record, which will then cease to degrade, while the original record will continue to degrade over time and will not be reproduceable in a home listening environment at close to the same quality as that digital capture. Very shortly after the capture is made, the digital copy will contain more and better information than is currently listenable on the record from which it was captured.

The above-noted example of Robert Jordan recordings is a good reference - the LP copies you might be able to buy on the used market are already copies of the original 78s which are probably not accessible to you, the modern digital recording of those 78s is done to much higher standards than the copies that were made to 33 in the 60s or 70s, and if you do happen to have an original 78, it's very unlikely to sound as good played back on your turntable as it did in the engineering environment where the transfer to digital to place to produce the "remaster".

[edit] Also, this may be a point of pedantry, but noise is not information. Noise obscures information. That's why we talk about signal and noise, and signal-to-noise ratios. Signal is information, noise is not.

 

[MatrixS2000]

I would certainly plea for a continuing. This is clearly been an ongoing watering hole for people discussing vinyl. Some of it is repetitious, occasionally it does not. Much like everything else in the forum.

I think it’s ongoing survival, and the fact that it is still generating plenty of discussion shows it’s serving a purpose for members here.

I mean from early on in the thread there have been non-vinyl enthusiasts chiming in
“ nothing new here.” Well maybe not of interest to them but clearly of interest to others who are commenting and reading.
There have been plenty of interesting diversions. And there have been ongoing updates on the vinyl revival.

I hope you don’t close the thread down based on what might be your own lack of interest, whereas it has been serving the enthusiasm of other members.

+1

I always wonder why the same handful of people come to this thread only to proclaim that the digital format is better? Well hello, we all know that and none of the “vinyl" guys ever discuss this. We know, we admit to this, we have stated it many times in this very thread. There are other reasons why we still have an analog side and we enjoy that discussion. Whether it be the ritual, the better mastering, or just having a large format physical medium in your hands.

May be a new thread could summarize this one for vinyl enthusiasts?

I think that would just start up a version II of this thread.

Fair point, but it is not the only vinyl thread here

We have more than one thread on many topics, why should this vinyl thread be singled out?

 

[RickS]

I was very much involved with LP playback for well over 50 years, have experience in LP retail activity at the peak of vinyl sales and think my presence often offers a reality check. It's not so much being anti-vinyl as being more aware than most about the likely problems. Also, like others here I am interested in keeping a check on any technological improvements that might be happening.

I have read that some of the vinyl resurgence is due to nostalgia by younger generations. If a new member came to ASR would they be motivated to wade through close to 12,000 posts in this thread? Am not anti-vinyl as much as I am in favor of more productive content presentation.