Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[Jaxjax]

5k for a record player is a shit ton. Oh sure, you can spend more. 5k for speakers is a shit ton, but at least there's a chance of getting your money's worth.

I'm a total speaker 1st type regardless of $ but finely crafted TT's cost $ especially bought new. If I had the income I would go much,much deeper then 5k on a TT. There like hotrods or older formula 1 cars to me. The new formula 1 cars are better in every measurable way imaginable but are they better.?
Not a chance & most F1 nuts would agree.

 

[beefkabob]

I'm a total speaker 1st type regardless of $ but finely crafted TT's cost $ especially bought new. If I had the income I would go much,much deeper then 5k on a TT. There like hotrods or older formula 1 cars to me. The new formula 1 cars are better in every measurable way imaginable but are they better.?
Not a chance & most F1 nuts would agree.

You have swallowed the bait, hook, like, and sinker. Your choice of metaphors are straight out of the mouths of snake oil salesmen.

You're not getting a hotrod of older Formula 1 car. You're getting a bowl full of bullshit and a moped. Sure, mopeds are fun to ride, but you don't want to take one on the freeway or brag to your friends about riding one. And $5k on a moped? You got ripped off since you can get a decent bike for $5k. Mopeds should be bought off cragislist for a few hundies. And a bowl full bullshit is free.

 

[Frgirard]

I was in a record store today which was quite crowded and it didn't seem to me that the people buying records were particularly concerned with anything mentioned in this long thread. They ranged in age from about 10 years old to 90 years old and their musical tastes and motivations and shopping styles were as varied as their age range. To me the only thing they seemed to have in common was that they enjoyed listening to and collecting recorded music and find the experience of physically searching for it in a store to be part of the fun. I don't think it is any more complicated than that.

then they will line up in front of the Apple store to buy the iPhone 346 megamax....

 

[Leporello]

?? That's making the same point.

It is not the same point at all.

 

[MattHooper]

It is not the same point at all.

It‘s clearly not. You’re repurposing his point to bolster yours.

Wha?

He's literally making the same point!

From the post I quoted:

"You can say how much better digital is and I won't argue that its better. I argue that its not better enough. "

From the post you quoted:

"If digital were really that much better there would be no discussion about cartridges, tonearms, turntables, cartridge setup and most of all discussions like this one! It would be moot."

His argument is consistent: he will agree digital is better, but argues it doesn't seem to be THAT MUCH better sonically such that it has, or will wipe out records.
In other words, vinyl, while maybe not as "good" overall as digital, still produces competitive-enough sound to keep vinyl viable for many listeners.

I don't know what in the world you guys are seeing as "not the same point."

And BTW, I'm not trying to bolster my point - I don't necessarily agree with Atmosphere's take exactly - I'm just trying to understand it.

Remember, Leporello's complained that when it came to a preference for vinyl, those who prefer vinyl keep appealing to some "mystery" as to why this is so that "has to be kept alive." I said I didn't see that this thread had been filled with such claims, and all sorts of very specific propositions have been put forth as to why people like vinyl. It hasn't been a "mystery." So I wondered who he was referencing, and wondered if it was perhaps Atmosphere's posts.

And Atmosphere, as far as I've seen, hasn't been appealing to mere mystery in regards to vinyl. In fact he's often made technical claims - e.g. about the nature of pops and ticks, the SNR, the dynamic range etc. He's been appealing to his own technical hands on cutting vinyl. He's not just waving his hands and saying "it's all a big mystery.'

One can of course disagree with and challenge his technical claims, either about vinyl or digital (I would challenge his characterisation about digital especially). But he has NOT as far as I can see been appealing to a "mystery" of the sort described by Leporello.

Which still leaves me assuming it's a strawman complaint in regards to this thread, unless someone can actually demonstrate this "appeal to mystery" HAS played a significant part in people posting about vinyl in the thread.

 

[atmasphere]

Increased sales of vinyl has nothing to do with its technical (or lack of) merits.

Again, if the succeeding technology is able to eclipse the prior art, the prior art disappears. IMO your statement is false.

Partially because of clever marketing of the music industry to sell us their same music once more. Appealing to retro coolness and spreading false / incomplete technical info on the sound despite being technical inferior.

When I walk into any record store in town (apparently including Target and Barnes and Noble) there's nothing like that- just the LPs themselves. No marketing, other than posters about a particular release or artist. If the industry is really doing that they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

 

[antcollinet]

Again, if the succeeding technology is able to eclipse the prior art, the prior art disappears. IMO your statement is false.



When I walk into any record store in town (apparently including Target and Barnes and Noble) there's nothing like that- just the LPs themselves. No marketing, other than posters about a particular release or artist. If the industry is really doing that they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

You are making the mistake in assuming that the people who are currently buying and using vinyl actually care about the relative technical merits of the two formats compared with other aspects they might be getting from the experience.

See also tube amps compared with solid state.

Modern vehicles compared with classic cars - or even horse drawn carriages.

Quartz (or radio) timed watches compared with mechanical.

I could go on with many many more examples.

 

[levimax]

Again, if the succeeding technology is able to eclipse the prior art, the prior art disappears. IMO your statement is false.



When I walk into any record store in town (apparently including Target and Barnes and Noble) there's nothing like that- just the LPs themselves. No marketing, other than posters about a particular release or artist. If the industry is really doing that they're doing a pretty poor job of it.

The vinyl "renaissance" started as a grass roots movement from "audiophiles" looking for something that sounded "better / different" than the latest digital remaster and collectors and small independent used record stores. It has grown since then for a lot of reasons but it is unusual in that it started independent of any coordinated marketing by large record companies or media companies. In a market category where people pay thousands of dollars for cables or worry about the difference between SINAD of 80dB vs 120dB at least vinyl delivers in that in many cases it does indeed sound measurably different to a degree that people can actually reliably hear a difference. Add in the physical, historical, artistic, and emotional attachment to the artist attributes and the vinyl renaissance starts to make sense. Evaluated with technical measurement metrics or cost benefits analysis it will never make sense.

 

[JP]

Wha?

He's literally making the same point!

From the post I quoted:

"You can say how much better digital is and I won't argue that its better. I argue that its not better enough. "

From the post you quoted:

"If digital were really that much better there would be no discussion about cartridges, tonearms, turntables, cartridge setup and most of all discussions like this one! It would be moot."

His argument is consistent: he will agree digital is better, but argues it doesn't seem to be THAT MUCH better sonically such that it has, or will wipe out records.
In other words, vinyl, while maybe not as "good" overall as digital, still produces competitive-enough sound to keep vinyl viable for many listeners.

I don't know what in the world you guys are seeing as "not the same point."

And BTW, I'm not trying to bolster my point - I don't necessarily agree with Atmosphere's take exactly - I'm just trying to understand it.

Remember, Leporello's complained that when it came to a preference for vinyl, those who prefer vinyl keep appealing to some "mystery" as to why this is so that "has to be kept alive." I said I didn't see that this thread had been filled with such claims, and all sorts of very specific propositions have been put forth as to why people like vinyl. It hasn't been a "mystery." So I wondered who he was referencing, and wondered if it was perhaps Atmosphere's posts.

And Atmosphere, as far as I've seen, hasn't been appealing to mere mystery in regards to vinyl. In fact he's often made technical claims - e.g. about the nature of pops and ticks, the SNR, the dynamic range etc. He's been appealing to his own technical hands on cutting vinyl. He's not just waving his hands and saying "it's all a big mystery.'

One can of course disagree with and challenge his technical claims, either about vinyl or digital (I would challenge his characterisation about digital especially). But he has NOT as far as I can see been appealing to a "mystery" of the sort described by Leporello.

Which still leaves me assuming it's a strawman complaint in regards to this thread, unless someone can actually demonstrate this "appeal to mystery" HAS played a significant part in people posting about vinyl in the thread.

In cherry picking quotes out of context you forgot about this gem (emphasis mine):

"That's not happened with the LP- yet. So we know (whether we like it or not) the existing art needs improvement. You can make the argument that people prefer distortion.. and other such nonsense. Sheesh! The pragmatic individual will look at the bigger picture and see its really obvious the digital still has some homework to do."

The underlined portion is his point. I'm sure you'll try to write 10,000 words on how that is actually the same point you're making. It isn't.

 

[Frgirard]

+1
The vinyl "renaissance" started as a grass roots movement from "audiophiles" looking for something that sounded "better / different" than the latest digital remaster and collectors and small independent used record stores. It has grown since then for a lot of reasons but it is unusual in that it started independent of any coordinated marketing by large record companies or media companies. In a market category where people pay thousands of dollars for cables or worry about the difference between SINAD of 80dB vs 120dB at least vinyl delivers in that in many cases it does indeed sound measurably different to a degree that people can actually reliably hear a difference. Add in the physical, historical, artistic, and emotional attachment to the artist attributes and the vinyl renaissance starts to make sense. Evaluated with technical measurement metrics or cost benefits analysis it will never make sense.

Fantasme. In the audiophile World the vinyle has always existed.
The vinyle has been promoted first by the EDM music and the business has followed.

 

[Robin L]

+1
The vinyl "renaissance" started as a grass roots movement from "audiophiles" looking for something that sounded "better / different" than the latest digital remaster and collectors and small independent used record stores. It has grown since then for a lot of reasons but it is unusual in that it started independent of any coordinated marketing by large record companies or media companies. In a market category where people pay thousands of dollars for cables or worry about the difference between SINAD of 80dB vs 120dB at least vinyl delivers in that in many cases it does indeed sound measurably different to a degree that people can actually reliably hear a difference. Add in the physical, historical, artistic, and emotional attachment to the artist attributes and the vinyl renaissance starts to make sense. Evaluated with technical measurement metrics or cost benefits analysis it will never make sense.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that the "cool factor" of spinning vinyl and the ethos of the indy band/indy record store is what moved the needle. The impact of the "audiophile" community is as nothing compared to the kinds of LPs found in Indy record stores and in the record bins of Target (filling in the space gained by dumping CDs). Those claiming some aspect of better sound through vinyl constitute a very small minority of the LP trade. And that preference is entirely a matter of taste.

 

[Frgirard]

The DJ World, hip hip World had never give up the vinyle.

 

[atmasphere]

You are making the mistake in assuming that the people who are currently buying and using vinyl actually care about the relative technical merits of the two formats compared with other aspects they might be getting from the experience.

See also tube amps compared with solid state.

Modern vehicles compared with classic cars - or even horse drawn carriages.

Quartz (or radio) timed watches compared with mechanical.

I could go on with many many more examples.

No, I'm not- I don't think they care at all. Kids are the main buyers. They just like it, and I suspect there is a reason for that they don't articulate well. Its not audiophiles that are buying LPs (although they buy a few). FWIW tubes is a good example of where the succeeding technology failed to eclipse the prior art (tubes). That's a different conversation, but I think one that is rapidly ending (I'm convinced tubes are on life support at this point).

The vinyl "renaissance" started as a grass roots movement from "audiophiles" looking for something that sounded "better / different" than the latest digital remaster and collectors and small independent used record stores. It has grown since then for a lot of reasons but it is unusual in that it started independent of any coordinated marketing by large record companies or media companies. In a market category where people pay thousands of dollars for cables or worry about the difference between SINAD of 80dB vs 120dB at least vinyl delivers in that in many cases it does indeed sound measurably different to a degree that people can actually reliably hear a difference. Add in the physical, historical, artistic, and emotional attachment to the artist attributes and the vinyl renaissance starts to make sense. Evaluated with technical measurement metrics or cost benefits analysis it will never make sense.

See above. (emphasis added) Sure it does. Again, if the LP were eclipsed by the succeeding technology, it would cease. Gone. Moot. Nada. There'd be no point.
@JP is correct in his post just above.

 

[JP]

See above. (emphasis added) Sure it does. Again, if the LP were eclipsed by the succeeding technology, it would cease. Gone. Moot. Nada. There'd be no point.
@JP is correct in his post just above.

Just to be clear, I'm not agreeing with you, just specifying what your point was.

 

[antcollinet]

No, I'm not- I don't think they care at all. Kids are the main buyers.

So if the buyers don't care at all about the technical merits - how could the "succeeding technology eclipsing the prior art" cause the prior art to cease to exist. You seem to have just contradicted yourself.

 

[Leporello]

His argument is consistent: he will agree digital is better, but argues it doesn't seem to be THAT MUCH better sonically such that it has, or will wipe out records.
In other words, vinyl, while maybe not as "good" overall as digital, still produces competitive-enough sound to keep vinyl viable for many listeners.

Indeed, that is very much part of the mystique. It is an empty but common argument: "if digital is so much better, why do I (or my friends) prefer vinyl"? It is normally used to hint at the possibility that digital has some hidden flaws we have not discovered yet - without any factual support at all. That digital should "wipe out records" is his own purely arbitrary criterium for "that much better". So far he has not provided any reason for others to accept it.

It is easy to see that with this line of thinking vinyl mystique will go on as long there exists even a single person who happens to prefer vinyl. No need for facts since digital clearly is not "that much better".

 

[atmasphere]

So if the buyers don't care at all about the technical merits - how could the "succeeding technology eclipsing the prior art" cause the prior art to cease to exist. You seem to have just contradicted yourself.

Not really. They don't know how it works. All they know is they like to use it because it delivers something that the succeeding tech doesn't. You don't have to know anything about the specs to understand this; your knowledge of the specs might be causing you (IMO) to not understand why this is happening. Try to divorce yourself of the specs for a moment but still be able to acknowledge that the digital specs are better without really understanding them.

It is easy to see that with this line of thinking vinyl mystique will go on as long there exists even a single person who happens to prefer vinyl. No need for facts since digital clearly is not "that much better".

If one person only that isn't a market. The market exists because a lot of people think the LP is cooler than digital (otherwise they wouldn't buy). LPs are harder to store, they are more fragile, require more delicate handling; so why would it be 'cooler'? Personally I have trouble with the idea that all that pain in the rear is what's making it worth it! So I think its something else; if you entertain that possibility then it becomes obvious.

 

[Frgirard]

it gets confusing!

 

[Leporello]

So I think its something else;

Here we go again!

 

[atmasphere]

Here we go again!

No- not again... rather, always the same, never moving from the same old spot.

If as an industry we fail to grasp simple concepts because we make up stories about how things are there will be no progress. Only when you can acknowledge 'what is' can you do anything about it. That is why I used the word 'pragmatic' earlier.