Analog Revival Means Vinyl Will Outlive CD 800
An anonymous reader writes "In the age of the iPod, an unlikely revival is taking place — kids are turning to 7" vinyl to get their kicks. Sales of 7" singles are apparently through the roof. Bands like the White Stripes are releasing thousands of new singles on the format, and record purchases have risen by over a million units in the last year — back to 1998 levels. NME told CNET: "it's very possible that the CD might become obsolete in an age of download music but the vinyl record will survive,". The article explains how indie kids are drawn to vinyl because "the tactile joy of owning a physical object that represents your attachment to a band is infinitely more enjoyable than entering a credit card number into iTunes.""
Easy.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Even better, you release "blanks" EPROMs that can be burned once (or maybe twice - in case of an error) to integrate with all the online purchasing. (print the label too)
Re:How is that any different... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Return of REAL Cover Art (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately I think their music has been on a steady decline for some time now.
It makes sense to me (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More the death knell of digital physical media (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that the return to records really reflects the lack of excitement of redbook audio CDs as well as the onslaught of silly new disc-based media.
It is possible people are harking back to the olden days when music they bought would actually play on their hi-fi. Redbook CDs are also flawless in this respect, but I suspect the average person on the street doesn't realise that DRM encumbered CDs aren't actually real CDs at all, and therefore the redbook CD format isn't actually to blame at all. (This is the reason I like the idea that Philips won't let any DRM encumbered CD have the official Compact Disc logo. Sadly, I doubt anyone actually looks for it.)
Maybe everyone has their own cutoff point of which was the last "good" format that they want to stick to.
Re:The Return of REAL Cover Art (Score:1, Interesting)
If anything, I'd say "less space forces more creativity".
Late 90s, albums on MMC (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the heady days of the late 1990s, I had one of the first MP3 players among my group of friends. It was a thing called the Pontis MPlayer3 [macnn.com], and used MultiMediaCards for storage.
The two advertised methods for acquiring music were either ripping it on your computer and downloading it to the device (via a serial port -- oh, the pain), or buying albums on pre-flashed, read-only MultiMediaCards. I never saw any in stores, and the format seems to have gone the way of the dodo now, but at the time, Pontis and a few other manufacturers were pushing it hard.
You'd get the usual packaging and liner notes, but instead of a CD you'd just have the chip. It wasn't erasable, so unless you physically broke it, you'd have a backup forever. One of my friends who went to Germany actually bought some albums in this format, although what they were I can't tell you. I'm not sure about what DRM it had, if any; I think it must have been minimal, because the machine wasn't capable of playing back anything besides straight MP3 files. (Heck, it was picky enough about certain types of VBR joint-stereo encoding and ID3 tags.) Perhaps this contributed to the lack of titles I ever saw in the U.S.
I thought this was a neat concept; except that the player was a failure and MMC got nixed in favor of that abomination known as Secure Digital (which the Pontis wouldn't use), I think it could have had a future. As I recall, the format had some sort of cute-ish marketing name, but I can't find it now.
That was also the last time I decided to be an early adopter...
long live the 7" (Score:5, Interesting)
Urggggh... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have audio equipment that cost more than $3000 (purchased in the last 5 years), AND you know how to balance your mm/mc arm, and you go to classical (perhaps Jazz) concerts so you know what the music sounds like, you can ignore this post.
Boring details below.
It is true that as a medium, a LP record (or even a 45) inherently has truer fidelity than a CD. However this means that the records have a truer version of the music than the CD. (Some qualifications, assumes that the origional recording is done in analogue, or at a higher sampling bitrate than a CD. Decent transfer process, etc...)
To go from "Records are better recordings of music than CDs" to "Vinyl has better audio Quality" in the sense of the statement made: (e.g. it sounds better) is a bit of a leap. This leap requires High Fidelity equipment.
High Fidelity Equipment means 1) Good Audio Equipment (Speakers & Amplifier), 1a) Including good isolation for the record player (vibration: Bad), 2) A Good record Player, 2b)A good Mic and (unworn) needle, 2c) Correct wieghting for the playback arm for the needle; 3) An unworn / undamaged record. Some people have this equipment (not many), and the ability to set it up (pay to have it setup) correctly. Most people do not have this equipment.
For example: You will *may* hear better sound from a $250+ Amp with $400+ Speakers and a $250 Turntable/mic. (I'm assuming that amps have gotten much better than they used to be. In any case, you will need a minimum of $1000 in sterio equipment to hear an difference from Vinyl to CD. (True, and fake, audiophiles will say I'm wrong: it costs more.)
The USB Record Player I have seen was about $90. This means you can play records, not in High Fidelity. You need to have High Fidelity to hear the difference between a CD and a Record. Using your computer to play music pretty much rules you out. And what the hell, Ipods have a tactile feel too.
So effectively, the origional post is wrong. Records have the same crap sound as CDs, in most cases. If you can hear the difference between a Record and a CD, probabily your record is damaged or your needle is. Either that or you have a ground loop on your mm/mc that you think sounds nice.
Bite me: I'm Jealous because I used to have a music system where I could hear the difference between a good LP and a good CD (Say DSOTM), now I don't
Re:Vinyl has better audio quality (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with blind tests is that they are done with music people aren't familar with. Take a group of audiophiles and their favorite track and then perform the test, and they'll get it every time.
So does vinyl sound better? Well, better, worse, whatever, are opinions. But here is a fact: A well mastered vinyl pressing will ALWAYS have MORE of the original audio signal than any CD will. A CD samples the original analog signal, where as a record will contain nearly all of it (actually more, with artifacts and what not, but I'd rather have more than less, even if they are "flaws".)
When a track is mastered to a CD, it is sampled. This sampling process uses an algorithm to decide what frequencies are being played simotaenously and then decides which one the human ear has a harder time hearing. The frequency with the least chance of being heard (such as a high hat played over a strong bass line) will be squared out. In cases of extreme compression (low quality mp3), it's all but removed and all you get to hear is that annoying tinny sound you may be familar with when listening to 64k mp3s.
Yes, it's true that the human ear can not hear all frequencies at once well. But these sounds are put together not because we can hear them perfectly, but because they shape and compliment eachother. A mathmatical computer algorithm does not know or care about this and just removes what has a statistical probability to not be noticed. Well it is noticable.
Are you missing out on much by listening to a cd instead of vinyl? No, not really, it's not a huge loss and CDs sound pretty damn good to this audiophile. But vinyl will always have more of the original analog signal. So whether or not they sound better to X person, they still contain more "information than" CDs, Super Audio CDs, or any format on the horizon.
Can everyone tell the difference? No. Does everyone who can tell the difference care? No. Is vinyl convienent? Not compared to CDs or digital audio. Does convience have anything to do with sound quality? No, they are seperate attributes and should be argued seperately.
Re:Probably kills brain cells, too. (Score:3, Interesting)
Its the visuals I get nostalgic for - the artwork on CD's feels really bleh after having grown up with nice big record sleeves to hold. For instance owning both formats of Led Zeppelin albums - I prefer looking at the album cover on the LP's but the CD's are what I'd play. Having said that I still love the artwork on my own bands CD [karmadillo.net] ;-)
My choice would be to have CD's delivered in LP sized cardboard album sleeves - mine all go into a big folder wallet anyway.
The truly geeky way to play/record your vinyl: (Score:3, Interesting)
"It's the warmth of vinyl, man! It's got a richer tone!" -- Trent Lane, Daria, "That Was Then, This Is Dumb."
Re:How is that any different... (Score:3, Interesting)
as pointed out, the big labels sold CD singles for $5ish. 7"s still mostly sell for what they did when i was a young punkrocker. $3-$4. with bands like White Stripes, it is a retro kinda thing. maybe they just like 7"s. in the indie/punk/hardcore scene you will often go to a show and see some band you know virtually nothing about. to buy their 7" for $3 or $4 is not a lot of financial commitment (granted these bands often sell their albums for about $10). you get to hear some of their songs and have supported a band.
Re:Over-romanticised rubbish. (Score:5, Interesting)
Additionally, over the last 15 years, longer albums will be released as double LPs, rather than trying to stretch longer albums into an LP format.
Bad bass? I'm not a huge vinyl fan, but sometimes it's cheaper than the CDs, so when I used to buy albums (instead of just downloading the bittorrents) I would opt for the LP instead. I thought the bass was fine. I'd compare it against the CDs, it sounded approximately the same. I hear what you're saying with bass making the needle jump, but that problem was pretty much fixed around 1965. I can't help but suspect you have no idea what you're talking about.
Not so fast (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically you're proposing to eliminate the whole "blind" out of "double blind". Let's bring back the Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon, shall we?
Unfortunately, the "blind" part is there for a very good reason, which again basically boils down to the Emperor's New Clothes. If you get people thinking they're somehow superior (smarter, audiophile ear, whatever) if they see or hear something, they _will_ convince themselves that they actually see or hear what's not even there at all. There's no limit to the idiocies people will convince themselves that they actually see or hear if their self-esteem depends on it.
E.g., literally, there was a thread on Hardware Central where someone fought to the bitter end with his claim that he hears the subtle sound differences in MP3's based on... the hard drive they're played off. No, really, I'm not making it up. Once he's got it in his head that the recording on a HDD is magnetic, same as on a cassette, and different kinds of analogue cassettes and cassette players had different fluctuations and distortions... nothing could stop him any more from hearing the same different fluctuations and distortions when the same MP3 is played off a Maxtor instead of a Seagate. Any explanations of digital sound, or that an MP3 is played from RAM not directly off the magnetic medium, etc, just went right over his head. He had found such belief that his audiophile ear can spot the differences between a Maxtor and a Seagate, that nothing could snap him out of it any more.
E.g., literally, see people who can testify that a certain audiophile power cord makes their music sounds better. Once you get them in an Emperor's New Clothes scenario, namely that only superior beings (e.g., real audiophiles) can spot the difference... guess what? They want to be superior beings too. They'll believe with all their mind and soul that a $600 power cable actually makes the sound richer and lets them hear more frequencies.
1. A distortion is a distortion is a distortion. If it differs from the original signal, that's that. You can't just hand-wave that differences on an LP are somehow good, while differences on a CD is bad. There is no such thing as one being inherently "more" and the other being inherently "less". Both are just deviation from the original signal, and both can be equally defined as "more" than the original (e.g., hey, the CD too has "more" of certail harmonics due to sampling, even if they are way above the range your ear can hear) or as "less" than the origina (e.g., "more" artefacts means "less" fidelity for LPs too.)
2. There's a reason we gave up on analog stuff, and that's because each step along an analog chain introduces more distortions. E.g., the recording on tape of the original performance, the reading of that performance from tape to make the LP master, the writing on the master, the transfer of the master to the actual pressed LP, etc, all the way to the physical properties of your turntable reading the LP. Add some more mastering steps in between, actually. Each step along that chain introduces more inaccuracies and deviations from the original signal.
By comparison, a digital signal can be copied with exactly 0 (ZERO) further distortions any number of times, because a 1 is always a 1 and a 0 is always a 0. Whatever differences the digitization itself introduced, that's the _only_ distortion in that chain. It can be copied and re-copied a thousand times and it won't lose anything more in the process.
3. Or 2b, if you wish: playing the same CD repeatedly won't make
Re:Sliders (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Anyone else get MP3 fatigue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. I became really interested in music in the 1970s, when vinyl was king, and well remember how horrid the things were. You had to store them just so to avoid warping (more of a problem with albums than singles, though), even though most of them were warped when purchased anyway; good record decks had stroboscopes and arms with little weights and dampers hanging off them at weird angles, all of which had to be adjusted just so or things didn't work properly; they also had to be very flat, so the best ones had sets of little sprit levels that could be centred by adjusting their legs; it was impossible to keep dust out of record grooves, so audiophiles used elabourate wet-tracking systems to float all the crud to the top where it didn't make so much noise; high-end cartridges had ludicrously low outputs that required massive pre-amp gain, and therefore extra electronic noise; the fact that the whole assembly was microphonic meant that it had to be stood on little sets of shock absorbers to avoid picking up audio interference; and those with less than solid floors had better walk carefully lest that arm tracking at 1.1 grammes skip merrily across the surface of the record, damaging both record and stylus.
Then, to add insult to injury, the oil crisis during the 1970s meant that materials were difficult to come by, so the companies recycled old vinyl to make new records. Unfortunately, the fact that the paper labels on the middles of these old records were never centred properly meant that the machines which stamped the middles out left bits of paper that got into the mix, and therefore the records, meaning that paper started coming through the grooves of your new album after a couple of plays. Not only did this make a very horrible noise indeed, but it could also damage the delicate stylus assemblies of the most expensive cartridges, which hadn't been designed to withstand being dragged through a lump of ragged cardboard.
Of course, there are probably people out there who enjoyed the ten minute ritual that was required to extract each record from its sleeve, apply at least three different cleaning systems to it, apply another three cleaning systems to the turntable mat, place the record on the turntable using the special felt record handling thingies that no audiophile would be seen without, set the wet tracker up, adjust the turntable speed using the strobe, raise the arm with a hydraulically-assisted lever, move it carefully over the grooves with a little device like a gun-sight, and then use the hydraulic lever to lower it slowly onto the record surface (no decent record deck worth the name had any automatic facilities -- they were only present on "grockle crap"). I however was not one of them because I wanted to listen to music, not spend hours pissing around with the mechanics of getting it to play, so for me vinyl sucked donkey balls, and I'm willing to bet that it still sucks donkey balls, even though the "nouveau vynel" set say otherwise.
Re:Sliders (Score:2, Interesting)
Nyquist-Shannon (Score:1, Interesting)
However, instead of having the full amplitude, you only have the amplitude you sampled at. Which is going to be less and additionally this will vary around half the real amplitude.
To accurately give the amplitude of the wave, you'd need enough samples to have a good chance of hitting the top (or near enough) and the bottom. 4 samples (six more generally) is needed to get close (higher amplitude means more samples). So you now have a 7kHz wave accurately reproduced.
This is why an LP recording seems to have a better accuracy: put a sliding frequency through both systems and measure the ampllitude accuracy: LP beats 120kHz digital samples, despite an apparent frequency response up to 25kHz. Downside: accuracy with the LP degrades over time and use.
CD's have no fidelity even over 10kHz. However, the inaccuracies are hard to tell with normal music, so it isn't all that easy to tell unless you issue pure tones a lot.
Re:Sliders (Score:1, Interesting)
"sterile sounding" huh.
another audiophile who would fail miserably at an abx test.
a common prank we used to play on audiophiles in university was to take a digital recording from their turntable, then offer them $250 if they could tell the difference between the vinyl and the level-matched digital. never - NOT ONCE could they pass 8 rounds of a/b testing. digital recording is so good it can accurately record all the filth and noise that vinyl playback adds to the original recording.
so if you want to love your cds more, just play it through a computer that can add white/pink/arrogant noise to it, and voila! your 'warmth' will appear through the magic of making the music less audible under a mountain of distortion.
take about luddites.
USB Turntable (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sliders (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a thing with CDs which normally is considered a Good Thing compared to the LP, but some albums are in fact incompatible with this feature. Dark Side of The Moon, for example. When side A ends on the LP, you're in this floating mood after "Great Gig in The Sky" has faded out, and you can digest the music a bit before you turn the record.
With the CD, there is no such pause, and after the song has ended, you're suddenly thrown into "Money"'s massive 7/4 beat without no further warning.
But, of course, it works with most other albums. Or are there any more records that are incompatible with the change from two sides to just one?