Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"bob" wrote in message
... On Dec 10, 3:48=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: We can probably agree that 1993, ten years after introduction of CD, represented the low point for vinyl, both in sales and in distribution. After that, it appears we've had four broad patterns: * A sharp rise in sales from 1993 to 1996 representing compound growth of 50% per year. =A0This coincided with the rise of catalog mail-order compa= nies such as Music Direct and Audio Advisor, and the concurrent rise of audiophile vinyl through these specialized distribution channels. * A broad plateau from 1997 until 2000-2001 at 30.0 +/- 10%, while CD sal= es peaked. =A0This most likely reflected a mature audiophile vinyl market. * A substantial decline from 2001 until 2005 at an annual compound rate o= f - 9.7%. =A0This coincided with similar overall decline of the total music m= arket for "hard product" as computer downloading (both illegal and legal) and H= ome Theatre gained prominence. =A0CY2001 was peak sales year for CD's, if I r= ecall (or maybe it was 2000). =A0During this decline bricks and mortar retailer= s (particularly the smaller ones) as well as audio retailers (who also hand= led audiophile recordings) went out of business and bigger chains retrenched = and reduced their floorspace for music. =A0Vinyl being a minority product if = it was distributed at all was among the first to go and the decline in audio retailers definitely hurt audiophile vinyl sales. * An increase since 2005 at a compound annual rate of 41.5% due to....wha= t we are arguing about. No, no, no. You're assuming that the minuscule audiophile market is responsible for any of this. It isn't. Anyone paying attention to the culture over the last two decades could see that the prime mover of the vinyl market was the DJ/dance phenomenon. That's why vinyl sales grew in the 1990s. The availability of digital tools for that market may have contributed to the drought of the past decade. As for the very recent increase (which started in 2007, not 2005, if you're going to use RIAA numbers), if the people buying records at J&R are also buying their turntables at J&R, they aren't audiophiles. While J&R does sell Music Halls, the overwhelming majority of its sales is cheap plastic with USB ports. I'm not knocking it, but it's not audiophile gear by any stretch of the imagination. Bob, you have always asserted that the DJ market was much bigger than the audiophile market, but it is simply your supposition....hardly a proven fact. Nor is my opposite supposition a proven fact...let's just say that that may have been an additional factor I overlooked that worked in approximately the same direction as the audiophile market at a similar time. And nowhere did I say that the people buying records were also buying turntables from J&R....there are a lot of used turntables around, several online outlets for reasonably inexpenseive turntables (in addition to the Music Halls), and lots of hand-me-downs. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... bob wrote: On Dec 10, 6:42=A0am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Dick Pierce" wrote in message And in a few years' time, when the NYT decides to write a story about whether CD is dead yet, she'll be happy to tell that same reporter that it's not, at least not her her store=97and I bet she doesn't even mention vinyl. That doesn't mean anything she says is wrong, and most of what she says sounds pretty plausible to me. But unbiased? Please. bob The NY Times has been reporting the imminent comeback of vinyl since at least 1994 http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/08/ar...for-vinyl.html We need an experiment -- start selling LPs with just CD-sized cover art. If it's mainly about the sound, sales shouldn't slump much. The NYTimes article coincided with the first years of the rising market of the mid-90's....which was a real (not a fake) boom according to the RIAA numbers Arny published. So you can say that the NYT caught that boom early, can't you. BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but suggests that was not what was at work by 1994....what they quote is the beginning rise of the audiophile LP as I speculated. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: I question the logic. The management of a single retail store or a small retail chain is basically just one small data point. Agreed to the single point, but this does happen to be the largest music retailer in NYC.....not exactly podunk, Iowa. Not exactly proof of a trend or even support for such a claim. You've messed up the attributions; I didn't write what you're replying to above. I didn't mess up any attributions, the quoting is intact. The quoting shows that you weren't the author, which means that you don't have necesarily have a dog in this fight. Later on you argue with my comments about the claim, so you later on have changed your mind. Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in the country. The largest music retailer in the US is iTunes. http://gizmodo.com/375816/apple-conf...-with-four-bil lion-songs-sold "Apple's just confirmed the morning's news on them being the number one music retailer in the US." I have it on good authority that iTunes sells no vinyl. ;-) Something about it being technically impossible to download LPs... This part of the debunking of the claim of relevance of J&R's claims then stands. The largest music store in NYC is the Virgin Music Store on Union Squa http://www.broadwayworld.com/article...Biggest_Sale_i n_Music_Retail_History_Starting_Thursday_at_Times_ Square_Store_20090218 The article says that when Virgin closed down their Times Square Store, their Union Square store became the largest in NTC. No, it doesn't say that at all. Please check the article. In the absence of any meaningful discussion, the claim has to stand. Therefore your claims about J&R are completely falisifed, and there no reason to answer any false suppositions based on the idea that J&R are "The largest music retailer in the US". I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick and mortar stores. And again, it is you made a false claim concerning Virgin. Since you're not explaining yourself, this is just an unsupported assertion. The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument. Of course. I've shown that every once in a while sales of LPs spike up, and then they settle down again. Some people would like to buy some LPs. There is no problem with people liking to buy LPs. The problem is false suppositions based on false claims. IIRC, the claim is that LP sales are up. Clearly, they are. Its all about meaning. LP sales have gone up and down several times in the past, and after they went up, they went down. The title of this thead says something about a "Comeback". When the last place team improves their scores but remains the last place team we don't call it a comeback. We've seen some abuse of the principles of statistics and statistical sources here. Strip the hype away and we see a number that has a long history of going up and down go up again, probably preparatory to going down. In the view of some here, that makes them "vinyl bigots". No, it makes people who base false claims on false data look like they are very passionate, but also wrong. Then you shouldn't call people "vinyl bigots" because they like to buy some LPs. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Since you brought up the issue of "Vinyl bigots", it remains for you to drop it. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message Yes, the largest music retailer in the largest city in the country. The largest music retailer in the US is iTunes. .... This part of the debunking of the claim of relevance of J&R's claims then stands. As I wrote, I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick and mortar stores. The largest music store in NYC is the Virgin Music Store on Union Squa http://www.broadwayworld.com/article...es_Biggest_Sal e_i n_Music_Retail_History_Starting_Thursday_at_Times_ Square_Store_20090218 The article says that when Virgin closed down their Times Square Store, their Union Square store became the largest in NTC. No, it doesn't say that at all. Please check the article. In the absence of any meaningful discussion, the claim has to stand. The article says that the Virgin store in Union Square is now THEIR largest store in NYC, not THE largest store in NYC. Therefore your claims about J&R are completely falisifed, and there no reason to answer any false suppositions based on the idea that J&R are "The largest music retailer in the US". I thought that it was clear that we were discussing brick and mortar stores. And again, it is you made a false claim concerning Virgin. Since you're not explaining yourself, this is just an unsupported assertion. See above. The present thread is, IMV, a very tired argument. Of course. I've shown that every once in a while sales of LPs spike up, and then they settle down again. Some people would like to buy some LPs. There is no problem with people liking to buy LPs. The problem is false suppositions based on false claims. IIRC, the claim is that LP sales are up. Clearly, they are. Its all about meaning. LP sales have gone up and down several times in the past, and after they went up, they went down. And this differs from most other items how? Check in with us when CDs enjoy a similar rise in sales. The title of this thead says something about a "Comeback". When the last place team improves their scores but remains the last place team we don't call it a comeback. In light of the fact that CD sales, the major physical media, are tanking, it's a story. If your argument is with the title of the piece, you could have simply said so and saved some bandwidth. We've seen some abuse of the principles of statistics and statistical sources here. Strip the hype away and we see a number that has a long history of going up and down go up again, probably preparatory to going down. In the view of some here, that makes them "vinyl bigots". No, it makes people who base false claims on false data look like they are very passionate, but also wrong. Then you shouldn't call people "vinyl bigots" because they like to buy some LPs. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Since you brought up the issue of "Vinyl bigots", it remains for you to drop it. The term 'vinyl bigots' is often used by you to describe people who like some LPs. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 10, 10:38=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message Bob, you have always asserted that the DJ market was much bigger than the audiophile market, but it is simply your supposition....hardly a proven fact. =A0Nor is my opposite supposition a proven fact...let's just say th= at that may have been an additional factor I overlooked that worked in approximately the same direction as the audiophile market at a similar ti= me. But at least my explanation fits the data consistently. How is it that the audiophile market grew substantially in the 90s, the went into a long decline, and is only now reviving? That doesn't make a lot of sense. And your tortured explanation focuses (very speculatively) on the supply side. But demand drives supply. My explanation=97that the sales cycle follows the market for electronic dance music=97fits a whole lot better. bob |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 10, 11:34=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but suggests that was not what was at work by 1994. A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the broader culture. bob |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"bob" wrote in message
... On Dec 10, 11:34=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but suggests that was not what was at work by 1994. A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the broader culture. It would help if you could quote a source and/or some statistics in support of this assertion. As for what the NYTimes '94 article said, it said the growth was due to the introduction of new, quality vinyl by companies that specialized in audiophile reproductions....the same assertion I ascribed to the same factor based on the timing of the growth in that distribution. You are the one asserting that something else was at work. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead
of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio and high end vinyl in particular it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desireable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licencing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 11, 12:50=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 11:34=3DA0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but suggests that was not what was at work by 1994. A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the broader culture. It would help if you could quote a source and/or some statistics in suppo= rt of this assertion. Statistics don't exist, which is why you and I can argue about this forever. (Fun, huh?) But see, for example, the paper Scott cited earlier, which looks at this from a historical perspective. BTW, it includes a section entitled, "Dance saves vinyl." Though it should be noted that he doesn't have any reliable statistics, either. As for what the NYTimes '94 article said, it said the growth was due to t= he introduction of new, quality vinyl by companies that specialized in audiophile reproductions....the same assertion I ascribed to the same fac= tor based on the timing of the growth in that distribution. =A0You are the on= e asserting that something else was at work. Then the article is making the same mistake you are, which is ascribing an increase in *demand* to a change in supply. Economics doesn't work that way. Companies expand production because there is demand. Demand does not increase because somebody produces more. The only thing that can explain the cyclical nature of the data is cyclical demand. And I can't think of any reason why audiophile demand for vinyl would be cyclical, to that extent. I'd expect it to be small and stable, and rising moderately over time. I think you can get a clue to its magnitude if you look at the troughs in the shipment data. Overlaying that are periodic trends (fads, if you will) driven by consumers outside the audiophile world. And those trends exceed several-folder the audiophile market itself. bob |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message That begs the question
of why vinyl's sales went up just lately. The most recent relevant technological advance was the under-$200 USB turntable. Think that might be it - people picking up some new media to see what their newly-hyped cheap LP playback hardware actually sounds like? LOL, so they go and buy a crappy USB turntable so that they can then purchase recordings at about twice the price of a CD only to convert it back to digital, yeah right. USB turntables are only bought to convert your old collection to digital. The sales of LPs (in general very good pressings and quite costly) are on the increase for one reason and one reason only. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"bob" wrote in message
... On Dec 11, 12:50 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "bob" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 11:34=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote: BTW, Bob, the article reminds us that the DJ segment perhaps was the sustaining factor for LP's in the late '80's and very early 90's but suggests that was not what was at work by 1994. A 1994 article can't tell us much about trends in the latter half of the 90s, now can it? The term "turntablism" was coined in 1995. That's when the electronic dance music phenomenon started penetrating the broader culture. It would help if you could quote a source and/or some statistics in support of this assertion. Statistics don't exist, which is why you and I can argue about this forever. (Fun, huh?) But see, for example, the paper Scott cited earlier, which looks at this from a historical perspective. BTW, it includes a section entitled, "Dance saves vinyl." Though it should be noted that he doesn't have any reliable statistics, either. My interpretation of that is that sales "at the bottom" were probably due in some part due to disco. I've already conceded that. But other reasons led to the rise, then the fall, then the rise again as I see it and have explained it. As for what the NYTimes '94 article said, it said the growth was due to the introduction of new, quality vinyl by companies that specialized in audiophile reproductions....the same assertion I ascribed to the same factor based on the timing of the growth in that distribution. You are the one asserting that something else was at work. Then the article is making the same mistake you are, which is ascribing an increase in *demand* to a change in supply. Economics doesn't work that way. Companies expand production because there is demand. Demand does not increase because somebody produces more. All you have to do to refute that sentiment is ask yourself "was there demand for Bob Dylan (say, in Iowa) before his first album?". When supply is scarce or nonexistant, and then becomes available, and the product is open to impulse purchase, then, certainly, distribution can lead to increased sales. Marketing 101. In the case of vinyl, many people are probably suprised just to see it appear in the catalog or on the internet, since they haven't been able to see much less buy a vinyl version for years. Even moreso, many are probably greatly surprised if it greets them in the entranceway to Barnes & Noble's Music Department. The only thing that can explain the cyclical nature of the data is cyclical demand. And I can't think of any reason why audiophile demand for vinyl would be cyclical, to that extent. I'd expect it to be small and stable, and rising moderately over time. I think you can get a clue to its magnitude if you look at the troughs in the shipment data. Overlaying that are periodic trends (fads, if you will) driven by consumers outside the audiophile world. And those trends exceed several-folder the audiophile market itself. That is your interpretation....I've given you in detail my explanation, which I think is even more valid, and ties to certain external data points that are pretty solid. You want to see "fads", Arny wants to see "noise"....but nobody has any evidence to suggest that my expanation is somehow in error.....so I'll stay with it. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find. It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to do with dance clubs, but high end audio not so much. and high end vinyl in particular No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of unbelievably cheap USB turntables, some of which even work credibly. They seem to have little or nothing to do with high end vinyl. it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desirable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licensing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. An interesting tale, but again one with little or no supporting hard facts. A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological. I can justify vinyl in those cases where it is available when there are no viable digital transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues don't exactly fit into that niche. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 12, 8:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find. Just gotta know where to look It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to do with dance club= s, but high end audio not so much. There is very real evidence of that. I have actually talked to such people. One can find testimonials of audiophiles who have taken an interest in vinyl after being made aware of it's viability in the past few years because of the residual effects of this current spike in sales. Again, ya gotta know where to look. and high end vinyl in particular No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of unbelievably cheap USB turntables, some of which even work credibly. They seem to have littl= e or nothing to do with high end vinyl. The evidence is there in personal testimonials. Not sure what USB turntables have to do with anything I am talking about. My comments were in regard to vinyl in high end audio. you really need to learn the difference between the actual existance of real evidence and your beliefs about the existance of evidence. They are not the same thing. it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desirable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licensing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. An interesting tale, but again one with little or no supporting hard fact= s. Arny, is this just a post meant to be a demonstration of what you don't know? You might want to consider asking for facts before making declarations about their existance. The facts are there if you just look. But one would have to have at least a passing interest in these things to look. Just ask anyone who had preordered the Doors box set about QC and delays in delivery due to the backlog in pressing records because of this spike in sales. better yet, ask The folks at WB who had to replace a couple thousand defective discs. The delays on that title alone are well documented as are the QC issues that were a direct result of RTI being totally overloaded. Again you can varify this with RTI, the actual pressing plant, if you don't know the facts. A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological. =A0I can justify vin= yl in those cases where it is available when there are no viable digital transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues don't exactly fit into that niche. Anyone who is paying attention to mastering (a key step in the process of making any LP or CD) should have a profound appreciation for the value of having both media (and SACD). The assumption that a title merely need to be released in some digital format to render any and all LP versions obsolete based on the assumption that anything digital will be sonically superior suggests a lack of experience with the variations one can find of any given title due to mastering alone. In many cases these vinyl reissues represent the very best sound available of that title ever. Of course one would have to actually be interested enough to do the homework needed to know about these things in detail. But for those of us who are actually interested in getting the music we love with the best sound possible this is an amazing time. There is a glut of such reissues that have completely raised the bar to unexpected levels of excellence for so many great titles. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Scott" wrote in message
On Dec 12, 8:44=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find. Just gotta know where to look Since you've provided none, they must be eluding you, as well. It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to do with dance club= s, but high end audio not so much. There is very real evidence of that. I have actually talked to such people. One can find testimonials of audiophiles who have taken an interest in vinyl after being made aware of it's viability in the past few years because of the residual effects of this current spike in sales. Again, ya gotta know where to look. The testimonials lack supporting documentation. They could easily be plants by people merchandising equipment. and high end vinyl in particular No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of unbelievably cheap USB turntables, some of which even work credibly. They seem to have littl= e or nothing to do with high end vinyl. The evidence is there in personal testimonials. But those testimonials aren't well-documented and we have no way to know that the people giving testimony aren't shills. Not sure what USB turntables have to do with anything I am talking about. My point, exactly. My comments were in regard to vinyl in high end audio. Only a tiny segement of it. you really need to learn the difference between the actual existance of real evidence and your beliefs about the existance of evidence. They are not the same thing. Given the degree of support that you've provided, you are apparently talking to yourself. it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desirable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licensing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. An interesting tale, but again one with little or no supporting hard fact= s. Arny, is this just a post meant to be a demonstration of what you don't know? What my post is demonstrating is the lack of reliable documentation. So far, you've provided hearsay at best. You might want to consider asking for facts before making declarations about their existance. I was asking for facts, and look what I get! The facts are there if you just look. If they are so easy to find, why haven't you documented them? But one would have to have at least a passing interest in these things to look. Just ask anyone who had preordered the Doors box set about QC and delays in delivery due to the backlog in pressing records because of this spike in sales. Probably mere incompetence. better yet, ask The folks at WB who had to replace a couple thousand defective discs. Documentation? Google searching comes up empty. The delays on that title alone are well documented as are the QC issues that were a direct result of RTI being totally overloaded. Again you can varify this with RTI, the actual pressing plant, if you don't know the facts. If the docmentation is so easy to find, why can't google find it? A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological. =A0I can justify vin= yl in those cases where it is available when there are no viable digital transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues don't exactly fit into that niche. Anyone who is paying attention to mastering (a key step in the process of making any LP or CD) should have a profound appreciation for the value of having both media (and SACD). Only the digital formats can possibly be accurate enough to the artist's intentions to be interesting to serious listeners. The assumption that a title merely need to be released in some digital format to render any and all LP versions obsolete based on the assumption that anything digital will be sonically superior There is no assumption that anything digital is necessarily sonically superior. However, if it isn't, then someone didn't do their homework. They had some great tools, and they blew it! |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Scott wrote:
being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio and high end vinyl in particular it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desireable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licencing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrance'...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizzarely the sound-effects market) market. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely **** (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Wonder if it will play out the same way now. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:02:50 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Scott wrote: being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio and high end vinyl in particular it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desireable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licencing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. Perhaps just the 'eternal recurrance'...I am going to guess that long play vinyl quality was higher in the early days of 'stereo' when it was aimed mainly at the classical (and bizzarely the sound-effects market) market. By the 1980s LPs were mass market and vinyl quality was routinely **** (this is memory, not guessing). And so to digital. Wonder if it will play out the same way now. Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I have been paying about $25/LP, $50 for a 45RPM album of two discs. So far I have had only one record that we noisy. I returned it for a replacement. How do they compare with CD? My philosophy over the years has been to get all digital recordings on CD and all analog recordings on LP. Converting a digital recording to LP seems like a waste. The modern LPs of analog recordings sound pretty much the same as the CDs of digital recordings. Maybe my hearing is going, but I can't really tell the difference. OTOH, analog recordings on CD, especially the earliest, don't really sound as good. I can't quite put my finger on the problem. They just don't sound as good to me. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Dec 12, 5:44=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Dec 12, 8:44=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message being that this forum is about high end audio you'd think that instead of arguing about whether or not vinyl sales have spiked in the last couple years or whether or not it constitutes a "come back" we'd be discussing the actual impact this spike has had on high end audio. Just another area where relevant facts are hard to find. Just gotta know where to look Since you've provided none, they must be eluding you, as well. It simply does not follow that I since I have provided none that they must be eluding me. It has been a double edged sword IMO. While it has brought a few new people into the niche of high end audio No real evidence of that. The previous build up had to do with dance club=3D s, but high end audio not so much. There is very real evidence of that. I have actually talked to such people. One can find testimonials of audiophiles who have taken an interest in vinyl after being made aware of it's viability in the past few years because of the residual effects of this current spike in sales. Again, ya gotta know where to look. The testimonials lack supporting documentation. They could easily be plan= ts by people merchandising equipment. The testimonials are actually well documented. Your awareness of that documentation does not affect the reality of that documentation. I'm not sure how you conclude these testimonials can easily be plants when you have yet to see the testimonials. and high end vinyl in particular No real evidence of that. We do see a proliferation of unbelievably cheap USB turntables, some of which even work credibly. They seem to have littl=3D e or nothing to do with high end vinyl. The evidence is there in personal testimonials. But those testimonials aren't well-documented and we have no way to know that the people giving testimony aren't shills. They are well documented. You seem to just be having trouble finding them. I have seen them. I have no trouble telling that these testimonials are not shills. Not sure what USB turntables have to do with anything I am talking about. My point, exactly. OK so we agree that this point was off topic. My comments were in regard to vinyl in high end audio. Only a tiny segement of it. No, they were in regard to just all vinyl being produced in high end audio. you really need to learn the difference between the actual existance of real evidence and your beliefs about the existance of evidence. They are not the same thing. Given the degree of support that you've provided, you are apparently talk= ing to yourself. Nope, I'm talking to you. And anyone else who may be following. it has also affected production of audiophile vinyl in a bad way. QC has been down at times due to the overloaded demands put on various pressing plants. reissues are being delayed due to back logging and there is more crap to sift through in order to find the gems because the majors have decided it's enough just to get the title out there and not do a good job of it. the worst thing of all though is that certain desirable titles are being held back from the labels that do a great job with high quality reissues because the majors are doing those titles themselves or licensing them to other players who wouldn't be in the game were it not for this big upswing. An interesting tale, but again one with little or no supporting hard fact=3D s. Arny, is this just a post meant to be a demonstration of what you don't know? What my post is demonstrating is the lack of reliable documentation. So f= ar, you've provided hearsay at best. No it only demonstrates your unawareness of the documentation. I have made no attempt to provide documentation. So far it has not been asked for. You might want to consider asking for facts before making declarations about their existance. I was asking for facts, and look what I get! You weren't asking for facts. You still haven't asked for any information. The facts are there if you just look. If they are so easy to find, why haven't you documented them? Largely because they are so easy to find. But one would have to have at least a passing interest in these things to look. Just ask anyone who had preordered the Doors box set about QC and delays in delivery due to the backlog in pressing records because of this spike in sales. Probably mere incompetence. "Probably?" Seriously, why would you denigrate the hard working pros at RTI like that without any knowledge of what was going on? I think this kind of wreckless attack on skilled pros is really in bad taste. Who are you to call the folks at RTI incompetent? Apparently guideline 4.8: "Posts that have an offensive tone, that is, use rude, condescending, or tactless language, or that are belittling or denigrating at all, will be considered inflammatory and returned to the author for revision" does not apply to you denigrating the folks at RTI. A shame that is the case. better yet, ask The folks at WB who had to replace a couple thousand defective discs. Documentation? Now that you finally asked... http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ighlight=3Ddo= ors+box+set I strongly suggest reading the content carefully before attacking it. It pretty much offers objective evdidence of everything I have asserted about The Doors box set. OTOH you could actually contact the folks at WB through their forum. http://board.becausesoundmatters.com/ Google searching comes up empty. Guess there is more in this world than can be found in a google search. Like I said, ya gotta know where to look. Or better yet just ask the people who obviously would know. The delays on that title alone are well documented as are the QC issues that were a direct result of RTI being totally overloaded. Again you can varify this with RTI, the actual pressing plant, if you don't know the facts. If the docmentation is so easy to find, why can't google find it? It's easy to find if you know where to look. Or who to ask. A fine example. a couple of my all time favorite albums have been reissued as audiophile LPs. But the company that did them is this outfit called Friday Music. Their work simply sucks. Now those titles are basically out of reach for the great reissue labels like Analog Productions, ORG, Music Matters, Classics, Speaker's Corner or Pure Pleasure, Were it not for this spike I doubt Friday Music would have even jumped into the vinyl reissue business. Vinyl reissues strike me as being very pathological. =3DA0I can justify vin=3D yl in those cases where it is available when there are no viable digital transcriptions of the same work. However vinyl reissues don't exactly fit into that niche. Anyone who is paying attention to mastering (a key step in the process of making any LP or CD) should have a profound appreciation for the value of having both media (and SACD). Only the digital formats can possibly be accurate enough to the artist's intentions to be interesting to serious listeners. Wrong. The assumption that a title merely need to be released in some digital format to render any and all LP versions obsolete based on the assumption that anything digital will be sonically superior There is no assumption that anything digital is necessarily sonically superior. I believe your assertion did rely on such an assumption. However, if it isn't, then someone didn't do their homework. =A0They had some great tools, and they blew it Really? Do tell. Let's start with the Beatles remasters. CNN did an interview witht he mastering engineers that documents their work pretty thouroghly. The mastering engineers have conceded that their efforts fell short of the original vinyl. Please tell us how they didn't do their homework and how they "blew it." What would you have done differently? What homework did they fail to do? After that you can do the same for the Dennis Drake remasters of the Mercury Living Presence catalog. That project is also very well documented. Please tell us how Dennis drake didn't do his homework. Tell us how he "blew it?" Then maybe you can tell us how Rudy Van Gleder blew it with the Blue Note CD reissues and explain how Rudy Van Gleder managed to fail to do his homework. Let's see you apply your assertions to these real world examples. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, Quantity does not guarantee quality. Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and materials problems of vinyl. Compared to digital its going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have higher audible distortion. often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, Non sequitor. It's well known that cutting discs at lower than playing speeds is a potential route to improved quality. If you mean that some discs are cut to play at 45 rpm, then that has serious problems of its own - lack of playing time if the levels are reasonably high and there's anything like realistic deep bass. and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all. Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in the $8 range. If you add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's equal to approximately $56. IOW, all but the most expensive LPs are selling for less than their price, corrected for inflation. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Yes there were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:24:43 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ): In article , Audio Empire wrote: Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I have been paying about $25/LP, $50 for a 45RPM album of two discs. So far I have had only one record that we noisy. I returned it for a replacement. How do they compare with CD? My philosophy over the years has been to get all digital recordings on CD and all analog recordings on LP. Converting a digital recording to LP seems like a waste. CD isn't the panacea that some would have you believe. Has anyone read the obit for Wilma Cozart Fine in the latest TAS? For those who don't know, Ms Fine was the head of the Classical Division at Mercury Records as well as the producer of the all of the "living Presence" recordings, during that company's "golden age" (from about 1954 to about 1965) and was married to the Mercury recording engineer, the legendary C. Robert Fine. In the obit, the author, Harry Pearson, who, apparently knew Ms. Fine very well, repeats what she said to him on the occasion of her transferring her husband's master tapes to CD: Ms. Fine insisted that CD and LP represented two different views of the original analog masters and that neither was a perfect replica, but both told different, but equally valid "truths" about the originals. She would have known if anybody did. She was reputed to have the most analytical pair of ears in the industry and was present when the original tapes were recorded. They must have been very good indeed. Most of the Mercury Living Presence classical recordings are still regarded as among the very best ever made. In fact, most modern, commercial, classical recordings aren't nearly the equal of these fifty-some-year-old marvels. And yes, I don't see any particular reason to transfer digital recordings to LP. Not in this day and time. I have some early digital recordings which were released on LP (simply because the CD wasn't on the market yet) but there is nothing special about them. There is, however, a good reason for re-releasing analog material on CD. Today's autocorrelation software can tell the difference between tape hiss and music and can remove the one without AUDIBLY affecting the other. This can make for some spectacular sounding ADD. Many of these analog performances are priceless and audio tape deteriorates with age - even when carefully stored. So getting them into digital at this time is the right thing to do for preservation sake, if nothing else. Hopefully, the digitization process is done at at least 24-bit, 192 KHz, if not DSD and the transfers are being archivally preserved and stored without any signal processing. We don't want to find ourselves in the future stuck with the signal processing technology of the past, so a straight 24/192 or DSD transfer of the original analog master will insure that any improvements to to signal processing (autocorrelation, drop-out compensation, etc) can be applied to each new remastering of these recordings. The modern LPs of analog recordings sound pretty much the same as the CDs of digital recordings. Maybe my hearing is going, but I can't really tell the difference. OTOH, analog recordings on CD, especially the earliest, don't really sound as good. I can't quite put my finger on the problem. They just don't sound as good to me. I can help you there, I think. The Sony 1600 series A/D converters. They were as lousy as they were ubiquitous. Again, referring back to Ms. Fine's obituary in the January issue of TAS. Apparently, Ms. Fine HATED the Sony 1600 series of converters (1610, 1620, 1630) and decided not to use them for the Mercury transfers to CD. Instead she commissioned one from dCS which allowed her and the Philips crew to work in 24-bits. Also, most early analog to digital transfers were passed through some of the first generation digital autocorrelation software. It wasn't very good. While it did remove the hiss, it also left the transfers sounding gritty and strident. Want to hear an analog-to-digital transfer at its very best? Try some of the JVC XRCD24 re-releases from the RCA and the British Decca catalogs. Symphonic recordings simply don't get any better than this. AudioEmpire |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, Quantity does not guarantee quality. Virgin vinyl usually does, though. Thicker plastic means resistance to warpage - both before and after purchase. Virgin vinyl means quieter surfaces. Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and materials problems of vinyl. Compared to digital its going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have higher audible distortion. None of which is all that important. often times the discs are cut at 45 rpm, Non sequitor. It's well known that cutting discs at lower than playing speeds is a potential route to improved quality. If you mean that some discs are cut to play at 45 rpm, then that has serious problems of its own - lack of playing time if the levels are reasonably high and there's anything like realistic deep bass. Actually, I misspoke myself. What I meant was that often these modern premium LPs are designed to be played-back at 45 RPM. Certainly, some of them could be half-speed mastered. and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all. Less stress on the vinyl. Again, has to do with warpage resistance, mostly. A case could also be made for print through, although with 180 or 200 gram vinyl, I can't imagine that this would even be a consideration Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in the $8 range. Nope. in 1962 a single stereo LP was $4.98 from RCA, Columbia, Mercury, et al. Some classical titles were $5.98. Eventually prices went to around $10, but not in 1962. If you add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's equal to approximately $56. IOW, all but the most expensive LPs are selling for less than their price, corrected for inflation. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Yes there were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today. For many years, there was two-tier pricing for non-budget label LPs. Mono LPs were US$3.98, and stereo versions were a dollar more. Like I said above, some classical titles were $5.98 for stereo. This is, of course, for single disc albums. Multi-disc albums were more. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, Quantity does not guarantee quality. Virgin vinyl usually does, though. Thicker plastic means resistance to warpage - both before and after purchase. The notion that a LP can somehow resist being warped due to poor storage and other environmental and usage conditions by being a little heavier is pretty strange. If a LP is thicker, it just takes a stronger set. Virgin vinyl means quieter surfaces. Most noise on LPs is not due to the material but the process. Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and materials problems of vinyl. Compared to digital its going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have higher audible distortion. None of which is all that important. So you seriously believe that excess audible noise and distortion is "not all that important"? Isn't that the opposite of "High Fidelity"? and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all. Less stress on the vinyl. IOW no reliable evidence, just unsupported speculation that stress in the plastic causes audible problems? Again, has to do with warpage resistance, mostly. Already debunked once. A case could also be made for print through, although with 180 or 200 gram vinyl, I can't imagine that this would even be a consideration There is audible print-through in vinyl, but its all in adjacent grooves on the same side of the LP. Another fable debunked. Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in the $8 range. Nope. in 1962 a single stereo LP was $4.98 from RCA, Columbia, Mercury, et al. I have here a catalog sheet from 1960 that says that the list price of LPs from major producers was $5.98 Many first rate record stores sold LPs for list price. I have another document that says in the 70s, the list price of LPs from major producers went from $7.98 to $8.98. Fill in the blanks - that $4.98 LP is very hard to find. Some classical titles were $5.98. Eventually prices went to around $10, but not in 1962. Apparently, the late 70s, early 80s. If you add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's equal to approximately $56. IOW, all but the most expensive LPs are selling for less than their price, corrected for inflation. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Yes there were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today. For many years, there was two-tier pricing for non-budget label LPs. Mono LPs were US$3.98, and stereo versions were a dollar more. This comment has no dates attached to it. Therefore it has no meaning. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:40:39 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:07:11 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Audio Empire" wrote in message Since it's "resurgence", vinyl has been pretty high quality. I.E. 180, or 200 gram virgin vinyl, Quantity does not guarantee quality. Virgin vinyl usually does, though. Thicker plastic means resistance to warpage - both before and after purchase. The notion that a LP can somehow resist being warped due to poor storage and other environmental and usage conditions by being a little heavier is pretty strange. If a LP is thicker, it just takes a stronger set. True, but it takes more to warp them. Virgin vinyl means quieter surfaces. Most noise on LPs is not due to the material but the process. Partially true. Underfill, as well as pressing at the wrong temperature will cause the vinyl to set-up granular and that will cause increased surface noise, but such discs SHOULD never get shipped (I emphasize the word should, because, often, such discs DID get shipped, in spite of any quality control.). Mixing what the industry called regrind with the virgin vinyl pellets (records that didn't make the cut wrt quality control would have the label area punched out of them to avoid getting paper in with the vinyl and the records were ground-up and the resultant shards of vinyl were used again) and records were pressed from that. This was mostly done with budget labels and pop music albums. RCA Red Seal, Mercury Living Presence, Columbia Masterworks, HMV, Angel, British Decca (London), etc., did not use regrind But RCA Victorla, Vox Turnabout, Seraphim, etc. often did. A virgin vinyl LP could have, when new, a s/n ratio of 58 to 60 dB, but an LP with regrind (depending on the ratio with virgin vinyl) could be as low as 54 dB and still be considered acceptable. Most historical sources (Tremaine, Welch and Reed, et al) will quote an LP s/n ratio average as 56 dB, and that's about right. Besides, you can't beat the basic geometric and materials problems of vinyl. Compared to digital its going to be less reliable, larger, noisier and have higher audible distortion. None of which is all that important. So you seriously believe that excess audible noise and distortion is "not all that important"? Isn't that the opposite of "High Fidelity"? Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. Modern stylus shapes and correct alignment have all but eliminated inner-groove distortion, and other than that, records can sound pretty damn good in my opinion. In fact, lots of music lovers and audio enthusiasts share my opinion. and sometimes they are even pressed on only one side of the disc. I'm unaware of any necessary advantages to that at all. Less stress on the vinyl. IOW no reliable evidence, just unsupported speculation that stress in the plastic causes audible problems? Again, has to do with warpage resistance, mostly. Already debunked once. Not debunked, sir. Merely asserted. A case could also be made for print through, although with 180 or 200 gram vinyl, I can't imagine that this would even be a consideration There is audible print-through in vinyl, but its all in adjacent grooves on the same side of the LP. Another fable debunked. By yet another unsubstantiated assertion. Records are expensive, averaging $30 - $100 for each album. If you go back to say 1962, LPs had a street price in the $8 range. Nope. in 1962 a single stereo LP was $4.98 from RCA, Columbia, Mercury, et al. I have here a catalog sheet from 1960 that says that the list price of LPs from major producers was $5.98 Many first rate record stores sold LPs for list price. I have another document that says in the 70s, the list price of LPs from major producers went from $7.98 to $8.98. Fill in the blanks - that $4.98 LP is very hard to find. Some classical titles were $5.98. Eventually prices went to around $10, but not in 1962. Apparently, the late 70s, early 80s. True enough, but remember, in the 1970's we went through double-digit inflation for a number of years. Between 1970 and 1980, prices on everything more than doubled including the prices of LPs. If you add the effects of inflation from 1962 to 2009, that's equal to approximately $56. IOW, all but the most expensive LPs are selling for less than their price, corrected for inflation. The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Yes there were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today. For many years, there was two-tier pricing for non-budget label LPs. Mono LPs were US$3.98, and stereo versions were a dollar more. This comment has no dates attached to it. Therefore it has no meaning. Well, since stereo records didn't appear, essentially, until 1958, and double inventory stopped about 1970 when they started making "mono compatible" stereo discs, that would be the dates we're discussing. I would have thought that someone with your knowledge of records would have known that. Sorry for any confusion. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:05:35 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Audio Empire" wrote in message The vinyl makers can't afford to make schlock at those prices like they could when the average single-disc stereo LP was $4.98. I never ever remember paying that little for a regular-priced LP. Well, uhm, if they are not "regular priced," then I guess no one would ever remember paying regular price for products that are not regular priced. Yes there were loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs. But even if we take that as a 1962 price, then it would be $35 today. In the classical realm, there was Nonesuch, Angel Melodiya, Seraphim and others that were, for the most part, first- rate pressings of first-rate performances that retailed in the Boston area in the mid-70's for under $5.00. And there was the Musical Heritage Society whose prices were in a similar realm. Much of their catalog was U.S. reissues of European first releases for the same kind of money. For example, the MHS release of Gilberts performances of the Couperin Livre de Clavecin and Chapuis' Bach Organ works were first avilable in this country through MHS, and at half the price of the eventual European releases. I forgot about MHS. I have a number of British Lyrita titles (mostly the music of Gustav Holst and Malcolm Arnold) that were released on Musical Heritage Society and pressed for them by Columbia Special Products division. These discs (in their plain, signature, black and white MHS covers) always were quieter and sounded better than the real Lyrita imports. Certainly not the usual result when comparing U.S. to British pressings of the same title! No, things like Nonesuch and MHS were most assuredly NOT "loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs." I was paying $2 for "loss leaders, blow outs, culls, and cut outs" in the mid 70's. They were a bit cheaper than the premium labels but were generally of high quality. And when I was buying top-of-the-line classical albums in the mid '70's, I don't ever recall paying as much as $10 per disk. Typical price for this sort of classical album was in the realm of $7.98. I'm talking DGG, Phillips, Telefunken, and the like. And I bought a LOT of LPs at that time, living on a worse-than-student budget. I have most of them to this day. As do I. But my comments on LP prices were a rebuke of Arny Kruger's assertion that in 1962, LPs were generally priced at ~$10. Now, to be fair, I didn't buy any of the high-end "audiophile" pressings of the day: to me, most of them were dreadful, musically (a couple of exceptions: Levinson's multi-disk release of the Bach Kunst der Fuge recorded at Yale is one of the more haunting performances of that work, most especially the incomplete Contrapunctus XIV). Probably being older than you, and working in these years, I did buy them. I still have a number of Audiophile discs from Sheffield, Century, and Crystal Clear as well as Telarc - whose LP of the two Holst suites for military band had the greatest bass drum whacks ever cut to vinyl (you can see them on the disc from across the room!). Everybody used that LP for demo purposes. Oddly enough, the CD version of that early SoundStream digital recording never achieved the visceral whack of that bass drum like the LP did. I always thought that CD was supposed to have much better bass than LP, but in spite of the specs, this belief has never borne fruit with any recordings that I have ever bought - even pipe organ and Gary Karr's bass viol always sounded more visceral, more real on LP. So, what is $4.98 in 1976 worth today? Well, it's under $20. Would I pay $20 for an LP of Helmut Walcha doing Bach organ on the Schnitger organ in the Jacobikirke in Hamburg on an LP? Damn straight, since I haven't seen it on CD (best performance of the BWV565 Tocatta and Fugue!) Probably renders the pipe organ better than a CD too. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: As do I. But my comments on LP prices were a rebuke of Arny Kruger's assertion that in 1962, LPs were generally priced at ~$10. As I recall, I bought my first LP as a kid in 1964 for just under $5. I doubt that it was discounted, as it was a new hot record (Meet the Beatles). |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Jenn writes: In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Well I can't stand any pops or clicks in my music, epecially when they occur during quieter moments. It takes me right out of the enjoyment every time. -- David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Jenn wrote:
In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. Were you to qualify that with "...who *still primarily* listen..." I would agree with you. But I, as with all my audiophilic friends, who having listened pretty exclusively to LP's for decades prior to digital introduction, found that being set free from the requirement of "listening around" the LP surface noise was the biggest boon to musical enjoyment yet contrived. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Well, I don't often find "impossible timbres" on digital recordings, but I do have a few. And where such does occur, I would agree with you. I have purchased a few CD's that are so bad that even my beat-up decades old college-days LP copies are preferable. Thankfully that's fairly rare IME. I do, however, always find it curious that some folks are seemingly unable, or simply refuse, to understand how those clicks and pops and other LP surface noises can be, to some of us, similarly destructive to musical enjoyment as "impossible timbres" are to others. Keith Hughes |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Most commercial recordings are not recorded live and are free of distracting noises like coughs. The history of recordings is full of anecdotes about large numbers of takes and careful editing for the purpose of avoiding audible problems that have to be tolerated in a live concert setting. I recall that there are a small number of commercial recordings with audible coughing, but they are rare and the coughs themselves are rare in the small percentage of recordings that have them at all. OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Jenn, that is easily explainable by the well-known fact that you are a musician, and therefore your listening is no doubt heavily weighted towards concern over the music, and not so much the sound quality of the reproduction. IOW due to your training and preferences Jenn, you are more concerned over whether the right notes are played at the right time and with the right intonation. All of those things can be reliably detected by an experienced person, even in a highly degraded sonic environment. To a certain degree, being able to follow a single instrument part in the middle of a large symphony orchestra is a study in extracting useful information from a noisy signal. A little random noise, a few tics and pops, some wow, a little flutter and other audible forms of nonlinear distortion don't get in your way nearly as much as it might for other people with different preferences and orientation. |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
Keith wrote: Jenn wrote: I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Well, I don't often find "impossible timbres" on digital recordings, but I do have a few. And where such does occur, I would agree with you. I have purchased a few CD's that are so bad that even my beat-up decades old college-days LP copies are preferable. Thankfully that's fairly rare IME. I agree that it's fairly rare these days. My point is that, for me, a small amount of vinyl surface noise is far preferable to instruments/voices sounding like they can't actually sound. I do, however, always find it curious that some folks are seemingly unable, or simply refuse, to understand how those clicks and pops and other LP surface noises can be, to some of us, similarly destructive to musical enjoyment as "impossible timbres" are to others. I know that you're not referring to me. I understand that we all own our own listening preferences. Different strokes and all. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:26:50 -0800, Keith wrote
(in article ): Jenn wrote: In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. Were you to qualify that with "...who *still primarily* listen..." I would agree with you. But I, as with all my audiophilic friends, who having listened pretty exclusively to LP's for decades prior to digital introduction, found that being set free from the requirement of "listening around" the LP surface noise was the biggest boon to musical enjoyment yet contrived. While I certainly appreciate the quietness of digital in all it's forms, I also am of the opinion that the surface noise which often (OK, always) accompanies vinyl does not disqualify LPs from being enjoyable sources of music. While I do not primarily listen to LP, I do have good record-playing equipment, thousands of LPs collected since about 1958, and I do listen to them. I also have thousands of CDs, hundreds of 1/2-track 15 ips analog master tapes, lots of DATs, and not a few 78's. I listen to and enjoy all of them. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Well, I don't often find "impossible timbres" on digital recordings, but I do have a few. And where such does occur, I would agree with you. I have purchased a few CD's that are so bad that even my beat-up decades old college-days LP copies are preferable. Thankfully that's fairly rare IME. Same here. But there can be a warmth and realism to the very best of LP and analog tape, that digital seems to lack. I know that the techno-types will pooh-pooh that observation as being the product of distortion, or noise modulation, or whatever, but what causes it doesn't concern me as much as does the listening pleasure I get from the "illusion of reality" that this distortion often makes possible (to MY ears, anyway). I do, however, always find it curious that some folks are seemingly unable, or simply refuse, to understand how those clicks and pops and other LP surface noises can be, to some of us, similarly destructive to musical enjoyment as "impossible timbres" are to others. I can certainly understand it, I'm just glad that I'm not similarly affected. If it bothered me that much. I couldn't listen with great pleasure to live concerts that I've recorded (either via analog or digital), or attended, for that matter. Not a one of them is without the occasional cough, the rustling of a program, a squeeking seat, or a sneeze - usually in the quietest passages. Audio Empire |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded ticks and pops. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it. I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. Most commercial recordings are not recorded live and are free of distracting noises like coughs. Of course. But for the music that I listen to, live performances aren't coming through distracting speakers, for example. The history of recordings is full of anecdotes about large numbers of takes and careful editing for the purpose of avoiding audible problems that have to be tolerated in a live concert setting. I recall that there are a small number of commercial recordings with audible coughing, but they are rare and the coughs themselves are rare in the small percentage of recordings that have them at all. Of course. No argument. OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. I disagree. While most LPs, either new or used, carry tics or pops, many don't. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. I'm afraid that this doesn't make sense. There are t&p on many LPs, and there are coughs at many concerts. Neither noise is desirable, but for me, other aspects of what I'm hearing are far more important. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Your point? Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. Really? I've found that cleaning an LP often removes the noise. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. Sure. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Jenn, that is easily explainable by the well-known fact that you are a musician, and therefore your listening is no doubt heavily weighted towards concern over the music, and not so much the sound quality of the reproduction. Yes, the main concern is always the music. That's why I listen to recordings. IOW due to your training and preferences Jenn, you are more concerned over whether the right notes are played at the right time and with the right intonation. Among many other considerations, yes. All of those things can be reliably detected by an experienced person, even in a highly degraded sonic environment. Yes on the things you listed. Not so much with other important considerations. To a certain degree, being able to follow a single instrument part in the middle of a large symphony orchestra is a study in extracting useful information from a noisy signal. A little random noise, a few tics and pops, some wow, a little flutter and other audible forms of nonlinear distortion don't get in your way nearly as much as it might for other people with different preferences and orientation. I suppose that if one's listening activity is directed toward those things rather than toward the music, you are probably correct. If you're accusing me of concentrating on the music when I listen rather than on various distortions, I'll plead guilty. I'm not the kind of listener that one would want to engage to estimate the flutter measurement of a given recording. And yes, I hear the flutter on recordings. My LP collection contains few piano recordings, for example, for that reason. But realistic sounding voices and instruments on recordings are far more important to me than detecting some other distortions. As you know, I believe that on average, CDs sound better than LPs. But I enjoy the sound on some LPs more than I do on any CD. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded ticks and pops. Not without leaving an audible trace. Deeply imbedded dirt that has been played over several times causes a permanent imprint on the record. Even if you remove the dirt, the imprint remains. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it. Seems like a very passive way to treat a skip. In those rare occasions where I've had skips, I was usually able to use a finely pointed tool to dislodge the piece of crud without actually touching the surface of the record. I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number are. I've heard this story many times. I've asked to listen to the purported "silent" record ,and when I could, there were still audible tics and pops. I've also heard the story that if your player is good enough, surface noise is reduced. What I've found is that if your player is crappy enough or badly adjusted enough the surface noise can be increased. Address the obvious problem, and you still have a LP that has audible noise. It might be exceptionally quiet for a LP, but its basic somewhat noisy nature is still there. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever. Given that digital is so pervasive and readily available, there's no need to torture yourself trying to listen past the inherent noise and distortion in LPs. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded ticks and pops. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it. I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever. It seems to me that those who insist that vinyl cannot be enjoyed because of surface noise must have grown up either indifferent to or ignorant of the requirements for vinyl care. Those have evolved with time, but going all the way back to the '50's and '60's it could be done with just a few simple steps. 1) Never, ever leave a record out of its jacket when not playing. 2) Wipe the record with a dust-cleaning cloth before placing the cartridge in the groove. 3) (After "Last Record Preservative" came along, "lasting" each side of a new record. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a record-loving household headed by a father who had fine record playing gear. When I went to college it was with my own hard-earned and hand-built "hi-fi system" and the records I started accumulating during my senior year of high school and thereafter were always meticulously maintained. The collection includes many of the vinyl "classics" that audiophiles pay premium prices for today. I can still play those records with no real problem with noise. About four years ago I committed my Christmas music to CD, since I usually use it as background music much of the time and this prevents the need to change records while doing other things. I was struck the other day by how fine my favorite music sounded, to the point where I had to stop and listen intently. This is a CD that contains two vinyl offerings (on Capitol) by the Roger Wagner Chorale and a small, mostly brass, orchestra. They were recorded in 1959 and 1962 repectively, and I bought them in '62-'63 during my first gainful employment following business school. I played them a minimum of four times each each holiday season from then on, until as I said, about four years ago. I was listening to the CD for about twenty minutes before it entered my consciousness that there was ANY noise...I simply forgot that I had recorded this disk from vinyl (it was one of five I had placed in the CD/SACD changer days before). That is how clean the records had stayed, and how noise free. And while an illuminating incident, the quietness of the vinyl was not unique....it is typical of my collection. So I think it is unfortunately that those who perhaps did not care carefully of their vinyl years ago put down those who still enjoy it. I had the advantage of a head start, but most vinyl enthusiasts today KNOW how to care for vinyl and do. And reap the benefit of quiet sound. Those who don't want to put fourth the effect or think CD's sound better have that option. But just let those of us who enjoy vinyl (still) alone, please. And don't insist that vinyl is inherently so full of "tics and pops" that it can't be enjoyed. It isn't, and it can be. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said: "Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state." The contradiction of what I said would be: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state. " If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state. Is that what you mean to say? |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". Actually, I didn't exactly contradict that. I said: "Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state." The contradiction of what I said would be: "If the music is live that means that it is being heard in its most perfected state. " If you want to contradict what I said, then you're basically saying that even if a 2 year old attempts to beat out Beethoven's Ninth on his cereal bowl, that would be Beethoven's Ninth in its most highly perfected state. Is that what you mean to say? No, but I think that you know that. The 2 year old beating out the d minor symphony on his cereal bowl is THAT PERFORMANCE of the symphony in its most perfected state. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: snip I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever. It seems to me that those who insist that vinyl cannot be enjoyed because of surface noise must have grown up either indifferent to or ignorant of the requirements for vinyl care. Then you clearly don't get out much. I can't even begin to count the number of LP's that, fresh out of the sleeve and cleaned had tics and pops and audible distortion. In days past I returned *many* LP's, some several times, to get a copy that was fairly noise free. So please, drop the "if you can't enjoy LP's you're indifferent or ignorant" ad hominem nonsense. Those have evolved with time, but going all the way back to the '50's and '60's it could be done with just a few simple steps. 1) Never, ever leave a record out of its jacket when not playing. 2) Wipe the record with a dust-cleaning cloth before placing the cartridge in the groove. 3) (After "Last Record Preservative" came along, "lasting" each side of a new record. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a record-loving household headed by a father who had fine record playing gear. When I went to college it was with my own hard-earned and hand-built "hi-fi system" and the records I started accumulating during my senior year of high school and thereafter were always meticulously maintained. The collection includes many of the vinyl "classics" that audiophiles pay premium prices for today. I can still play those records with no real problem with noise. Nice dodge Harry. No "real problem" eh? The whole point is that for many of us (IME the vast majority of us) those tics, pops, "vinyl rush" or however you want to characterize the various types of vinyl surface noise, noise you clearly don't find disagreeable, nonetheless seriously compromise our listening enjoyment. snip Those who don't want to put fourth the effect or think CD's sound better have that option. If by this you meant "put forth the effort" to play LP's, then I'll plead guilty. The convenience of CD is clearly a bonus. But minor compared to what I feel are the significant sonic advantages. But just let those of us who enjoy vinyl (still) alone, please. Who's saying you can't enjoy vinyl? We're talking about vinyl sales, market, and physical attributes. About "listening around" vinyl noises and whether that impairs ones ability to enjoy the resulting music. How does that harm you? And don't insist that vinyl is inherently so full of "tics and pops" that it can't be enjoyed. It isn't, and it can be. Well, IME, tics and pops ARE endemic to vinyl, all remonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding. And, no one said it "can't be enjoyed", as I'm sure you're aware. It's a matter of degree. I played a couple of LP's just yesterday, and despite the tics and surface noise, I certainly enjoyed the music. When I get the time, I'll transfer them to CD and clean them up, and enjoy them much more. Were they available on CD, I would happily leave those LP's in the "vault". Keith Hughes |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:26:49 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ): "Robert Peirce" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. It is possible to clean your LPs and even to remove deeply imbedded ticks and pops. I had an LP that would actually skip at one point. It did this for years. I finally ran it through a record cleaning machine several times and what I thought might be a defect in the record turned out to be some kind of gunk that had been there as long as I owned it. I won't say all my records are totally silent but a surprising number are. Careful care is required, which most people aren't going to be willing to do, but it is possible. However, in contrast to CDs, if you ever do get a serious tick, pop or scratch, it will be there forever. It seems to me that those who insist that vinyl cannot be enjoyed because of surface noise must have grown up either indifferent to or ignorant of the requirements for vinyl care. Those have evolved with time, but going all the way back to the '50's and '60's it could be done with just a few simple steps. 1) Never, ever leave a record out of its jacket when not playing. 2) Wipe the record with a dust-cleaning cloth before placing the cartridge in the groove. 3) (After "Last Record Preservative" came along, "lasting" each side of a new record. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a record-loving household headed by a father who had fine record playing gear. When I went to college it was with my own hard-earned and hand-built "hi-fi system" and the records I started accumulating during my senior year of high school and thereafter were always meticulously maintained. The collection includes many of the vinyl "classics" that audiophiles pay premium prices for today. I can still play those records with no real problem with noise. Same here. I have one LP, the original cast recording of "My Fair Lady" that I've had since 1956 (when I was 11 years old). I can still play it, it's reasonably quiet (Mono, of course) and still sounds good. I just wonder if, by the time my earliest CDs are 54 years old, there will still be players to play them? I'll bet that were I still around then, there would still be new turntables and arms and cartridges to play this LP with. About four years ago I committed my Christmas music to CD, since I usually use it as background music much of the time and this prevents the need to change records while doing other things. I was struck the other day by how fine my favorite music sounded, to the point where I had to stop and listen intently. This is a CD that contains two vinyl offerings (on Capitol) by the Roger Wagner Chorale and a small, mostly brass, orchestra. They were recorded in 1959 and 1962 repectively, and I bought them in '62-'63 during my first gainful employment following business school. I played them a minimum of four times each each holiday season from then on, until as I said, about four years ago. I was listening to the CD for about twenty minutes before it entered my consciousness that there was ANY noise...I simply forgot that I had recorded this disk from vinyl (it was one of five I had placed in the CD/SACD changer days before). That is how clean the records had stayed, and how noise free. And while an illuminating incident, the quietness of the vinyl was not unique....it is typical of my collection. It is typical of most vinyl-philes' collections, I would bet. So I think it is unfortunately that those who perhaps did not care carefully of their vinyl years ago put down those who still enjoy it. I had the advantage of a head start, but most vinyl enthusiasts today KNOW how to care for vinyl and do. And reap the benefit of quiet sound. I know that I do. Those who don't want to put fourth the effect or think CD's sound better have that option. But just let those of us who enjoy vinyl (still) alone, please. And don't insist that vinyl is inherently so full of "tics and pops" that it can't be enjoyed. It isn't, and it can be. And the best CDs and SACDs are excellent too. They sound different from LPs, but can sound excellent. When possible, I prefer an LP but a CD is enjoyable for it's own sake. I know a number of digital-phobes who think that CD is cold and sterile, lacking in warmth and realism but I think these people are looking at it in the wrong way. CD is very ACCURATE to the signal it's presented with. That signal might be cold and sterile because something in the recording chain made it so. It might be the venue where the recording took place, it might be the imperfect transducers that all microphones are, it might be the way the performance was mixed, etc. All the CD did was accurately capture the imperfections of the recording process. LPs, perhaps because of their inherent distortions, seem to "warm up" that coldness and sterility and complement the errors of the recording process. I don't know, of course, but I do know that I have CDs (for convenience, mostly) made from master analog tapes of which I also have the LP (and some of those said LPs are decades old). What I can tell you is that in MOST cases, the LPs of these performances from the 50's and 60's sound more like real music than do the CD "remasters". It's nothing that I can put my finger on, it's not like one can listen to a comparison and say: "Ah, the LP sounds better because the CD was made from the master tape decades after the record, and the tape has deteriorated." While that's certainly possible, the fact remains that I have some CDs of older master tapes that are astoundingly good. With today's autocorrelation algorithms, drop-out compensation software and other DSP provided enhancements, it should be possible to "repair" all but the most extreme master tape deterioration, so I don't think that tells anywhere near the whole story. |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:22:51 -0800, Jenn wrote
(in article ): In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , Audio Empire wrote: Most people who listen to records learn to "listen around" the surface noise and regard ticks and pops as they would coughs and sneezes and program rustling at a concert. That pretty much tells it all. You're talking about listening to music under technically degraded conditions. Just because the music is live doesn't mean that its being heard in its most perfected state. In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that by modern standards, music heard or recorded live isn't being heard at its best. Thanks for your very interesting reply, Arny. Though you aren't responding to me in the above paragraph, I'd like to chime in. For me, live IS the "most perfected state". I can imagine that if I attended rock concerts, for example, I wouldn't feel the same way about that music. Since rock concerts ARE artificial (in that without the PA system, there would be no concert performance) You simply cannot compare the two. Live unamplified music played in a real space simply IS the standard by which high-fidelity is SUPPOSED to be measured, but most of time it isn't. Most people (who have significant interest in the audio hobby) simply make their systems sound GOOD to them. I recently read, in one of the Hi-Fi rags, someone who put it quite well. This person essentially said that all we have to go by is our own taste in reproduced sound. And that there is really no way for my opinion of what sounds good to be translatable to you. When I say that this sounds "better" than that, what I'm really saying is that this suits my taste more than that does. This person (whose viewpoint I thought to be profound) went on to say that when we say that something is "better " than or provides a "big improvement" over something else, most people attribute that to mean that the improvements heard are quantifiable, when what the speaker (writer) should have said was that " I like the way this (component, recording, whatever) sounds in comparison to that one." In the latter case, it is clear that the improvements heard were that person's OPINION, while in the former, it's not so clear that this "better" was not a quantifiable improvement over something else. In the case of Arny Kruger's above statement, Unless he's talking about rock concerts or jazz or classical concerts where sound reinforcement is used, in my opinion he simply cannot be any more wrong. While there are great variations in the quality of various venues, and often we don't have any control over those, I'd have to say that live unamplified music is music heard at it's best, because IT IS the source. The venue doesn't matter as much as the direct sound of the instruments. To make an analogy, one can enjoy a High-Definition video image of the Grand Canyon. It's beautiful, spectacular and highly stimulating. But if one were to take you out of your living room for an moment and deposit you on a bank overlooking the REAL Grand Canyon, even though the weather might lousy, it could be cloudy, windy, and raining, but STILL, BEING THERE in the presence of that grandeur is a more stimulating experience than is the Hi-Def picture that you were looking at, in SPITE of the conditions being, perhaps, less optimal. Hearing live music is hearing live music, also in spite of the conditions (in this case the venue) being less than optimal. But add sound reinforcement equipment to that equation, and indeed the live concert becomes a case of hearing live music at much less than it's best. In fact, it becomes not hearing live music at all. I hope that's what Arny Kruger is talking about. Most commercial recordings are not recorded live and are free of distracting noises like coughs. Of course. But for the music that I listen to, live performances aren't coming through distracting speakers, for example. I should hope not. In fact I have walked out of concerts where sound reinforcement was being employed. If I walk into a concert environment and see speakers stacked up on either side of the ensemble playing, I turn right around and go back to the box office and demand my money back. I can hear reproduced music at home. That's NOT what I go to live concerts for. The history of recordings is full of anecdotes about large numbers of takes and careful editing for the purpose of avoiding audible problems that have to be tolerated in a live concert setting. I recall that there are a small number of commercial recordings with audible coughing, but they are rare and the coughs themselves are rare in the small percentage of recordings that have them at all. Of course. No argument. OTOH, the chances of listening to a 20-30 minute side of a LP without hearing a tic or a pop is very improbable for a person with anything like normal hearing acuity. I disagree. While most LPs, either new or used, carry tics or pops, many don't. Therefore the idea that tics and pops are somehow comparable to coughs at live concerts is not an accurate general situation. I'm afraid that this doesn't make sense. There are t&p on many LPs, and there are coughs at many concerts. Neither noise is desirable, but for me, other aspects of what I'm hearing are far more important. Well put. That's exactly what I was saying. In fact people go way out of their way to avoid hearing distracting noises, particularly in recordings that are listened to over and over again. Your point? Note that once a little spec of dirt lodges in the groove of a LP, there's a tic or a pop at that point in the recording forever. Really? I've found that cleaning an LP often removes the noise. True especially if the recording is played several times and the spec of dirt lodges into the groove or makes an imprint on the groove. Sure. I very much agree with you. If there is an occasional pop or click, if doesn't bother nearly as much as impossible timbres do. Jenn, that is easily explainable by the well-known fact that you are a musician, and therefore your listening is no doubt heavily weighted towards concern over the music, and not so much the sound quality of the reproduction. Yes, the main concern is always the music. That's why I listen to recordings. IOW due to your training and preferences Jenn, you are more concerned over whether the right notes are played at the right time and with the right intonation. Among many other considerations, yes. All of those things can be reliably detected by an experienced person, even in a highly degraded sonic environment. Yes on the things you listed. Not so much with other important considerations. To a certain degree, being able to follow a single instrument part in the middle of a large symphony orchestra is a study in extracting useful information from a noisy signal. A little random noise, a few tics and pops, some wow, a little flutter and other audible forms of nonlinear distortion don't get in your way nearly as much as it might for other people with different preferences and orientation. I suppose that if one's listening activity is directed toward those things rather than toward the music, you are probably correct. If you're accusing me of concentrating on the music when I listen rather than on various distortions, I'll plead guilty. I'm not the kind of listener that one would want to engage to estimate the flutter measurement of a given recording. And yes, I hear the flutter on recordings. My LP collection contains few piano recordings, for example, for that reason. But realistic sounding voices and instruments on recordings are far more important to me than detecting some other distortions. As you know, I believe that on average, CDs sound better than LPs. But I enjoy the sound on some LPs more than I do on any CD. Quite so. Both are viable sources of music. We must never forget that the recording medium and the equipment exist to SERVE THE MUSIC, not the other way around. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NYTimes article - Stereo Sanctuaries | High End Audio | |||
NYTimes is despicable | Audio Opinions | |||
MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio | |||
MIX featured in "Soul Plane" | Pro Audio |