[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[bob]

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

[bob]

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

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[bob]

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

[David[_17_]]

"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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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!

[Steven Sullivan]

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

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Robert Peirce]

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.

[Scott[_6_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Audio Empire]

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

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

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).

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[David E. Bath]

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

[Keith]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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

[Robert Peirce]

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.

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Harry Lavo]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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?

[Jenn[_2_]]

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.

[Keith]

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

[Audio Empire]

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.

[Audio Empire]

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.