Vinyl's Comeback - featured NYTimes article

On 10 Dec 2009 11:42:13 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:

>>
>>> J&R sells everything electronic, everything music, everything photo,
>>> everything kitchen, every.....man,
>>
>>So? How is that relevant?
>
>Because she has no apparent commercial reason to be biased towards vinyl and
>against other forms of music and machines to retrieve it, which she also
>sells.

I wouldn't think she would be biased towards vinyl and against other
media. She'll say good things about anything that she can sell.

I was thinking about the "resurgence" of vinyl a bit more, and I'm
still not convinced it exists.

However, I have met people who are getting into vinyl that never had
any LPs before. They have found that there are a lot of inexpensive
"indy" records out there from before CDs were inexpensive enough that
a new band would self-release on CD. Vinyl was cheap, so all the young
hopefuls did vinyl.

These records are now evidently available for a buck or two from
various local used record stores, and are attractive to some people.

Personally, I've found the recording and production quality to be
miserable on this kind of thing, and a lot of the music is best played
on the radio equivalent of Elvira or other late-night TV shows that
play awful movies and make fun of them.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:52:31 -0800, Soupe du jour wrote
(in article >):

> On 8 Dec 2009 19:50:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>> "bob" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Dec 7, 9:04=A0pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did you miss, or simply choose to ignore her comment about it not being a
>>>> fad? =A0See my comments to Dick Pierce for more on this.
>>>
>>> Just because a New York Times reporter says something is not a fad
>>> does not mean that it is not a fad. My guess is there's a retro
>>> coolness thing going on here, which may or may not last. It may
>>> plateau, it may fade away again, we just don't know yet.
>>
>> The Times reporter didn't say it wasn't a fad -- the ower of J&R said it
>> wasn't a fad. Who's better to judge....you, or she who talks to and caters
>> to her customers?
>>
>
> Or she who will say damn near anything to try to sell more product.
>> -)
>
> "Step right up! Getchyer LPs here! Everyone's gettin' 'em - don't you
> be late to get yers too!"
>
> I figure the interest in vinyl is about like the interest in tube
> gear. There's a small number of people who like the feel of old
> technology and are willing to pay extra to have it. It's not
> meaningful on a global scale though.
>

This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly there is a self-serving
aspect to the J&R representative's comments. They sell records (I guess) and
they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono preamps and all the
accouterments thereto. On the other hand, in this economic climate, most
retailers don't sell that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R
is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well, an thus the spin to
the NYT to whip-up some interest, or, there really is a Renaissance in vinyl,
no matter how small or fleeting. From the buzz I'm hearing from my local
audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its' the latter.

"Soupe du jour" > wrote in message


> I was thinking about the "resurgence" of vinyl a bit
> more, and I'm still not convinced it exists.

Hope appears to spring eternal. ;-)

Remember, there is still new production of buggy whips. ;-) I suspect that
the resurgence of harness racing due to the legalization of pari-mutual
betting led to a spike in the production of buggy whips some decades back.
Casinos and lotteries have put pari-mutual betting back on the skids around
here. The point is that long term trends tend to reassert themselves after
brief spiking.

> However, I have met people who are getting into vinyl
> that never had any LPs before. They have found that there
> are a lot of inexpensive "indy" records out there from
> before CDs were inexpensive enough that a new band would
> self-release on CD. Vinyl was cheap, so all the young
> hopefuls did vinyl.

One encounters vinyl newbies on various audiophile and audio forums. Many of
them are having err, educational experiences.

One of the problems is that there have apparently been pretty good sales of
very low end turntables. They are often are very cheaply made, and often
packed and shipped very casually and then found to be damaged in shipment.
They often have tracking forces on the order of 5-8 grams, ceramic
cartridges, with more than a few bent styluses.

I've seen pictures of how equipment like this can completely trash a new
180g pressing in one playing. :-(

I've also heard MP3 recordings showing obvious mistracking due to poor
quality equipment or worn LPs.

All those things that are unfamiliar to most younger people due to the past
nearly 30 years of digital bliss.

I was talking to one newbie and he was bragging about how his friends bring
their LPs over to him to record, because their players are incapable of
playing them without skipping. He was kind of surprised when I said that my
standards for adequate LP playback involves a lack of skipping as a baseline
for reasonable performance.

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message


> This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly
> there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R
> representative's comments.

J&R have a track record of benefitting from both the consumer and
professional market for turntables.

> They sell records (I guess)
> and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono
> preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other
> hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell
> that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R
> is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well,
> an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or,
> there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how
> small or fleeting.

What I get is the idea that the last resurgance of vinyl was probably based
on naive young people seeing authority figures (e.g. DJs) who based their
authority on their expertise with dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
(e.g. scratching). At one point sales of turntablist equipment exceeded
the sales of the ever-popular electric guitar.

> From the buzz I'm hearing from my
> local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its'
> the latter.

I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business
in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and
other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are
being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like
dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about
half of the listings of this kind.

It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just
a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical
advantages at a reasonble price, and that's the way that the market is
likely to go.

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>dynamic modifications of vinyl playback

Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>
>> This is kind of a chicken-and-egg question. Certainly
>> there is a self-serving aspect to the J&R
>> representative's comments.
>
> J&R have a track record of benefitting from both the consumer and
> professional market for turntables.
>
>> They sell records (I guess)
>> and they sell turntables and phono cartridges and phono
>> preamps and all the accouterments thereto. On the other
>> hand, in this economic climate, most retailers don't sell
>> that which doesn't move off the shelves. So, either J&R
>> is stuck with a line of items that don't sell very well,
>> an thus the spin to the NYT to whip-up some interest, or,
>> there really is a Renaissance in vinyl, no matter how
>> small or fleeting.
>
> What I get is the idea that the last resurgance of vinyl was probably based
> on naive young people seeing authority figures (e.g. DJs) who based their
> authority on their expertise with dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
> (e.g. scratching). At one point sales of turntablist equipment exceeded
> the sales of the ever-popular electric guitar.
>
>> From the buzz I'm hearing from my
>> local audiophile community, I'm inclined to believe its'
>> the latter.
>
> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at least courting business
> in the dance club sector. The flyer has several pages of turntables and
> other digital players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables are
> being scaled back, and that digital players that simulate turntable-like
> dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching) are now about
> half of the listings of this kind.

Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club sector, not to music
lovers. I get flyers from places like "Audio Advisor" and they sell
belt-drive turntables from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all
the way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME, to name a few).
They all sell phono preamps, cartridges and arms. What I see is MORE of this
stuff with new models being added all the time, rather than less.

> It was always about the art, not the means to the art. Turntables were just
> a means to the art. Provide people with a modern alternative with practical
> advantages at a reasonble price, and that's the way that the market is
> likely to go.

While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the case that
everything the market goes after is necessarily an improvement over what went
before or better than something else similar that the market ignores almost
completely.

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
>
> Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?

Quoting from my post.

"dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching)"

"Audio Empire" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article >):
>

>> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at
>> least courting business in the dance club sector. The
>> flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital
>> players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables
>> are being scaled back, and that digital players that
>> simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc
>> media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of
>> the listings of this kind.

> Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club
> sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places
> like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables
> from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the
> way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME,
> to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges
> and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new
> models being added all the time, rather than less.

Just because more people are crowding in to the market to sell, doesn't mean
that more equipment is being sold.

Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment listed in dealer
flyers.

At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in just the US. Then there
was a shake out and we ended up with just a few survivors.

>> It was always about the art, not the means to the art.
>> Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people
>> with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a
>> reasonable price, and that's the way that the market is
>> likely to go.

> While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the
> case that everything the market goes after is necessarily
> an improvement over what went before or better than
> something else similar that the market ignores almost
> completely.

I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of vinyl recording or
playback equipment in the past 30 years. Most solid technical analyses say
that no improvement of significance is possible unless there are major
changes in the playback process. Probably the only actual change in the past
30 years would be improvements in processing while making digital
transcriptions of LPs due to the use of computers.

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> dynamic modifications of vinyl playback
> >
> > Arny, what do you mean by "dynamic modifications"?
>
> Quoting from my post.
>
> "dynamic alterations of disc media playback (AKA scratching)"

Yes, I know that you were writing about scratching. My question is,
what is meant by "dynamic alterations"? What does that mean?

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:02:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Audio Empire" > wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 16:21:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>
>>> I just got a flyer from an audio retailer who is at
>>> least courting business in the dance club sector. The
>>> flyer has several pages of turntables and other digital
>>> players. I notice that the pages devoted to turntables
>>> are being scaled back, and that digital players that
>>> simulate turntable-like dynamic alterations of disc
>>> media playback (AKA scratching) are now about half of
>>> the listings of this kind.
>
>> Possibly, but that flyer is catering to the dance-club
>> sector, not to music lovers. I get flyers from places
>> like "Audio Advisor" and they sell belt-drive turntables
>> from around $350 (Rega, Pro-Ject, and Music Hall) all the
>> way up to many thousands of dollars (VPI, Thorens, SME,
>> to name a few). They all sell phono preamps, cartridges
>> and arms. What I see is MORE of this stuff with new
>> models being added all the time, rather than less.
>
> Just because more people are crowding in to the market to sell, doesn't mean
> that more equipment is being sold.

Actually, it sort of does mean JUST that if you think about it.
Entrepreneurs don't jump-in to shrinking markets. Business plans are based
on growing markets, otherwise, what's the point?
>
> Manufacturers often pay a fee to have their equipment listed in dealer
> flyers.
>
> At one time there were 100's of car manufacturers in just the US. Then there
> was a shake out and we ended up with just a few survivors.

That "shakeout" was called the Great Depression but it's pretty irrelevant to
this scenario if you ask me. Obviously, many people feel that vinyl is either
a growing market, or it has growth potential. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so
many new players.

>>> It was always about the art, not the means to the art.
>>> Turntables were just a means to the art. Provide people
>>> with a modern alternative with practical advantages at a
>>> reasonable price, and that's the way that the market is
>>> likely to go.
>
>> While your market sense is spot-on, it is by no means the
>> case that everything the market goes after is necessarily
>> an improvement over what went before or better than
>> something else similar that the market ignores almost
>> completely.
>
> I see no reliable evidence of improved performance of vinyl recording or
> playback equipment in the past 30 years.

I suspect that's because of your oft-stated, anti-vinyl bias. IOW, you really
aren't looking very hard. There are some really nice turntables, arms and
cartridges out there at all price points. Materials technology such as
rare-earth magnets, better stylus suspension materials improvement in the
wire used to wind coils. Not to mention low resonance, low mass arm materials
such as carbon fiber and Kevlar, improved manufacturing techniques resulting
in better bearings at cheaper prices, etc. On the turntable front, there are
new low resonance materials for platters. Again, bearing technology has
lowered noise floors both in the rotational mass of the platter and in the
motors. Materials like sorbothane improve suspensions and record support,
etc. While I agree that the basic designs of turntables haven't changed that
much (as in any mature technology), access to what used to be prohibitively
expensive manufacturing techniques and materials or totally new materials, or
materials that have been re-thought with regard to the problems and
challenges of retrieving the most information from a phonograph record have
all conspired to improve these products considerably, and at all price
points. I dare say that a cheap $350 table from Pro-Ject, Rega, or Music Hall
will easily sonically outperform the best, and most expensive record decks of
thirty years ago.

> Most solid technical analyses say
> that no improvement of significance is possible unless there are major
> changes in the playback process.

I disagree. Mature technologies fix overall design at some point in their
development. Further improvements result from refining those technologies by
focusing on their limiting properties and applying new methodologies and
materials to either eliminate or lessen the effects of those limitations. A
somewhat hyperbolic example of this is the US Air Force's B-52 bomber. It's
almost 60 years old. None have been made in over 40 years. Yet, not only do
they still fly, but a B-52 pilot from the 1950's wouldn't recognize one
(beyond it's distinctive shape) if he were to sit in the cockpit today.
Everything has changed EXCEPT the airframe. Controls, avionics, weaponry,
engine technology, mission profiles, everything is different. Yet these
planes, with their late 1940's sub-sonic jet airframe technology are still
viable because improvements to all of the aforementioned systems have been
applied and re-applied to keep the planes current.


> Probably the only actual change in the past
> 30 years would be improvements in processing while making digital
> transcriptions of LPs due to the use of computers.

A very myopic view, in my estimation.