Vinyl making a comeback?

[David Nebenzahl]

I think vinyl may be making something of a comeback.

This based on anecdotal evidence: in two local (San Francisco Bay East
Bay area) record shops I've visited recently, people working in both
have told me that their vinyl sales are up--way up in one case. (Mostly
used stuff, but some new LP releases.)

As we know, CD sales are basically in the toilet. The younger generation
seems to be getting most of its "music" (if that's what it can be
called) via non-physical means, many (most?) of which are tinny and
harsh-sounding, but since that's all they know, they seem to like it.
But independent of this, vinyl sales have increased.

Anyhow, it's gratifying to see what appears to be a return to an older,
discarded analog recording medium. We'll see how much of a comeback it
really is.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Anyhow, it's gratifying to see what appears to be a return to an older,
> discarded analog recording medium.

Why? It was discarded for very good reasons. What is needed is a return to
good quality mastering, it will be intersting to see if they actually
managed that with the new releases of the Beatles albums next week. I'm
hoping they did, and that it sparks an interest in more of the same, rather
than a return to high cost, low quality playback equipment.

>We'll see how much of a comeback it
> really is.

It never went away, simply became a very minor fringe/nostalgia media.
Even the disco DJ's seem to be going digital as far as I can see.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com

> I think vinyl may be making something of a comeback.

Something?

Hmm, anything is something.

Will vinyl ever become a mainstream medium?

Unlikely.

Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?

Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with vinyl. Vinyl
basically died in less than 10 years.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com
>
>> I think vinyl may be making something of a comeback.
>
> Something?
>
> Hmm, anything is something.
>
> Will vinyl ever become a mainstream medium?
>
> Unlikely.
>
> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>
> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with vinyl. Vinyl
> basically died in less than 10 years.
>
>


The other thing is that although the youngsters will download their
music, the older generation still prefers CDs and the grey power brigade
have a much greater disposable income.


Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in
>> message
>> s.com
>>> I think vinyl may be making something of a comeback.
>>
>> Something?
>>
>> Hmm, anything is something.
>>
>> Will vinyl ever become a mainstream medium?
>>
>> Unlikely.
>>
>> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>>
>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it
>> did with vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10
>> years.

> The other thing is that although the youngsters will
> download their music, the older generation still prefers
> CDs and the grey power brigade have a much greater
> disposable income.

Good point.

People who think that dancing on the grave of CDs will bring back vinyl are
playing a very strange game.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/4/2009 6:45 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
>
>
>> The other thing is that although the youngsters will
>> download their music, the older generation still prefers
>> CDs and the grey power brigade have a much greater
>> disposable income.
>
> Good point.
>
> People who think that dancing on the grave of CDs will bring back vinyl are
> playing a very strange game.

I don't mean to claim there's a direct correlation between declining CD
sales and increasing LP sales, though there are some interesting
relationships in play.

And of course vinyl will never again become the dominant medium. But
that's not the point here.

I think the point about who's got the money is an important one too.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/4/2009 6:45 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>
>> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> The other thing is that although the youngsters will
>>> download their music, the older generation still prefers
>>> CDs and the grey power brigade have a much greater
>>> disposable income.
>>
>> Good point.
>>
>> People who think that dancing on the grave of CDs will bring back
>> vinyl are playing a very strange game.
>
> I don't mean to claim there's a direct correlation between declining CD
> sales and increasing LP sales, though there are some interesting
> relationships in play.
>
> And of course vinyl will never again become the dominant medium. But
> that's not the point here.
>
> I think the point about who's got the money is an important one too.
>
>

The other point is that, since vinyl sales are tiny compared to all
other media, they can increase ten fold and still be three fifths of
bugger all.

Cheers

ian

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> >Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>
> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with vinyl.
Vinyl
> basically died in less than 10 years.

Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
(I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the same technology)
So the question is whether CD will last 80+ years? Or, who cares anyway? :-)

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/4/2009 10:17 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "Arny Krueger" > [maybe] wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>>
>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with
>> vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>
> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
> (I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the same technology)
> So the question is whether CD will last 80+ years? Or, who cares anyway? :-)

Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as the next medium? Or
what *should* the next medium be? (Not necessarily the same thing, of
course.)

(And don't forget wax and shellac recordings.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/4/2009 10:17 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > [maybe] wrote in message
>> ...
> >
>>>> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>>>
>>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with
>>> vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>>
>> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
>> (I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the same
>> technology)
>> So the question is whether CD will last 80+ years? Or, who cares
>> anyway? :-)
>
> Both good questions, actually.


Well, if you are going to include products based on the same technology
to get 80 years for for vinyl then the CD already has 30 years to its
credit.


Cheers

Ian

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as the next medium?

Medialess, the cd has already become a transport medium rather than a
playback medium.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com
> On 9/4/2009 10:17 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> So what do you see as the next medium?

It's already here - just a data file on no particular medium in particular.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/5/2009 2:47 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as the next medium?
>
> Medialess, the cd has already become a transport medium rather than a
> playback medium.

What about those people who prefer some kind of tangible thing, as
opposed to something just grabbed out of the ether? You know, something
with pictures, liner notes, etc.

Is that just so 20th century?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

David Nebenzahl wrote:

> What about those people who prefer some kind of tangible thing, as
> opposed to something just grabbed out of the ether? You know,
> something with pictures, liner notes, etc.

the pdf has not replaced the beautifully printed book.

> Is that just so 20th century?

No, it is just a niche market.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Michael Black[_2_]]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, David Nebenzahl wrote:

> On 9/4/2009 10:17 PM Mr.T spake thus:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > [maybe] wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>>>
>>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with vinyl.
>>> Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>>
>> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
>> (I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the same technology)
>> So the question is whether CD will last 80+ years? Or, who cares anyway?
>> :-)
>
> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as the next medium? Or
> what *should* the next medium be? (Not necessarily the same thing, of
> course.)
>
That's the transistion. CDs aren't disappearing because a better medium
came along (be it the more portable notion of cassettes that helped to
drive off records, or the higher density and maybe better sound of the
CD that finished off records). They are disappearing because people
are either not buying music, or have decided to buy electronically.

I find this terrible. My 30 year old records still exist, they are
tangible complete with the record covers. Same with CDs, I can pop
those in my computer and make them digital or even into MP3s, and while
those formats are even better than CD convenience wise (just like CDs
were more convenient than records by being smaller, higher density,
and in equipment that could be remotely controlled), I want the tangible
CD to ensure I actually have the music.

Yes, I suppose the CD could break or get scratched and become useless.
But I damaged only one of my records, through stupidity, in thirty years,
so why should I expect CDs to fail? But there does seem something
terribly insecure about buying a digital file and keeping it on my
hard drive.

There's a world of difference between choosing to convert CDs or
cassettes or records into MP3s for practical reasons, and a scenario
where MP3s become the form of music because the smaller size makes
it easier to retrieve.

Michael


> (And don't forget wax and shellac recordings.)
>
>
> --
> Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
>

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com
> On 9/5/2009 2:47 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as
>>> the next medium?
>>
>> Medialess, the cd has already become a transport medium
>> rather than a playback medium.
>
> What about those people who prefer some kind of tangible
> thing, as opposed to something just grabbed out of the
> ether? You know, something with pictures, liner notes,
> etc.

Go to a place that didn't exist even as a dream, back when vinyl was king.

The artist's web site.

> Is that just so 20th century?

Yes. We're just about a decade into the 21st century.

It is time for some people to man up and realize that they aren't in Kansas
any more! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
k
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> What about those people who prefer some kind of tangible
>> thing, as opposed to something just grabbed out of the
>> ether? You know, something with pictures, liner notes,
>> etc.
>
> the pdf has not replaced the beautifully printed book.

In some ways, it has surpassed it.

Besides, the PDF is not all there is for music fans to enjoy. We don't live
in times that are limited to just those things that can be put into a
cardboard folder.

>> Is that just so 20th century?
>
> No, it is just a niche market.

Yes, vinyl is a tiny niche with just a few very vocal people who promote it
uber alles.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/6/2009 4:31 AM Dick Pierce spake thus:

> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> There's a world of difference between choosing to convert CDs or
>> cassettes or records into MP3s for practical reasons, and a scenario
>> where MP3s become the form of music because the smaller size makes
>> it easier to retrieve.
>
> Are you equating "digital" with "MP3?"

Isn't that a valid assumption? I mean, aren't 99.9% of music files used
by consumers in that format? There are other, higher-quality formats,
but they're certainly not widely used, are they?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Geoff]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> I think vinyl may be making something of a comeback.
>
> This based on anecdotal evidence: in two local (San Francisco Bay East
> Bay area) record shops I've visited recently, people working in both
> have told me that their vinyl sales are up--way up in one case.
> (Mostly used stuff, but some new LP releases.)
>
> As we know, CD sales are basically in the toilet. The younger
> generation seems to be getting most of its "music" (if that's what it
> can be called) via non-physical means, many (most?) of which are
> tinny and harsh-sounding, but since that's all they know, they seem
> to like it. But independent of this, vinyl sales have increased.
>
> Anyhow, it's gratifying to see what appears to be a return to an
> older, discarded analog recording medium. We'll see how much of a
> comeback it really is.

Maybe if people get back a taste for sound quality, then they'll move from
vinyl 'back' to CD !

geoff

[Geoff]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 9/5/2009 2:47 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:
>
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>
>>> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as the next
>>> medium?
>>
>> Medialess, the cd has already become a transport medium rather than a
>> playback medium.
>
> What about those people who prefer some kind of tangible thing, as
> opposed to something just grabbed out of the ether? You know,
> something with pictures, liner notes, etc.
>
> Is that just so 20th century?

Something with an actual physicality and perceived value, unlike downlaoded
(even if paid for) music.


geoff

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/6/2009 3:05 PM Dick Pierce spake thus:

> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>> I mean, aren't 99.9% of music files used
>> by consumers in that format?
>
> You sure it's not 99.87623%?
>
> Where do you get the figure 99.9%?

It's a rhetorical device standing in for "practically all".

>> There are other, higher-quality formats,
>> but they're certainly not widely used, are they?
>
> Let's see, EVERY CD uses uncompressed linear PCM.
> Files ripped from PCs are, by default, liner PCM.
> Are you suggesting that CDs and the like "are not
> widely used?

I meant *besides* CDs. So let me restate the question: excluding CDs
(and WAV files ripped on a computer and the like), aren't the vast
majority of sound files people listen to in the MP3 format?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/6/2009 4:12 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com
>> On 9/5/2009 2:47 AM Peter Larsen spake thus:
>>
>>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as
>>>> the next medium?
>>>
>>> Medialess, the cd has already become a transport medium
>>> rather than a playback medium.
>>
>> What about those people who prefer some kind of tangible
>> thing, as opposed to something just grabbed out of the
>> ether? You know, something with pictures, liner notes,
>> etc.
>
> Go to a place that didn't exist even as a dream, back when vinyl was king.
>
> The artist's web site.
>
>> Is that just so 20th century?
>
> Yes. We're just about a decade into the 21st century.
>
> It is time for some people to man up and realize that they aren't in Kansas
> any more! ;-)

Ya know, I just love it when the techno-fascists start in on how anyone
who prefers vinyl must be some kind of retrograde Luddite or some such.

Now I know that term (techno-fascist) is offensive, and I don't use it
lightly. They're not content to let us know that the newfangled stuff is
better in so many ways, which might be a reasonable argument: no, in
addition to that, they see it as their mission to quarantine the world
against a possible outbreak of regression to yesterday's technology.
They belittle anyone who prefers vinyl to CDs (or film to digital
photography).

This is not the same thing as, say, digital TV vs. analog TV. In that
case, it really is a case of having one technology or the other;
economic and physical constraints make having both formats and being
able to choose between them impractical. I recognize that and accept it.

But there's *nothing* inherent in the production and sale of music discs
that similarly would preclude someone from being able to choose one
format over another; in fact, vinyl is still being produced (albeit in
very limited quantities), which in no way inconveniences CD users or
constitutes a barrier to sales of other formats. So why the continued
invective against those who like LPs?

I'm quite willing to admit that vinyl is in no way the ideal format; I
just happen to like it for a number of reasons. I'm not claiming it's
the end-all and be-all of music reproduction formats. It's difficult to
eliminate surface noise, and the recordings can physically degrade when
played. But there are also problems with CDs, as you well know.

I get the same bull**** from digital photography zealots. Today I
visited my favorite photo shop in Berkeley, Looking Glass Photo. They
sell digital cameras, inkjet paper, and accessories. They also do a
brisk business selling film cameras, film, paper, chemicals, enlargers,
and other wet photographic stuff. Are they also Luddites? Do you think
they should just "get over it" and pitch all that horrible backwards
stuff? How 20th century can you get?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Mr.T]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, if you are going to include products based on the same technology
> to get 80 years for for vinyl then the CD already has 30 years to its
> credit.

And 28 even if you don't! Only half a century or so to go then :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Ya know, I just love it when the techno-fascists start in on how anyone
> who prefers vinyl must be some kind of retrograde Luddite or some such.

And they're not? :-)

>in
> addition to that, they see it as their mission to quarantine the world
> against a possible outbreak of regression to yesterday's technology.

Nope, no fear of that happening.


> They belittle anyone who prefers vinyl to CDs (or film to digital
> photography).

Nope, only those who claim vinyl is "superior". IMO opinion a person is
entitled to "prefer" anything they like, so long as they don't make
ridiculous claims to justify their preferences. No justification is even
needed, yet most cannot accept their preference is based on anything other
than technical superiority, despite all facts to the contrary.


> But there's *nothing* inherent in the production and sale of music discs
> that similarly would preclude someone from being able to choose one
> format over another; in fact, vinyl is still being produced (albeit in
> very limited quantities), which in no way inconveniences CD users or
> constitutes a barrier to sales of other formats. So why the continued
> invective against those who like LPs?

Indeed, and why the continual claims for "superiority" of vinyl?
IME it's always the vinyl devotees that even raise the issue.


> I'm quite willing to admit that vinyl is in no way the ideal format; I
> just happen to like it for a number of reasons. I'm not claiming it's
> the end-all and be-all of music reproduction formats. It's difficult to
> eliminate surface noise, and the recordings can physically degrade when
> played. But there are also problems with CDs, as you well know.

The cover art is too small for failing eyesight?


> I get the same bull**** from digital photography zealots. Today I
> visited my favorite photo shop in Berkeley, Looking Glass Photo. They
> sell digital cameras, inkjet paper, and accessories. They also do a
> brisk business selling film cameras, film, paper, chemicals, enlargers,
> and other wet photographic stuff. Are they also Luddites? Do you think
> they should just "get over it" and pitch all that horrible backwards
> stuff?

Not as long as there is a market and money to be made!
I haven't thrown out my film camera's or enlarger, but I certainly prefer
digital in nearly every aspect, except trying to get proper B&W prints made
from it.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Both good questions, actually. So what do you see as the next medium? Or
> what *should* the next medium be? (Not necessarily the same thing, of
> course.)

Solid state media cards. A 1GB SD card could easily be used now at current
prices, but it won't happen unfortunately, simply because they can charge
just as much for downloads it seems, and YOU have to pay for the
card/storage media, pay the internet fees to download it, pay to print the
artwork etc.(if any is even provided.)

No media manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, or retail mark-up costs,
coupled with approximately the same end user charge, equals *FAR* more
profit for them!!!
(minus what they spend on legal fees pursuing those who won't pay so much
for lossy-compressed media-less "bits" of course)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On 9/6/2009 4:31 AM Dick Pierce spake thus:
> > Are you equating "digital" with "MP3?"
>
> Isn't that a valid assumption? I mean, aren't 99.9% of music files used
> by consumers in that format? There are other, higher-quality formats,
> but they're certainly not widely used, are they?

Of course they are! CD *IS* digital! How much more widely used do you want?
Many people also choose Wave or FLAC for their other storage requirements.
It's only the record companies once again who are *******s and rarely offer
downloads in those formats.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >> I mean, aren't 99.9% of music files used
> >> by consumers in that format?
>
> I meant *besides* CDs. So let me restate the question: excluding CDs
> (and WAV files ripped on a computer and the like), aren't the vast
> majority of sound files people listen to in the MP3 format?

Nope, nothing like the 99% you quote!
First you have to subtract most of the Apple format users (fairly big
numbers there), then those who prefer WMA, then those who prefer high
quality formats like Wave and FLAC, and then the other disk formats like
DVDA, ATRAC etc. not to mention dozens of others besides!

MrT.

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

Mr.T wrote:
> "Ian Bell" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, if you are going to include products based on the same technology
>> to get 80 years for for vinyl then the CD already has 30 years to its
>> credit.
>
> And 28 even if you don't! Only half a century or so to go then :-)
>
> MrT.
>
>


George Martin goes further and splits sound media history into four
roughly equal 25 year periods with the last being CD. I guess you can
cut it any way you like to make the point you want to make.

Cheers

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
>>
>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it
>> did with vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10
>> years.

> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!

Revisionst history!

There was no vinyl 80 years ago. I doubt that the chemical vinyl had even
been invented. If it existed in some lab, there still weren't any production
quantities of it. Vinyl as a production product was a product of the U.S.
synthetic rubber program of WW2.

There were large black disks with grooves in 1929, but they weren't vinyl,
they weren't microgroove, they generally were not made or widely played
electronically (electronics was in its infancy), and they weren't stereo.

> (I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the
> same technology)

Nope. They were a related, predecessor technology. There were many steps
along the way. Vinyl mono ruled from about 1953 to 1958, and vinyl stereo
ruled from 1958 to about 1988. So, give vinyl as we know it a 30 year run.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in
> message
> s.com...

>> Ya know, I just love it when the techno-fascists start
>> in on how anyone who prefers vinyl must be some kind of
>> retrograde Luddite or some such.

> And they're not? :-)

IMO, this "techno-fascist" thing is a bad rap. Heck, even I have a really
pretty good vinyl player that I even just bought a new cartridge for. I
admit it, I listen to more needle drops than live vinyl, but that's
partially because I know that vinyl degrades every time you play it. I can't
see being unecessarily harsh and mean to nixw working antiques that even I
can be a little sentimental about.

>> in
>> addition to that, they see it as their mission to
>> quarantine the world against a possible outbreak of
>> regression to yesterday's technology.

> Nope, no fear of that happening.

Agreed. the statement you are responding is an admission that we've do have
Luddites around who still openly dream of a "...regression to yesterday's
technology."

>> They belittle anyone who prefers vinyl to CDs (or film
>> to digital photography).

> Nope, only those who claim vinyl is "superior".

Agreed.


> IMO
> opinion a person is entitled to "prefer" anything they
> like, so long as they don't make ridiculous claims to
> justify their preferences. No justification is even
> needed, yet most cannot accept their preference is based
> on anything other than technical superiority, despite all
> facts to the contrary.

When was the last time some vinylista posted here that CDs can't possibly
sound right because of the empty spaces between the samples? I think it was
in the last year.


>> But there's *nothing* inherent in the production and
>> sale of music discs that similarly would preclude
>> someone from being able to choose one format over
>> another;


Sure there is, the fact that selling music is a business. There is no
business case for putting all music out in both LP and CD format.

>> fact, vinyl is still being produced (albeit
>> in very limited quantities), which in no way
>> inconveniences CD users or constitutes a barrier to
>> sales of other formats. So why the continued invective
>> against those who like LPs?

It's the nearly 30 years of invective targeting the CD that sets the stage.

> Indeed, and why the continual claims for "superiority" of
> vinyl?

It's the same logic that makes some want to believe that their girlfriend is
the prettiest girl in the world.

> IME it's always the vinyl devotees that even raise the
> issue.

You mean, like this time?

>> I'm quite willing to admit that vinyl is in no way the
>> ideal format; I just happen to like it for a number of
>> reasons. I'm not claiming it's the end-all and be-all of
>> music reproduction formats. It's difficult to eliminate
>> surface noise, and the recordings can physically degrade
>> when played. But there are also problems with CDs, as
>> you well know.

> The cover art is too small for failing eyesight?

There are no known sonic problems with CDs - because they have no inherent
sonic characteristics. They are demonstrably sonically transparent if that's
how their producers want to produce them to be that way.

>> I get the same bull**** from digital photography
>> zealots.

Yes, digital photography is now mainstream, it can't possibly be any good.

>> Today I visited my favorite photo shop in
>> Berkeley, Looking Glass Photo. They sell digital
>> cameras, inkjet paper, and accessories. They also do a
>> brisk business selling film cameras, film, paper,
>> chemicals, enlargers, and other wet photographic stuff.
>> Are they also Luddites?

Here we go again, a belief that photography and audio recording are
sufficiently similar to mix up this way. The big difference is that there
are no visually transparent photographs. Show me a picture and it always
looks like a picture. Play me a really good recording and it sounds exactly
like the signal that came out of the mixing board or mic.

>> Do you think they should just
>> "get over it" and pitch all that horrible backwards
>> stuff?

We bought my daughter a Canon EOS Elan for her university graduation or
there abouts, but by the time she had her PhD, she had bought herself a
Digital Rebel. For her last birthday, her husband bought her a digital
point-and-shoot because she had discovered that with digital, you don't need
all of the overhead of even a nice SLR to get good pictures. My ca. 1970 FT
is in good operating condition along with its set of telephoto, Macro, and
Wide angle lenses, but we haven't touched it for over 10 years because we
take all of our pictures with a SD 1000.

> Not as long as there is a market and money to be made!

Ask Kodak about the future of silver-based photography in the mainstream.

> I haven't thrown out my film camera's or enlarger, but I
> certainly prefer digital in nearly every aspect, except
> trying to get proper B&W prints made from it.

Yes, our enlarger, tanks and trays are still around as well.

I spend most of my spare time producing digital videos when I'm not
producing digital recordings. No politics, just what works best.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/7/2009 5:29 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>>
>>> But there's *nothing* inherent in the production and sale of
>>> music discs that similarly would preclude someone from being able
>>> to choose one format over another;
>
> Sure there is, the fact that selling music is a business. There is no
> business case for putting all music out in both LP and CD format.

Just to address this small point, I can certainly remember when much
music (not all, to be sure) came out in both LP and cassette formats
(remember that?), and I'm pretty sure there was even a period where some
was released in three formats (LP, cassette and CD).

I won't even go into 8-track territory ...


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/7/2009 12:50 AM Mr.T spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>> I meant *besides* CDs. So let me restate the question: excluding CDs
>> (and WAV files ripped on a computer and the like), aren't the vast
>> majority of sound files people listen to in the MP3 format?
>
> Nope, nothing like the 99% you quote!
> First you have to subtract most of the Apple format users (fairly big
> numbers there), then those who prefer WMA, then those who prefer high
> quality formats like Wave and FLAC, and then the other disk formats like
> DVDA, ATRAC etc. not to mention dozens of others besides!

Well, I know there are lots of formats in use, no argument there.

My question is how many people use these formats as opposed to MP3s in
iPods and similar listening devices.

Haven't got any statistics at hand, but it seems to me(TM) that when I'm
out and about, the vast majority of folks I see listening to music are
using something to listen to MP3s. So I conclude that this format is
vastly more popular than any other.

Do you really think that the examples you gave (like those who use other
formats for higher quality) are more numerous than MP3s? Not necessarily
challenging you, since I don't have statistical evidence one way or the
other.

Again, this is *excluding* CDs (and DVDs and other commercially
available music discs).


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/7/2009 7:35 AM Dick Pierce spake thus:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message [...]
>>
>>>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it did with
>>>> vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>>
>>> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Revisionst history!
>
> Nothing beats revisionist history like made up history.
>
>> There was no vinyl 80 years ago.
>
> Revisionist?
>
>> I doubt that the chemical vinyl had even been invented.
>
> From a brief search:
>
> "Polyvinyl chloride or PVC was first created by the German
> chemist Eugen Baumann in 1872. Eugen Baumann never applied
> for a patent.
>
> "Polyvinyl chloride or PVC was never patented until 1913
> when German, Friedrich Klatte invented a new method of
> the polymerization of vinyl chloride using sunlight."

You're being cute. (Even if Arny was wrong about the age of the chemical
vinyl.)

One can take "vinyl" in the context of this thread to mean "sound
recordings made of vinyl", which certainly did not exist much earlier
than the 1950s.

I think it's reasonable to assume that we're talking about such vinyl
recordings, not recorded discs with single spiral grooves made from a
variety of other materials (shellac, etc.).


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Richard Crowley]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote ...
>I think vinyl may be making something of a comeback.
>
> This based on anecdotal evidence: in two local (San Francisco Bay East Bay
> area) record shops I've visited recently, people working in both have told
> me that their vinyl sales are up--way up in one case. (Mostly used stuff,
> but some new LP releases.)
>
> As we know, CD sales are basically in the toilet. The younger generation
> seems to be getting most of its "music" (if that's what it can be called)
> via non-physical means, many (most?) of which are tinny and
> harsh-sounding, but since that's all they know, they seem to like it. But
> independent of this, vinyl sales have increased.
>
> Anyhow, it's gratifying to see what appears to be a return to an older,
> discarded analog recording medium. We'll see how much of a comeback it
> really is.

I just watched a video on YouTube of a vinyl cutter that sits on
a turntable to make DIY "dubplates". Dunno what is the difference
between a "dubplate" and a vinyl disk except that maybe a "dubplate"
is home-cut vs. a commercial moulded vinyl disk.

Most likely constant pitch, and must require a pretty beefy turntable
to maintain speed while cutting, etc. Not clear that there was any
kind of monitoring the groove, no microscope, etc. Although a
microscope with a video camera would likely be pretty easy to do
these days. They are sold as children's toys nowdays.

If you're interested....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa9_h2CrNJU

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/7/2009 1:10 PM Richard Crowley spake thus:

> I just watched a video on YouTube of a vinyl cutter that sits on
> a turntable to make DIY "dubplates". Dunno what is the difference
> between a "dubplate" and a vinyl disk except that maybe a "dubplate"
> is home-cut vs. a commercial moulded vinyl disk.
>
> Most likely constant pitch, and must require a pretty beefy turntable
> to maintain speed while cutting, etc. Not clear that there was any
> kind of monitoring the groove, no microscope, etc. Although a
> microscope with a video camera would likely be pretty easy to do
> these days. They are sold as children's toys nowdays.
>
> If you're interested....
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa9_h2CrNJU

Intrestin' ...

Probably won't watch that video right away, as I'm on dialup (yep, I'm a
card-carrying Luddite!). But I did find these pages on dubplates:

http://www.duophonic.de/index.php?vinyl_dubplate_cutting (German mfgr.)
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Dubplate
http://www.skratchworx.com/news3/comments.php?id=112

Apparently the discs can be either acetate or vinyl, with vinyl the
preferred substance.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/7/2009 1:10 PM Richard Crowley spake thus:

> I just watched a video on YouTube of a vinyl cutter that sits on
> a turntable to make DIY "dubplates". Dunno what is the difference
> between a "dubplate" and a vinyl disk except that maybe a "dubplate"
> is home-cut vs. a commercial moulded vinyl disk.

Is this a vinyl cutterhead?
http://carverycuts.com/dubs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=147

Looks like there's a resistance heater, a vacuum tube to eat the
shaving, and some kind of guide wire or something. And what's that
little hook thingy dangling? Some kind of anti-resonance device?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Richard Crowley]

"David Nebenzahl" wrote...
> Richard Crowley spake thus:
>> I just watched a video on YouTube of a vinyl cutter that sits on
>> a turntable to make DIY "dubplates". Dunno what is the difference
>> between a "dubplate" and a vinyl disk except that maybe a "dubplate"
>> is home-cut vs. a commercial moulded vinyl disk.
>>
>> Most likely constant pitch, and must require a pretty beefy turntable
>> to maintain speed while cutting, etc. Not clear that there was any
>> kind of monitoring the groove, no microscope, etc. Although a
>> microscope with a video camera would likely be pretty easy to do
>> these days. They are sold as children's toys nowdays.
>>
>> If you're interested....
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa9_h2CrNJU
>
> Intrestin' ...
>
> Probably won't watch that video right away, as I'm on dialup (yep, I'm a
> card-carrying Luddite!). But I did find these pages on dubplates:
>
> http://www.duophonic.de/index.php?vinyl_dubplate_cutting (German mfgr.)
> http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Dubplate
> http://www.skratchworx.com/news3/comments.php?id=112
>
> Apparently the discs can be either acetate or vinyl, with vinyl the
> preferred substance.

I saw another vintage film on YouTube showing making a wax
blank by pouring hot wax from a tin measuring cup onto the
spinning turntable. It is remarkably similar to the say we use
"spin-on" methods today to coat silicon wafers with various
chemicals and photoresist, etc. Except we don't need some
guy wielding a hair-dryer to smooth out the surface (as shown
in the movie. :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it
>>>> did with vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10
>>>> years.
>>
>>> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Revisionst history!
>
> Nothing beats revisionist history like made up history.
>
>> There was no vinyl 80 years ago.
>
> Revisionist?

>> I doubt that the chemical vinyl had even been invented.

> From a brief search:

> "Polyvinyl chloride or PVC was first created by the
> German chemist Eugen Baumann in 1872. Eugen Baumann
> never applied for a patent.

> "Polyvinyl chloride or PVC was never patented until
> 1913 when German, Friedrich Klatte invented a new
> method of the polymerization of vinyl chloride using
> sunlight."

"I doubted", but I doubted incorrectly. So what?

The context of the topic was the use of PVC in recordings, which did not
start in 1872 or even 1913.

This listing of the above dates does not mention the fact that PVC was not
economcally useful until the following event took place:

> On goes on to learn that practical PVC, including useful,
> widespread commercial applications, date from the B.F.
> Goodrich Company in 1926

"Date from" should note be confused with "widespread commercialization
immediately started"

As I said before, PVC use in commercial quantities started around the time
of the Second World War. Until the end of the war, civilian uses did not
explode.


> Further, is one gets out of the mode of taking the
> narrowest, most anally retentive view of a term, one
> might learn that the technology behind vinyl goes well
> back beyond "vinyl."

That's what one might think if one read the phrase:

They were a related, predecessor technology."

>Take a hierarchical view, gentle
> people: consider the physical layer: vinyl, shellac, wax.
> Now take the next layer up: the encoding, and you find
> that the encoding method has been around for well over
> 100 years, regardless of the physical media.

"There were many steps long the way. Vinyl mono ruled from about 1953 to
1958, and vinyl stereo
ruled from 1958 to about 1988. So, give vinyl as we know it a 30 year run."

> Confusing the two leads to silly, irrelevant claims about
> "revisionist history" and such.

The context was clearly stated at the beginning of the post that I replied
to:

"Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.

Which was falsely corrected by the following statement:

" Ignoring the previous 80 years of course."

The official date of the invention of the phonograph was 1877, but that
wasn't when the vinyl LP was invented. The time from 1877 was mentioned in
the phrase: "There were many steps along the way". They weren't ignored.
Somebody(s) read that and didn't perceive that it meant that there were many
steps from 1877 to 1957.

[Arny Krueger]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com
> On 9/7/2009 1:10 PM Richard Crowley spake thus:
>
>> I just watched a video on YouTube of a vinyl cutter that
>> sits on a turntable to make DIY "dubplates". Dunno what is the
>> difference between a "dubplate" and a vinyl disk except
>> that maybe a "dubplate" is home-cut vs. a commercial
>> moulded vinyl disk.
>
> Is this a vinyl cutterhead?
> http://carverycuts.com/dubs/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=147
>
> Looks like there's a resistance heater,

Resistance wire scramble-wound around the cutting stylus.

> a vacuum tube to eat the shaving,

Relatively huge oval orifice behind the stylus.

> and some kind of guide wire or something.

The power lead for the resistance wire which may be just more resistance
wire.

> And what's that little hook thingy dangling?

Looks like a vinyl shaving that escaped the vacuum and melted it onto the
lead wire.

> Some kind of anti-resonance device?

Unlikely.

[Peter Irwin]

David Nebenzahl > wrote:
>
> One can take "vinyl" in the context of this thread to mean "sound
> recordings made of vinyl", which certainly did not exist much earlier
> than the 1950s.

I seem to remember that there was some experimental use in the 1930s.
>
> I think it's reasonable to assume that we're talking about such vinyl
> recordings, not recorded discs with single spiral grooves made from a
> variety of other materials (shellac, etc.).

But how do you know what the records you use are made from? Lots of
1940s and 1950s 78s are made of vinyl with fillers instead of
shellac. The most obvious difference is that vinyl isn't soluble
in alcohol, but 78s which are vinyl+filler feel and break much
the same as the prewar shellac+filler discs.

Peter
--


>
>

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> >>> Will the CD evenutally go the way of vinyl?
> >>
> >> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it
> >> did with vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10
> >> years.
>
> > Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Revisionst history!

Yes it seems that's what you were attempting.


> There was no vinyl 80 years ago. I doubt that the chemical vinyl had even
> been invented.

And you ignore that I wrote "(I include acetate disks and cylinders here
which
are the same technology)" to make this point. Why?


> There were large black disks with grooves in 1929, but they weren't
vinyl,
> they weren't microgroove, they generally were not made or widely played
> electronically (electronics was in its infancy), and they weren't stereo.

So what. They WERE similar mechanical groove on disk technology, AND
microgroove/stereo/vinyl disks were around a lot more than ten years in any
case, so your comment was still wrong!


> > (I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the
> > same technology)
>
> Nope. They were a related, predecessor technology.

Sure, why not say CD4 only lasted a couple of years if you want to make some
stupid, irrelevant point then?


>There were many steps along the way.

Absolutely, and 78 disks were so similar they could still be played on many
of the latest turntables. NOT so with CD's which I would say ARE a
completely new technology.

You of course are welcome to any definition you like, as long as you don't
expect the whole world to agree with you!


> Vinyl mono ruled from about 1953 to 1958, and vinyl stereo
> ruled from 1958 to about 1988. So, give vinyl as we know it a 30 year
run.

And yet you said ten years, why?

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> I think it's reasonable to assume that we're talking about such vinyl
> recordings, not recorded discs with single spiral grooves made from a
> variety of other materials (shellac, etc.).

No it's *NOT* since I already said :
>>>"(I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are the same
technology)"

Do NOT narrow MY argument, specifically spell out your own IF you think it's
really necessary to make some stupid point.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> The context was clearly stated at the beginning of the post that I replied
> to:
>
> "Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>
> Which was falsely corrected by the following statement:
>
> " Ignoring the previous 80 years of course."
>
> The official date of the invention of the phonograph was 1877, but that
> wasn't when the vinyl LP was invented.


But as YOU correctly point out, YOU never said LP, and Dick correctly states
vinyl dates from 1872!
So trying to be pedantic, you get hoisted by your own petard! :-)

And I still claim acetate 78's etc. were similar technology to microgroove
LP's, whilst CD digital technology was completely new.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> Just to address this small point, I can certainly remember when much
> music (not all, to be sure) came out in both LP and cassette formats
> (remember that?), and I'm pretty sure there was even a period where some
> was released in three formats (LP, cassette and CD).
>
> I won't even go into 8-track territory ...

Yep, because there was a market and money to be made. Shows you just how
little demand there is for vinyl when so LITTLE is now released on that
format!
I don't see many new movies released on VHS or Betamax these days either :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> >> I meant *besides* CDs. So let me restate the question: excluding CDs
> >> (and WAV files ripped on a computer and the like), aren't the vast
> >> majority of sound files people listen to in the MP3 format?
> >
> > Nope, nothing like the 99% you quote!
> > First you have to subtract most of the Apple format users (fairly big
> > numbers there), then those who prefer WMA, then those who prefer high
> > quality formats like Wave and FLAC, and then the other disk formats like
> > DVDA, ATRAC etc. not to mention dozens of others besides!
>
> Well, I know there are lots of formats in use, no argument there.
>
> My question is how many people use these formats as opposed to MP3s in
> iPods and similar listening devices.
>
> Haven't got any statistics at hand, but it seems to me(TM) that when I'm
> out and about, the vast majority of folks I see listening to music are
> using something to listen to MP3s. So I conclude that this format is
> vastly more popular than any other.

And how the hell do you know what format their players are using? You
obviously don't realise many songs downloaded from iTunes (a very sizeable
amount on those iPods) are NOT in fact MP3!
And even WMA alone accounts for more than 1% of such files I will bet. (but
still far less than Apple I imagine)


> Do you really think that the examples you gave (like those who use other
> formats for higher quality) are more numerous than MP3s?

FAR more numerous than 1% of the market (as you stated) I am quite willing
to bet!

MrT.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/8/2009 7:16 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>> Just to address this small point, I can certainly remember when much
>> music (not all, to be sure) came out in both LP and cassette formats
>> (remember that?), and I'm pretty sure there was even a period where some
>> was released in three formats (LP, cassette and CD).
>>
>> I won't even go into 8-track territory ...
>
> Yep, because there was a market and money to be made. Shows you just how
> little demand there is for vinyl when so LITTLE is now released on that
> format!

Well, duh. And your point is?


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > Yep, because there was a market and money to be made. Shows you just how
> > little demand there is for vinyl when so LITTLE is now released on that
> > format!
>
> Well, duh. And your point is?

Obviously that the above heading, "vinyl making a comeback?" is optimistic
at best!

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The context was clearly stated at the beginning of the
>> post that I replied to:
>>
>> "Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>>
>> Which was falsely corrected by the following statement:

>> " Ignoring the previous 80 years of course."

>> The official date of the invention of the phonograph was
>> 1877, but that wasn't when the vinyl LP was invented.

> But as YOU correctly point out, YOU never said LP, and
> Dick correctly states vinyl dates from 1872!

Actually, I said:

"If it existed in some lab, there still weren't any production
quantities of it. Vinyl as a production product was a product of the U.S.
synthetic rubber program of WW2."

So, Vinyl existed in some lab 1872. I allowed for that. Vinyl was still a
lab curiosity until the late 1920s, when a B.F. Goodrich scientist learned
how to mix it with plasticizers. Acceptance of the improved product was very
slow until WW2, when the Japanese captured most of the world's rubber
plantations. Anything that somewhat resembled rubber suddenly became very
interesting. During WW2, existing supplies of vinyl were gobbled up by the
military and production boomed. After WW2 there were significant production
resources for vinyl that were suddenly idled, and that is when vinyl became
a consumer product.

Vinyl LPs are very different products than the predecessor 78 rpm
technology, in my view. I was a consumer during the time when LPs first hit
the market. My recollection is that they dramatically changed what music
sounded like when played back by the typical music lover with better
equipment. All things considered, the transition from 78s to LPs was a
similar convenience and sound quality upgrade as was the migration to CDs.
Perhaps not as dramatic, but not that far off.


> So trying to be pedantic, you get hoisted by your own
> petard! :-)

For all practical purposes, there were no vinyl consumer products until
after WW2.

> And I still claim acetate 78's etc. were similar
> technology to microgroove LP's, whilst CD digital
> technology was completely new.

While 78s can be made to sound good, in general the ones that were sold to
consumers in the day were poor sounding even under ideal conditions, and
were usually played on fairly crude equipment. Acoustic playback was not
unusual. The playing time per side sucked. LPs pretty well forced electronic
playback to become the rule and allowed at least one movement of a classical
piece per side.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>> Will the CD eventually go the way of vinyl?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly, but it will probably take far longer than it
>>>> did with vinyl. Vinyl basically died in less than 10
>>>> years.
>>
>>> Ignoring the previous 80 years of course!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Revisionist history!
>
> Yes it seems that's what you were attempting.
>
>
>> There was no vinyl 80 years ago. I doubt that the
>> chemical vinyl had even been invented.
>
> And you ignore that I wrote "(I include acetate disks and
> cylinders here which are the same technology)" to make this point. Why?

As I explained in another post, there were monumental sound quality upgrades
at each step along the way. OK, they all worked base on wiggles in a groove.
But I've heard numerous examples of each of these technologies played, and
they are really different.

>> There were large black disks with grooves in 1929, but
>> they weren't vinyl, they weren't microgroove, they
>> generally were not made or widely played electronically
>> (electronics was in its infancy), and they weren't
>> stereo.

> So what.

To me SQ and performance are very important. Each step along the way from
tinfoil on cylinders to the final vinyl LP of the late 70s brought
significant SQ benefits.

> They WERE similar mechanical groove on disk technology

But there were tremendous performance benefits, and the production process
changed violently.

> AND microgroove/stereo/vinyl disks were
> around a lot more than ten years in any case,

I said that they died in less than 10 years, with the implication that the
10 years started when the CD became available.

> so your comment was still wrong!

As you read it.

>>> (I include acetate disks and cylinders here which are
>>> the same technology)

>> Nope. They were a related, predecessor technology.

> Sure, why not say CD4 only lasted a couple of years if
> you want to make some stupid, irrelevant point then?

CD4 died during childbirth.

>> There were many steps along the way.

> Absolutely, and 78 disks were so similar they could still
> be played on many of the latest turntables.

People play cylinders with modern cartridges fitted with special styli on
special players, but they are a violently different technology if you look
at the production steps and the resulting sound quality.

> NOT so with CD's which I would say ARE a completely new technology.

Agreed that CDs were a completely new take on the process of distributing
music. However, there was a point where some thought that RCA's video disc
technology, which was based on mechanically playing a spiral groove on a
disk would replace the LP. It could handle digital data at acceptable data
rates for uncompressed PCM.

> You of course are welcome to any definition you like, as
> long as you don't expect the whole world to agree with
> you!

It appears that I did not do a good job of expressing the idea that the 10
years of vinyl death did not start until there was a viable alternative,
namely the CD.

>> Vinyl mono ruled from about 1953 to 1958, and vinyl
>> stereo > ruled from 1958 to about 1988. So, give vinyl as we
>> know it a 30 year run.

> And yet you said ten years, why?

I was referring to the overlap, after the CD became marketable. Vinyl
stopped ruling around 1988, and by 1993 it was clear to all but a few noisy
high end audiophiles that it was dead as a mainstream format.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 9/8/2009 11:06 PM Mr.T spake thus:

> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>>> Yep, because there was a market and money to be made. Shows you just how
>>> little demand there is for vinyl when so LITTLE is now released on that
>>> format!
>>
>> Well, duh. And your point is?
>
> Obviously that the above heading, "vinyl making a comeback?" is optimistic
> at best!

Well, two things: 1) You did notice the question mark after, didn't
you? and 2) making a comeback doesn't necessarily mean "becoming the
dominant technology". I basically mean coming back from the grave here.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> >> The context was clearly stated at the beginning of the
> >> post that I replied to:
> >>
> >> "Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
> >>
> >> Which was falsely corrected by the following statement:
>
> >> " Ignoring the previous 80 years of course."
>
> >> The official date of the invention of the phonograph was
> >> 1877, but that wasn't when the vinyl LP was invented.
>
> > But as YOU correctly point out, YOU never said LP, and
> > Dick correctly states vinyl dates from 1872!
>
> Actually, I said:
>
> "If it existed in some lab, there still weren't any production
> quantities of it. Vinyl as a production product was a product of the U.S.
> synthetic rubber program of WW2."

Nope, that was later and still wrong.

> Vinyl LPs are very different products than the predecessor 78 rpm
> technology, in my view.

You are welcome to it. Most others would disagree the *technology* was all
that different though.


> > And I still claim acetate 78's etc. were similar
> > technology to microgroove LP's, whilst CD digital
> > technology was completely new.
>
> While 78s can be made to sound good, in general the ones that were sold to
> consumers in the day were poor sounding even under ideal conditions, and
> were usually played on fairly crude equipment. Acoustic playback was not
> unusual. The playing time per side sucked. LPs pretty well forced
electronic
> playback to become the rule and allowed at least one movement of a
classical
> piece per side.

You really are clutching at straws Arny to try and justify your statement :
"Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years"

That's the one I disputed, and still do. You have still provided no
clarification or justification that would make it correct.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> It appears that I did not do a good job of expressing the idea

At last something we agree on :-)

>that the 10
> years of vinyl death did not start until there was a viable alternative,
> namely the CD.

And since "33 RPM, vinyl, microgroove, stereo, LP's" (as you later redefined
and narrowed your argument) are still being made, news of it's death seems
to be slightly premature. Obviously it is a mere shadow of it's former self
though!
I for one do not mourn it's loss either.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
s.com...
> > Obviously that the above heading, "vinyl making a comeback?" is
optimistic
> > at best!
>
> Well, two things: 1) You did notice the question mark after, didn't
> you?

Yes, my answer to the question was in the negative if YOU noticed.


>and 2) making a comeback doesn't necessarily mean "becoming the
> dominant technology". I basically mean coming back from the grave here.

And since it's has never been buried, how could it "come back from the
grave"?
And it seems to me it's just as unhealthy as it's ever been though.

MrT.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

David Nebenzahl > wrote:
: On 9/7/2009 5:29 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:

:>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
:>> s.com...
:>>
:>>> But there's *nothing* inherent in the production and sale of
:>>> music discs that similarly would preclude someone from being able
:>>> to choose one format over another;
:>
:> Sure there is, the fact that selling music is a business. There is no
:> business case for putting all music out in both LP and CD format.

: Just to address this small point, I can certainly remember when much
: music (not all, to be sure) came out in both LP and cassette formats
: (remember that?)

Yes I do. Cassettes were great for portability, not so much for
durability or ease of changing tracks. Vinyl was impossible to
port around (well, almost: see http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html),
but didn't get eaten up by a malfunctioning player, and you could skip
tracks with the greatest of ease. So each one filled a marketing
niche the other couldn't. As Arny pointed out, there's no such equivalent
for vinyl/CD. (Aside from the retro appeal, or people confused by the
claims that vinyl reproduces music better).

, and I'm pretty sure there was even a period where some
: was released in three formats (LP, cassette and CD).

Perhaps the transition point, when CD players were new enough that they
were very pricey? A few years ago movies were standardly released on DVD
and VHS tape for that reason. Didn't last long.

-- Andy Barss

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Michael Black > wrote:
:> what *should* the next medium be? (Not necessarily the same thing, of
:> course.)
:>
: That's the transistion. CDs aren't disappearing because a better medium
: came along (be it the more portable notion of cassettes that helped to
: drive off records, or the higher density and maybe better sound of the
: CD that finished off records). They are disappearing because people
: are either not buying music, or have decided to buy electronically.

: I find this terrible. My 30 year old records still exist, they are
: tangible complete with the record covers. Same with CDs, I can pop
: those in my computer and make them digital or even into MP3s, and while
: those formats are even better than CD convenience wise (just like CDs
: were more convenient than records by being smaller, higher density,
: and in equipment that could be remotely controlled), I want the tangible
: CD to ensure I actually have the music.

: Yes, I suppose the CD could break or get scratched and become useless.
: But I damaged only one of my records, through stupidity, in thirty years,
: so why should I expect CDs to fail? But there does seem something
: terribly insecure about buying a digital file and keeping it on my
: hard drive.

: There's a world of difference between choosing to convert CDs or
: cassettes or records into MP3s for practical reasons, and a scenario
: where MP3s become the form of music because the smaller size makes
: it easier to retrieve.


What really worries me is DRM. I have the CDs in
storage, and I play FLAC files from a (well backed up) hard drive.
What makes this easy is that I own the CD, and there are no
software constraints on what I can do with a FLAC file I rip from it.
I can copy it to any hard drive I like, make multiple copies on various
media, play it on any computer I use.

What I'm afraid of is that this is going to end, and I'll need a license
to listen to a given song/album for every device I want to listen to it
on/from/with. Buy a new computer, gotta buy the music all over again.

This is also true for ebooks, one of several reasons I
refuse to buy an e-reader.

-- Andy Barss

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> The context was clearly stated at the beginning of the
>>>> post that I replied to:
>>>>
>>>> "Vinyl basically died in less than 10 years.
>>>>
>>>> Which was falsely corrected by the following statement:
>>
>>>> " Ignoring the previous 80 years of course."
>>
>>>> The official date of the invention of the phonograph
>>>> was 1877, but that wasn't when the vinyl LP was
>>>> invented.
>>
>>> But as YOU correctly point out, YOU never said LP, and
>>> Dick correctly states vinyl dates from 1872!
>>
>> Actually, I said:
>>
>> "If it existed in some lab, there still weren't any
>> production

>> quantities of it. Vinyl as a production product was a
>> product of the U.S. synthetic rubber program of WW2."

> Nope, that was later and still wrong.

Prove it. Show that there were a variety of mainstream products made of
vinyl prior to WW2.

Note for example that the patent for vinyl electrical tape was applied for
in 1946:

"Experiments were conducted combining new plasticizers with the white,
flour-like vinyl resin. Finally, in January 1946, inventors Snell, Oace, and
Eastwood of 3M applied for a patent for a vinyl electrical tape with a
plasticizer system and non-sulfur-based rubber adhesive that were
compatible. The first commercially available version of the tape was sold
for use as a wire-harness wrapping."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_tape

Also note the following in the same article:

"In the early 1940s, vinyl plastic emerged as a highly versatile material
for a wide range of applications, from shower curtains to cable insulation.
Making it work for tape, however, was a different story."

What the article doesn't say is that the emergence of vinyl products in the
early 1940s was almost entirely funneled into the war effort. For example
there was no production of automobiles or airplanes for any purpose but the
war.

>> Vinyl LPs are very different products than the
>> predecessor 78 rpm technology, in my view.

> You are welcome to it. Most others would disagree the
> *technology* was all that different though.

The results were very different. The means were evolutionary at their core,
but their implementation fostered other significant changes in actual
practice. For example magnetic cartridges and electronic amplification had
been around for decades, but the vinyl LP finally sent acoustical playback
packing.

>>> And I still claim acetate 78's etc. were similar
>>> technology to microgroove LP's, whilst CD digital
>>> technology was completely new.

>> While 78s can be made to sound good, in general the ones
>> that were sold to consumers in the day were poor
>> sounding even under ideal conditions, and were usually
>> played on fairly crude equipment. Acoustic playback was
>> not unusual. The playing time per side sucked. LPs
>> pretty well forced electronic playback to become the
>> rule and allowed at least one movement of a classical
>> piece per side.
>
> You really are clutching at straws Arny to try and
> justify your statement : "Vinyl basically died in less
> than 10 years"
>
> That's the one I disputed, and still do. You have still
> provided no clarification or justification that would
> make it correct.
>
> MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It appears that I did not do a good job of expressing
>> the idea
>
> At last something we agree on :-)
>
>> that the 10
>> years of vinyl death did not start until there was a
>> viable alternative, namely the CD.

> And since "33 RPM, vinyl, microgroove, stereo, LP's" (as
> you later redefined and narrowed your argument) are still
> being made, news of it's death seems to be slightly
> premature.

Horse-drawn buggies are dead as a mainstream means of transportation,
however recent personal observation found a few of them operational in the
Central Park region of Manhattan and rural areas in Pennsylvania, Indiana,
and Michigan as well as numerous racing tracks around the world. The tiny
volumes of LPs still being made is a similar situation.

[Michael Black[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Andrew Barss wrote:

> David Nebenzahl > wrote:
> : On 9/7/2009 5:29 AM Arny Krueger spake thus:
>
> :>> "David Nebenzahl" > wrote in message
> :>> s.com...
> :>>
> :>>> But there's *nothing* inherent in the production and sale of
> :>>> music discs that similarly would preclude someone from being able
> :>>> to choose one format over another;
> :>
> :> Sure there is, the fact that selling music is a business. There is no
> :> business case for putting all music out in both LP and CD format.
>
> : Just to address this small point, I can certainly remember when much
> : music (not all, to be sure) came out in both LP and cassette formats
> : (remember that?)
>
> Yes I do. Cassettes were great for portability, not so much for
> durability or ease of changing tracks. Vinyl was impossible to
> port around (well, almost: see http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html),
> but didn't get eaten up by a malfunctioning player, and you could skip
> tracks with the greatest of ease. So each one filled a marketing
> niche the other couldn't. As Arny pointed out, there's no such equivalent
> for vinyl/CD. (Aside from the retro appeal, or people confused by the
> claims that vinyl reproduces music better).
>
> , and I'm pretty sure there was even a period where some
> : was released in three formats (LP, cassette and CD).
>
> Perhaps the transition point, when CD players were new enough that they
> were very pricey? A few years ago movies were standardly released on DVD
> and VHS tape for that reason. Didn't last long.
>
It was a longer overlap period, close to a decade. Cassettes were pretty
standard from the early seventies, so virtually anything that came out in
record was on cassette. Then CDs came along, and it took some time to
ramp up, and obviously old releases stayed on CD and cassette as they
were introduced to CD. New releases, they coudln't be on CD only since
the market wasn't there.

I thought the last record I bought was in 1988 or 89, but a check shows
the record I'm thinking of came out in 1986. I may have bought something
a couple of years later.

The 1986 record I could have bought it on cassette, I could have bought
it on CD too. There was a bonus track on the CD.

After that I bought on cassette for most of a decade, though it was
a sparse music buying period for me. I erroneously thought I wanted
the more compact nature of cassettes, and I couldn't afford a CD player
(or what seemed to be too high prices on CDs). Records were definitely
still being sold, but they were gradually disappearing from 1986 on, which
may have impacted on my buying, but I also didn't have a good cassette
deck until 1986 (all I had previously wsa old portable cassette players).

It was also complicated, since when the Walkman and their like came along
in the early early eighties, that was a big incentive to go cassette. It
wasnt' the death of records, it was the portability of cassette. So
cassette sales took off at about the same time as the introduction of
the CD, while the CD was a lot more sluggish. Records lost ground to
cassettes before they lost real ground to CDs.

The thing about DVDs is they made a much faster impact than previous
things. One minute they were there, the next the players were fairly
cheap. Almost if you blinked, you'd have missed it.

The switch to CD required a willingness to spend more on the CDs and to
buy the fairly expensive player, and "sound" apart, you would mostly be
buying music you already had.

VCRs took a long time to drop to the under $100 mark, but their adoption
came earlier since it was something you couldn't really do before, watch
movies on tv. It was likely helped along by videotape rental, which
lessened the cost of buying tapes (but of course, was offset by an initial
concept that the movies should cost a lot).

But DVD players were cheap within a few years of them getting much
attention. Some have said they were sold at lower profit or below
cost in order to fuel sales of the actual DVDs. Who knows. A DVD player
is mechanically simpler than a VCR, and they'd already had good experience
with the transports via CD players, so while there was development cost,
it was likely less than when CD players were introduced.

If most people were merely watching movies, then the loss of recording
ability didn't really matter. But in return, they got a machine that
wasn't likely to damage the medium. I've lost a number of videotapes
because the VCRs have jammed. DVDs take up less space. So there
probably was good incentive to switchover, and fast.

Michael

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > And since "33 RPM, vinyl, microgroove, stereo, LP's" (as
> > you later redefined and narrowed your argument) are still
> > being made, news of it's death seems to be slightly
> > premature.
>
> Horse-drawn buggies are dead as a mainstream means of transportation,
> however recent personal observation found a few of them operational in
the
> Central Park region of Manhattan and rural areas in Pennsylvania, Indiana,
> and Michigan as well as numerous racing tracks around the world.

Exactly, and how many are being pulled by "DEAD" horses?


> The tiny volumes of LPs still being made is a similar situation.

Never in dispute. Your stupid 10 year claim was.

MrT.