Vinyl Records - A Capitalist conspiracy

[Gaspode]

Listening to the radio this morning, there was a bit on the revival in popularity of vinyl records, supposedly for their more authentic sound. A woman on the programme advanced (not entirely seriously, I think) the theory that this revival was a capitalist conspiracy to get back at the anarcho-liberal commie left wingers.

The theory goes like this:

The creation and distribution of music has gone through a massive revolution in the last few years. The means of production has been placed in the hands of the workers. Now anyone with some musical ability can, with the minimum of equipment, create and record their own music, publicise it through social media, distribute it in electronic form, and get their art communicated to billions of people around the globe.

Good for music, not good for the music companies. So they have launched this great conspiracy to convince us that vinyl records sound better. The idea is that they get us all buying vinyl again, because of course you have to have a flipping' great pressing plant to make the things - which puts the music companies back in the driving seat, and making lots of money.

Speaking personally, I was never particularly convinced by the 'vinyl sounds better' argument, probably because my hearing isn't sensitive enough, especially these days now I'm an old fart. But I am rather intrigued by the notion that there could be loads of folks out there desperately trying to get back into vinyl, not realising that they are being manipulated into doing so by a bunch of scheming record companies desperate to get back in control

[singlecoil]

I think you are on to something there. I think most of what is talked about hi-fi etc is bks, even though I was interested in it for a long time when I was younger. But persuading people that vinyl sounds better makes a lot of sense for those with access to a pressing plant.

[sinizter]

Record companies are desperate for more control - But it's not for control of vinyl.

[davepoth]

Vinyl is going to be the leading physical format again in a couple of years. The record company have cottoned onto the fact that people like the physicality of a 12".

However there's no gain in sound quality unless the recording has been analogue from instrument to record.

[sinizter]

davepoth said:

Vinyl is going to be the leading physical format again in a couple of years.

No, it won't.

No more than likely than N/A V8s being the most popular car engine choice in a few years.

[dundarach]

I only buy new music on vinyl as I think it somehow justifys the price...

I'd never buy a cd or mp3 again as I don't value it and can listen via web or a mate who tells me you can download free music - can you?

So I think they're realising they're going to have to exploit anything they can

[gazza285]

davepoth said:

However there's no gain in sound quality unless the recording has been analogue from instrument to record.

Now that's a sweeping statement.

[Gaspode]

When I was a kid, and skint, all I had was an old reel to reel tape recorder. I used to tape stuff off the radio using a carbon granule mike in front of the radio speaker. The sound quality was ste but I didn't care, I was into the music.

When I was in my '20s I was bitten by the Hi Fi bug. I had a Rega Planar 3 turntable, A&R Cambridge amp, Kef speakers. I bought direct master pressings because I believed they sounded better. I didn't buy many records, I couldn't afford them. Then someone pointed out that if your HiFi is worth more than your record collection, you had spent your money on the wrong thing. I realised I had gone wrong - was listening to the reproduction quality, not the music.

Now I am in my '50s I listen to music again. My iPod is my more or less constant companion. I listen on the train commute, I listen in the office to blank out the background and help me concentrate. I can carry thousands of songs with me at all times, and listen to whatever I fancy whenever I fancy. Who cares if the sound quality isn't quite as good as a vinyl album? Quite apart from anything else, the 20 minute ritual of turning the disc over is a pain in the arse I'm happy to live without.

People who like vinyl will continue to buy vinyl. People who love music will continue to listen to music. The two groups are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they congruent.

[davepoth]

gazza285 said:

Now that's a sweeping statement.

There's science behind it. Every recording standard used in digital loses part of the original audio wave, no matter how high the data rate is. The only way to preserve the whole audio wave is to record on analogue equipment, master it on an analogue desk, and then record it on an analogue medium.

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

[davepoth]

sinizter said:

davepoth said:

Vinyl is going to be the leading physical format again in a couple of years.

No, it won't.

No more than likely than N/A V8s being the most popular car engine choice in a few years.

http://www.whathifi.com/news/digital-and-vinyl-sales-grow-in-2011-but-cd-still-dominates-album-market

The trend is there. Digital is cannibalising CD sales, not record sales.

[Gaspode]

davepoth said:

There's science behind it. Every recording standard used in digital loses part of the original audio wave, no matter how high the data rate is. The only way to preserve the whole audio wave is to record on analogue equipment, master it on an analogue desk, and then record it on an analogue medium.

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

Easy enough to put to the test, with some double-blind listening tests. Has it ever been done, though?

[singlecoil]

davepoth said:

gazza285 said:

Now that's a sweeping statement.

There's science behind it. Every recording standard used in digital loses part of the original audio wave, no matter how high the data rate is. The only way to preserve the whole audio wave is to record on analogue equipment, master it on an analogue desk, and then record it on an analogue medium.

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

I believe I know exactly what they are getting at, but I think it's one of those situations where theory says one thing, and practice says another.

I expect if the trend towards vinyl continues we will soon see discussions about tracking error.

[gazza285]

davepoth said:

There's science behind it. Every recording standard used in digital loses part of the original audio wave, no matter how high the data rate is. The only way to preserve the whole audio wave is to record on analogue equipment, master it on an analogue desk, and then record it on an analogue medium.

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

And which form of analogue equipment preserves the whole audio wave? I never came across one in the 15 years that I worked as a sound engineer.

Also for your consideration. If magnetic tape relies on the polarisation of magnetic particles, and the number of particles is finite, then is this not also a form of digitisation?

[andy_s]

There were a lot of tests when CDs first came out, and the quality of the CDs was pretty far from 'perfect music forever' - ahem - and certainly much worse than vinyl.

I think things have moved on though - in terms of compression technology, digital mastering and transports so if there is still a gap, it's below my hearing capacity. I do find older recordings 'smoother', which isn't to say more realistic of course. Another factor is the production - some early Oasis stuff is unbearably bad - even for the tone deaf such as I, but I haven't got the CD to compare it to.

I enjoy the iTunes/iPod for what are its strong points; portability mainly, ease of buying, no storage issues and a quality that on ear-buds is fine enough. I do wonder at longevity and its untangability, but then I'm the same with Kindle vs. real books.

I enjoy the 12" double album art work, the physical interaction, the fact that I've still got my very first albums, the actual objects, from 30 years back - those objects hold memories and associations that would be difficult to have with a digitized form I think. I also enjoy the engineering of turntables - mechanical engineering as opposed to electrical, and yes, their aesthetics - take a look at the Michell Gyrodec for example.

So - I still buy new music on vinyl (Radiohead, PJ Harvey & Scott-Heron being my latest ones) and also enjoy old rereleases on heavier vinyl. Some artists give you a code when you buy an album that lets you download the digital version for free - this is the way ahead for old duffers such as I - really, the best of both worlds - they should do the same with books & Kindle...

Anyway, this 'vinyl revival' news comes around every year, I don't think there is anything in the conspiracy theories put forward - it will always be a niche market and the head of the table will always be digitised sound I think, just from a convenience point of view, leave aside any quality argument.

[Foofighter]

gazza285 said:

And which form of analogue equipment preserves the whole audio wave? I never came across one in the 15 years that I worked as a sound engineer.

If a recording is recorded onto tape, it'll still preserve far more of the audio signal and linearity of it that any digital recording format/system. The fact that a tape recording does not digitalise a signal it processes means it is truly the only way to reproduce a true audio signal.

If you then reproduce that onto vinyl where the needle is following the reproduction of the audio signal in effect you have a damn near perfect reproduction.

At the end of the day though, it's all rubbish as the average Joe will hear little or no difference in a record made in protools vs. an album recorded solely onto tape.

I'm no audiophile, but I appreciate a good stereo, I also appreciate a good signal quality. Records are great and make a record collection feel more real that starring at a little of titles in iTunes. It adds a physical aspect to playing music that you don't get with CD's.

Regards the conspiracy theory, well it's bks. Like fashion, old styles come trendy again. Getting the latest release on vinyl is just fashionable at the moment. Can't wait for 8-tracks to come back though, got a job lot of them in a shed somewhere!

[gazza285]

Foofighter said:

If a recording is recorded onto tape, it'll still preserve far more of the audio signal and linearity of it that any digital recording format/system. The fact that a tape recording does not digitalise a signal it processes means it is truly the only way to reproduce a true audio signal.

If you then reproduce that onto vinyl where the needle is following the reproduction of the audio signal in effect you have a damn near perfect reproduction.

At the end of the day though, it's all rubbish as the average Joe will hear little or no difference in a record made in protools vs. an album recorded solely onto tape.

I'm no audiophile, but I appreciate a good stereo, I also appreciate a good signal quality. Records are great and make a record collection feel more real that starring at a little of titles in iTunes. It adds a physical aspect to playing music that you don't get with CD's.

Regards the conspiracy theory, well it's bks. Like fashion, old styles come trendy again. Getting the latest release on vinyl is just fashionable at the moment. Can't wait for 8-tracks to come back though, got a job lot of them in a shed somewhere!

The trouble with tape is it soon degrades in quality as the tape wears, and crosstalk reduces the available headroom, its a balancing act between loud enough to beat the noise floor and quiet enough to avoid bleed, non of these problems can be associated with digital media. All of which are definately associated with the 8-track;)

I'm not advocating digital sounds better than analogue either, both systems have their good and bad points, but the analogue is always better argument doesn't wash with me. I'll not be paying more than £4 a metre for my speaker cable either, but that's another story.

[dundarach]

You're all missing the point - CDs and mp3 are too alike

Physically large and black with good covers and art work

People buy them because they persieve more value...

I think they sound better - but even when they don't I prefer the medium

That and they stop me skipping and jumping about

[Foofighter]

gazza285 said:

The trouble with tape is it soon degrades in quality as the tape wears, and crosstalk reduces the available headroom, its a balancing act between loud enough to beat the noise floor and quiet enough to avoid bleed, non of these problems can be associated with digital media. All of which are definately associated with the 8-track;)

I'm not advocating digital sounds better than analogue either, both systems have their good and bad points, but the analogue is always better argument doesn't wash with me. I'll not be paying more than £4 a metre for my speaker cable either, but that's another story.

Ah yes, Oxygen Free Copper and the like, lol!

[sinizter]

Foofighter said:

gazza285 said:

The trouble with tape is it soon degrades in quality as the tape wears, and crosstalk reduces the available headroom, its a balancing act between loud enough to beat the noise floor and quiet enough to avoid bleed, non of these problems can be associated with digital media. All of which are definately associated with the 8-track;)

I'm not advocating digital sounds better than analogue either, both systems have their good and bad points, but the analogue is always better argument doesn't wash with me. I'll not be paying more than £4 a metre for my speaker cable either, but that's another story.

Ah yes, Oxygen Free Copper and the like, lol!

Just use Cat5 cable - found to be pretty close to the best, although it might not look as pretty.

[Foofighter]

sinizter said:

Just use Cat5 cable - found to be pretty close to the best, although it might not look as pretty.

Oh dear... I'll just stick to standard copper, as it makes absolutely no difference. Same as gold jack plugs etc.