Return of the Vinyl Album

bulled writes "NPR ran a story this morning about the comeback of vinyl. It seems that sales of new vinyl records are up about 10%; sales will approach a million this year (as against half a billion for CDs). NPR mentioned the popularity of a turntable with a USB interface — they didn't specify the brand; could be this one, or this — and speculated on other possible reasons for the resurgence. They mentioned sound quality and lack of DRM as possible causes. Sound quality can and will be debated, but DRM rates a resounding 'Duh.'"

Comments

Not surprising.

[Chouonsoku]

From a collector's stand point, vinyls never really faded from popularity. I still have all of my old vinyls and purchase new ones today by more current bands.

Re:Not surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Vinyl went underground with the advent of the CD, but otherwise, it hasn't gone anywhere. It still has its niche, and it always will.

Re:Not surprising.

[goombah99]

From a collector's stand point, vinyls never really faded from popularity. I still have all of my old vinyls and purchase new ones today by more current bands. That's so last year. I'm going to digital Vinyl, I take my Vinyl records, convert them to MP3 then send this out over a modem which I then record as analog audio on the vinyl record. This way I don't encounter the dynamic range limitations of the vinyl.

Re:Not surprising.

[OverDrive33]

I took my vinyl digital about a year ago ...

Re:Not surprising.

[Wansu]

  From a collector's stand point, vinyls never really faded from popularity. I still have all of my old vinyls ...

I wouldn't exactly call myself a collector but my collection started back in the 60's when that's all there was and I bought most of them in the 70's. Some of that stuff will never be released on CD. For example, I'm a Commander Cody fan. His Country Casanova album was only released on vinyl. There are tracks on that album which appear nowhere else. So I keep my turntable.

Re:Not surprising.

[Ucklak]

And it will still sound better than those records we got on the back of ceral boxes as kids.

Re:Not surprising.

[GanjaManja]

I agree. Vinyl Never vanished, just most people didn't notice that there are still record stores around. We have tons of records. Boston used to be chock-full with record stores. the 2 best punk stores eventually closed and moved online, but there's still plenty around. They pretty much always have people in them. I mostly love how records (used to) cost $8, with a HUGE piece of beautiful artwork, instead of the same picture miniaturized to 1/4 it's original size! Having gotten into classical music finally, I definitely notice that records are the only way to capture solo Piano without tons of clipping. CD's definitely suck at the dynamic range the intrument requires.

Re:Not surprising.

[DerekLyons]

From a collector's stand point, vinyls never really faded from popularity. I still have all of my old vinyls ...

I wouldn't exactly call myself a collector but my collection started back in the 60's when that's all there was and I bought most of them in the 70's. Some of that stuff will never be released on CD. For example, I'm a Commander Cody fan. His Country Casanova album was only released on vinyl.

I take it you haven't actually looked much then?

Re:Not surprising.

[zakezuke]

There are tracks on that album which appear nowhere else. So I keep my turntable.

My only complants about turn-tables and vinyl

1) gotta replace the stylus from time to time. This is a $20 item
2) If not a dirct drive, you gotta replace the belts. You can get away with boiling the belt once or twice to shrink it. This is a $20.00 item.
3) You gotta pay attention to important things like ground straps so you don't pick up that 60 cycle hum on your cartridge.
4) Since most units don't offer line level outs, you need a pre-amp if your amp does not support turn tables.
5) Vinyl is rather fragile and scraches easily.
6) It's not portable. I do remember as a child I had a fisher price style turn table that took D cells, but it wrecked vinyl.

Aside from these complaints, most of which can be resolved, vinyl is great. Well worth investing the dollars to convert to CD so you don't have to spend $20 and $20 over and over again.

Re:Not surprising.

[toadlife]

Actually, CDs can carry *more* dynamic range than Vinyl. Historically, the problems with CDs and dynamic range has not been with the format, but with the mastering.

My favorite rock album of all time, The Smashing Pumpkins Siamese Dream, is an example of an album mastered properly for CD. Instead of compressing the hell out of the music, the quiet parts of the songs are left to be...well...*quiet*. When I was a young whipper snapper, the local pizza joint had Siamese Dream in their jukebox. The jukebox would compress the sound on the fly in order to make the volume of the tracks from different albums the same. We noticed that the compression took a couple of seconds to catch up and adjust the volume.

Knowing this, we would play the song Silverfuck whenever we went there. Silverfuck is almost nine minutes long and in the middle, has a long section that is very quiet and almost "trance-like". During this section the jukebox would compensate and raise the volume the track to about three or four times normal, but even with the compression the song was still fairly quiet.

When the song would break back into the loud chorus, everyone who wasn't ready for it would get a shock of their life as the volume would be the roof for a couple of seconds.

After doing that a few times, they ended up taking that CD out. :(

Re:Not surprising.

[Anonymous McCartneyf]

Points taken and accepted. Vinyl is its own DRM.
But what to do if you own an album in vinyl that isn't available in CD form? Or worse, one that never will be available in CD form (without piracy at some stage)?
I once owned a McCartney interview album (used) that, when new, had been on the market for only one day. It took that long before MPL realized that they didn't have the copyright to the interview.
I don't think Apple has got all the old singles on iTunes yet, either.

Re:Not surprising.

[Wansu]

You're right. I haven't looked much. And at the price Amazon is asking, $100, I ain't likely to order one.

I stand corrected. It was apparently released in rather limited quantities back in '89. I've never seen a copy in a well stocked CD store. His other releases on CD are fairly easy to come by.

Re:Not surprising.

[Rimbo]

There's a bigger problem than mastering, especially where rock is concerned.

I started wondering about this a few months ago when I was transferring some of my ancient cassettes to digital with my ancient, but quality, tape deck. I was astonished to discover that two of my cassettes -- Sammy Hagar's Unboxed and AC/DC's Who Made Who -- sounded better than every CD in my collection. And in the latter case, we're talking about a 21-year old cassette that has had tons of play and sat in the car through ski trips and Summers in Texas. And here's the layman's version of what I figured out:

The more high frequencies you have interacting with each other, the more little squiggles you get in your waveform that are way beyond the range of human hearing. The squiggles come from the fact that the high-frequency sounds are out of phase with each other, and constantly shifting in phase relative to each other. Now although those little squiggles in the waveform are beyond what you or I can hear, our ears aren't looking for those squiggles -- they're looking for the harmonics that comprised those squiggles. But PCM encoding doesn't do that; it's trying to capture the actual waveform. Since those squiggles are well beyond the sample rate of a CD, they're fucking messed up. Sharp points get sheared off, the tiny squiggles disappear, and the sound wave that ends up being recorded gets aliased across a range of different frequencies.

When played back, instead of responding to a set of pure harmonic frequencies, our ears pick up a random assortment of frequencies near the originals. The crash cymbal goes "TSHHHH" instead of "TSSSS."

Now the standard objection to this argument so far goes something like this: Yeah, well man, vinyl and cassettes don't respond well much above, like, 18kHz!

There's two flaws with that objection.

First, an analog deck's frequency response may not go beyond 18kHz, but what happens is that those higher frequencies just fade beyond the noise threshold. They do not get mucked about with. And if you mix together multiple frequencies at 18kHz and below, record them, and play them back, you can deconstruct the result into the original waveforms pretty cleanly, because an analog recording device doesn't have quants that can go out of phase.

The other problem is that the pitches in question don't even have to be close to the Nyquist frequency (half the sample rate -- 22kHz on a CD, which is slightly above most people's range of hearing) if there's more than a few of them. And with rock 'n' roll is that you have tons of high-frequency shit going on. You've got the lead singer's shriek, the crash cymbals, the gate on the snare (and sometimes bass) drum, and the guitar on the fuzzy channel. All of those frequencies mix together, out of phase with each other.

The ultimate result of all of this is that high-frequency joy, those sharp high-frequency peaks in the guitar, the splash of the cymbals, the things that all combine together that made rock become the dominate pop music form for 30 years, disappeared once CDs became the main standard for audio. And rock, outside of the live show, hasn't sounded right ever since.

Re:Not surprising.

[MrHanky]

You don't seem to realise just how high frequencies >18 kHz are. It's not where you go listening for music. Even the high frequency hiss from a TV is only about 15 kHz, and it's not pleasant. Also, it's perfectly recordable on both CD and vinyl. Your cassette is probably just an exceptional recording.

Re:Not surprising.

[Angstroem]

Regarding (1) and (2), you gotta replace the pickup of your CD player as well, although, admittedly, on properly designed players it takes a tad longer. Last year I had to perform this stunt on my 1988 Sony CDP470; before, I already fiddled with the laser diode's current, tracking, and focus but this didn't help for long -- and the wear-out problems came back and got worse.

Anyway, 1988-2006 is a fairly nice period. A pickup is, depending on your machine and from who you buy, an item costing between $20 and $120.

With modern equipment, especially those integrated-into-anything CD players you will hardly achieve that as they are specifically designed to wear out (i.e. the laser diode is always powered on, not only when you actually play the CD, current set just a tad to high, etc.). Sometimes you can just install your favorite OEM drive as a replacement, sometimes you won't even get laser pick-ups for sensible prices.

Bottom line: CD players wear out, too. Especially the cheap ones.

Regarding (5), Btw, also the CD is a rather delicate media. Just scratch it on the wrong side. Or bend it a bit, so that improperly fabricated ones start to intake some air and let the reflector rot away. Or just scratch it on the bottom side and hear your CD player jump or hang just like a record would do. The only pro here is, that I eventually be able to repair such a damaged CD, something which would be rather hard with a record.

(4) is a moot point. Just attach a RIAA preamp, if your amplifier doesn't support records.

And concerning (3), you can also introduce hum with *any* sort of audio equipment once you manage to get ground loops. They may come from your PC, your mixer, heck, even from a CD player which is powered from an outlet which belongs to a circuit different from the one you power the amp with.

Finally, (6): Frankly, in times of MP3 players I don't care for portable devices involving mechanics, be it the good old cassette walkman, a CD walkman, or a portable record player.

Re:Not surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think maybe you have been reading too many hi-fi magazines? At least half of your post is nonsense, I just don't know which half, sorry. Perhaps you just have a poor CD player or a selection or poor quality CDs?

Re:Not surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You actually got that argument right. Most people (incorrectly) argue that they're hearing discete split second tones from digital (was is totally wrong) and the pro digital arguments then counter this (usually with equally incorrect arguments*, although they don't realize it). Kudos!

* Nyquist applies only to bandwidth limited sources - not bandwidth limited recievers (our ears), so true digital music can't be done that way (and it isn't done, despite what some of you may be thinking, it is an approximation only).
In fact nothing in Nyquist theory concerns itself with the reciever - only the source. So our hearing being limited to 20KHz is immaterial in an exact reconstruction.

Re:Not surprising.

[Khyber]

1) gotta replace the stylus from time to time. This is a $20 item

Needledoctor disagrees with you. Some of these styluses have ruby or diamond tips, and will run you a few thousand bucks a piece!

Re:Not surprising.

[Anonymous Drunkard]

Interesting argument, but fundamentally flawed.

The simple fact is that neither analog or digital are perfectly accurate, but digital is more accurate even for loud rock music. Many many CDs today are mastered way too high, resulting in severe clipping of the waveform peaks - but that is the fault of ABUSE of the technology, not the technology itself.

Here's a small encapsulation:

Digital recording: you record from your source into an analog-to-digital converter, whereupon the bits are recorded as data. Individual tracks are mixed together, post-processing is done, but the sound quality remains "first generation" throughout. Copies do not result in degradation, so the final CD master contains the sound in as close a form to what the microphone heard as possible, barring any post-processing altering the waveform either by design (echo, reverb, chorusing) or accident (mastering at too high a level, resulting in clipping). If the multitrack original is not processed at all after the recording, then the mixed-down master consists of first-generation tracks mixed together.

Analog recording: you record from your source into a multitrack tape machine, making sure that the azimuth is correctly aligned and that the speed of the machine is constant. In order to get some sort of sound out of those microscopic 24 tracks squeezed onto a two-inch tape, some compression and equalization and noise-reduction has to be done. Oops, we've just compromised the sound signal, haven't we? Not extremely accurate.

Now those tracks have to be mixed down to a 2 track 1/4" master, because vinyl is not multitrack. But in order to do that, we have to make an analog copy from an analog master. Normally this would be a tremendous sonic problem, because when you copy from tape to tape you not only copy the signal, you also copy the noise onto a blank tape with noise of its own, thus effectively squaring the noise. Mix two tracks, get four times the noise, Mix four tracks, get sixteen times the noise. Solution? More noise reduction. That compromises the compromised signal even more. And any analog postproduction, such as adding reverb, requires still another generational loss coupled with artifacts from the analog processing.

Once we get the tape mixed down to two track, which is second generation, it has to be mastered. Cutting that analog tape onto a lacquer blank introduces even more compromise to the audio signal, because unlike a CD, you cannot record the sound wave "as-is" onto vinyl. The highs have to be boosted because otherwise their minute squiggles would be smaller than the width of the cutting stylus and they would be irretrievably lost, while the lows have to be attenuated because otherwise the cutting stylus would cut the groove straight into the adjoining grooves and the record would not play at all. So now we have a minimum of three analog (lossy) generations away from the studio master, and this final generation now introduces an equalization curve just to that the resulting vinyl can be played on its own reproduction equipment.

That lacquer disc now goes for a plating bath, where a negative matrix is pulled, being an exact copy of the lacquer but with its grooves raised instead of sunken. This matrix is then plated to produce a positive mother, which looks exactly like the original lacquer except that the grooves are microscopically larger because it's been plated twice. We are now five generations removed from the studio master - and we still are not finished. The mother is plated yet again to make the stampers, and the stampers are used to press the final record into vinyl - a thermoplastic not particularly known for its dimensional stability. Set the vinyl out in the sun for a few hours and see how accurate the sound is.

So now you have a vinyl record that is seven generations removed from the studio session master. Now it has to go on your turntable, and be subjected the tracking force of the tonearm assembly, as well as whatever sonic compromises come about because

Re:Not surprising.

[nurb432]

True, but its such a small market now that it since to see 'regular folk' coming back.

Now, if they can just bring the price down on laser pickups to where mere mortals can afford them...

Re:Not surprising.

[fendragon]

One reason why an old tape may sound better than a new CD is that modern recordings get ridiculously heavily compressed at the mastering stage because the bands/producers/record company etc. want their album to be louder than everyone else's. Result: no dynamic range, no music, just loud loud loud.
Things were a little more civilised musically back in the days when tape cassette was a popular release format.

Re:Not surprising.

[zakezuke]

Regarding (1) and (2), you gotta replace the pickup of your CD player as well, although, admittedly, on properly designed players it takes a tad longer. Last year I had to perform this stunt on my 1988 Sony CDP470; before, I already fiddled with the laser diode's current, tracking, and focus but this didn't help for long -- and the wear-out problems came back and got worse.

Anyway, 1988-2006 is a fairly nice period. A pickup is, depending on your machine and from who you buy, an item costing between $20 and $120.

With modern equipment, especially those integrated-into-anything CD players you will hardly achieve that as they are specifically designed to wear out (i.e. the laser diode is always powered on, not only when you actually play the CD, current set just a tad to high, etc.). Sometimes you can just install your favorite OEM drive as a replacement, sometimes you won't even get laser pick-ups for sensible prices.

Bottom line: CD players wear out, too. Especially the cheap ones.

Well, with DVD and CD players, many employ standard rom drives, even my 5 disc carousel dvd player just uses a half open rom drive with a 40 pin connector. These are $20.00 when they finally wear out. But based on my experence the lifespan of a given cd player, even a cheap one, is years. Not true of a stylus.

I have some vinyl. I have more CDs. I have thus far bought 1 cartridge/stylus, two styli, and two belts before switching to another unit which is a direct drive over the past 7 years. That's $30, $40, $40, and a cheep 2nd hand unit at $10. That's $120.

In the past 7 years, I can't say I have bought a "cd" player as I have a JVC unit that works from 1995, but tend to use my DVD player or CD-rom drive to play CDs.

The real bottom line is the cost of ownership of a turntable is higher.

Regarding (5), Btw, also the CD is a rather delicate media. Just scratch it on the wrong side. Or bend it a bit, so that improperly fabricated ones start to intake some air and let the reflector rot away. Or just scratch it on the bottom side and hear your CD player jump or hang just like a record would do. The only pro here is, that I eventually be able to repair such a damaged CD, something which would be rather hard with a record.

While this is true, you don't wear out a CD by using it.

(4) is a moot point. Just attach a RIAA preamp, if your amplifier doesn't support records.

Yes, one extra thing to buy. A pre-amp is a difficult thing to find, but not impossible.

And concerning (3), you can also introduce hum with *any* sort of audio equipment once you manage to get ground loops. They may come from your PC, your mixer, heck, even from a CD player which is powered from an outlet which belongs to a circuit different from the one you power the amp with.

The magnetic cartridge is amazing for picking up any form of electrical interference. This would include the hum of the motor, the 60 cycle hum of electricity, fluorescent lights, the sparking of gas stoves, neon signs, you name it. "Bottom line" electrical noice is more sevier on a turn table.

--------------

Again, the issues I described can for the most part be overcome. And vinyl is a perfectly find standard for music. If you accept the fact it requires a tad more work to isolate noise picked up by the magnetic cartridge, extra provisions for grounding, easy to replace parts who's cost tends to start at $20 each, and each use does create wear and tear, and believe it to be a reasonable investment, great.

I do like vinyl, but being objective it requires more work and more money.

Re:Not surprising.

[zakezuke]

Needledoctor disagrees with you. Some of these styluses have ruby or diamond tips, and will run you a few thousand bucks a piece!

I rather thought diamond styli were the norm. Industrial diamonds don't have the same value has jeweler diamonds. Hell, even diamond chips are dirt cheap.

I have heard of ruby styli, but I can't say i've met one in decades. The last time I saw one was for a turntable with 78rpm and 16rpm speeds.

A base stylus will run you $20. You can spend more if you like. I can hear the difference among different turntables so I imagine there is a good reason to spend more.

Re:Not surprising.

[ThJ]

Nice and informative. What the parent is talking about is how the analog medium is continuous while the digital medium is discrete. Because of its rigid sampling intervals, I suspect digital of doing a worse job of capturing fine phase information. Take the example of a sine wave near the Nyquist frequency. Sample it, shift it a few degrees, sample it again, shift it more, etc. You'll end up with many funny digital representations of what's supposed to be a sine wave. Near the Nyquist frequency, you end up with a lot of distortion if your signal doesn't consist of perfectly sample-aligned harmonics. Even at N/4 (11,025 Hz for a CD, this is audible) you'll see many mangled waves if you do this.

Re:Not surprising.

[popisdead]

If you really enjoying nuances and subtleties in music and recording you'll prefer vinyl. I know there are things on half-mastered records which do no show up on CD's. It's really just an argument of convince vs quality.

Re:Not surprising.

[geoffa]

HA! This is great. My father owns United Record Pressing, the vinyl record company in NRP's report. When he bought the place everyone thought he was crazy getting into LPs. I thought that I was going to have to start flipping burgers to support the family. It's really been amazing how successful the company has been. I think the reason it's been successful is that they provide the customer a more tangible product than a CD case or a digital file. They're starting to package the record with a link to download a digital copy of the music. The record becomes more of a souvenir than a music medium.

Re:Not surprising.

[operagost]

I think that, more than waveform interaction, you're hearing two things:

- Poor mastering techniques that allow the level to hit the 90 dB "brick wall", resulting in horrible distortion and artifacts.
- The highpass filter, used in mastering to keep all the information below the 22 KHz barrier, usually starts to kick in at 20 Khz. Not only that, but because of the sharp curve required (it simply HAS to be -90 dB at 22 KHz) the resulting waveform tends to be very jagged except on the very best equipment.

Re:Not surprising.

[Rimbo]

Thanks. Yeah, there seems to be an awful lot of bullshit baggage in discussions about audio, none of which I'm really conversant in. To me, this is a simple mathematical exercise: PCM encoding fails to reproduce the slope of a sound wave (which can approach infinity) and it fails to account for essentially infinite phase differences. You can increase your sample rate and resolution to compensate and give your DAC a few more hints about how to construct the wave between the points you've stored, but to get a significant improvement you have to increase these by a few orders of magnitude, which seems wasteful.

It seems to me that there should be a better way to store waveform data digitally than PCM to compensate that doesn't result in a massive expansion in the amount of data stored.

Re:Not surprising.

[Rimbo]

That is a very interesting and informative post. I know firsthand of the difficulty in preserving sound quality over digital means versus analog means, and I also agree with you that modern pop music has gone overboard with dynamic compression.

I think with audio, there's an awful lot of baggage and religion that makes reasonable discussions very difficult. It's too easy to hear one claim and think that it's another. You seem to be addressing a claim I haven't made, without addressing the claim I did make, which is this: In an apples-to-apples comparison, a couple of good tapes have apparently superior high-range than the same recordings on a CD.

My hypothesis is that it has to do with the limitations of PCM encoding as much as a low sample rate. If so, then the solution isn't necessarily to switch to vinyl, because PCM certainly isn't the only way to encode a waveform digitally.

In my experience, increasing the sample rate up to 96kHz alone helped a lot. An awful lot. It still wasn't quite as good as the original, but it was good. And that right there is a hint as to what the problem is.

Re:Not surprising.

[Rimbo]

It's not that I'm hearing waveform interaction; it's that I'm -not- hearing the waveform interaction. Or rather, my ear, when decoding the waveform into its component frequencies, is getting frequencies that are modulating due to aliasing rather than the original, pure tones. If there are only a couple of ultra-high frequency things happening, it's no big deal; but in most rock music, you get tons of high frequencies interacting with each other. If a guitarist on the fuzzy channel plays a chord with more than three strings at the same time a snare drum hits while a cymbal's still ringing and the singer is shrieking out the letter "t" -- when this sound is played back, you just get a bunch of noise. I mean, not the GOOD kind of noise.

If you remember MOD music back in the days of the PC demo scene or Amiga, then you remember that kind of unfiltered digital distortion at the low sample rates of the time. It's that same sound, but at a much higher pitch.

Ick.

Re:Not surprising.

[Tablizer]

Guys guys, let's just agree that music enjoyment is subjective and that analog and digital produce somewhat different sound profiles. If person X enjoys the sound of analog better, so be it. To each their own.

Re:Not surprising.

[dpastern]

Dynamic range limitations? Baloney. My setup doesn't lack dynamic range at all. It isn't the 120db range that CD presents, but it doesn't need to be. Funny, LPs were fine for many, many years, and no complaints of limited 'dynamic range'. Then CD came along and 'dynamic range' was one of the key selling points (as well as 'perfect audio', admittedly by Technics if I remember correctly). LPs were deliberately killed by RIAA and resellers for a variety of reasons, convenience, increased profits, supposedly better sound quality etc - and I suspect that the RIAA has visions of the future and DRM even back in the early 90s.

Dave

Re:Not surprising.

[dpastern]

I'll disagree with your comment that digital is better - if it was, why is nature, by design, analogue? Music is analogue - real music. If CD is so perfect, why did we seen HDCD, DVD-A and SACD introduced? And they were introduced to make CDs sound better.

I'm not saying CD is bad, it isn't. For most fidelity scenarios, it's perfectly fine. I do think that it lacks the subtlety and finesse of a good vinyl front end, but I guess that some people would say I can't hear and that I'm biased cos I was brought up on vinyl. I rember doing some blind tests on LP vs CD years ago, and in nearly every instance, the listening picked LP as the more enjoyable format.

Dave

Re:Not surprising.

[pho3nixtar]

Man... did you really have to call yourself a "young whipper snapper" in referring to the Pumpkins? Geez... and "they're" about to come out with a new album and everything! Get with the times, man.

Seriously, I don't understand what the deal was with Siamese Dream. The tone of that album could just "suffocate" your ears. VERY long-winded... and muddy production quality. Then again, that's always been Corgan's MO. I will always consider that as one of the (many) reasons that Mellon Collie is the better album between the two.

Re:Not surprising.

[toadlife]

and "they're" about to come out with a new album and everything! Get with the times, man. Yes. I'm stoked. I'm hoping they go on tour and visit somewhere near me,as I was never able see them before they broke up.

The tone of that album could just "suffocate" your ears. VERY long-winded... and muddy production quality. Yea. The production quality makes it one of those albums best listened to with headphones in a quiet room.

I will always consider that as one of the (many) reasons that Mellon Collie is the better album between the two. Well, it would hard for me to say Melon Collie was "worse" than any other album. I probably prefer Siamese dream because of the stage of life I was at when it came out.

Re:Not surprising.

[toadlife]

if it was, why is nature, by design, analogue? Food for thought: While a sound wave may be "analogue" (a variable signal continuous in both time and amplitude), our ears use discrete (digital!) methods to capture that sound.

...but I guess that some people would say I can't hear and that I'm biased cos I was brought up on vinyl. Everyone is biased when it comes to listening. When all you have to rely on is your ears and your brain to measure sound, sound becomes, not some "wave" or "signal", but "what you remember hearing".

Re:Not surprising.

[EricTheO]

I have had this: http://www.numark.com/index.html?http://www.numark .com/products/product_view.php?v=overview&n=5 , turntable for a year now to archive 78rpm and 331/3rpm albums and EP's using it's SPDIF connector. I have 2 separate Shure cartridges for each type of album and use Adobe Audition 2.0 to clean up the recordings. The turntable is built very well and came with a Straight-Arm, best for DJ's and S-Arm, best for recording. Back in the day I used to by my albums, play them once to record them on Cassette's, and put them away,so now I have quite a few pristine vinly albums. My parents 78's are in rougher shape and I need to use Bias's SoundSoap to help in the clean up. Still I can get very good fidelity after the restoration. If you have a sound card with SPDIF it's a better choice than USB.

Re:Not surprising.

[pho3nixtar]

Yes. I'm stoked. I'm hoping they go on tour and visit somewhere near me,as I was never able see them before they broke up. Have you heard anything about who is going to be filling out the rest of the band yet? I can't imagine James or D'arcy will be joining back up with Billy, but you never know...

Well, it would hard for me to say Melon Collie was "worse" than any other album. I probably prefer Siamese dream because of the stage of life I was at when it came out. Yeah, that's how I feel about Live's Throwing Copper.

Re:Not surprising.

[toadlife]

Have you heard anything about who is going to be filling out the rest of the band yet? I can't imagine James or D'arcy will be joining back up with Billy, but you never know... Not a clue. The only thing I read about it was a little blurb.

Re:Not surprising.

[Horace2]

You are only making the sound quality worse. A copy won't be as good as the original The "dynamic range limitations" of vinyl won't be corrected by the process you have described. If you want to make good digital copies of your vinyl, try a lossless compression such as FLAC or, if need to use lossy compression, Ogg Vorbis. MP3 should only be used if you have to.

Re:Not surprising.

[Horace2]

The highest frequencies are filtered out before the analog signal is digitized, by an anti-aliasing filter. This filter is very very steep as it has to filter so the output passes DC-20KHZ and reduce 24KHZ+ to a negligible amount.

Flashback

[FatAlb3rt]

Didn't vinyl make a comeback about 12 or 15 years ago during the grunge era? What makes anyone think this is anything other than another small bump in popularity?

Re:Flashback

[battery111]

vinyl is also the de-facto standard for DJ's at parties and clubs. CD equivalents that allow you to mix and scratch are somewhat frowned upon in these areas, and while the rave scene has lost most of it's popularity, there are still quite a few fans out there of this type of entertainment. I don't think that anyone's arguing that vinyl is going to overtake CDs or other digital formats in popularity, merely acknowledging that the format is still thriving, and shows no signs of disappearing any time soon.

Re:Flashback

[mr_matticus]

It also "made a comeback" in 2000 or so when lots of indie bands started copying the older indie bands who had released both on vinyl and CD (e.g. Death Cab). Vinyl became an indie scene "gold card." It had as much to do with nostalgia as it did with any particular technical reason (vinyl also has the benefit of wearing out and making you have to re-purchase albums periodically).

Re:Flashback

[servoled]

Underground bands have pretty much always released stuff on vinyl... mostly 7" singles. It just so happens that some of those bands actually wound up with a large fan base so lots of their fans ended up buying their old vinyl releases to complete the collection.

I'm not sure why vinyl is popular with underground bands, but I'd have to guess its an economic decision more than a "hipness" decision.

Re:Flashback

[mr_matticus]

Well certainly part of it is that smaller labels (which charge less) are still able to put out vinyl records inexpensively. However, CD pressing is also quite affordable, so the difference is largely based on pragmatics more so than economics directly. It may well be, however, that releasing EPs is easier and more guilt-free than releasing a 35-minute album on CD. I really can't imagine anyone balking at the price of a low-run CD release from the CD-equivalent of a print shop and running to a vinyl repro, which can't possibly be much cheaper.

Re:Flashback

[garry danger]

its not just the "rave" scene that like vinyl. any type of dance music (techno, house, breaks) will generally be released on 12" due to the fact that dj's just love playing on proper turntables.

although that said, you will see all the big name dj's using the pioneer cdj-1000 which work on cd's and not vinyl. it is the industry standard as you can play a burnt cd just like a record (even scratching). There are websites out there that will convert the vinyl record to digital and let you buy the mp3 as drm free, such as beatport

I love my collection of vinyl music, and although the cdj-1000's are very cool I still much prefer to mix on my old school vinyl decks.

Re:Flashback

[adelord]

vinyl is also the de-facto standard for DJ's at parties and clubs. CD equivalents that allow you to mix and scratch are somewhat frowned upon in these areas, and while the rave scene has lost most of it's popularity, there are still quite a few fans out there of this type of entertainment. I don't think that anyone's arguing that vinyl is going to overtake CDs or other digital formats in popularity, merely acknowledging that the format is still thriving, and shows no signs of disappearing any time soon. Vinyl was the standard, but isn't anymore. Today artists like Richie Hawtin and Sasha use Ableton Live http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableton_Live to produce a dynamic set that is impossible to trainspot. Wikipedia has a list of users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ableton_Live _users

Others like Mark Farina use cds. Final Scratch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Scratch is still in use as well.

Judging by what was seen at the winter music conference this year, th stand set-up is four decks- two for cds and two for vinyl. Five years ago vinyl was the standard, but times are still changing.

Vinyl is still in common use, esp. for local or regional artists, but of the people I know who actually make their living off of playing music none use vinyl exclusively anymore.

Re:Flashback

[servoled]

Its entirely possible that they are pretty close in price. From the quick Google search I did, the CD pressing folks seemed to require larger minimum orders than the vinyl pressing folks though. Granted that was based on just a couple sites.

I will say that I have very rarely run into bands which release full length albums only on vinyl. It does seem very common with singles though. It could have something to do with the CD-single being pretty much a dead format, who knows.

Re:Flashback

[battery111]

I stand corrected. I have been away from this scene for a number of years. I just remember 5 or 6 years ago, all of my DJ friends would balk at DJs using anything other than tech 12's. Clearly, the industry has come a long way, and while it may become more accepted to use digital formats, I still doubt that it will ever dissapear completely from this scene.

Re:Flashback

[adelord]

I stand corrected. I have been away from this scene for a number of years. I just remember 5 or 6 years ago, all of my DJ friends would balk at DJs using anything other than tech 12's. Clearly, the industry has come a long way, and while it may become more accepted to use digital formats, I still doubt that it will ever dissapear completely from this scene. The sea change began to occur right after you left, and it was mostly top-down, with the most successful and respected making the change first. Depending on what city you live near you may want to return to the scene- for the most part the only people left really are all about the music, and the music is way better than ever before. All genres, with the exception of house, have seen their best releases in the last year and a half. All of those basement DJs now have a few years of experience with Pro-Tools, and music production software is common and the hardware to run all of it is cheap.

(software quality + amount of file sharing)*(number of users)^(experience)= music quality

The music was good then, it is great now, and is expected to be even better tomorrow.

Re:Flashback

[Tim Browse]

I just remember 5 or 6 years ago, all of my DJ friends would balk at DJs using anything other than tech 12's. Clearly, the industry has come a long way, and while it may become more accepted to use digital formats, I still doubt that it will ever dissapear completely from this scene.

Ooh, you'll love this then :-)

Re:Flashback

[Don_dumb]

its not just the "rave" scene that like vinyl. any type of dance music (techno, house, breaks) will generally be released on 12" due to the fact that dj's just love playing on proper turntables.

although that said, you will see all the big name dj's using the pioneer cdj-1000 which work on cd's and not vinyl. Well this man - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_oakenfold is the most succseful DJ in the world and (unless something has changed in the last year) he only uses vinyl when DJing.

Re:Flashback

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, vinyl and the mighty 1200's aren't going away but the digital stuff has got considerably better in recent years and hence more accepted. Pioneer CD decks have been standard equipment in UK dance clubs for some time. The future is a fusion of analogue and digital stuff, which in skilled hands can sound great. At the extreme pure digital is almost a different discipline though, you see artists specifically advertised as doing an Ableton Live set as opposed to "DJ set". The key is to use it properly i.e. as a live performance experimenting, mixing different media and reacting to the crowd, rather than laying down the track in the studio beforehand and turning up to press play.

(Not a DJ but a few of my friends are)

Re:Flashback

[smchris]

A USB turntable is interesting from the standpoint of how technologies overlap (or don't). I saw an ad for one of these turntables the other week and I believe that ad mentioned an audio-technica cartridge. My thought was that Technics may have figured out how to ramp up the turntable biz and the idea is a natural.

But how come they just came up with it? Because CDs took over in the early 80s and the home computer wasn't commonplace until arguably the earlier 90s. That decade gap apparently made it difficult for the technologies to conceptually connect. [Excepting, obviously, for experimenters who were willing to connect a preamp to their sound card.]

That consumer gap and how the two just reconnected is sort of interesting.

Re:Flashback

[garry danger]

paul is using a cdj-1000 in the photo on that link

Re:Flashback

[funkatron]

It isn't as de-facto as it was a few years ago but I've found there's quite a few tunes (especially drum and bass stuff) that are difficult to get on anything else. I also seem to like the stuff I've bought on vinyl better, I often buy downloads and then decide I hate them after playing them twice.

Re:Flashback

[Obyron]

I've been reading Slashdot for 7 or 8 years, and this is one of the funniest things I've ever seen! And, for anyone who doubts, that is in fact a Pioneer CDJ-1000. Furthermore, the following is from an interview with Oakenfold in DJ Times:

DJ Times: You said that you're using the Pioneer CDJ-1000 -- have you seen the MK3 version?

Oakenfold: The Pioneer CDJ-1000 is such a masterful piece of machinery, I don't know how you can improve on that unless it sprouts legs and makes me a vodka-tonic.

The gold standard in DJing is still a pair of Technics 1210 turntables, but in a scene that's "all about the music" this doesn't matter to a lot of people besides elitist DJs. As the parent noted, Oakie is using CDJ-1000s, but that's not the end of it. Laptops are becoming a more common sight at raves. Ferry Corsten did an entire album in Cubase and Ableton Live. The only ones making a big fuss about how it has to be vinyl or nothing are elitists. I could fire up Ableton, add its Vinyl Distortion filter to a track ripped directly from a CD, and play it through a PA and you'd swear you were hearing vinyl.

Re:Flashback

[poot_rootbeer]

Today artists like Richie Hawtin and Sasha use Ableton Live to produce a dynamic set that is impossible to trainspot.

I don't know who those people are, or what "trainspot" means in this context.

All I know is that when DJ Jazzy Jeff, Kid Koala, or The X-Ecutioners man the wheels of steel, those wheels have vinyl LPs on them.

Re:Flashback

[LordSnooty]

In the later 90s I was hooking up a turntable to line in and grabbing my favourite bits of vinyl that way. The idea of a USB turntable makes me scratch my head at first, what benefit can it bring? Then I think about control via the computer - finally, a skip function for vinyl! But that's about it. That does it, I'm off to RTFA.

Re:Flashback

[Anonymous Coward]

Vinyl is still the standard.

Compact Disc is usually used by Disc Jockeys that travel by plane a lot; having monetary success is irrelevant. Carrying a limited amount of vinyl versus having an order of magnitude more music with you on Compact Disc is very enticing; you are no longer limited by the vinyl set and can now play more than one set because of it.

Mark Farina has said that mixing Compact Discs afford him more control over what he is doing; in other words, it's easier to mix, and allows you to focus on the crowd and what you are playing. That's great and all, but not 100% true; when he plays at home, you'll see him playing records.

Re:Flashback

[Anonymous Coward]

Rave??? Scratching??? Say hiphop.

There's no debate

[heinousjay]

Vinyl sounds freakin awful.

Commence proving me wrong

Re:There's no debate

[quanticle]

Vinyl sounds freakin' awful...

That depends. What kind of record player are you using? How good is your amplifier? What is the quality of the record. While vinyl isn't universally high quality, you can get good sound out of vinyl if you take care of your records and play them on quality turntables.

Re:There's no debate

[QuantumG]

So, are you saying that you require skill and knowledge to use get good sound out of vinyl?

Do you require a similar amount of skill and knowledge to get similar sound out of a CD player?

Or is all that taken care of for you?

Re:There's no debate

[servoled]

The prevailing thought seems to be a high quality vinyl setup will beat a CD setup due to the inherent differences between the recordings. However I don't think anyone will try to argue that CDs aren't more convenient than vinyl.

Re:There's no debate

[Overzeetop]

And this has been verified with a double blind test using uninterested parties in an ABX format?

Re:There's no debate

[Knx]

It partly depends on whether you're using something like this or something like this.

Now, more seriously, the fact is that the dynamic range of vinyl records is about 60dB in the best case, as opposed to about 100dB for a CD. What makes a vinyl actually sound good (or at least 'different') is all the sound enhancement process which is performed to overcome the 'poor' dynamic range.

There's also some maths behind that if you're curious: RIAA curve. (And yeah, that was way before these guys were most known for their efforts against file sharing.)

Re:There's no debate

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. Pwned.

Hey, look, I supported my argument just as well as you.

Re:There's no debate

[king-manic]

Conversley if you use high quality amps/speakers and a algorithm that fills in the missing frequencies in the digital recordings or simply use HD audio you can get a similiar quality for a similiar price without seeming like a luddite.

Re:There's no debate

[Eideewt]

An algorithm that does what, now? Invents new sounds to fill the supersonic range?

Re:There's no debate

[servoled]

Its hard to double blind ABX test convenience :) Realistically it comes down to personal preference. You can analyze the audio playback for noise characteristics and all that good crap all you want, but ultimately it comes down to the listeners preference.

Personally I have a old Sansui turntable that I picked up from Goodwill about 6 years back that feeds a mediocre Proton receiver. As to whether CD or vinyl sounds better? I have no clue myself since I don't feel like buying the same album twice to find out. All my vinyl purchases are stuff that is only released on vinyl (e.g. 7" singles) or albums that are cheaper in vinyl form than CD form. It is nice to be able to easily rip the CDs and skip tracks at will, but honestly I don't use the ripped MP3s much anyways and prefer listening to complete albums to individual tracks, so the added convenience of CD isn't that important of a factor to me.

Re:There's no debate

[doti]

By far, the most important item (apart from a non-scratched disc) is a good needle.

With good equipment, the sound quality is way better then the chopped digital audio from the bits of the CD.

Re:There's no debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, an interesting thing happens when you compare CDs and vinyl records. Turns out that CDs do a much, much better job of reproducing the original recorded waveform than vinyl. I.e, for sound fidelity, CDs totally kill records. It's not even close.

Now the interesting part. It seems that humans don't really care about sound fidelity. They care about things sounding good, which is actually not the same thing. The vinyl records introduce a whole range of coloring distortions into the audio. This is made far worse by the noise reduction circuitry and lousy, thermally varient amplifiers (I'm talking to you, tube-amp owners). This radically changes the way the sound comes out (go ahead, compare the waveforms using an oscope). It also makes them softer, warmer, and generally more pleasant. The real world has a lot of harsh edges, ringing tones, and crackles that really don't sound too pleasing.

So, in conclusion, vinyl is crap for reproducing audio. It's good for making sounds pleasing to humans (except for the horrible scratching sound, of course). Ever wonder why the totaly voice-synth'd Britney Spears albums sell so many?. It's the same reason that people like vinyl records.

Re:There's no debate

[king-manic]

Infer informations between gaps in sampling based on local patterns to the gap. Add commonly missing tones. It's likely more marketting then tech since CD and well kept records sound exactly the same to me. In fact high quality MP3's and CD's soudn exactly the same. Only positional audio make smuch of a difference to my ear.

Re:There's no debate

[dal20402]

Absolutely right. As usual when someone posts something really smart that bucks the CW my mod points are taking a tropical vacation.

Sadly, CDs are not great either, for different reasons. Where vinyl introduces the uncontrollable variables you talk about (thermal variations, electrical noise affecting the very-low-voltage signal, never-ideal disc and needle quality, dust) CDs, because of their low sampling frequency (which should have been 96kHz from the start), mangle the waveforms at high frequencies. Still, CDs come a lot closer to delivering accurate reproduction in any form of real-world use. For starters, you just can't always keep dust away from your needle...

As for amps, it has always amazed me that people *love* the ones that introduce distortion and claim the accurate ones are "cold" and "technical." It's not the amp's job to be warm and emotional; it's the musician's. I run away from any component that advertises "warm" or "musical" sound; those are code words for distortion.

My own setup consists of various digital sources playing through a big Class D amp into speakers with poly cone woofer/midrange and planar tweeters. Everyone complains the sound is too cold. But it's dead-accurate with test signals and I can actually hear the detail in my recordings, not just "warmth" that may make me feel good but isn't there.

Re:There's no debate

[prockcore]

It's likely more marketting then tech since CD and well kept records sound exactly the same to me

Depends on what CD you're talking about. The Loudness War has adversely affected CD quality for a decade now. The LP version of the latest Chili Peppers album doesn't have anywhere near the amount of clipping that the CD version has. It has a higher dynamic range.. this isn't "feels warmer" this is "measurably different wave forms".

Re:There's no debate

[fuzz6y]

I can actually hear the detail in my recordings, not just "warmth" that may make me feel good but isn't there.

Isn't "There"? Dude, there's no music "there" at all. It's all a series of pits and ridges on a piece of vinyl, or a series of bright and dark spots on a piece of polycarbonate, and while it makes some sense to discuss the "true" sound with demos and calibration tracks, the concept is much fuzzier when discussing a piece of recorded music. Is it the sound you would have heard inside the musician's head? The sound you would have heard at a live performance (and remember genres which are likely to use speakers and amplifiers are almost certain to use "warm" ones), or the sound you'd hear if you were standing by the wall in the recording studio? Further confusing the issue is the fact that the recording has been produced by someone who specifically altered the recording from its "true" form.

Re:There's no debate

[shaitand]

'An algorithm that does what, now? Invents new sounds to fill the supersonic range?'

Shh don't tell anyone but it doesn't matter. Those frequencies are outside the range of human hearing anyway. How about I sell you a program to fill in the gaps for $500 (it really just zips and then unzips the file, but I promise the HQ vinyl, the CD, and the final result will sound identical).

Re:There's no debate

[JebusIsLord]

My understanding is that a lot of vinyl was also affected by the loudness war. In fact, these are referred to as "hot" recordings because the increased volume causes the needle to overheat (melting the record). The chili peppers recordings might be better though - they couldn't be any worse than the CDs (some of the worst ever recorded).

Is it just me though, or have the recording engineers eased off a bit in the last few years? Maybe the artists finally came to their senses.

Re:There's no debate

[profplump]

First, it's not clipped, it's compressed. If you're getting CDs with clipped wave forms they're just poorly recorded, and I wouldn't expect any form of media from that recording engineer to come out any better than the CD.

Second, you're assuming the vinyl isn't mastered from the same compressed recording as the CD. That may or may not be true for the particular album you cite, but in general I have to assume that there is a single master for both versions for both business practice and economic reasons. If I'm willing to compress for loudness on a CD why wouldn't I compress for loudness on vinyl -- I get all the same benefits (and determents) on vinyl that I do on the CD, and I only have to produce one version of the song. Otherwise I have to pay someone to produce another master for an already low-volume media format, and I lose the perceived benefit of the compression that I intentionally added to the CD.

Finally, "warmer" is also a measurably different waveform, though I admit somewhat less objectively defined than "wider dynamic range." Anyone who as ever run a sound board or programmed a synth could tell you exactly what people mean when they say "make it warmer." If you're mixing existing waveforms it generally means "add some reverb to simulate a sounding board or hall" and if you're creating the waveform from scratch it generally means "add an LFO (low-frequency oscillator) to simulate vibrato."

Re:There's no debate

[Prune]

In regards to vinyl, I do agree that overall CDs win. But your general argument on quality fails, because you forget that the human ear weighs different distortions differently (blind testing by GedLee presented at the AES a few years ago shows perception of distortion doesn't correlate with an unweighted metric such as THD). Low order even harmonics are undetectable until several percent. Crossover distortion from class B or AB output stages is detectable in the parts per million (and the presence of one distortion doesn't necessarily mask the detectability of another). The problem with digital is jitter (phase noise). Jitter in the I2S signal going into the DAC chip is converted to amplitude errors of a very complex nature, and are easily audible. There's a fairly technical but fascinating paper from the journal of the AES here http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C134%20Paper%20121st%20convention%20(c orrected).pdf
Worse, most DAC chips use high oversampling (usually 8x), which further increases sensitivity to jitter, as to avoid the need for a steep anti-imaging filter in the subsequent analog stages. There are other problems in a digital system, such as the digital filters in the resampling hardware, which are only partially alleviated by 24 bit 96 kHz systems.

Re:There's no debate

[Prune]

Jitter is actually a bigger problem than the filtering. Plus, 96 kHz... that means even higher clock frequency and more jitter sensitivity. It's a big issue, and the distortions produced when jitter (phase noise) gets in the DAC chip are complex and audible in the ppm, unlike the low order even harmonics of class A tube or MOSFET amps. A good technical paper on the nature of jitter-induced distortions in digital audio: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C134%20Paper%20121st%20convention%20(c orrected).pdf

Class D amps have a long way to go. THD is meaningless, as the blind test studies by GedLee that were presented at the Audio Engineering Society convention a few years ago show, THD doesn't correlate with the distortion detectability, since the type of distortion is far more important. Crossover distortion from class B and AB stages, and effects of jitter, are audible in the parts per million. There's another type of distortion that doesn't affect THD measures at all, but is perceptually significant: thermal memory distortion. There's a good description of it and ways to decrease it here: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/ (there's also an AES paper linked there that describes how to measure it in real amps). Of course, tubes don't exhibit such distortion, and is my guess as to one of the reasons some people prefer them despite higher THD than typical solid state amps (however, this higher THD is simply due to most tube amps being simple; a tube with constant current load is more linear than any single solid state device; you can easily make a tube amp as linear as a solid state one if you use as many tubes as you would transistors).

Re:There's no debate

[prockcore]

First, it's not clipped, it's compressed. If you're getting CDs with clipped wave forms they're just poorly recorded, and I wouldn't expect any form of media from that recording engineer to come out any better than the CD.

Exactly my point. Search for Vlado Meller. He's a Sony master engineer who introduces obvious clipping. Square waves a-plenty.

He can't mix vinyl because of the limitations.. if he tried to press his master onto wax, it'd be white noise. That's why the LP versions of albums he worked on are mastered by someone completely different.

Re:There's no debate

[TeknoHog]

CDs, because of their low sampling frequency (which should have been 96kHz from the start), mangle the waveforms at high frequencies.

For an otherwise insightful post, you managed to forget about the sampling theorem and its implications. You do get mangled waveforms at high frequencies, but since you cannot hear the overtones above 20 KHz, you cannot distinguish between different waveforms above 10 KHz.

Re:There's no debate

[Cyberax]

So, why can't you add artificial distortions using DSPs? It doesn't seem to be very hard (of course, we can't reproduce effects of tube amplifiers, but they really are much exaggerated).

Re:There's no debate

[BlueParrot]

From Wikipedia:
some individuals are able to hear pitches up to 22 kHz and perhaps beyond, while others are limited to about 16 kHz. The ability of most adults to hear sounds above about 8 kHz begins to deteriorate in early middle age

So, you want it above 90khz... What are you going to do with your record player ? Phone home?

Re:There's no debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep moding demonstatively false statements up? DO the audiofools have mod point day or something?

Re:There's no debate

[Bush Pig]

You're much more likely to _need_ to use a limiter on vinyl (so the cutting-lathe doesn't break through to the next groove in the spiral). Properly mastered, CDs will _always_ be capable of greater dynamic range than vinyl.

Re:There's no debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I know, it's like I was reading this book on my PC when I realized the words where all like chopped into digital bits, so I like bought the book on paper and I'm like wow ??

Re:There's no debate

[Obfiscator]

'As for amps, it has always amazed me that people *love* the ones that introduce distortion and claim the accurate ones are "cold" and "technical."'

On a slight tangent, I've noticed the same effect in film. I shot a waterfall with Kodachrome 64 and Fuji Velvia 50 a few years back. I thought the Veliva looked much nicer. Exactly one week later, I was at the same waterfall at the same time of day. It looked exactly like the Kodachrome (colder, almost Techni-color). Sometimes reality is not what people want.

Re:There's no debate

[br0d]

Thanks for making sense...analog versus digital arguments give me about as much nausea as mac versus PC... You guys are like Pepto

Re:There's no debate

[dal20402]

Sometimes reality is not what people want.

So true. Film is a useful analogy. People seem to find that black-and-white, sepia, blurry, long-exposure, etc., etc. inspire certain emotions independently of the content of the photo. I think this is exactly what goes on with vinyl and with those who prefer older recordings.

Myself, I have to confess I don't really understand why that's so desirable. The great photographers for me are not the ones who try to manipulate the emotions with effects, but the ones who show me something, already in the world, in a new way which I would never have imagined.

And just like I want to see the world in photos, I want to hear a musician on recordings. I don't want to hear an audio engineer or a technology trying to manipulate me. I want to hear a musician (or group) playing.

Thus my perhaps-too-dismissive responses to vinyl proponents. I need to step back and accept that some people *like* to hear a less faithful reproduction, and that that's OK. I should only get irritated when people claim that vinyl has higher fidelity.

Re:There's no debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yikes. That sounds like a harsh listening environment. One thing about it that may be nice though is the Planar (ribbon) tweeters. Throw that class D amp in the river and get something better. Listening to digital sources on a really accurate system really makes me wince. The hiss and wow of analog sources are much better than the encoding of mp3s and aacs and the such. On a good system like yours you should be cursing the artifacts of the digital age right now. Otherwise your system is probably not up to snuff or your listening room is so bad that you cant hear it. MP3 is an ugly codec. AAC is better but the stereo image still suffers alot compared to vinyl.

I have a 24 track studio in my living room so I am kind of a 'freak' about these things. My recommendation is that if you are listening to lots of digital music listen to it on a colored system. Vice versa for analog sources.

Trade in that Class D amp for an adcom gfa 555. (ebay about 400bucks).

Your welcome.

Regards.

Oh another good speaker for digital sources is a jbl l100 or jbl 4311. About 70% of the music that was released on vinyl or tape was mixed on those. So, the mix will pop out of them the same way it did for the audio engineer that mixed the song. That will give you the great clarity that you are looking for for not alot of cash. And a little bit of warmth

Re:There's no debate

[dal20402]

Funny you should mention the 555. I demoed one in my listening room awhile back, back to back with a B&K ST-2140. I went with the B&K, although I wasn't really happy with either one; I felt they both covered up detail a little too much.

The Class D is a Sony 5000, which has some interesting technology that has ironed out a lot of the typical flaws of Class D without sacrificing the advantages (non-phase-shifted lows, very precise highs, flat frequency response). It isn't as powerful as the B&K but both my ears and my calibration discs like it better. Once it broke in, it was as if someone had cleaned out my ears, when compared to the B&K. The soundstage is deeper, I hear more details, and I hear more differences in timbre. Voices are not quite so "radiant," but I'd rather hear what's actually there.

And, don't worry, on this system (as opposed to an iPod) I'm not using lossy sources (unless I have no other choice). Sometimes I'm using my old Sony ES CD player (as a transport, obviously, since you don't want to do D/A conversion on signals feeding a Class D amp), sometimes I'm just playing losslessly compressed tracks out of iTunes through the built-in SPDIF on my PowerMac G5.

The Sony doesn't have great A/D conversion. Analog sources (radio or vinyl) sound a little strange. But the (good) digital ones rock my world.

If you want to wince when listening to this system, feed it harpsichord music compressed to 160kbps... ;-) it's actually a good way to demonstrate the problems with compression to fidelity-ignorant people.

Re:There's no debate

[Anonymous Coward]

Sampling frequency, you fucking retard, not the sound frequency.

Re:There's no debate

[dpastern]

Very good post :-) Jitter is supposedly a problem with CDs, I've never heard it per sé. I've just upgraded my DAC from a DPA Little Bit II, to a DPA 1 Series 3 unit (more accurate sound, more detail, bigger soundstage, higher and deeper as well). Both units have the ability to connect a CD transport that has been "deltraned" or modified to slave the signal between the transport and clock with a master clock signal (well, that's about the best that I can describe the process).

Initially, and for a good number of years, I used my Esoteric P-500 CD transport (Esoteric is Teac's high end brand, taking a lot of what they learned from their Tascam units). This unit was not deltraned. The laser started mucking up around 4 years ago and I stopped using it, due to financial restraints of not being able to justify to get it repaired. I've been using a cheap Pioneer DVD player as my CD transport for the past 3 or so years (kindly donated by my best mate), but will be getting the Esoteric unit repaired.

I've been lucky enough to actually find the guy who used to do all of the repairs for DPA (they went bust in 98), and he's going to provide me with the parts for deltraning the transport, and instructions on how to do so. So, I'll be able to test this jitter component, and how much it does actually affect CDs. This repair guy is an older guy, and seems pretty truthful, and his opinion is that it makes a HUGE difference, like day & night.

I'll be interested if it does make a difference, cos then all of the CD and DVD players that populate the modern home are suffering from it as well more than likely, and obviously sound degradation is occuring.

Anyways, thanks for the good post :-)

Cheers,

Dave

Re:There's no debate

[hszp]

"Humans don't really care about sound fidelity."

My personal experience on this: a friend and I discussed mp3 compression and he insisted, that he would never downsample music to 22050 (like I do on my portable MP3-player) because the difference can be heard. I proposed an experiment: took a downsampled version of a good quality sound clip as well as the original, and had him listen to both versions several times to check if he could tell the difference.
To my surprise:
1. I could clearly hear the difference on some average quality speakers (I was counting on them!)
2. he could clearly differentiate between the two without a single mistake
3. and he perceived the downsampled version to be the better one =) (without any doubt!)
4. profit! (wanna bet?)

its hip to own vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

It just happens to be hip to own vinyl again, mainly due to "audiophile" acts like the White Stripes and Modest Mouse, and other hipster indie rockers wannabes.

This too shall pass.

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[Mr2001]

You're joking, right? The White Stripes and Modest Mouse are shining examples of lo-fi. There's nothing "audiophile" about them.

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man, Lou B was lo-fi before there was a lo-fi.

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[maxume]

Well, they are more about the mysterious and nebulous impression of the listener than they are about anything quantifiable. (and I realize you probably aren't talking about the 'that's an extra clean digital cable' audiophile, but who can resist making fun?)

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[TheBeardIsRed]

It's not that its "hip" to own vinyl. People produce vinyl because it's more feasible in small quantities unlike CDs. For example, my band sick fix. We just finished a 2 week tour. Basically sold 50 copies of our record the first night at a basement show and had to scramble to figure out what to do the next 2 weeks.

Second, it gives you more room for artwork. Third, it's better for audio archival (i have plenty of CDs from 1988 that are pitted being stored in jewel cases on a dark shelf) while i have plenty of records produced 20 years before i was bornn that still sound perfect.

So besides the economics, aesthetics, & archival reasons? Yes you're right "audiophile" lo-fi/no-fi acts are getting into the game and "squeezing in" on punk/hardcore acts like mine. But you know what? I'll keep producing & collecting vinyl of bands I'm into and you can keep getting all your tips from the jackasses at Hydrogen audio who are buying $700+ turntables.

You have to understand that there are multiple "markets" involved in the production and consumption of the media you're talking about. It seems that point was missed on you (and i won't even start up on the DJ sector).

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[RexRhino]

They are 70s vintage analog gear "lo-fi"... as in $200,000 tape machine and tube processing equipment "lo-fi"... You can't really call it lo-fi so much as retro: it is an impecable deliberate sound.

Real lo-fi would be recording on your laptop mike jack, or those little all-in-one Yamaha digital recorders.

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[videbimusne]

People produce vinyl because it's more feasible in small quantities unlike CDs.

Umm... ever heard of recordable CDs?

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[KozmoStevnNaut]

the jackasses at Hydrogen audio who are buying $700+ turntables.

Err... The guys at Hydrogen Audio are the ones who insist on double-blind ABX tests before they accept subjective statements about sound quality (TOS #8). They are also firm believers in digital formats, and especially lossless compression such as FLAC, WavPack, Monkey's Audio etc. etc..

I've gotten more useful and genuinely insightful audio advice there than any other place.

You must be thinking of some audiophile-infested forum somewhere else, but it's most likely not Hydrogen Audio.

Re:its hip to own vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down as "Troll". Please. Now.

USB?

[Anonymous Coward]

record player with USB? doesn't that defeat the purpose of analog sound quality?

Re:USB?

[setirw]

But it doesn't defeat the purpose of coolness.

Re:USB?

[eriklou]

Whats that make it, medfi?

Re:USB?

[lawpoop]

I think it's used by musicians who want to import mixing, beat-matching, or scratching into their digital recording set-up.

Re:USB?

[falconwolf]

record player with USB? doesn't that defeat the purpose of analog sound quality?

No, you can still hookup the turntable to the amplifier. The usb port simply allows you to listen to the music on your computer, or you can digitize the music.

Falcon

Re:USB?

[ozbird]

record player with USB? doesn't that defeat the purpose of analog sound quality?

Relax - it's using a valve/tube-based ADC.
(Not really - but it's a pretty cool gadget.)

Re:USB?

[iainl]

Only if you use that crappy deck as your only one. The big downside that made me switch to a primarily CD-based setup was that I got sick of buying albums on both formats, just so I could put it on my iPod for portable listening.

Once I had a decent dedicated CD player the sound quality is just fine, too. I still like my vinyl, but it's just for when I feel like faffing around.

Re:USB?

[Anonymous Coward]

USB out, cool? Ha! You need at least a coax digital out to be cool! http://www.stantondj.com/

Re:USB?

[Doctor Memory]

record player with USB? doesn't that defeat the purpose of analog sound quality? Transferring any analog source to a computer defeats the purpose of analog sound quality. Even if you get a "audiophile-quality" sound card and plug your turntable directly into that, it gets digitized at some point. You don't do it because you love the way it sounds, you do it so you can have access to it via your computer. You can use lossless compression and a high sampling rate to capture as much fidelity as possible, but don't forget that the inner tracks on a vinyl album are lower fidelity than the outer (due to CAV vs. CLV like a CD), so it becomes less of an issue for some tracks.

It's a fashion trend

[QuantumG]

like most things related to music. How popular the wax is depends on who is saying it is great.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[goombah99]

The social equivalent of tongue piercing. Once everyone goes digital it's fun to shock people by going analog. Plus scarcity creates value among collectors. One thing is true: vinyl will outlast CD in durability, and the error correction is much more robust on Analog.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[FLEB]

One thing is true: vinyl will outlast CD in durability

When the apocolypse comes, give me a pin, a piece of cardboard, something to use as a spindle, and a steady finger. I'll still be rockin'.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[king-manic]

One thing is true: vinyl will outlast CD in durability, and the error correction is much more robust on Analog.

I don't think so. the abuse a standard CD is subjected to would utterly destroy a record. how many people put a dozen naked Records on top of each other in a care that goe over bumps. 2 bumps and you have yourself a pile of useless plastic. I do the same to CD's and they last about a year with this abuse. Records last a long time now, because those who buy them treat them properly. CD's have finite lifespans because they are small, and versatile and thus often abused.

CD's and Records fail in different ways. A light scratch across the record will render every track with a regular periodic snap/pop or even render it unplayable. A light scratch on a CD may result in a bit of a skip or no data loss. A deep scratch on both results in an unplayable disc. Multiple light scratches on a CD will still often be playable and often without quality loss while the same for a Record renders it unplayable. Repeated play degrades a record, while it doesn't really degrade a CD. And Vinyl is not as mobile.

Also, You can back up a CD. You cannot back up a Record into the same format. Error correction on analog data is not more "robust" it's different. Critical failure on an anologue system is different then on digital. If I introduce random noise to a CD, I can digitally filter it out if I know how. The same type of error on a anologue signal might result in static. cleaning up such a systemic loss is hard on analogue. When the damage is mroe severe the digital may be unrecoverable while the analogue may still cary some of th edata. Digital has a recoverable area/damaged area rate that looks like a inverse log. 0-50% damage = 100% recover 50%+ = 0%. While Anaglogue has a linear decline.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[profplump]

As long as your durability requirements don't include the ability to withstand or recover from: crushing, bending, moderately high temperatures, airborne particulate matter, skin oils, or frequent playback, then sure, vinyl is waaaaaaay more durable.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[shinma]

Never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend) with a tongue piercing, huh?

There's more to them than shock value. Really.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[goombah99]

And sewer rat might taste like pumkin pie but I'm not eating one to find out.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Just like people with fractured legs might need crutches to walk properly...
Or someone with a hearing problem may need a hearing aid...
Or an impotent man may need a penile implant...

The only difference is that, since tongue piercing is, like, _soooo_ counterculture, you get to have a rush trying to play "We know something you don't know" (complete with the knowing wink, smile, and nudge). In the end, though, if you need a tongue-bar to hit the heights that any properly performing s3xual human does you can be sure that you've got nothing but a crutch to augment your lack of skill.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[larry bagina]

When the apocolypse comes, give me a pin, a piece of cardboard, something to use as a spindle, and a steady finger. I'll still be rockin'.

So... are you going to sit on it and rotate?

Re:It's a fashion trend

[heinousjay]

Damn, it's the end of the world: I agree with you, completely and without reservation.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Lisandro]

One thing is true: vinyl will outlast CD in durability, and the error correction is much more robust on Analog.

I'll have some of what you're smoking.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[geobeck]

The social equivalent of tongue piercing. Once everyone goes digital it's fun to shock people by going analog.

Tho tongue pierthing ith jutht for thock value?! Thit!

Re:It's a fashion trend

[slim]

Repeated play degrades a record, while it doesn't really degrade a CD. True. But I read somewhere that regular play actually maintains vinyl records. In typical storage conditions (i.e. not a climate controlled archive), mould will grow in the groove. Playing the record every so often actually scrapes the mould out before it gets too deep.

Ah, technology I can actually understand :)

Re:It's a fashion trend

[shaitand]

'In the end, though, if you need a tongue-bar to hit the heights that any properly performing s3xual human does you can be sure that you've got nothing but a crutch to augment your lack of skill.'

What if she doesn't need the tongue bar and then adds that performance enhancing tool to exceed the heights that your average properly performing sexual human achieves?

Just because the sex you experience is dull, mediocre, and reaches a pleasure plateau doesn't mean some of us don't get to go beyond those heights.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes beyond that. CD's can't reproduce anything above 22Khz, for obvious reasons... ...you may not be able to hear the frequencies above that point on vinyl, which excels at reproducing...but what you DO hear is the harmonic interplay from the HF interacting with the lower frequencies...

that is magic that CD's have NEVER been able to produce...get a good Tube preamp with an RIAA curve, and it will blow your mind.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Anonymous Coward]

In typical storage conditions (i.e. not a climate controlled archive), mould will grow in the groove. Playing the record every so often actually scrapes the mould out before it gets too deep.

Yeah, right -- plowing the mold with a needle really adds to the audio experience. Why don't you just use a wirebrush? Or, better yet, a wirewheel?

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Gerbert]

CDs degrade over time with no scratching or mistreatment. That's a well known fact. So, in that sense, vinyl is more durable.

>> You cannot back up a Record into the same format.

That's ok, your vinyl original is your backup. Rip the vinyl to a digital format, store the vinyl well, and you have a good backup that will last longer than any optical media.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Mr2001]

CDs degrade over time with no scratching or mistreatment. That's a well known fact. So, in that sense, vinyl is more durable. Poorly made CDs left out in the sun, sure. Well-made, well-handled CDs will last for your entire life. And more importantly...

That's ok, your vinyl original is your backup. Rip the vinyl to a digital format, store the vinyl well, and you have a good backup that will last longer than any optical media. ... with a CD, you can make a backup that's identical to the original. Keep doing that every few decades and in a thousand years, you'll still have exactly what you started with.

Your digital rip of that vinyl record, however, is not going to be identical to the original. It's going to be an approximation of the original at one particular point in time. Rip it again the next day and you'll get something slightly different. Of course, since sound is analog to begin with, this is inevitable at some point - but better it should happen as soon in the process as possible, I'd say, so that everything from that point on is deterministic.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[RMH101]

If by durability, we mean "most likely to be playable after sitting in a vault for 30 years" then I'd go with vinyl, too...

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Fifty Points]

Whose steady finger would you like, and where do you want it?

Re:It's a fashion trend

[HomelessInLaJolla]

If your tongue is so average that you need a performance enhancing tool then it's amazing that any women would consider you, from a Darwinian aspect, as a suitable mate. Just goes to show how much the world has lowered its standards. It also illustrates quite nicely the utility of money to compensate for lack of endowment.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[shaitand]

No matter how you try to slight those with tongue rings the fact remains.

The greatest and most skilled of tongue users + tongue ring > the greatest and most skilled of tongue users - tongue ring

Re:It's a fashion trend

[HomelessInLaJolla]

For those of us with natural skill it would be a hindrance which could not be mitigated by technique. Perfect stimulation requires an even contact surface which a tongue bar prohibits. The singularity in the contact surface provided by an artificial implant is only a benefit to those whose technique is insufficient to make use of an even and smooth contact surface. This deficiency in technique is likely a sign of a deeper neurological problem which prevents the proper muscular control of the lingual tissue.

Historically, in the furthest reaches of primitive history, a tongue bar served a social purpose as a mark. What that mark was for is infinitely debatable but the very first implementation of a tongue bar was only concomittantly related to s3xual performance and, more likely, symbolized a lack of self control (especially with respect to neurological control of lingual muscles). Even if mankind did start sticking needles in its tongue for no apparent reason the s3xual application would be, at best, secondary--an afterthought, an excuse to hide the shame of deficient neurological function.

Re:It's a fashion trend

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a dirty homeless man who spends all day posting on slashdot in a public library. You're not seriously trying to imply that you ever have sexual contact with females, are you?

Analogue vs Digital

[ShieldW0lf]

There's no debate. Analogue recordings are better. And they keep better too. If you make an analogue recording of something using top of the line equipment, 50 years from now, you'll be able to use superior tools to pull a more accurate representation of the sonic environment than anything we can do now. If you record digital, a bit is a bit is a bit.

Best method, use the highest quality analogue gear you can find to record, then sample it in the highest quality digital you can for editing and distribution, then throw the original analogue in the vault so you can re-sample it again in 5 years.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[MightyYar]

I dispute that they "keep better". If you have an analog tape master, it will have a finite life no matter how much you pamper it. Thus the existence of techniques such as tape baking. The only way to preserve this tape over the long-haul is to transfer it to a fresh tape or other medium sometime before it is completely degraded. Every time you transfer the analog tape, you degrade it by a generation... doing the same with a digital master would give you an exact, or near-exact copy. You could do this as many times as you wish with no generational loss.

At the very least, you should immediately digitize the analog master so that you have the digital first-generation copy "forever".

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[mr_matticus]

Persistent analog storage may be best, but consumer analog formats aren't. "Archival vinyl" is an oxymoron unless you never play the album.

If records really want to make a comeback, they'll come up with a nondestructive way to read the disc, like a laser beam. Oops, they did that. It's called a CD.

I agree that high quality analog recordings are a good thing to keep around for posterity, but analog recordings certainly aren't better for home reproduction (they'll get a little worse every time you play them), unless you don't mind having to repurchase albums every so often. You don't need DRM when your recording format expires and can't be reproduced easily at home. There is, after all, no "vinyl burner" on the shelf at Best Buy for $40.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[servoled]

If you have an analog tape master, it will have a finite life no matter how much you pamper it.

The same can be said about CDs.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Gothmolly]

No, digital sounds better. You may be confusing the analog/digital controversy with generally shitty-sounding modern recordings.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:RbOJj6KLsO8J: www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F 52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C+analysis+of+rush+album+ dogshit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[servoled]

Amusingly enough they did it for Vinyl as well: http://www.elpj.com/main.html. Sure as hell aint cheap though.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[garcia]

I agree that high quality analog recordings are a good thing to keep around for posterity, but analog recordings certainly aren't better for home reproduction (they'll get a little worse every time you play them), unless you don't mind having to repurchase albums every so often.

Oh I get it! The RIAA wants these to come back so that they can get you to download and pay for a digital copy for your portable media player and have to keep repurchasing your physical medium as well!

This is the "new" "old" DRM. Vinyl, the gift that keeps on giving...to the RIAA.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[FLEB]

Yes, but a CD is digital, and is not dependent upon the strength of a given bit as long as the bit is even minimally discernable.

Really, if you want to get the best archival, you'll want digital encoding and output onto simple punchcards.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[mudshark]

[cue rumble at -45dB]
[cue surface noise at -38dB]
[needle drop BANG]
skritch...skritch...Yeah, man...POP...Iskritchgree with CLICK you totaskritchly. NothinPOPg like the skritchdelity of vinyl...skritch.

Oh, you meant tape?

[cue tape hiss at -60db]
That's better. But how many machines are going to be around and serviced 50 years from now to play back that carefully stored tape? Lots of rubber idler wheels to dry out and crack, capacitors to leak, parts to become unobtainable, etc. Let's hope that someone is storing a whole bunch of MCI JH-24s in a secure undisclosed underground bunker, along with a stockpile of parts and manuals....

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[ClosedSource]

"If records really want to make a comeback, they'll come up with a nondestructive way to read the disc, like a laser beam. Oops, they did that. It's called a CD."

No, I think it's called a laser disk, since laser disks are a nondestructive analog medium.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Cordath]

A lot of vinyl-philes have this strange notion that an analogue recording is somehow capable of storing a perfectly accurate continuous waveform that is superior to digital media precisely becasue it is continuous rather than discrete. In a perfect world that might be true. In reality, it is not.

Four basic things contribute to the fidelity of all recording formats:

1. The tolerances of recording equipment. (e.g. How closely the signal produced by a microphone resembles the soundwave that generated that signal.)
2. Generational loss in mastering
3. Manufacturing tolerances that affect playback
4. Tolerances of reproduction equipment.

All formats are limited by #1, and #4 is in the hands of each individual end-user. (i.e. If your stereo sucks, what format you prefer won't matter much.) However, number 2 and 3 are biggies.

Generational loss means that if you want to do anything more than slap a live recording onto a LP with no post-production whatsover, the quality will suck. Nobody masters albums in analogue these days. 99.9% of the vinyl being released was mastered digitally and then dumped back to analogue, so kiss that analogue "magic" goodbye.

The manufacturing tolerances of LP's are also a huge issue. When was the last time you picked up a micrometer made out of vinyl? It's not exactly the most ideal material for making something that has to have hyper accurate spatial dimensions. It's easy to scratch, and has a large coefficient of thermal expansion. Just play it back at a different temperature than it was cut at and you're already pretty badly off. The tolerances of a pressed vinyl disk are also larger than you might think, and have the effect of greatly reducing the practical information capacity. (i.e. In theory, analogue recordings contain infinite infomation. If you could record a waveform with even just very very large precision in vinyl, digital media would be useless because you could pack much more data into an analogue pressing. Digital media dominates today. Guess why? The precision of vinyl sucks dingo balls.) Everything that can go wrong with vinyl will have a direct impact on the sound. The lowly CD, by comparison, has built in parity information that allow any decent CD-reader to extract bit-perfect copies that would be identical to the master.

That being said, many CD recordings do suck, but that's the fault of mixing engineers who want to push it to 11 instead of mastering at an appropriate volume that won't clip the waveform. If a recording is mangled in this manner it's going to sound like crap no matter what you record it on.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[mr_matticus]

Not for audio. Laserdisc audio is digital like CDs (or was, rather, on my Laserdisc collection). Yes, I will admit to having owned a VDP :).

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[maxume]

Analog equipment still has frequency response. The easily quantified maximum frequency response of digital recordings(because it's built into the encoding) gives you something to point at and say 'that's the best it can do'. The fact that a record arm has mass and is thus subject to the laws of physics is a somewhat subtler point, but it limits the quality of an analog recording just the same. Electronic circuits(like for recording to tape) also have frequency response that limits them in some way or another. Sure, they are very good, but that's what the lunatics that developed the CD shot for, very good(generally, if CD quality isn't better than the equipment it is being played back with, it is still better than the equipment it is being listened to with).

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need DRM when your recording format expires and can't be reproduced easily at home.

Thing is, surface noise is nothing. It's random amplitudes at random frequencies, and human ears can listen straight through it like it's not there. The only real problem you get is with decreasing high-frequency response as you play it, and I've never had a problem with that. Really, if you're using a properly set-up and balanced turntable it shouldn't be that much of a problem.

As for the top in general (doesn't fit here, but what the hell), there's a reason I don't buy directional audio cables and $1500 phonograph cartridges; I'm a fan of music, not of sound. While it's fun to be in the middle of a perfectly-reproduced soundstage, it's just as much (maybe more) fun to, say, sing along (badly) to a degraded recording of The Who from the 1969 Isle of Wight Festival. I'll keep buying vinyl, so I don't have to pay 15 dollars to lawyers and middle managers at a record label office somewhere. I doubt Keith Moon will miss the money much anyway.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever, I have a high end stereo and a high end record player and my emaculate records sound 10x better than my emaculate CDs. Generational loss? Going from 96khz audio to a CD is generational loss. Give me a break.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[dal20402]

Copy your CD onto another CD after 10 years. Rinse and repeat. With proper error checking your bits will have an infinite life.

There is no way to do that with analog media except to digitize it.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[king-manic]

There's no debate. Analogue recordings are better. And they keep better too. If you make an analogue recording of something using top of the line equipment, 50 years from now, you'll be able to use superior tools to pull a more accurate representation of the sonic environment than anything we can do now. If you record digital, a bit is a bit is a bit.

Best method, use the highest quality analogue gear you can find to record, then sample it in the highest quality digital you can for editing and distribution, then throw the original analogue in the vault so you can re-sample it again in 5 years.

If you make the data density of the digital recording the same as the analogue then the quality is exactly the same.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

There are still 100% pure analog studios out there, see http://electrical.com/ for a really good website with great tour of every corner. And Steve Albini is quite vinyl obsessed too. His band (Shellac) find only the best vinyl record producers (usually for classical records) to do the pressing.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[dal20402]

You're being fooled by distortion. Your vinyl isn't even close to as accurate as your CDs.

Your CDs have slightly fucked up high frequencies that *may*, if you have golden ears, make the recording sound somewhat harsher than a live performance and screw up your soundstage a bit. They also have a signal-to-noise ratio of >100dB, huge dynamic range, high-voltage output (for minimal noise after the D/A conversion stage), and they don't require equalization from your components.

Your vinyl has a signal-to-noise ratio of 50dB if you're lucky, low-voltage output that virtually guarantees that some level of 60Hz hum will get into the signal, a shitload of equalization by your record player, and very low dynamic range. You only have any highs at all (and the soundstage they bring) if your needle and record are both perfect. The reason you think your vinyl sounds better is precisely because of these traits. You hear them as "mellow," "warm," and "not harsh." Maybe you like to be protected in a bubble from what your recordings actually sound like, and that's fine, but what you're hearing is not better or more accurate sound... it's precisely the opposite.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

>>In a perfect world that might be true. In reality, it is not.

On the other hand, not all distortion is equal. One of the shortcomings of 44.1 audio is the aggressive brick-wall filtering that must cut off all output by 22.05KHz.

>>99.9% of the vinyl being released was mastered digitally and then dumped back to analogue

Yes, but masters aren't usually 16/44.1.

The biggest problem is that hi-fi doesn't really exist in today's marketplace. When was the last time you saw a place where you could listen to a $10-20K audio rig? There used to be several in any medium-sized town. As long as we all listen to iPods or shelf systems, then there's no reason to listen to anything other than low rate digital. On the other hand, if you ever get the chance to listen to a high-end analog rig, I highly recommend it.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[illuminatedwax]

The argument everyone misses in the "analog vs digital" debate is this: we've been developing analog technology for about 120 years now. We've been doing digital music for what, 30? So much more time, money, and R&D have gone into developing analog recording and playback devices. They've been tweaked, revised, and perfected for maximum quality.

Right now, they sound better because they are made better. And now we're just going to throw away analog recording because something new has come along?

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[ElephanTS]

Now that high end audio interfaces can sample at 192kHz, 24-bit I doubt that pulling the analog out of storage will reveal anything new in the future. What you're saying certainly was true but won't be forever.

I'm an audio programmer/engineer and we now have these in our main room:

http://www.motu.com/products/pciaudio/HD192/

They can match any analog 2" 30ips I've heard.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[blhack]

Looks like they really want to make a comeback.

Laser Turntable

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[MightyYar]

Right, but you can make a bit-perfect copy of a CD as many times as you want. A reasonable backup strategy for digital media would be to make several bit-perfect copies of the master, and then make several more bit-perfect copies of those copies at a regular interval of time. Doing this would retain the original "master" quality indefinitely, and would insulate you from format changes, as you could just backup onto whatever the prevalent format of the time is.

This would not work at all for an analog master - you are stuck with only one "master" on whatever format you recorded it on. A good example of why this is bad is the Apollo moon tapes. If these were digital, it wouldn't be such a shame that the originals were missing, and it wouldn't matter that only one facility in the world is still capable of playing them back.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[ClosedSource]

I did some further research and discovered that we're both right. Original Laser discs used only analog for both audio and video, later some disks were available with digital audio.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[mr_matticus]

Ah. Fair enough. In any case, the original reference was mostly tongue-in-cheek (they've actually come out with a rather expensive laser-based turntable, too that was actually discussed on Slashdot many years ago).

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you make an analogue recording of something using top of the line equipment, 50 years from now, you'll be able to use superior tools to pull a more accurate representation of the sonic environment than anything we can do now."

This is wrong. Just because this was the case *in the past* doesn't make it the case for it to occur again in the future.

In the past, the ability to sample digitally was far below analog equipment. Recording something with a very good mic onto tape which had slapped on uniform magnetic material was the way to go; we didn't have equipment to decipher that level of detail or to store that much material. iow, the recording medium was the limit, not the responsiveness of, say, the microphone.

Now, we can sample well beyond the material limit of the vinyl, tape, or whatever reel material is being used. The microphone itself is the limit. iow, you can sample the hell out of a digital recording well beyond the material, since the digital recording is, well, digital--you have stepped away from the material limits of the recording medium (tape) to whatever you choose to sample to record as indiscriminate bits (to a 2 terrabyte or more hard drive if you so chose). And this goes beyond what the microphone can react to.

At the most, you could argue that they are now the same--at a tug of war. But I have yet to see *audio* microphones (reverse piezos in effect) be constructed that even approximates anything commonplace these days in a well-equipped physics department. Hell, some of the stuff I've seen with audiophile equipment outstrips most modern day recording (although unclear whether that benefits playback).

A somewhat analogous situation to this was similar to film and digital re optical or recording data (meaning, not just pictures). Light, at optical visibile light frequencies, resolves at approximately .2 microns. Your film, which was essentially reactive chemical on paper, sat well below that and was fine (similar to tape)--each reactive molecule was smaller than .2 microns (on the order of a few angstroms, or roughly a nanometer).

However, these days, we have resolution down to picometers if we want it (more in certain specialized situations; anyways, so much so that the limits is more the temperature and vibration stability of the constructed materials). You can't maintain anymore that film is the way to go today. You can see this in many industries, but I think the best example is with astronomy--they moved away from photographic plates around 1990 to CCDs and other tech (the real reason was mainly speed and sharing of information, but in general, you can build a CCD that is more flexible and matches anything that you can do with regular film; film has lost it's place (unlike in the consumer camera world, although that's another discussion entirely)).

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

there are ways to pirate vinyl

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[p-cubed]

"Generational loss means that if you want to do anything more than slap a live recording onto a LP with no post-production whatsover, the quality will suck. Nobody masters albums in analogue these days." Not true x 2. High speed analog tape mastering is still done, mostly in audiophile recording, because it has such awesome fidelity. Better than vinyl, and better than any A-D followed by D-A conversion chain in existence outside of the NSA. Tape is a pain in the ass to work with, which is why it is no longer a consumer medium, and used rarely by pros. The other arguments given for the benefits of CD over vinyl each have some merit. CD at its best can be quite good sounding. And CD is very convenient. But good well cleaned vinyl on a well aligned and maintained vinyl rig remains the best recorded sound that I am privileged to hear. It is in another league of vibe.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[arminw]

.....The only way to preserve this tape over the long-haul .......

Unless you do a direct to disk recording. I have a few of these in my extensive LP collection in storage. The signal was transferred directly to the cutting lathe which cut the master. Since only a limited number of pressings can be made, these disks cost about twice as much or more than normal LP which were mastered on tape. If a good record was cut from the master tape, that record will not deteriorate in normal storage conditions even if the original tape does.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

""Archival vinyl" is an oxymoron unless you never play the album."

Only if you're unwilling to pay more than $15 for a cartridge...

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

[cue rumble at -45dB]
[cue surface noise at -38dB]
[needle drop BANG]
skritch...skritch...Yeah, man...POP...Iskritchgree with CLICK you totaskritchly. NothinPOPg like the skritchdelity of vinyl...skritch.
-
Lemme guess.
You're less than 30 and have never played a new (or well maintained) record on a turntable that cost anywhere near the price of your ipod?
I, on the other hand, have pretty much given up on MP3 and its artifacts...

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[arminw]

.....Whatever, I have a high end stereo and a high end record player and my emaculate records sound 10x better than my emaculate CDs.....

It is really amazing the truly golden ears you and others here on /. seem to have. If a proper AB blind test were done, very few if any human could tell the difference between a high quality digital or analog recording. Most digital recordings are done at WAY too high a level and the odd harmonic clipping that results is VERY grating on the human hearing devices. Vinyl/tube equipment clipping results in even harmonic distortion. Our ear/brain system is much more forgiving of that. If the digital recording averages 30-40db below clipping, it will be very clean, but also seem very soft in comparison to most commercial CD disks. If you are recording live sound on a digital recording system (computer?) keep the level low. If the level indicator EVER goes into the clipping zone, you have generated a very harsh sounding digital recording at that moment. Even after normalizing the peaks to 0db, the sound of a well made digital recording will still be noticeable softer than normal commercial CDs. If you crank up the volume control for normal playback, the noise is still less than analog. However, if you then put on a normal commercial CD, you'll get blasted out of the house and have to frantically turn down the volume. Since CDs are made for the masses they are made to have a certain "punch" that at first sounds good, but get tiring after a while.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Prune]

"Archival vinyl" is an oxymoron unless you never play the album.

That's BS, because you can buy a touchless turntable that uses a laser to read the record.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Prune]

It's not just about high frequencies. Jitter (phase noise) getting into the DAC chip creates amplitude distortions that affect a wide range of frequencies. There have been enough papers in the journal of the Audio Engineering Society on jitter so I won't go into it any further; here's a good example: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C134%20Paper%20121st%20convention%20(c orrected).pdf

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Prune]

Besides mixing and recording, most consumer digital gear has very poor jitter rejection. Jitter (phase noise) getting in the DAC creates amplitude errors of a very complex nature, and unlike some types of distortion (say the common low order even harmonics of a speaker or class A MOSFET or tube amp), is audible in the parts per million. A good paper from the journal of the Audio Engineering Society is http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malc olmspubdocs/C134%20Paper%20121st%20convention%20(c orrected).pdf On the same website, there's another AES paper describing the jitter problems added by the ubiquitous S/PDIF interface.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[dargaud]

I know this has been debated to death, but I could never stand the sound of vinyl. There's always some tiny scratch that makes the sound go pop... pop... pop... at every turn, if ever so slight. And that's something I find so irksome that even before CDs existed I couldn't stand vinyl. At the time I bought all my music on tape.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[zenkonami]

I have to agree with this. However, I'd add that the whole Analog vs Digital debate really comes down to CDs (the dominant delivery format and quality benchmark for file based delivery formats; aka "cd quality") having provided us for so long with the lowest possible quality that could fool most people's ears. 44.1/16 bit really is noticable if you are the kind of person who listens. I do not have golden ears, but I've done the blind tests on a variety of equipment with a variety of records.

In CD vs Vinyl, I prefer the vinyl version almost every time.

SACD vs Vinyl, however (still referring to stereo mixes here), SACD wins out. Cleaner, clearer, and there's that sense of space that just isn't there on a CD.

For those in doubt, compare Bonham's drums on "Rock and Roll" on both the CD and the vinyl.

I track now at 24 bit (always) and the highest multiple of the sample rate of my delivery medium. Disk space be damned.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Eivind]

Yeah. But CDs are digital. Which means that if you make 3 copies, the 3 are *identical* -- not *similar* as would be the case for analogue media.

So, with a few independent copies, copied over to new media every decade or so, you can preserve digital information perfectly for as long as you care to. There is no way of preventing a analogue audio-recording from degrading over time. Making multiple copies of it, or copying over to new media as time progresses does not help.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[zenkonami]

1) You weren't taking very good care of your vinyl, then. Well cared for vinyl rarely pops or snaps.

2) You tolerated the sound of cassette's over vinyl? With all that speed variation, the eventual bleed through and the overall frailty of the medium?

Then again, to be fair, I suppose if you had good playback equipment and took care of your cassettes, perhaps you might.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[syncrotic]

Saying "there's no debate" doesn't magically make it so. There is debate, and you fall on one particular side of it; it's incredibly arrogant to dismiss the other side as if it didn't legitimately exist.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[MightyYar]

You are still not insulated from at least three problems:

1. You cannot make a perfect copy of the original, so loss or damage to the original is a permanent loss.
2. The day may come when you can no longer purchase an LP player - or at least the needles. Your content is then partially lost. While it is true that you can "decode" a record with a needle and piece of cardboard, you will not get the full potential of the recording. The reason LPs sound good has a lot to do with the state of the art players and needles that you can buy. 50 - 100 years from now, this equipment will likely be very scarce.
3. You cannot make an analog medium last forever. No matter how careful you are in handling it, the master will take wear and tear. Eventually, the information on the master will be degraded to a noticeable level.

In the digital domain, you can make bit-perfect copies so the concept of a master is not nearly as critical. Bits are bits - you can always transfer the content to a new archival format when the original media becomes obsolete. The life or storage requirements of the medium are much less important.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but if you want to get taken seriously you either compare the best analog to the best digital or you compare it dollar for dollar. The fact that an el-cheapo cd player sounds worse then a laser turntable is simply irelevent. If you don't like this you can buy a $500 volume knob for all I care.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Prune]

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Nowhere in my post did I make any comparison to an analog source at all. I cited peer reviewed research showing problems with digital implementations (and jitter is not completely eliminated in even the best digital systems). You've made a fool out of yourself with your reactionary post.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody masters albums in analogue these days"

Tell that to Nora Jones.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[UnknownSoldier]

> "Archival vinyl" is an oxymoron unless you never play the album.
> they'll come up with a nondestructive way to read the disc, like a laser beam. Oops, they did that. It's called a CD.

Hey buddy, here's a clue stick...

Two words: Laser Turntable

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

Your rattling of technical specs is meaningless
unless you can back them up against example recordings.
(Say... "Back in Black" on CD vs Vinyl)
I don't have the best setup but I can
certainly hear information being lost on the
CD version -- whose fault is it? Who knows?
There are multiple reasons why a CD playback
offers less fidelity than an equivalent record version
that have nothing to do with this vague idea of
'warmth' and 'harshness'.

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[dpastern]

Well, I'll disagree - my turntable/cartridge/tonearm setup easily exceeds a dynamic range of 50db as you so put it. Again, if you listen to real, live music, and then CDs and vinyl, you'll find in nearly every instance (at least from my experience) that vinyl is closer to the reality of it all. Sure, CDs have more (and lower) bass, larger dynamic range, less hiss, etc, but there's more to the sound quality than those simple factors alone. As to highs, I have quite good highs on my system thanks, plenty of details in both soundstage, high frequencies etc. No issues here at this end.

Dave

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[askywhale]

They also have a signal-to-noise ratio of >100dB per bit)

Theoricaly maximum is 96dB (16bits, 6dB/bit) Anyway, that's far better than any home hifi system, most studio microphones, and any chain of tools induced in vinyl processing

Re:Analogue vs Digital

[ElephanTS]

Sorry I missed your reply. Of course, the real problem (crime!) was setting CD at 44.1kHz. The artefacts from the filters spread down the spectrum from 22050Hz and unbalance the transparency of the high end considerably. There isn't much meaningful high end on vinyl but it doesn't have the brickwall treatment which is, I think, what people dislike about digital. IMHO, the bit rate question (16 or 24) is an order of magnitude less significant.

Why bother? Really

[Anonymous Coward]

All S/N issues aside, even if you have a mint LP, the stereo separation for vinyl is for shit. 50dB vs. 105+ for CDs.

Throw in the inevitable noise, IHD, and wow/flutter, and tell me again why I'd want this, other than for nostalgia? Quaint, I'm sure.

Re:Why bother? Really

[maeka]

All S/N issues aside, even if you have a mint LP, the stereo separation for vinyl is for shit. 50dB vs. 105+ for CDs.

105dB of stereo separation on a 16bit (~96dB SNR) medium?
Amazing!

Re:Why bother? Really

[ChrisMaple]

The idea that there's any value to audio stereo separation over 40 dB is just plain funny. Give it some serious thought.

Re:Why bother? Really

[Anonymous Coward]

how 'bout you give me a serious blowjob

I love vinyl!

[speedfreak_5]

Lots of good music on vinyl. I also love the hand control over the music (yes I do a little DJing here and there). But there is one thing I would love to find for fun.

A Sony Flamingo portable record player.

It would be pretty cool to have a standing record player (nevermind scratching with it, although that would be cool) with a translucent disc inside it playing.

Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The other beautiful thing about vinyl is that, one you one a record (which might cost $5), you have the moral if not legal right to download the album via mp3 - after all, you've paid for a copy of the music, the mp3 is just another format.

Not to mention the fact that vinyl lasts forever as long as you treat it well...

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Uh, sure thing amigo. You bought a car, so that means you can just steal as many more as you like. Bzzzt! You just failed Common Sense 101. Stealing a car deprives the original owner of that car. Downloading an album doesn't deprive anyone of anything, especially if you've already paid for it. Come back when you understand the difference between information and physical property, OK?

Re:Copyright

[Potato Battery]

Just so long as it is the same make and model.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold up there Susan, if the ??AA keep telling me that I don't actually own the thing and that I've just got a temporary license to listen to it, then I'll fricken well exercise the opportunity to listen to it however I want.

Doesn't give you the right to download _other_ albums, but if they do actually want me to spend my money on their product then they can play fucking fair with how I listen to it.

Re:Copyright

[ShieldW0lf]

Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

It shouldn't even be a crime.

It's an obsolete social mechanism that causes more than enough harm to offset any socially redeeming qualities it has.

This imbalance between harm and benefit becomes greater as our technological capacities increase.

If you make any long term plans around copyright continuing to exist, you're a fool, because it's not going to.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

" Bzzzt! You just failed Common Sense 101. Stealing a car deprives the original owner of that car. Downloading an album doesn't deprive anyone of anything, especially if you've already paid for it. Come back when you understand the difference between information and physical property, OK?"

Sleeping with your wife while you're at work doesn't deprive you of your wife, as long as she's there for you when you want her.

Therefore, sleeping with your wife is OK!

Thanks!!!

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of format shifting, compadre? Like, if you own something on 8-track they can't (shouldn't?) lock you up for transferring it to mp3 or, at least, audio cassette?

You bought a car, so that means you can just steal as many more as you like.

Computer/real world analogies are like online translators: sometimes they're close to the truth, but most of the time they just confuse the matter.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

But you're depriving the company of revenue because you're not paying for the digital interpretation of the analog storage medium you just bought.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Sleeping with your wife while you're at work doesn't deprive you of your wife, as long as she's there for you when you want her. Therefore, sleeping with your wife is OK! No, sleeping with your wife is "OK". Sleeping with my wife is fantastic. Sorry you're missing out, but for some reason, she only likes to sleep with guys who have enough common sense not to compare copyright infringement to theft, adultery, or other acts involving force or deceit.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

But you're depriving the company of revenue because you're not paying for the digital interpretation of the analog storage medium you just bought. No more than I'm depriving H&R Block of revenue by choosing to do my taxes myself, or depriving the oil companies of revenue by driving a 33 MPG Corolla instead of a 10 MPG Hummer. That word implies that I somehow owe them money just because they want to sell me something--that the revenue is rightfully theirs, and I'm interfering by not playing along--but in fact I'm under no obligation to buy their products, especially when I've already paid for the same thing in a different, convertible format.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Maybe you two can be friends in remedial English, then. Stealing != theft. Copyright infringement most certainly is stealing (taking something to which you have zero entitlement) but that does not mean it is theft.

If you want to play the definition game, at least do it right.

Re:Copyright

[ClosedSource]

"Copyright infringement isn't stealing."

Right, but it is a crime as you acknowledge. Many people believe that breaking the law in a democracy without a very good reason is unethical. Wanting to avoid payment doesn't usually qualify as a good reason because it's self-serving.

"It shouldn't even be a crime."

Work to change the law, then.

"It's an obsolete social mechanism that causes more than enough harm to offset any socially redeeming qualities it has."

What is the great harm to society that you allude to?

"If you make any long term plans around copyright continuing to exist, you're a fool, because it's not going to."

Then you should be happy.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? We cannot compare "copyright infringement to theft, adultery, or other acts involving force or deceit"?

Sorry, but that's just nuts. Copyright infringement is theft and does involve deceit, even if force or adultery is not involved.

Oh, and in fact sleeping with your wife is just "OK." If you think it's "fantastic," it sounds like you've only known her...

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

The essential element of stealing is taking something away from its rightful owner. If you steal my car, I'm upset because I don't have a car anymore - whether you have one is irrelevant to me. If you could take a copy while leaving the original undisturbed, as you can with information, that wouldn't be stealing, and in fact it wouldn't even be objectionable.

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is attempting to build an argument that lack of deprivation equals lack of crime or lack or injury.

The reply simply points out that that is not true. Bad moral behavior does not require physical deprivation of assets. It's a faulty argument.

You are trying to distract away from that point by saying that copyright infringement can't be compared to adultery. But the fact is the argument is based on deprivation, and when it's turned against you, you try to shift the argument.

But the point is well taken. If certain actions are taken with what you hold dear, you WILL feel wronged even if no physical damage or property removal has occurred and all aspects of your life appear to be unchanged.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Sorry, but that's just nuts. Copyright infringement is theft and does involve deceit That's nonsense, as we all know, but I suppose it's impossible to avoid such ridiculous claims when you're forced to defend a position that boils down to "you should give up your freedom of speech so that I can make a buck".

If I download a song, no one is deceived. The person sending it to me knows exactly what's going on, and there's no other party to the transaction. There is no deceit.

Furthermore, the essential element of theft is taking something away from its rightful owner, and the file I download is not taken away from anyone: downloading creates a new copy. There is no theft either.

Re:Copyright

[MobyDisk]

Copyright infringement...It shouldn't even be a crime. Good thing you aren't an author of any kind. I hate the current state of copyright as much as the next guy, but saying people should be able to copy something, sell it, and claim credit for writing it is absurd.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

The parent post is attempting to build an argument that lack of deprivation equals lack of crime or lack or injury. Incorrect. I was pointing out the flaw in jumping from "I bought this on vinyl so I can download the MP3" to "I bought a car so I can steal any other car". Namely, that stealing a car deprives others, even if you've paid for your own car; downloading MP3s doesn't deprive others of anything, especially if you've paid for the same content in another format. They're different acts with vastly different consequences, so the analogy doesn't hold.

The reply simply points out that that is not true. Bad moral behavior does not require physical deprivation of assets. It's a faulty argument. No one said it did. That's a strawman.

If certain actions are taken with what you hold dear, you WILL feel wronged even if no physical damage or property removal has occurred and all aspects of your life appear to be unchanged. Indeed, but surely you realize that not every action that causes someone to "feel wronged" is immoral or should be illegal. If my friend runs a business, he might feel hurt if I go to a cheaper competitor, but I'm not obligated to spend more for the same thing just because he's a friend of mine.

Same thing applies to a stranger selling something that I can get for free on my own. Why should I feel obligated to pay him for something I can get for free? Just because he wishes he had my money and he'll be sad if he doesn't get it? Sorry, but at some point you have to take responsibility for your own feelings. Maybe it just isn't a good idea to base your hopes and dreams on the prospect of selling people stuff they can get for free elsewhere.

Sure, an artist might feel wronged if I download bits for free instead of buying them from him on a plastic disc. But again, I'm not morally obligated to get them from him. No one, morally speaking, can own any number, whether it represents the speed or light or a digitized song.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

No, no it's not. It doesn't matter whether there's just one or a thousand copies. Taking something you're not entitled to is stealing ("to take possessions of others without permission or right;" "to appropriate without acknowledgment or right;" "the act of taking unlawfully" for some dictionary examples). Theft is a legal term which requires the perpetrator to deprive the owner, which is what you may be thinking of. Stealing, however, is just taking the possessions of another without permission. You also don't have to care about it for it to be stealing.

If I have a truckload of rocks delivered to my driveway for landscaping, and you take one as you walk by, you've stolen it. I might not notice that it's gone, and I wouldn't even care. But stealing is stealing no matter what moral color you put on it. You might say that taking an apple to feed a starving child is justified (and I'd tend to agree), but it absolutely still is stealing (even if there are an effectively infinite number of apples, since the tree will always grow more).

Re:Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and in fact sleeping with your wife is just "OK." If you think it's "fantastic," it sounds like you've only known her... I've slept with his wife, your mom, and your sister, and I can say for sure that sleeping with his wife IS fantastic. Your sister's almost as good, but your mom could learn a lot from both of 'em.

Re:Copyright

[ShieldW0lf]

The purpose of copyright is to subsidize creation for the larger benefit of society.

The cost of copyright is that those good works which are created are not distributed to the population as widely as they might be.

The goal is to have an educated, enlightened society which has been exposed to a great deal of culture and knowledge, that they might be better peers and neighbours.

When 90% of the society is too dog tired from working in the fields to even think about doing something so frivolous as writing...

When only the few and the rich can afford recording gear and instruments...

When the cost to respect the copyright and maintain an artist is a pittance next to the massive costs of the manufacturing and distribution network...

In such a civilization, copyright is a defensible mechanism.

This is not such a world.

In this world, it is trivial to distribute information.

It is trivial to get your hands on the tools to create.

It is trivial to find the idle time to set your hand to it.

And with 6 billion of us and growing, if you don't want to do it without getting paid, go to hell. Someone else will do it, you're not special.

In this world, it is a trivial enterprise to make vast libraries of culture and knowledge accessible to peasants in the jungle.

Soon, it will be trivial to provide a copy of every creative work ever made to every man, woman and child on earth.

At which point, the only thing holding us back from doing so will be small-minded dickheads harping about their "rights".

If you're a creator, stop thinking about copyright.

Brainstorm for other ideas on how you might get subsidized by our society without it being necessary to keep people isolated from what you've created, and throw your weight behind getting them into place.

The writing is on the wall. Copyright is done. Find another way.

Re:Copyright

[ClosedSource]

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people on the planet are still working in the fields and don't have the ability to easily create and/or distribute creative works even if they had the free time available to do it.

In any case, I don't think this has much to do with copyright. The originators of copyright law may have performed some spin to say it was all about the good of society, but I suspect greed was just as much a factor then as it is now.

Re:Copyright

[Dputiger]

Right. Copyright is going away. Evidently you think the Western world is going to fundamentally redefine one of the foundational principles that protects intellectual property, in what--the next 5-10 years? I'm all for copyright reform, especially as it relates to the digital world, and I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as the next guy, but lets not confuse legitimate issues with ridiculous rhetoric. Copyright, as a legal institution, is at *least* 298 years old, stretching back to the British Statute of Anne. You can trace its legal evolution back even farther, if you wish, but as an ingrained law it predates the founding of America and any number of "natural" freedoms citizens of the western world now take for granted as if they have always been recognized as such. Copyright is and will continue to be part of how intellectual property is recognized and protected in the world, and only a fool would call for its dissolution. The way in which it does so, hopefully, will change--but the fundamental protections and concepts of it will not, and should not.

Re:Copyright

[ShieldW0lf]

Say what you will. The forces at work make the whole thing a moot point. It will happen just as I've outlined, and it will take less than 20 years.

Re:Copyright

[ShieldW0lf]

I think the Western world is going to go away, actually. When the baby boomers die.

I don't hold much respect for any of this shit... it's a fucked up non-sustainable system we live in, and I fully expect to see collapse before I die.

Re:Copyright

[ClosedSource]

I've been around too long to make such predictions. My generation thought we'd have flying cars by now.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Stealing, however, is just taking the possessions of another without permission. Information is not a possession.

If I have a truckload of rocks delivered to my driveway for landscaping, and you take one as you walk by, you've stolen it. I might not notice that it's gone, and I wouldn't even care. Of course. The reason that's stealing, and wrong, is because the rock I take is a rock you don't have anymore. Whether you notice it or not, whether you need it or not, the fact is you have one less rock than you did before. That's stealing.

You might say that taking an apple to feed a starving child is justified (and I'd tend to agree), but it absolutely still is stealing (even if there are an effectively infinite number of apples, since the tree will always grow more). Sure. I disagree that there are an effectively infinite number of apples, though. Apples don't spring forth from nowhere, so the soil will eventually be consumed (unless you replenish it with fertilizer that has to be taken away from somewhere else), and more importantly, apples take time to grow, so the number of apples a tree will produce each year is limited.

If there were a magical tree that produced an unlimited number of apples out of nowhere--you pick one and another immediately grows back, forever--then I don't think most people would consider it wrong, or even "stealing", to take one. I sure wouldn't, and in fact I'd say it's immoral to try to prevent people from taking one of those free apples.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Possession - n. legal ownership, occupancy, or control. (Ownership - "legal right of control and possession;" control - "command; exercise direction over; a legal or official means of regulation or restraing")

That would include a recording of a song, an arrangement of pigment molecules or pixels, or a work of cinematography.

Copies of data don't spring up from nowhere, either. Even if they did, you do not have any intrinsic rights to the works of others, whether in digital form or not. Tell me, if someone decided to copy your website and assumed credit for all of your work and was offered $100,000 for it, would you say "oh well, there's nothing wrong with it because I still have my website up?"

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Possession - n. legal ownership, occupancy, or control. (Ownership - "legal right of control and possession;" control - "command; exercise direction over; a legal or official means of regulation or restraing")

That would include a recording of a song, an arrangement of pigment molecules or pixels, or a work of cinematography. No, it wouldn't. It might include the copyright itself, but not the copyrighted information, which cannot be controlled or owned.

Copies of data don't spring up from nowhere, either. Sure they do, given the existence of an original (i.e. once the data is known, there's no limit to the number of copies that can be made). I mean, it's true that the data has to be stored somewhere, and there's a finite amount of material to make hard drives, etc., but the data itself is an abstract concept that isn't tied to any particular finite resource.

Even if they did, you do not have any intrinsic rights to the works of others, whether in digital form or not. Do you have the "intrinsic right" to perform a calculation using the speed of light, even though other people (not you) put in a lot of hard work to come up with the value of that constant?

Do you have the "intrinsic right" to use the word "digital" in your post, even though you didn't invent it yourself?

Those questions, like your statement, rest on the faulty assumption that you need permission to make use of information you come across. But as sentient beings, we have the right to use and share information by default. ISTM the burden of proof is on those who say that they have the "intrinsic right" to censor my speech just because the words I want to say were spoken by someone else first.

Tell me, if someone decided to copy your website and assumed credit for all of your work and was offered $100,000 for it, would you say "oh well, there's nothing wrong with it because I still have my website up?" If they're taking credit, they're doing a lot more than just copying, aren't they? The problem with that act is that they're lying to everyone who sees their altered version of my web site. The copying itself is not objectionable.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

But if you can't own your work, then there is no legal recourse for you to take. So what if they've lied about who created it--you've just said that there's no ownership or control rights.

Same thing with confidential records--if you can't own the information, you can't construct a legal framework to protect its privacy. Without information controls, you can't enforce any sort of privacy law whatsoever.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

But if you can't own your work, then there is no legal recourse for you to take. So what if they've lied about who created it--you've just said that there's no ownership or control rights. My recourse doesn't have to depend on claiming to own the material that was copied. I have the same right as any other member of the public not to be lied to in a commercial context, and I've got no problem with extending that to certain noncommercial contexts.

Same thing with confidential records--if you can't own the information, you can't construct a legal framework to protect its privacy. Without information controls, you can't enforce any sort of privacy law whatsoever. Sure you can, you just have to base it on something other than copyright. In fact, copyright isn't very good for this purpose anyway. If I don't want anyone to know about that time I caught chlamydia from a burro in Tijuana, my interest isn't just in controlling the spread of copies of my medical forma, but in controlling the spread of the facts of the case - and facts like that can't be copyrighted anyway.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

I'm not talking exclusively of copyright. I'm saying that a legal framework which doesn't include intellectual property cannot have any notion of privacy. If you can't regulate access to information and you can't exercise control over your own data, you can't mount a legal defense of an invasion of privacy--there would be no enforceable notion of privacy, because privacy is an IP control and nothing more. What authority would you have to deny someone's use or access to information if you had no ownership rights to it?

As for the website--it's not lying if it can't be proved. If no one can own the information, the content, or the design, and no one has controlling power, any party can claim to be the author. There would be no way to grant you recognition for your creation. The other party would profit from your work while you went undiscovered. How do you prove that you are the author of anything if the system is incapable of recognizing ownership? They copied your website and sold it for profit, and the buyer isn't interested in reimbursing you at all. You really mean to tell me you wouldn't be upset about that? You wouldn't feel wronged?

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

I'm not talking exclusively of copyright. I'm saying that a legal framework which doesn't include intellectual property cannot have any notion of privacy. [...] What authority would you have to deny someone's use or access to information if you had no ownership rights to it? Privacy is not just an "IP control". I suppose that's one way to look at it, but it hardly seems like the most natural or logical way.

I, myself, as a private person, don't have the authority to deny someone's use or access to information - but the government does. Privacy can be enforced based not on my supposed ownership of my medical records, but on the consequences of allowing that information to become public, as in "You aren't allowed to tell anyone about that burro incident because Mr2001 deserves to keep his embarrassing past a secret" or whatever. That has the advantage of protecting not just the forms, but the facts themselves, which are what I'd want to keep private anyway.

It's essentially the same reason that it's OK to ban falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, even though no one owns the word "fire" or the concept of fire. The ban is justified because the consequences of shouting "fire" are likely to include trampling and panic, not because of any property rights.

Finally, before we get too deep into privacy issues, let me just point out the difference between public and private information. It's the difference between a song that gets played on the radio for thousands of listeners every hour and a medical record that only my doctor is allowed to see. If I mailed copies of that record out to a million strangers, I'd be in no position to complain when some of them made and shared their own copies.

How do you prove that you are the author of anything if the system is incapable of recognizing ownership? The same way we prove that anyone did anything, more or less. Authorship disputes come up even today, and we could resolve them in the future the same way we do now.

How do I prove that I wrote this comment, for example? Well, if I really cared about it, I could save a timestamped copy to disk, or print it out and have it notarized, or have a friend take a picture of me smoking a cigarette and pointing at the screen while pressing the "Submit" button. That provides proof that I had a copy at this time, and now it's up to someone else to prove that they had a copy first. If they can't, my evidence stands.

None of that depends on me being recognized as the "owner" of this comment, or granting me the right to prevent others from copying or reposting it. It simply proves that I was here typing this comment at this moment, and I didn't copy it from somewhere else.

They copied your website and sold it for profit, and the buyer isn't interested in reimbursing you at all. You really mean to tell me you wouldn't be upset about that? You wouldn't feel wronged? Before I answer that, I have a few doubts about the consistency of this scenario. Why would someone buy my web site (or a copy of it) for $100,000 when it's obviously easy enough to make a copy for free? What are they paying for, exactly?

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

So you're saying that the government has the authority to withhold access to some in the interest of protection of individuals, but they don't have the authority to limit access in the interest of fostering business and promoting the sharing of art with a greater population? That seems deliciously arbitrary.

What we currently consider IP is private information that has been voluntarily publicized in exchange for some measure of control over that information. If there were no IP protections in place, much of that artwork would never be shared in a public capacity (with or without limits). It is a compromise between the binary "public/private" state that you propose, because neither is ideal for all involved parties.

"That provides proof that I had a copy at this time, and now it's up to someone else to prove that they had a copy first. If they can't, my evidence stands."

You're missing the point. If there are no ownership rights or access controls, you claim of authorship doesn't carry any weight. Authorship without ownership is worthless--you can't be forced to give credit to any original source if that author has no legal status. Credit would be voluntary, and so would revenue streams--commissioned works, touring deals, and so forth. People would be far less likely to share information, particular in the arts and sciences where progress requires tremendous time and effort. New scientific achievements would be relegated to weekend projects, since there would be no way to secure income without protections, and no corporate market to drive and fund research. There absolutely must be a tradeoff--individuals cannot afford the kind of research that needs to be done, and companies won't throw away the money to handle R&D for the entire industry.

"What are they paying for, exactly?"

It doesn't matter. I agree the scenario is tenuous, but the question is simple: if someone copied your work, and a third party offered that person a wad of cash because of it (endorsement deal, book tour, lecture circuit, even simply a gift because the content was riveting and enjoyable to some senile millionaire), but you were offered nothing, would you be upset?

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

So you're saying that the government has the authority to withhold access to some in the interest of protection of individuals, but they don't have the authority to limit access in the interest of fostering business and promoting the sharing of art with a greater population? That seems deliciously arbitrary.

Not really. First, copyright isn't about access anyway. Musicians have no problem blasting their songs out over the air to millions of people. Everyone who hears a song on the radio has access to it, but copyright limits what they can do with it afterward.

Second, the fundamental principle here is that I'm considering the consequences of disclosure, and "I find it a little harder to make a buck" isn't nearly as damaging as "now everyone knows I used to be a man" or "now the enemy knows where our troops are headed" (to use another example of justified suppression of information).

If your only concern is that someone might obtain this information without paying you for it, then you really aren't concerned about stopping its spread at all - it isn't private, because your own actions prove you know you won't be harmed by its disclosure. You're just hoping to get paid in the process. If you really didn't want everyone to have it, you wouldn't be selling it to everyone who shows up with cash.

What we currently consider IP is private information that has been voluntarily publicized in exchange for some measure of control over that information.

No, you're thinking of patents. Copyright is nothing like that in practice. Surely you don't think that in a world without copyright, musicians would record entire albums and then just keep their recordings to themselves.

If there are no ownership rights or access controls, you claim of authorship doesn't carry any weight. Authorship without ownership is worthless--you can't be forced to give credit to any original source if that author has no legal status.

The claim to authorship is being made to a public audience, either explicitly ("click here to see Mr2001's Web Site, designed by Leechy McPlagiarist") or implicitly (by omitting the credit altogether and letting the reader infer that the content was written by the person whose domain it's hosted on). I don't see what's so hard about stipulating that such a claim has to be true.

New scientific achievements would be relegated to weekend projects, since there would be no way to secure income without protections, and no corporate market to drive and fund research.

Of course there would be; the money would be collected differently, but it'd ultimately come from the same place, the end users.

For example, I like listening to Cake, so I'd be willing to give them $15 to fund their next album--after all, I'd happily spend $15 on the CD. What I value is their talent, not the plastic discs (which I don't need anyway), so I'm willing to pay them for it.

There absolutely must be a tradeoff--individuals cannot afford the kind of research that needs to be done, and companies won't throw away the money to handle R&D for the entire industry.

Then the R&D will be funded by industry coalitions, or the other parties who benefit from it - consumers, retailers, support providers, etc. As long as it provides a benefit, there will be demand.

It doesn't matter. I agree the scenario is tenuous, but the question is simple: if someone copied your work, and a third party offered that person a wad of cash because of it (endorsement deal, book tour, lecture circuit, even simply a gift because the content was riveting and enjoyable to some senile millionaire), but you were offered nothing, would you be upset?

Since I've established my position that lying about authorship is still objectionable, I'll assume that the copy is an exact one which properly credits me, but this mysterious, irrational third party still paid someone else for it.

Sure, I'd probabl

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Second, the fundamental principle here is that I'm considering the consequences of disclosure, and "I find it a little harder to make a buck" isn't nearly as damaging as "now everyone knows I used to be a man" or "now the enemy knows where our troops are headed" (to use another example of justified suppression of information).

So rather than have intellectual property laws, you'd rather the government evaluate the value of information in determining whether restrictions should be placed on it. Again, deliciously arbitrary. The current framework, which suggests that information not produced in public is protected unless released offers a far more robust approach. The controlled publicization of private information is exactly what intellectual property is about, and why it is grouped together. Privacy is nothing more than the control of the information flow; it is the natural counterpart to intellectual property. One cannot exist without the other (one of the most important lessons of law school). If you restrict the flow of information, you have created a protectionist schema which isolates some intellectual work (whether it's simple knowledge of troop deployment or a force depletion report) from free exchange.

If you really didn't want everyone to have it, you wouldn't be selling it to everyone who shows up with cash.

They're not. They're selling it to everyone who shows up with cash in the presence of existing copyright law. Absent those protections, these artists wouldn't be selling anything, because to release it would be to cede control to the public.

No, you're thinking of patents. Copyright is nothing like that in practice

Puzzlingly, you seem to have glossed over the part where I said IP. You keep gravitating toward copyright, but that's not the only game in town regarding the issue of stealing information. IP is an umbrella group of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, and information protection law (where the latter is often forgotten and glossed over as part of patent and trade secret law, which it in fact is not). The reason they are grouped together is because they all involve restrictions on the free flow of information for reasons deemed beneficial to society. Certainly, you might question whether, say, patents actually do benefit society, but that determination was made long ago and opposition is academic (just like opposition to the existence of Social Security). Protecting proprietary information by regulating access and use is exactly what the field is about. If information is restricted with legal force for any purpose, you have an IP framework, because the law can't take action against an idea directly.

In the instance of artwork, that private artwork, which in past eras was commissioned by the wealthy for their own private ownership and enjoyment, was made available to the public at large through the evolution of copyright law. The production of copies allowed the lower classes access to artwork which they could not ordinarily afford in exchange for limitations on that use. In effect, the government incentivized artists to release works in mass formats for public consumption. The artist is guaranteed ownership rights (control of distribution and reproduction) in exchange. Absent these protections, art will simply return to an expensive trade commissioned by the wealthy, save for the artwork that is voluntarily produced for the public (at the artist's expense).

Then the R&D will be funded by industry coalitions, or the other parties who benefit from it

Only to the minimum extent necessary--without any legal protections, there's nothing to stop a company from not participating in the research and simply waiting for the results, stealing them, and using them for their own gain in their production of, say, drugs or cellular phones. Without any IP framework, there is no mechanism to punish these vultures, which make similar profits with near-zero expense. Th

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

So rather than have intellectual property laws, you'd rather the government evaluate the value of information in determining whether restrictions should be placed on it. Again, deliciously arbitrary.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. I think we'd all like the government to evaluate the "value" of actions in determining whether restrictions should be placed on them, right? All you've done here is show that things sound strange when you use enough abstraction to talk about them.

The current framework, which suggests that information not produced in public is protected unless released offers a far more robust approach.

The information we're talking about here is released the moment its author decides to broadcast or sell it. You can't release something to everyone who's willing to buy it and then claim it's still private.

The controlled publicization of private information is exactly what intellectual property is about, and why it is grouped together.

It is only grouped together by people who are trying to make a political point. Patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets are very different, and no insight is gained by treating them as if they're the same.

Absent those protections, these artists wouldn't be selling anything, because to release it would be to cede control to the public.

They'd be selling their labor, like most other people. The only ones who wouldn't be recording anymore are the ones who (1) are only in it for the money and (2) cannot convince anyone that their artistic talent is worth paying for, most likely because it isn't. I can't say I'll miss them.

You keep gravitating toward copyright, but that's not the only game in town regarding the issue of stealing information.

This discussion started with music, music is only covered by copyright, and so I am only going to discuss copyright.

[R&D will be funded by ...] Only to the minimum extent necessary--without any legal protections, there's nothing to stop a company from not participating in the research and simply waiting for the results, stealing them, and using them for their own gain in their production of, say, drugs or cellular phones.

Let me share an anecdote here.

There's a woman who lives on a private road, which isn't maintained by the government, and so after many years it had fallen into disrepair to the point where it was barely drivable. She and her neighbors got together to discuss paying a private company to pave the road, and they agreed to split the costs between them.

All except one neighbor, that is. He didn't want to pay. Everyone else divided the cost of hiring the pavers, and the one guy got to live on a paved road for free.

The world didn't end. Everyone got to benefit. The neighbors who paid weren't ripped off; the benefit they received was still greater than the amount they paid in. They had an incentive to pay, because they knew that no one would be willing to pay for the whole thing himself, and so if they didn't split the costs, the road would never get paved at all.

There has to be some sort of IP framework in place for there even to BE a distinction between private and public information, and there are no market forces which could solve this problem.

Again, no, there doesn't. All there has to be is a declaration that this type of information is private (medical and financial records, personal correspondence, etc.) and that type of information is not (everything else). You don't have to say anything about ownership in order to divide public from private information.

You asked what I'm driving at with my question, and this is the answer. The US economy (and many other "first world" nations) is no longer based on labor or physical property.

I remember hearing something like that before: we called it the New Economy at the ti

Re:Copyright

[zenkonami]

In no particular order...

In this world, it is a trivial enterprise to make vast libraries of culture and knowledge accessible to peasants in the jungle.

How? I mean, effectively. Will the peasants in the jungle even be interested in this panacea they're being offered? Or will it merely be someone thrusting "civilization" and "culture" upon them? Will they be interested in using computers to access this information, or will it merely homogenize them into the vast global monoculture?

It is trivial to find the idle time to set your hand to it.

Is it? Quality, anyone? Or have the great works of art that form the foundation of our history and culture been the work of hobbyists? Professional writers, musicians, painters, etc...have been around a long time, as much for the passion of their work as for the ability to pay their bills and put food on the table. In a world that is so quickly migrating to obtaining all this culture via a vast electronic network, how will these professionals (the one's who created the genuinely powerful, memorable, and quality material) be able to afford to continue to do so? Will the great works of tomorrow be the homogenized sound of Billy in his bedroom in his spare time, scarcely able to use the tools the develop such a work? When will he hone his skills? Has he heard of craft?

Where's the money gonna come from?

Brainstorm for other ideas on how you might get subsidized by our society without it being necessary to keep people isolated from what you've created, and throw your weight behind getting them into place.

You don't think artists try to do that all the time? Except for the large corporations and the elect few, art/music/writing/etc... is not all that lucrative a career choice unless you take advantage of every avenue you can possibly exploit to make money off of your work (and it is WORK.) Eliminating copyright makes it that much harder. Now, I'll be the first to admit that our copyright laws may have pushed the boundaries too far (I don't need a copyright that continues for an entire lifetime after I'm dead and gone, and frankly neither do my heirs), but eliminating copyright does not fix the problem.

This kind of mentality is part of what is killing the potential quality of art. Not the innovation part (for that I applaud you...artists should be innovative in all things, including how they do business), but the notion that anyone can do it, that it's easy, and soon everyone will do it and that's the end of that. Well, five minutes of fame on YouTube is fine, but that's it. It's no guarantee of establishing a place in culture except as a footnote. It's no guarantee of quality.

Soon, it will be trivial to provide a copy of every creative work ever made to every man, woman and child on earth.

At which point, the only thing holding us back from doing so will be small-minded dickheads harping about their "rights".

And then it occurs to me: this is all about the free lunch.

If you're a creator, stop thinking about copyright.

But if you're a consumer, get everything you can for as free as you can. If you're not willing to pay for quality, copy it. Spread it around. There was one copy that the artist made 65 cents off of. That's enough. That's all it's worth, because the copies are free.

Rights. Creators don't have rights. Only those looking for handouts do.

Re:Copyright

[BlueParrot]

You missed the point. In most countries copyright infringement is a civil matter, not a criminal one. This has quite a few implications for how a claim of infringement is handled. As an example, it typically means you don't get the police confiscating your computer just to check if there is something there, and it can't land you longer jail terms than physically hurting someone. It also has a lot of implications for what level of evidence is needed. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is typical for criminal cases, whereas civil lawsuits are mostly down to who can build the strongest case. Saying something should not be a crime is not the same thing as saying it is your right. Slander and libel are not crimes as an example, they are however grounds for a civil lawsuit.

Re:Copyright

[MobyDisk]

I never thought of the criminal -vs- civil issue. I'll have to agree with you on that.

Re:Copyright

[Dputiger]

I pray it doesn't--mostly because I have absolutely zero faith that any replacement system would be, in any way, better. Check the history of revolutionary movements if you don't want to take my word for it, but the vast, vast, vast, majority of fundamental replacement systems only come into being after widespread bloodshed, anarchy, and destruction. If the countries typically referred to as the "West" collapsed in any sort of manner, life in said nations would rapidly be reduced to a Hobbsian state of nature best summarized as nasty, brutish, and short. You seem quite anxious to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it were.

Re:Copyright

[ShieldW0lf]

Here's how I figure it.

During the second world war, entire civilizations of people, entire continents of people, all had their menfolk shipped away for years to fight on the other side of the world.

Many died.

While they were gone, women were forcibly taught not to trust the practical side of things to their menfolk and concern themselves with the continuation of the species and and the civilization, but rather to toughen themselves and be self-reliant and concerned with their own survival. Then men came back, and they had no one to nurture them.

Modern western civilization is an extension of that cultural scar, it's not healthy or sustainable, and it's going to collapse because of it.

North America has become the place genetic material comes to die.

Our culture, among the other things that it is, is like a special, magical secret, that if you tell it to a rat, they don't have babies anymore, but they still live and run around telling their friends.

Despite the magic of all that we've discovered and accomplished, the culture that will be important in the coming century won't be ours, because there won't be very many of us around.

We'll be a small minority in a world with tens of billions of people, and the people of those cultures will hopefully use the technology that we've developed to expand humanity off this planet.

That's our future.

There will be escalating desperate attempts to entice and rigidly control a massive influx of immigrant population so that the Boomers can live their retirement dreams before they go into the grave.

That will likely turn into a revolt, but it might be a relatively peaceful power shift through politics.

At any rate, those immigrant cultures will be in control, and their attitudes will be the dominant ones.

Our culture will become as significant as that of Tibet.

Re:Copyright

[Dputiger]

No offense, but this sounds like what you get when you add: 1 cup of Paul Ehrlich 1/2 cup Marxian philosophy 1/4 cup rampant paranoia 2 teaspoons of mysogynistic bass-ackwards chauvinism and an olive. Dump all the ingredients into a blender and frappe until mixed.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

I think we'd all like the government to evaluate the "value" of actions in determining whether restrictions should be placed on them, right?

Intellectual Property *is* the evaluation of actions. It is a false notion claim to attack Intellectual Property as promulgating a theory of "owned information." That's not at all what's going on. Even Richard Stallman can't wrap his head around this (having no subtlety in the area of philosophy of law), so it's not surprising that the myth doesn't often get stopped. Intellectual Property is the regulation of the FLOW of information or the CONTROL of the realization of information. It is not the information itself that is controlled, it is merely the manifestation of that information (either by an action, such as a production method or process or by a representation, such as a recording or written document). You can't unlearn something you've learned, nor can you purposefully erase knowledge or memory. You can, however, be barred from realizing those ideas--IP isn't "thought policing" but merely "action policing" just like any other kind of legal restriction. You can store whatever you want in your brain, just like you can fantasize about committing petty larceny or even murder. The law only has a stake in what you DO to ACT on those thoughts.

Your act of copying a file is deemed to interfere with the interests of society, since that file was provided to society for consumption on the provision that the author/producer retains distribution rights (among others). Failure to uphold society's end of the bargain means collapse of the system, whether damage was done or not.

The information we're talking about here is released the moment its author decides to broadcast or sell it.

A decision made with the full faith and credit of IP protections on it. Artists don't release information and hope for the best; they know from the beginning that they have certain rights in releasing it. If those guarantees were not provided, it would not be released. As an individual, having created a work, you have two choices without IP: keep it to yourself and retain control, or share it and lose control. IP law encourages sharing by artificially enforcing author control after publicization. It only adds to the breadth of human knowledge (anyone who wants to release their work without any sort of protection for the good of society is free to do so). It is a framework to which you can avail yourself if you choose to.

This discussion started with music, music is only covered by copyright, and so I am only going to discuss copyright.

THIS discussion started with your conflation of theft and stealing, and moved over to your false notions on the concept of intellectual property. Copyright has nothing to do with the former, and is only one example of the latter.

The world didn't end. Everyone got to benefit. The neighbors who paid weren't ripped off; the benefit they received was still greater than the amount they paid in.

That isn't the case, because that's only the first half of the process. Let's say those property owners were business owners and they all sold flowers. Say two of them split the costs of the road repairs, at $50,000 each. The third paid $0 for the repairs, but has full use of the road. In order to pay for the new road, the first two shop owners sacrificed their saved profits. The third shop owner didn't have to spend that money, and so he could make an equal sacrifice by reducing prices 10%. Free market that it is, everyone goes to Florist C for the lower prices, and Florists A and B go out of business. They all sacrificed $50,000 of saved profits in an effort to improve customer access/sales revenue (better roads make it easier for customers to get to them), but the vulture spent the $50,000 on reducing prices--which attracted more customers and generated more profit OVER AND ABOVE the benefit of the nice, new roads.

I remember hea

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Intellectual Property is the regulation of the FLOW of information or the CONTROL of the realization of information. It is not the information itself that is controlled, it is merely the manifestation of that information

This is a meaningless distinction.

Your act of copying a file is deemed to interfere with the interests of society, since that file was provided to society for consumption on the provision that the author/producer retains distribution rights (among others).

Some people deem that act to interfere with their idea of what society's interests might be, but in fact that idea usually has more to do with their own interests than those of society in general.

Many other people believe that society's interests are better served by having access to fewer works which can be used freely--shared, remixed, built upon and torn apart--rather than an abundance of restricted works which can only be used by buying and playing copies in their original form.

As an individual, having created a work, you have two choices without IP: keep it to yourself and retain control, or share it and lose control. IP law encourages sharing by artificially enforcing author control after publicization.

Not really. It encourages "production" by tempting potential artists with potential revenue, but as I said before, I don't think there's any reason to believe that in a world without copyright, artists would simply keep their work private. More likely, some of them would stop, and the rest would keep working and release their work... because what's the point of writing a song if no one else ever hears it?

["The neighbors who paid weren't ripped off; the benefit they received was still greater than the amount they paid in."] That isn't the case, because that's only the first half of the process.

Well, yes, it is the case, because these are real people and it actually happened. It was an anecdote, not a hypothetical. But if you want to make it into a hypothetical...

Say two of them split the costs of the road repairs, at $50,000 each. The third paid $0 for the repairs, but has full use of the road. In order to pay for the new road, the first two shop owners sacrificed their saved profits. The third shop owner didn't have to spend that money, and so he could make an equal sacrifice by reducing prices 10%. Free market that it is, everyone goes to Florist C for the lower prices, and Florists A and B go out of business.

In a case like that, it probably wouldn't make sense for A and B to pave the road themselves, knowing that C would then be able to undercut them. They have enough information to know beforehand that they'd find themselves in that situation, and decide not to go forward without getting C on board. And of course it would be in C's own interest to get on board, because paving the road brings in more customers for everyone.

The "service sector" that employs the majority of Americans? 100% reliant on IP. It produces no physical products and involves no physical labor.

This is a joke, right? If not, please tell me where I can sign up for one of these jobs where you don't have to make anything or do any work, but you still get paid.

But you've debased the labor that generates your salary. Without IP, your work can't be used to make money because it's a service (yielding intellectual property as a product)--if you can't charge money for it, you can't make money from it.

Well, you'd better rework your theory, because that's exactly what I do, and I'm hardly the first person to make a living this way. I write software that provides a benefit to the people who use it. The software doesn't exist before I write it, which means I can charge those people to write it for them. Once it's written, they use it and I move on to something else.

Your programming work without IP amounts to a hamster wheel. I can come along at an

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

This is a meaningless distinction. No, it's not. You're just not connecting the dots. Intellectual Property is a metonym, just like "gun control" is a metonym and "family practice" is a metonym. Like any other field of law, it regulates actions and not thoughts. It's inconvenient to your line of reasoning, not meaningless.

Some people deem that act to interfere with their idea of what society's interests might be If by "some people" you mean six centuries of legislators and courts and by "their idea" you mean "laws" then absolutely, I agree with you. Society's interests have been determined, individual judgments notwithstanding. If I don't think murder is categorically wrong, that doesn't mean the society isn't against me.

In a case like that, it probably wouldn't make sense for A and B to pave the road themselves Ding ding ding! The road goes unpaved, to the detriment of all, because C is a bastard. Now imagine a situation where A and B *could* pave the road by themselves and benefit from it without allowing freeloading. Gosh, what a wonderful system that would be. It would have its problems (creating high barriers to entry in established fields where the building blocks are all secured by older entities, for example), but it would work remarkably well.

If not, please tell me where I can sign up for one of these jobs where you don't have to make anything or do any work, but you still get paid. Surprise! You've already got one of those magical jobs. Your only labor is thinking. You could say that you get paid to type and to speak, but unless you're handed the content to type and/or speak verbatim, you are engaging in intellectual labor, not physical labor.

The software doesn't exist before I write it, which means I can charge those people to write it for them You can't sell something you don't own. No IP==no control over information==no way to demand payment.

Because if you don't, then I won't write it. But ARTISTS should create works of art and release them to the world for nothing. Why can't you give your contributions to society for free like you demand of them? You see, you're proving the point exactly. If you don't have a mechanism to collect money for your intellectual labor, you've said that you're not going to produce. This is exactly what the rest of the world would do without IP. The US economy would implode practically overnight.

You should not, however, pay me for having written code in the past. So once one person buys your software, I can have that same software for free, since you already wrote it? What if the software you're writing involves thousands of programmers and two years of time? Where are you going to find a single buyer to cover those expenses?

They spend time creating works which will not ultimately sell enough copies to justify the time spent, and then they scramble to file lawsuits, impose DRM, and buy new laws, hoping that if others won't buy their work, they can at least keep those others from enjoying it You see, the reason people do this is because it WORKS. If people didn't buy or use such products, the offenders would not have any vector to complain, nor would they have the financial clout to pursue litigation. You're still just complaining. If someone is going to be an asshole about what they make, it's either worth putting up with the crap (if it's amazing) or it's not (in which case, move on with your life). Stop giving those people money to use to sue you, and if you stop giving them money, stop using their products so that they don't have anything to sue about. If they make frivolous lawsuits, deal with them as you would any other frivolous lawsuit (false rape allegations, extortion schemes, what have you).

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

If by "some people" you mean six centuries of legislators and courts and by "their idea" you mean "laws" then absolutely, I agree with you. Society's interests have been determined, individual judgments notwithstanding.

By "some people", I mean members of the various copy-selling industries and those who represent them in government. These laws benefit a minority which can effectively lobby in its own favor, at the expense of a majority which cannot. We shouldn't be surprised at the result, but neither should we think that it represents the interests of society as a whole.

Ding ding ding! The road goes unpaved, to the detriment of all, because C is a bastard.

It only goes unpaved until A and B explain to C that paving the road will benefit all three of them. If C is a rational actor, he'll go along with the plan. If he isn't a rational actor, then we can't predict much about his behavior anyway.

Now imagine a situation where A and B *could* pave the road by themselves and benefit from it without allowing freeloading. Gosh, what a wonderful system that would be.

If that system of paving roads required every single person in the country to sacrifice essential freedoms, and resulted in roads that were only marginally useful, compared to roads paved through some other means, for a century after they were built... then we'd be better off driving on dirt.

Surprise! You've already got one of those magical jobs. Your only labor is thinking. You could say that you get paid to type and to speak, but unless you're handed the content to type and/or speak verbatim, you are engaging in intellectual labor, not physical labor.

Aha, now I get it. You're drawing a distinction between "intellectual" and "physical" labor.

I'm not drawing that distinction, because as far as I can tell, it's irrelevant. If I get paid for spending my time at some task, then I'm doing labor, period.

You can't sell something you don't own. No IP==no control over information==no way to demand payment.

Which is exactly why I'm not selling information. I'm selling my labor. I most certainly can charge people to write code for them, because I have control over how I spend my time, and if they won't pay me to write code then I'll spend my time doing something else.

But ARTISTS should create works of art and release them to the world for nothing. Why can't you give your contributions to society for free like you demand of them?

I've demanded no such thing. If you've gotten the impression that I'm asking anyone to work for nothing, you're gravely mistaken, and I can only conclude you haven't read a single word I've written about getting paid for working instead of selling copies.

If you don't have a mechanism to collect money for your intellectual labor, you've said that you're not going to produce. This is exactly what the rest of the world would do without IP. The US economy would implode practically overnight.

No, the rest of the world can get paid for working, too. They don't need a monopoly on making copies any more than I do.

So once one person buys your software, I can have that same software for free, since you already wrote it?

Yes. But let's get the terminology right: that person isn't buying software. He's paying me for the service of writing software, with the understanding that the software cannot be controlled by either of us once it's written.

What if the software you're writing involves thousands of programmers and two years of time? Where are you going to find a single buyer to cover those expenses?

It doesn't have to be a single buyer. It can be a corporation, a government, or a group of individuals.

For an example of how this can work in practice, see the past few years of political campaigning, where candidates raise millions of dollars from many small individual donations. And

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

These laws benefit a minority which can effectively lobby in its own favor

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. How is this different from lobbying in any other capacity? Abolishing legal frameworks because there's a group gaming the system is not the answer.

If he isn't a rational actor, then we can't predict much about his behavior anyway.

Non sequitur. The law does not depend on rational actors, nor does it depend on predictions. The law deals in real controversies exclusively. Predictions are of zero consequence. If A and B cannot convince C to split the cost, then they cannot bear the risk, because paving the road will put them out of business, and not paving the road might do the same. A and B should not have to relocate because they have one asshole competitor.

I'm not drawing that distinction, because as far as I can tell, it's irrelevant. If I get paid for spending my time at some task, then I'm doing labor, period.

I'm not sure why I have to keep explaining this to you, since you're the one who thinks IP should be wiped off the face of the earth. If you don't have IP, you wouldn't have a job. Companies would pay only the bare minimum to accomplish their goals, and they would shop the lowest bidder and the earliest bidder. I sincerely doubt you have ever created something that has not been created before or that you are uniquely suited to produce. How would you compete with your tens of millions of fellow programmers for being 1) the lowest bidder and 2) the first to create a given software solution? The only reason you have a job now is because IBM doesn't share with Novell, who doesn't share with Adobe. If everything created was freely accessible to all, you would have nothing to offer, except maybe the occasional code tweak. How would you finance your education with such bleak prospects?

I've demanded no such thing.

No, you've demanded that someone foot the bill (up front) for the entire cost of your services sufficient to generate a living wage. But very few people make money that way now, and even fewer consumers are willing to pay in advance for material of questionable quality to be delivered at an uncertain time. You've suggested that individuals might group together to purchase a service, but again you face the problem of "why should anyone pay you when they can simply wait for someone else to do it and reap the benefit for free?" If your product costs $6 million to create, where are you going to find a group of users with that sort of money pool?

That arrangement produces bare minimums on both sides--minimal quality, minimal spending, minimal innovation. Artists are not going to spend years working on their magnum opus if they have to churn something out every week and hope someone likes it. (And before the 'art and music is crap today' bubbles to the surface, remember that it is not for the law to decide, and that good art and music *is* still produced and it is produced by artists who *do* really on their IP rights in order to create it.)

No, the rest of the world can get paid for working, too.

They could all join you in the fields, perhaps. Your labor is utterly worthless so long as there is a single competent person willing to do it for $1 cheaper, right up until that particular task had been completed the first time, when it would be worthless 100% of the time. Fewer people at the top in key positions cascades exponentially down the line. Intel hires fewer chip designers, because they refuse to waste money on large-scale R&D for the entire industry (and after being ripped off and undercut long enough, Intel collapses and lays off its workforce, forcing someone else to spend money and self-destruct).

There are benefits--sharing information reduces costs initially. However, it also reduces the number of jobs and reduces salaries. It doesn't matter that a CPU would cost half as much if only half the peo

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. How is this different from lobbying in any other capacity? Abolishing legal frameworks because there's a group gaming the system is not the answer.

That group gaming the system is the very reason why the system exists. The majority didn't volunteer to give up their freedom of speech in order to help a minority make money by selling copies.

If A and B cannot convince C to split the cost, then they cannot bear the risk, because paving the road will put them out of business, and not paving the road might do the same. A and B should not have to relocate because they have one asshole competitor.

Shouldn't they? It seems to me that having a few people switch professions or locations, in the rare event that they encounter a competitor who's determined to sabotage the industry like this, is better than taking away everyone else's freedom in order to support a new, unenforceable kind of property right.

I'm not sure why I have to keep explaining this to you, since you're the one who thinks IP should be wiped off the face of the earth. If you don't have IP, you wouldn't have a job.

Believe me, I know more about my job than you do. My income simply does not depend on selling copies. It's not that hard to understand.

Companies would pay only the bare minimum to accomplish their goals, and they would shop the lowest bidder and the earliest bidder.

Yes, that's what everyone already does in every other field. If you need your car fixed, you don't go with the most expensive mechanic, do you? Has that destroyed the industry? I think not.

I sincerely doubt you have ever created something that has not been created before or that you are uniquely suited to produce.

As far as I know, the software I get paid to write hasn't been written before, but you're right that I'm not the only person who's capable of doing it. Just like my mechanic isn't the only one capable of fixing my car. So what? Someone has to write it, and that person happens to be me.

How would you compete with your tens of millions of fellow programmers for being 1) the lowest bidder and 2) the first to create a given software solution?

The same way anyone competes for any job! Why do you think this is a new concern?

If everything created was freely accessible to all, you would have nothing to offer, except maybe the occasional code tweak.

I think it'll be a long, long time before every piece of software the world will ever need has been written. There will always be demand for new software, just like there'll always be demand for new books and music.

No, you've demanded that someone foot the bill (up front) for the entire cost of your services sufficient to generate a living wage. But very few people make money that way now, and even fewer consumers are willing to pay in advance for material of questionable quality to be delivered at an uncertain time.

The time, quality, and payment arrangement can all be agreed upon beforehand. When I get my car serviced, I get an estimate of when it'll be done and how much it'll cost, and I still don't know for sure how well it'll turn out. Doesn't stop me from doing it, though.

You've suggested that individuals might group together to purchase a service, but again you face the problem of "why should anyone pay you when they can simply wait for someone else to do it and reap the benefit for free?"

Because they know that if they don't pay, it won't get done. If my favorite band asked me to give them $15 so they could make their next album, I wouldn't think twice about it.

Why do people contribute to candidates when they know they can sit back and let someone else do it? That thermometer graph is pretty good at motivating people, I guess.

If your product costs $6 million to create, where are you going to find a

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

That group gaming the system is the very reason why the system exists.

No, it's not. The system exists because the framers of society determined that access to the arts was not being shared. Some form of IP has existed since before the industrial revolution (reinforced by limited availability of education). Given that individuals were not required to share anything and others did not have the capacity to steal it, a company could create a product and have no competition because would-be competitors could not recreate it on their own. In the art world, people could not afford art. A commissioned work could not sit in 10,000 living rooms (just as it can't today--only one person gets the original). Apart from museums and galleries providing public display of privately-owned pieces, the general public had no access to works of art. They were not invited to performances and could not afford paintings.

The solution was to devise a system where people could kick start development by letting their own work help others, without losing the financial advantage of having created it. Other companies could enjoy a license to use that innovation which would allow them, too, to make more money. In the arts, a copyright allowed artists to subsidize their product across many people interested in copies. Lithographic printing allowed an artist to create a painting and let thousands of people pay a few dollars toward it, instead of selling the original for several thousand dollars.

The gamers you speak of didn't even exist until the 20th Century. Gamers of some kind exist from day one and will exist until the end of time. You have to deal with the problem, not the carrier.

is better than taking away everyone else's freedom

What freedom? You apparently believe in a right to privacy. The works protected by IP laws aren't public works. They are private works which are shared with the public through the protections of IP. You don't have any intrinsic right to them. Without IP, the majority of these works wouldn't be put on the market in the first place, and it would remove the incentive to innovate. Painters would still paint, because they love doing it. Society wouldn't be bettered by it, though, since the painter would have to finance his hobby by working a physical labor job. You might still write software because you enjoy it, but you'd probably have to do something else to make money because there'd be too many programmers competing for too little money.

Yes, that's what everyone already does in every other field. If you need your car fixed, you don't go with the most expensive mechanic, do you? Has that destroyed the industry? I think not.

No, but a mechanic gets paid every time he does a repair. If he changes oil 55 times a day, he gets paid 55 times, not just the first time he figures out how to do it. He also doesn't have to be the first one to figure out how to change oil in order to profit from it.

My income simply does not depend on selling copies

I find that nearly impossible to believe. Is your company publicly traded? If so, it relies on selling IP (stock certificates). Are you salaried? Then your work relies on the company's IP product being sufficient to support its employees. Unless you are paid per-project on an individual basis, and unless your customers are buying software with a free software license (indicating that they cannot sell it or control its distribution), then your income is dependent on IP.

The same way anyone competes for any job! Why do you think this is a new concern?

No one else has to compete the same was as service jobs do. If a technology were invented tomorrow that could instantly produce anything that had been built just one time before it (from apples to steak to Ford trucks to houses to the freakin' space shuttle), how would people make money? What would the billions of production line workers do? Not everyone can cr

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

What freedom [is taken away by copyright]?

Freedom of speech. Copyright says that there are certain sequences of words I'm not allowed to say to another person because someone else has a monopoly on speaking them.

In addition, copyright limits the ways we can use the works which are available - a CD that I can only (1) buy, (2) play, and (3) throw away isn't as useful to me as one that I can download for free, remix, share, include in another project, etc.

The works protected by IP laws aren't public works. They are private works which are shared with the public through the protections of IP.

They become public the moment they're shared or sold, and there's no reason to think most of them wouldn't become public even without copyright. As I've pointed out before, people don't write and record songs just so they can listen to those songs themselves. Art is designed to be shared.

Painters would still paint, because they love doing it. Society wouldn't be bettered by it, though, since the painter would have to finance his hobby by working a physical labor job.

Only if he's not good enough to get people to pay him to paint.

You might still write software because you enjoy it, but you'd probably have to do something else to make money because there'd be too many programmers competing for too little money.

No, the reason why I might have to do something else is because less programming would need to be done. Each person's work would be more useful, and the system as a whole would be more efficient because the same software wouldn't need to be written over and over.

No, but a mechanic gets paid every time he does a repair. If he changes oil 55 times a day, he gets paid 55 times, not just the first time he figures out how to do it. He also doesn't have to be the first one to figure out how to change oil in order to profit from it.

A programmer gets paid every time he writes code. If he writes 55 programs, then he gets paid 55 times, not just for the first one. Do you really think there's going to be a time when no more software needs to be written?

Is your company publicly traded? If so, it relies on selling IP (stock certificates).

If you're going to keep broadening the definition of "IP" like this, is it any wonder why I insist on only discussing copyright?

Are you salaried? Then your work relies on the company's IP product being sufficient to support its employees. Unless you are paid per-project on an individual basis, and unless your customers are buying software with a free software license (indicating that they cannot sell it or control its distribution), then your income is dependent on IP.

I am paid per hour to work on various projects. The software I write either supports hardware which is manufactured by my company or others, or is directly useful to the people paying for it.

If a technology were invented tomorrow that could instantly produce anything that had been built just one time before it (from apples to steak to Ford trucks to houses to the freakin' space shuttle), how would people make money? What would the billions of production line workers do?

I'm confident that they'd find something to do, just like displaced workers in obsolete fields have always done. We didn't have to come up with a plan for the buggy-whip manufacturers before deciding to allow automobiles. Why should we have to come up with a plan for factory workers before deciding to replace them with something more efficient?

It is rather the opposite, since a minimal-IP system with only privacy as you seem to desire would produce a mountain of proprietary information and no sharing, except in strategic alliances (cartels).

Once again, this simply does not apply to the information that is covered by copyright today. People don't write songs and books for their own use.

Copyrig

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Freedom of speech. Copyright says that there are certain sequences of words I'm not allowed to say to another person because someone else has a monopoly on speaking them.

First of all, no, and second "freedom of speech" does not apply to the work of others. It's not free speech to duplicate a painting.

Only if he's not good enough to get people to pay him to paint.

You mean like Goya, or Picasso, or Van Gogh?

They become public the moment they're shared or sold

Under what philosophy? Certainly not existing law, and not even categorically in your fantasy world of "private vs. public with no IP."

If you're going to keep broadening the definition of "IP" like this, is it any wonder why I insist on only discussing copyright?

Broadened how? You're the one insisting that on real property should have any sort of protections. Stock isn't real property. You seem quite confused about what property even is.

A programmer gets paid every time he writes code. If he writes 55 programs, then he gets paid 55 times, not just for the first one. Do you really think there's going to be a time when no more software needs to be written?

How long does it take you to write 55 programs? How long does it take you to do 55 oil changes? The current cost of a typical software title is about the same as the price of an oil change. Is your labor worth more? What makes you think people would pay you up front for your software? I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC. I'll pay $40, though, and so will a million of my friends. You wouldn't have a market if you charged individuals the full expected price.

But I'm not going to hand over $40 and hope that a million other people do the same before you get off your ass and write what I hope will be what I want. Consumers don't pay in advance.

Why should we have to come up with a plan for factory workers before deciding to replace them with something more efficient?

They've already had somewhere to go in the past. What is there past information? Nothing. Thinking is the only skill we have that can't be automated (yet). Factory workers left the factory to enter the booming service sector. They didn't create it. It existed already. What exists for people to move into, since we'd be dumping tens of millions of jobs?

So, what's to stop me from getting all my music from friends, who get it from their friends, and so on?

Practicality. Casual file sharing is supplemental to purchasing CDs. You might get a few tracks you like, become interested in the group, and buy albums. If you're just pumping your friends for music, they cross over into distribution. Unless you have a thousand friends each giving you a mix CD, you can't build a library that way. The nature of enforcement would also change to adapt to the situation you describe, should it come to pass. People should pay for the things they like. A little sharing around the edges doesn't hurt, but illegal distribution (no matter how distributed you make it) is a problem. There are fuzzy edges on everything with a natural balance.

What if someone took your "only get paid the first time" to the extreme you want for art and music? Your customer wants to see your source code. He's only going to pay you for the funtions you've never written before (changing variable names won't count). After all, performing those functions again is effortless and instant, just like providing another copy of a song you've already recorded.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't stand up any more than it did the first time. Please give just one example of a service industry that wouldn't exist without copyright - other than the copyright litigation industry.

Publishing, printing, information collection services, commercial film, professional photography, universities, major record

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

First of all, no, and second "freedom of speech" does not apply to the work of others. It's not free speech to duplicate a painting.

You seem confused about what speech is. I can digitize a painting (or a song, a book, etc.), reducing it to a sequence of digits. Copyright says it's illegal to call my friend up on the phone and read him that list of digits. That's a restriction on my speech, plain and simple.

["They become public the moment they're shared or sold."] Under what philosophy? Certainly not existing law, and not even categorically in your fantasy world of "private vs. public with no IP."

Under the definition of "public". If you're sharing something with whoever asks, or pays, then it's not private anymore. And if it's not private, it's public.

Broadened how? You're the one insisting that on real property should have any sort of protections. Stock isn't real property. You seem quite confused about what property even is.

Property is a scarce resource: if one person has it, someone else can't, so it can and must be owned. Information doesn't fit the bill, because everyone can be using the same information simultaneously without conflict.

Stock does, however, because each share represents a fraction of the company. If I own half the company, and you own half the company, then someone else can't own a third half. It's true that a share isn't a tangible thing, but it still has more in common with a car than with a number.

How long does it take you to write 55 programs? How long does it take you to do 55 oil changes? The current cost of a typical software title is about the same as the price of an oil change. Is your labor worth more?

Yeah, it probably is. Changing oil is something anyone can do. That's beside the point, though, because the more important difference is the amount of labor involved.

What makes you think people would pay you up front for your software? I'm not going to write anyone a check for $40 million to create an image editor for my PC. I'll pay $40, though, and so will a million of my friends. You wouldn't have a market if you charged individuals the full expected price.

As I've explained, it isn't necessary to charge individuals the full price. I don't need $40 million from you, it'll work just as well to collect $40 from you and a million other people. And as long as I have a binding agreement with everyone who promises to pay, I don't necessarily need the money up front either, just like a mechanic doesn't.

What exists for people to move into, since we'd be dumping tens of millions of jobs?

New service and manufacturing jobs that we may not have even thought of yet. Existing jobs in new locations. It's ridiculous to think there just won't be anything left for people to do.

What if someone took your "only get paid the first time" to the extreme you want for art and music? Your customer wants to see your source code. He's only going to pay you for the funtions you've never written before (changing variable names won't count). After all, performing those functions again is effortless and instant, just like providing another copy of a song you've already recorded.

Sounds fine to me. Like any good programmer, I don't like spending my time rewriting the same stuff over and over either, so this wouldn't really affect me.

OTOH, this aspect is already rolled into the price. Cutting and pasting takes a lot less time than writing new code, so you're naturally going to get paid less for doing it.

Publishing, printing, information collection services, commercial film, professional photography, universities, major recording acts, software development, and museums, to name a few.

I've already addressed at least two of those, but... wow. Would you mind explaining how, exactly, you think abolishing copyright would make universities obsolete? (I have a feeling this is go

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Copyright says it's illegal to call my friend up on the phone and read him that list of digits.

No, it does not. It says that if you are not the creator of said digits, you do not have the right to redistribute them, and the government has designated a party which does have that authority. If you really want to get right down to it, you can't actually own land either, but you seem to have no problem with government-designated controls on that.

And as long as I have a binding agreement with everyone who promises to pay,

A binding agreement for a product you can't sell. Take that agreement to a court. You stipulate that you want to be paid for your time--but you see, your time is only worthwhile if a controllable product is produced. If you can't control the product, you've got nothing to latch onto in a dispute. Say you couldn't own land--you couldn't sue for squatting, nor could you sue for unpaid rent. Time itself isn't worth anything; you can't sue someone for being deprived of time. Do you see the problem with enforcing your fantasy vision yet?

Like any good programmer, I don't like spending my time rewriting the same stuff over and over either, so this wouldn't really affect me.

Bullshit. There is very little new material in software--it's all assembling provided blocks into functions and assembling those functions into a program. You're just drawing the line one stage past what you do, without giving any rationale. Why should you get paid for rearranging some characters but someone else shouldn't get paid for repeating a performance?

You don't like it. We get that. It's not going anywhere. It's also not really very different from what you want--instead of waiting for you to pile up that $40 million to give everyone a copy, you go ahead and give everyone the copy and keep collecting money until you reach $40 million. In exchange for your risk (because some products won't break even), you get to turn a profit for a limited period of time without an earnings threshold. It's better for consumers (faster gratification, lower cost of entry) and better for producers (potential for large profits and easy access to the market).

ntil one person is able to write all the world's software single-handedly, there will be a market for more than one programmer.

No kidding. My point is that there will not be a need for the vast majority of programmers. Most of you don't do anything worthwhile anyway.

Would you mind explaining how, exactly, you think abolishing copyright would make universities obsolete?

Sure. Professors publish works to supplement lower salaries than they'd earn in the business sector. They don't have time to publish on a weekly basis to accomplish same without IP, and so universities would lose professors by the boatload. You can't teach classes without teachers. Further, there's a little thing called a "research university" which is essentially a patent and copyright mill. Universities use IP to fund their operating costs if private, or to justify their immense tax expense if public. If universities did not generate IP, they would not only lose professors, but also the income necessary to exist institutionally. Now I can't wait for you to come back with some pie-in-the-sky "they'd get money from 'somewhere' else." Since you haven't solved the problem of what would fuel the economy in its place, I won't hold my breath.

Then I'd get another job to pay the bills

Doing what? What, specifically, would you do, specifically? That's the question. Good luck as a lawyer with your ill-conceived understanding of and opposition to IP, by the way. I speak from experience when I say that one of the fundamental foundations of legal philosophy includes IP. Not everyone likes it, but everyone accepts that there's no alternative (think "Churchill on democracy").

Funny how no other form of labor needs those "prot

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

["Copyright says it's illegal to call my friend up on the phone and read him that list of digits."] No, it does not. It says that if you are not the creator of said digits, you do not have the right to redistribute them, and the government has designated a party which does have that authority.

Um.. yes, exactly. You've simply restated what I said. I'm not allowed to "redistribute" those digits to anyone else, whether I do it by email, BitTorrent, or simply reading them over the phone. Clearly a restriction on my speech.

A binding agreement for a product you can't sell. Take that agreement to a court. You stipulate that you want to be paid for your time--but you see, your time is only worthwhile if a controllable product is produced. If you can't control the product, you've got nothing to latch onto in a dispute.

Apparently you don't understand how contracts work. Look, if you promise to pay me to mow your lawn, it doesn't matter whether a "mowed lawn" is a product either of us can sell. You still have to pay me if I perform the service, and it's no different with any other labor.

Time itself isn't worth anything; you can't sue someone for being deprived of time.

Again, the law disagrees with you. If you contract me to perform a service, and I do it, then I'll have no problem suing you if you don't hold up your end of the deal.

Bullshit. There is very little new material in software--it's all assembling provided blocks into functions and assembling those functions into a program.

And apparently you don't understand how programming works either. What are you doing on Slashdot, anyway?

Why should you get paid for rearranging some characters but someone else shouldn't get paid for repeating a performance?

Repeating a performance? I've got no problem with that. If you want to give two concerts and charge for tickets to each one, that's fine. You're doing twice as much work as giving a single concert.

Professors publish works to supplement lower salaries than they'd earn in the business sector. They don't have time to publish on a weekly basis to accomplish same without IP, and so universities would lose professors by the boatload.

All right. Now what happens next? Just like in any other market, salaries for teaching would rise until they're attracted back. Tuition would rise, but as it's mostly paid for with grants and loans anyway, that won't have much impact on availability. Furthermore, I think you're overestimating the number of teachers who rely on copyright for their own incomes in the first place.

What, specifically, would you do, specifically? That's the question.

I can't believe you need me to spell this out for you. Open up any newspaper and look at the classified listings for jobs, and you'll find plenty that have nothing to do with copyright - although I'm eagerly awaiting your bizarre explanation of how no one would be able to deliver Chinese food, work a retail cash register, or answer phones in a world with no copyright.

What do you call environmental policy, employment law, subsidies, tariffs and trade barriers, resource price controls, and certification criteria? These are just a selection of mechanisms designed to regulate physical labor and production businesses.

I call those regulations, and most of those nothing to do with artificially limiting supply in order to create more jobs than are really necessary.

You've said no less than three times that artists should create because they enjoy it, and by implication that artists who do it for a profit don't deserve to be successful at it.

Bullshit. Let's see a quote.

I also think you're not seeing the hypocrisy in that you don't seem to think that mechanics or accountants are undeserving for sitting on a single skillset and never doing anything new.

There's no hypocrisy there. They would

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Clearly a restriction on my speech.

No, it's not. Those digits aren't YOUR speech. You have no conceivable need to reproduce verbatim chunks of identifiable content. The requirement of writing original papers for publication is also a restriction on free speech, if that's how you look at it.

Look, if you promise to pay me to mow your lawn, it doesn't matter whether a "mowed lawn" is a product either of us can sell. You still have to pay me if I perform the service, and it's no different with any other labor.

Wrong! You can't stipulate to an illegal act, and you can't enforce a contract with no consideration. Try again, Dexter.

Again, the law disagrees with you.

No, you just don't understand that you can't enforce a contract just because you signed it, no matter what you signed. Your abolishment of IP also means that you didn't actually suffer any damages as a result. There is no legal canon for "time spent thinking" without IP. You've got nothing recoverable in that contract.

All right. Now what happens next? Just like in any other market, salaries for teaching would rise until they're attracted back.

No, they wouldn't. There's no money to provide higher salaries. You've eliminated the source of funding and there is no other source to take its place. This country doesn't produce very much--most money available to be thrown around for loans and venture capital comes directly from IP.

although I'm eagerly awaiting your bizarre explanation of how no one would be able to deliver Chinese food, work a retail cash register, or answer phones in a world with no copyright.

Because we don't need six million Chinese delivery drivers. If we needed more physical labor workers, we'd have them, generally speaking. Everyone already working those jobs would continue to do so. Don't confuse cyclical employment with availability of jobs. High turnover doesn't mean unsatisfied demand.

I call those regulations, and most of those nothing to do with artificially limiting supply in order to create more jobs than are really necessary.

They artificially limit supply to serve the greater interests of society. Some of them are to ensure stable prices (taxes, tariffs, subsidies, and the like), some of them are designed to ensure sustainable development (licensing of radio towers to prevent saturation, regulation of consumption rates, etc.) and some of them are designed to protect natural resources at the expense of maximum efficiency. There is no difference between wanting to preserve a healthy planet and wanting to preserve a healthy society.

And apparently you don't understand how programming works either.

Show us one truly novel line of programming you've ever written. A line that has never been written before by anyone in your field. Alternatively, show a finished function that you'll never use again and be paid for.

Oh really? Then I guess you wouldn't mind a law that banned you from saying or writing the word "speech", because after all, it's not YOUR word; someone else invented it long ago.

A language isn't a novel work of a person. It's also not possible to protect a word (outside of trademark contexts). Even those that can be protected ultimately expire or undergo a process of generalization. Even if you could copyright a word, someone else would just create an alternative without such a protection, and everyone would use that. A word no one uses doesn't communicate anything.

Software is still covered by copyright for many decades after it becomes obsolete. When a work doesn't enter the public domain until everyone who lived to see its creation has died, the timespan may as well be infinite.

First, nonsense--just because YOU can't use it doesn't mean it's infinitely protected. Second, the solution to that problem is to enforce copyright limits. It does not follow that a copyri

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

No, it's not. Those digits aren't YOUR speech. When they're coming out of my mouth, they are.

You have no conceivable need to reproduce verbatim chunks of identifiable content. No one really has a "need" to write or say much of anything, but that's beside the point. Freedom of speech isn't just for the speech that you deem necessary.

The requirement of writing original papers for publication is also a restriction on free speech, if that's how you look at it. You're right. The prohibition on shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is also a restriction on free speech, but unlike copyright, those restrictions have a legitimate purpose: the former prevents fraud, the latter protects public safety.

Wrong! You can't stipulate to an illegal act, and you can't enforce a contract with no consideration. Try again, Dexter. You've gone off the deep end, buddy. Try this line of argument next time you're at a barber or mechanic, and see how far it gets you: "Yeah, I promised to pay for this service, but so what? You've only lost your time, so the contract is invalid. Ha ha!"

You'll soon become familiar with the term "theft of services".

Your abolishment of IP also means that you didn't actually suffer any damages as a result. There is no legal canon for "time spent thinking" without IP. You've got nothing recoverable in that contract. Once again, you just don't know what you're talking about. If that were true, no one would ever be able to get paid for any service. My time spent writing is exactly as valuable, and protected by contract just as well, as a barber's time spent cutting hair or a mechanic's time spent fixing a car.

No, they wouldn't. There's no money to provide higher salaries. You've eliminated the source of funding and there is no other source to take its place. No, the source of funding is tuition. Remember the students? You know, the people who actually go to university to learn something? They pay for it.

Because we don't need six million Chinese delivery drivers. If we needed more physical labor workers, we'd have them, generally speaking. Ah yes, more worship of the status quo: we already have exactly the right number of each kind of business, and no one will ever open another one, especially not the millions of people who would be looking for opportunities. My mistake.

Show us one truly novel line of programming you've ever written. A line that has never been written before by anyone in your field. This is like asking an author to show you one truly novel sentence he's written, a sentence that has never been written before. On the one hand, it's trivial:

FireEventsByNameC(Interp, '<OnMyRCTCP*', Channel, ch + ' ' + cmd + ' ' + Args);

But on the other hand, it misses the point entirely. You can write an original book by stringing together sentences from other books, just like you can write an original sentence by stringing together words from other sentences, and invent an original word by stringing together the same letters that make up every other word. Similarly, you can build an original program by stringing together statements that have appeared in other programs. The sequence is where the originality comes from.

Alternatively, show a finished function that you'll never use again and be paid for. I would, but I don't think my employer would appreciate it, even though the code isn't sold. I can, however, tell you that one of my recent projects has involved analyzing very specific types of images to extract information for the medical field. To the best of my knowledge (and that of the people paying for it), it hasn't been done before, and since I only wrote it once, I've only been paid for it once.

Feel free to stop embarrassing yourself now.

You can have the last word. A wise choice, now that the discussion has touched upon two topics in which your ignorance is laughably obvious.

Re:Copyright

[mr_matticus]

Try this line of argument next time you're at a barber or mechanic, and see how far it gets you: "Yeah, I promised to pay for this service, but so what? You've only lost your time, so the contract is invalid. Ha ha!"

Once again, you just don't know what you're talking about. If that were true, no one would ever be able to get paid for any service. We were talking about your fantasy world free of the shackles of IP, not the real world where we have such guarantees. Without IP, you could not enforce your contracts for intellectual labor, period, full stop. You seem to have gotten lost in your delusions.

Now that the discussion has touched upon two topics in which your ignorance is laughably obvious. As opposed to the seven (off the top of my head) you utterly fail to comprehend? (Supply-side economics, legal philosophy, intellectual property, university funding [tuition doesn't cut it, genius], election donations, contracts, and free speech). My ignorance of programming was never determined--you never demonstrated a novel construction to support your funding model (only new material, only the first time). You can change one function and resell your software to someone else. An artist can't change a single word and get a new copyright. The art of equivalence escapes you.

Yes, you win. *rolleyes* Now, I didn't introduce new material, so I guess this doesn't count as a reply.

Re:Copyright

[Mr2001]

We were talking about your fantasy world free of the shackles of IP, not the real world where we have such guarantees. Without IP, you could not enforce your contracts for intellectual labor, period, full stop. You seem to have gotten lost in your delusions. Again, this is simply bullshit with no basis in reality. You have failed to point out a single difference between a contract for cutting hair and a contract for writing code.

If you contract me to write some code, that contract is exactly as enforceable as contracting me to cut your hair (or file your taxes, or perform any other lawful service), whether or not the code I write is covered by copyright. There's really no reason to think it wouldn't be; all you've done is repeat a baseless assertion, but it doesn't get any more true the more you repeat it.

You can change one function and resell your software to someone else. An artist can't change a single word and get a new copyright. The art of equivalence escapes you. There is no equivalence there, because I don't change one function and resell the software. When I'm contracted to change software, I sell the amount of time it takes me to change it, which would be negligible if I only had to change a few lines.

In the system I've proposed, no one would be selling software anyway; they'd be selling the labor they use to write it, and copying an existing program takes far less labor than writing a new one, so it's naturally cheaper.

Re:Help

[Mr. Underbridge]

I can't relate to the opposite sex very well. I haven't had any real romantic relationship with a female and I'm 25 now. I don't feel comfortable approaching them, and I can't "strike up a conversation" as seems to be so easy for everyone else. What should I do?

You're not a double amputee are you? Do I have to draw you a picture?

So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are buying vinyl because it sounds better than digital recordings, and then using a USB turntable to make digital recordings of their vinyl records.

What am I missing?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[FLEB]

The idea of having your cake, and being able to eat it in your car, too.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[siriuskase]

I heard the thing on NPR and it sounded like the reporter was a bit confused. I don't see why there should be a link between the increasing popularity of vinyl and USB turntables. A USB turntable is great, unless you are lazy and cheap like me and just run a cable from the audio system I already own to the Macintosh I already own. I bought the cable from Radio Shack a few years ago. The USB turntables I've seen aren't as nice as my old setup. Too bad I don't own a McIntosh, that would make for a cool setup.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

P2P piracy has hurt the music industry so much we now are forced to record the bands on our mobile phones.

-RIAA

Re:So let me get this straight...

[fred fleenblat]

>> What am I missing?

Main thing is that vinyl records released these days are likely to be engineered by people who actually care about the quality of the recording. This is like 99% of the difference.

Now at least one of the digitizers claims 24 bits at 96 khz (the m-audio one). A CD is 16 bits at 44khz and a lot of stuff is lost at that rate. Plus cheap CD players have cheap digital filters so you don't get anywhere near the nyquist limit (22khz) out of them, and what you do get is out of phase in the upper registers. Fresh vinyl can get up to 30khz and in fact old quad vinyl used a subcarrier up there for the rear channels.

Vinyl falls down on noise floor, pops/crackles, subwoofer feedback, anyone remember wow & flutter, and RIAA* equalization errors.

*the RIAA back when it was concerned about sound quality!

Re:So let me get this straight...

[mblase]

What am I missing?

The brick wall, with your forehead. A little more damage to your frontal lobes will do wonders for your audiophile logic.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[woodlandbop]

Yes - I do exactly that and I have very mixed feelings about it. I record the vinyl and convert it to mp3 @320 - why?, well, the vinyl just sounds much better which I actually wish it wouldn't. I do not want to join the secret club of audiophiles and I do not want to be one of those tossers that sniffs at the sterile sound of CDs vs the warm sound of vinyl. That said however, I do want my mp3 files to sound as good as possible and so have invested time and money in hardware/software to get a set up that works a treat for me. And damn but the vinyl through a USB turntable does soung great - and that sound is actually preserved when recorded/converted to mp3 and then pumped out through good software/speakers. The vinyl covers are nice and everything but the process of getting that vinyl sound into a neat mp3 file is a bit time consuming and I wish the raw CD sounded as good - then I simply wouldn't bother.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[zanderredux]

Yes, digital sounds flatter than vinyl. But can't this be circumvented using a valve amp on the output?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[bogjobber]

It's pretty hard to fit that turntable into your pocket :)

Re:So let me get this straight...

[dal20402]

Sure. You can add distortion and noise either way.

Clearly people like the sound of distorted, noisy playback. I just for the life of me can't understand why.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[lawpoop]

I think this is a conflagration of issues. People who are using the USB hook-ups are using it to plug their turntables into their digital recording set up. It's the easy way to get the turntable to communicate with the rest of your equipment.

There is also a product, I forget the name, that is a turntable you can use to scratch and do other vinyl-type manipulations with sound samples. The vinyl record that you use just has timecodes on it, so you hook it up to your computer system and it will manipulate the input sound from another source as you manipulate the time-coded record. IIRC, it uses a USB interface.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Eowaennor]

You're probably thinking of the Stanton FinalScratch. It interfaces via firewire to Native Instruments Traktor DJ software. I think NI now offers their own USB solution too.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[kephunk]

There's actually 3 products on the market that does this. Final Scratch, Serato/RANE Scratch Live and MS Pinky's Interdimensional Wrecked System.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[fuzz6y]

I just got done fixing my piano. those metal strings kept distorting the sound of the little swinging hammers.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Pseudonym]

Clearly people like the sound of distorted, noisy playback. I just for the life of me can't understand why.

Because it sounds better than distorted, clean playback.

Hell, in digital mobile phones, they add noise to what you hear to cover up aliasing caused by the sampling/compression algorithm. The noise sounds better than the aliasing.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[compro01]

the human ear and brain tend not to give a shit is the sound is accurate. it cares if it sounds good. the two are not necessarily the same.

adding the proper amount of noise at the proper frequencies actually makes stuff sound better to many people. it seems that it just so happens that the combination of factors used to record and play vinyl records provide those amounts and frequencies of noise.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[SonicSpike]

Yes because the analog vinyl/turntable system will reproduce a different set of harmonics and a different type of distortion than a digital system. Our ears can absolutely tell a difference in these types of distortion which is what makes vinyl "sound warmer".

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

I am an audio engineer (but I do not consider myself an audiophile)

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Prune]

Vinyl has a dismal dynamic range.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Prune]

Don't forget vinyl's dismal dynamic range. In all cases where a CD sounds worse, it's because of poor recording and mixing, not the nature of the medium (unless you're using one of the 80s or early 90s CD player with their terribly poor jitter rejection).

Re:So let me get this straight...

[syousef]

What are you missing? A capacity for denial, an inability to cope with change or with anything unfamiliar, and a stubborn streak.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[iainl]

CDs CAN sound absolutely marvellous. With a decent player, and a well-mastered disc, they're every inch as good as what vinyl can do.

However, most CDs these days are compressed to death, distorting horribly as they hit the hard digital noise ceiling. It's bloody horrible how it sounds, so people are wanting the un-ruined version that appears on the vinyl, and also HD-audio (SACD or DVD-A, depending on label) releases.

Also, just because you like the sound of vinyl doesn't mean you haven't got an iPod or equivalent. Analogue output to the hi-fi, digital to the PC.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

What am I missing?

The part about DRM?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[CrazyTalk]

What are you missing? The 100 or so albums collecting dust in my basement because I have nothing to play them on anymore. I think this is a great idea - not for sound quality per se, but to listen to all the old music out there, including albums that were never released on CD (like "Buffalo Rocks 1981" and my collection of Benny Mardones albums)

Hurry!

[sodas]

Quickly! Someone invent and patent DRM for vinyl before MPAA does!

Re:Hurry!

[DanTheManMS]

Quickly! Someone invent and patent DRM for vinyl before MPAA does!

They already have that. Each time you play the vinyl, it will slowly degrade in quality until you must buy a new copy. It's a diabolical scheme the RIAA has been behind for decades now!

That said though, I'd be quite surprised to find a form of digital rights management on an analog recording. Actually wait, scratch that, I'm sure they'd find a way. Perhaps it could be modeled after the recent DVD fiasco that prevented movies from playing at all.

Re:Hurry!

[sodas]

They'll just claim it's fuzzy logic.

Re:Hurry!

[Jozer99]

Simple:

Put a big piece of double sided tape on the inside ring of the record. On the tape should be printed "WARNING: DO NOT PLACE NEEDLE ON TAPE". This will allow human operators to successfully play the record (after reading the label), but will instantly ruin your needle if a mechanical or computer controlled record player tries to play the record (automatic needle placement).

Re:Hurry!

[vinnymeyer]

Actually, the idea of preventing copying to cassette or other media from vinyl was around in the 1970's. The RIAA and various other industry organization people were experimenting with the concept of using a notch filter on one single frequency,that all commercially recorded music would be processed with at the time it was mastered. The idea was to strong arm manufacturers into making consumer recording equipment that would NOT record if there were no frequencies in this band. The RIAA people said nobody could hear the difference. Consumers who knew about the proposal screamed, and this assault on our rights was stopped. If I remember correctly this was before the cassette recording decision allowing home taping. Just a little music industry nostalgia moment... V.

bah

[Danzigism]

I've always liked collecting vinyl for novelty reasons.. yea of course other types of media might *sound* better, but who cares.. I can buy a jazz record that I'd have a hard time finding on iTunes or some shit if it even exists on there, for $1 at a thrift shop instead.. that is priceless.. plus you own a piece of physical history.. the sound has never mattered to me.. caring about the sound is like only saying you'll listen to bands that record with ProTools and who are Auto-Tune trigger happy.. sometimes it's the music that matters.. the vinyl surpasses the value of a CD as a physical object.. hell, it lasts longer and the inserts and album art are 3 times the size.. 3 times the fun for me baby..

Vinyl's Are Still Good

[Forcepath]

I'm not sure I understand all the hostility towards vinyl. As an aspiring DJ myself, it has been my experience that vinyl is a much more popular (and accepted) medium for turntablism and club dj'ing. The electronic music and hip-hop vinyl industries have skyrocketed since the late 1980's due to the commercialization of the turntable and the fall of the club DJ. With anyone being able to go out and buy two turntables and a battle mixer, I can see why lately vinyl has been steadily growing more popular. There are numerous websites that sell vinyl now (most having popped up in the last 5 years), which have probably also helped bring vinyl to the 'masses'. And really, quality also really depends upon the needle, arm weight and quality of speakers/mixer too. Heck, if you take good care of your vinyl and clean them properly, they can last for a good while. Vinyl quality is technically infinitely better (and sound engineers can prove me wrong) than any compressed music format, and I think that's generally why you see many DJ still turn to vinyls over MP3 and CD-J mediums.

Re:Vinyl's Are Still Good

[Kwirl]

each individual point made in your comment *was* proved wrong by another comment higher on the thread.

DRM can be implemented in vinyl

[MillionthMonkey]

Surely you don't think they're going to put the raw analog signal right in the vinyl so you can copy it! They're not about to make that mistake again. A generation of USB-enabled record players will come out that will be able to play your vinyl records from the attic, and also some goofy "new and improved" vinyl hi-def format where you drop the needle on an encryption key instead of the first track.

Re:DRM can be implemented in vinyl

[Alsee]

I think you're referring to this and this.

-

Collectability, nothing more

[stratjakt]

Nothing less.

If someone could set up shop pressing 8-tracks, they'd sell too.. People collect 'em

12" records have nice art and look good on the wall, etc.

Re:Collectability, nothing more

[Anonymous Coward]

To a degree, yes.

However, there is a very large subset of rock music (thousands of bands strong, mind you) that usually release ONLY to vinyl. (Economic, political, aesthetic reasons, amongst others...)

Hell 90% of what I listen to these days has never been pressed to a CD, and can only be found on vinyl. For some yuppie fucks it's about collectability, but I'd wager that they're the minority in the vinyl listening crowd.

Vinyl Records Do Have The One Downfall Of...

[morari]

Promoting DJs. Ew.

Wow....

[Viceroy Potatohead]

The M-Audio looks like a great product. I don't know about the Numark, though. I'd trust my Bang & Olafsen for the mechanical/material quality over a turntable with uncertain quality. I suppose it could be deceptive, but $165 price tag puts it in the lower range of turntables, AFAIC. Then there's always the possibility of only being able to find low or mid-grade styluses.

Re:Wow....

[ScrewMaster]

Before you even concern yourself about the quality of any modern consumer electronics product with a well-known name, find out if that name is still worthy of its history. Many of the former greats in audio reproduction have sold out to Chinese manufacturers, sold their names, their brands, and the respect they earned in the marketplace. Now they're nothing more than marketing fronts, shadows of their former selves.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's always the possibility of only being able to find low or mid-grade styluses

A 1/2" mount is a 1/2" mount.

Re:Wow....

[Viceroy Potatohead]

I think I bought my turntable in 91, or maybe 92. I think (but you make a good point, I should really know if I bought to brand, not quality) B & O quality was still considered as excellent by people in the know.

Re:Wow....

[dal20402]

Case in point: I own a beloved pair of Infinity Kappa 5.1 II speakers...

What they make since the Harman takeover sounds like clock radios in comparison. It's really sad... not sure what I'll do when these wear out.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you even concern yourself about the quality of any modern consumer electronics product with a well-known name, find out if that name is still worthy of its history. Many of the former greats in audio reproduction have sold out to Chinese manufacturers, sold their names, their brands, and the respect they earned in the marketplace. Now they're nothing more than marketing fronts, shadows of their former selves.

What a nasty thing to say about Hewlett-Packard!

Re:Wow....

[Prune]

Thus the solution: build your own. You get full customization, a hobby, and save money (time doesn't count since it's a hobby). Some resources: www.diyaudio.com www.diyhifi.org www.head-fi.org www.headwize.com http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/index.php

Re:Wow....

[iainl]

I'd guess it doesn't sound as good as your B&O, no. But it's probably _good enough_ to turn your lovely vinyl albums into a bunch of lossy audio files to go on the portable music player of your choice with less faffing than trying to connect your PC to the hi-fi.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Our former 32" Phillips TV had the exact same insides and the Bang&Olufsen equivalent. The B&O one cost double what our Phillips one did. Design is of course a factor here, but still.

Re:Wow....

[dpastern]

My 2.2c (inc. GST) worth - B&0 were never considered to make great turntables I'm afraid. Neither back then, nor now.

Most of the cartridges that came with a lot of cheaper turntables were ceramic ones, usually very high output but very poor quality, with simple conical or eliptical styli and poorly manufactured cantilevers. Better quality gear was moving magnet, hi end stuff was moving coil. Moving coil usually produces the best sound quality from my experience, although MM is surely capable of some great sounds.

Both of these turntables are cheap, mass production items, whilst I haven't heard either of them, I guarantee that they'll sound damn well awful. To those that have heard a top end turntable setup, you'll appreciate what I mean, and how good vinyl can sound. Then you have to try and find decent vinyl, most vinyl these days is made from poor quality vinyl, low weight, and poor pressings, worse, they're not using virgin vinyl. I have a few high quality LPs, and they do make a difference.

Dave

Re:Wow....

[cthulhu11]

Okay, then, please recommend a currently-available turntable. I have a number of LP's that have never been released on CD, and apparently never will. I noted that the OP's linked USB turntable page said nothing at all about the cartridge or stylus.

Digital Vinyl

[goombah99]

I'm going to digital Vinyl, I take my Vinyl records, convert them to MP3 then send this out over a modem which I then record as analog audio on the vinyl record. This way I don't encounter the dynamic range limitations of the vinyl.

While you may think I'm joking I note that a 30-40Kb/sec stream is more than suficient to store audio at near CD quality in real time. You can send 30-40Kb/sec over a telephone which has a small fraction of the bandwidth of a record. Thus I can actually encode about 8 simultaneous stereo streams

since audio records last about 40 minutes, 8 streams gives me 320 minutes of near CD quality music which is longer than an audio encoded CD can provide. Next up VCD on Vinyl

Re:Digital Vinyl

[Mordaximus]

Top notch modems are 56kbps. A DS0 can carry max 64kbps. Semi-OK cd quality is 128kbps. A normal telephone line is 8 bit, MONO 8,000hz. When you said near CD-quality, you weren't thinking of 8 track tapes were you?

Re:Digital Vinyl

[AJWM]

Next up VCD on Vinyl

Oh, that's been done twenty five years ago.

Re:Digital Vinyl

[AJWM]

twenty five years ago.

Actually, make that eighty.

(Okay, that's arguably analog rather than digital.)

Re:Digital Vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

video on vinyl has been done ...

Re:Digital Vinyl

[brunascle]

this would be like UDP: there's no guaranteed data integrity. and vinyl is a pretty fragile medium. that's fine for analog, but for digital your "near CD quality" data wont stay that way forever.

Re:Digital Vinyl

[erikdalen]

And as an example here's a vinyl that actually contains digital content (a C=64 program):

http://musicbrainz.org/release/be404755-21ee-46aa- a945-49cc23662b53.html

Re:Digital Vinyl

[goombah99]

cool. thanks.

Re:Digital Vinyl

[cbacba]

In the world of high end audio, there are many false assumptions, some never proven as such. However, one item I learned about which might actually be somewhat accurate is that while one may not be able to get very close to hearing 20khz, there are timing capabilities in people which require the ability to distinguish coincidences in time arrival of audio in the 10 to 20 microsecond realm, which becomes much more of a problem in digitized audio than in an analog time frame (nondigitized) like vinyl and that high end equipment handling bandwidths to 70 or 100k Hz provide superior quality than that which doesn't. Whatever the case, many claim that vinyl provides superior audio to that of the cd. Personally, I've always found the signal to noise of vinyl to be a distraction and dust pops to be very annoying and I seldom seriously listen to music. It's no wonder that vinyl has stayed around in the background, not even considering the nostalgia aspects.

As for digital vinyl, it wouldn't seem to be very suitable. A moving stylus is always limited in bandwidth by mass and by size and subject to great disruption by dust and vinyl is an electrostatic dust magnet. Lasers make for a better stylus and permit the grooves to be sealed from dust. I'm thinking the original laser disks offered high quality analog stereo along with a very good quality analog video stream back prior to the cd revolution.

The highest bandwidth record type device made was that aborted effort by (GE?) for the video disk which tried to compete with the vcr as a player back in the 1980s. It produced inferior video and audio at a price not really much better than the VCR at the time - which was dropping like a rock.

Nowadays, the dvd is the improved cd, both in sampling rates and total data storage. However, data compression, especially like that in the solidstate memory music devices provides inferior results to the cd - for the benefit of portability. The stuff works just fine for the vast majority - who doesn't seem to know the difference between music and noise anyway. We were probably fortunate that cd makers distinguished between data files and music files on the cd. Otherwise, we'd have a new pop music form with such titles as Window's Symphony XP Pro and Excel Serenade 2.0.

In short, vinyl digital would not be a good investment.

Bill Maher had somesthing to say about this Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

On the last episode of Real Time, he had a New Rule prompted by the resurgence of Vinyl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1gz-tm_EWg

It's just that one extra step.

[metalhed77]

What I thought was most remarkable was that this was not a technological breakthrough, we've been able to record turntables since PCs had sound cards, but that it was the packaging that caused this change. Most people simply aren't going to discover that they only need a program like Soundforge and a decent soundcard to do everything these packages do.

All it takes is removing a couple steps to make something extremely attractive to the consumer

Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another reason that no one has mentioned yet. More space for cover art.

Re:Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

>More space for cover art.

And you can't roll a 'jazz cigarette' on an iPod.

Re:Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[JebusIsLord]

I just tried. Mission accomplished.

Re:Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[Nasarius]

Very true. I actually bought a used album for mainly this purpose; $8 for something I can use as a small poster.

Re:Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[Lillesvin]

That's so true, that I'm going to reply instead of modding you up.
I actually bought CDs back in the mid to late 90's, but then switched back to vinyl around 2000, because it's so much more real to me (please note the "to me", don't start flaming me). Here in Denmark, vinyl is actually a bit more expensive than CDs and you can easilly end up paying $40 for a double-LP, that would only cost $27 on CD. But when I buy a CD I only get that small cover and some blank plastic disc which can be converted into music magically in a CD-player. But when I buy an LP, I get a 12" cover (provided that it's pressed on 12" vinyl) and this slice of vinyl where you can actually see the tracks and pauses. It probably sounds stupid - maybe even simple - to most people, but it never ceases to amaze me.

I like my music accompanied by the cover-art the artist intended (and I'm not talking Britney Spears and other mainstream-money-maker-pop music), that's why burning CDs was never really my thing - it just doesn't work without the real cover. And downloading an mp3 is fine for a preview, but if I like the music, then I'm gonna have to have the cover too and I go out and buy it. I've bought a LOT of music that way.

And since my CD-player died a couple of years back, I'm left with my amp and my record player - which doesn't bother me a bit. (Yeah, I could play CDs on my laptop, but I prefer not to and keep the CDs stashed away in a box until I get a new CD-player some day.) A lot of my friends run the same setup and neither of us have ever thought about DRM (afaik), but let me tell you - without a USB turntable - it's a mess converting a record into mp3's - at least compared to the CD. That has been a problem at times... But vinyl just has charm and - in my opinion - more soul than a CD.

Re:Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[IainMH]

Even for 'Smell The Glove' ?

Re:Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

You took the characters out of my keyboard... the only problem with skinning up on a nice fat gatefold King Crimson sleeve "back in the day" (late 80s for me) was that now & again you'd get absorbed in the amaaaayyyzzing artwork (man) and never finish the spliff...

Whereas CD jewel cases are an awkward size for rolling a joint, they're ideal for four nice fat sociable lines of coke. Hence, the rise of CDs didn't just parallel Thatcherism and the market economy, but the number of complete arseholes - almost all of whom were less able and much better paid than "we" were. Then in the 90s it was new hallucinogens, and we got vapid manufactured pop that makes the Monkees look like Mozart, post modern politicians who were really good at PR (spin) and being corrupt hypocritical bastards in reality. And lots of flourescent coloured visual design, and those annoying Designer Republic-type / Digital Miffy typography/design, bleurgghhh.... this would parallel lame attempts to foist first generation personal digital media like those crappy Sony digital tape formats and proprietary memory sticks and so on. Now we're in the 21-nothings, and I'm listening to Ogg Vorbis audio on my laptop, in the car and at work, and scarcely watching an hour of TV a week... and I, at least, am virtually sober apart from the after-work G&T.

I wonder what DRM will or won't bring (if it wins or loses... EMI dropping DRM is the first chink of light in, what, 8 or 9 years in that respect. (Yes, I was there in the deCSS / DVD wars of '99 ;) )

What happens next, I wonder? Tune in next week to find out!

Ubgrade to USB2.0

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Dear Communications Challenged

While you say that you wish to communicate, we really know that deep down you want to plug&play, preferably doing some hotplugging too.

USB2.0 makes this easy and if you're in a hurry, or are unsure as to who should play host and who should play slave then you can try USB on the Go.

Treat it well? Doubtful.

[Overzeetop]

By treating it well, I presume you mean that you never play it, except with some uber-expensive laser setup. Otherwise you're taking your delicate amalog recording and scratching a bitty hunk of diamond against it, wearing down those precious highs you covet.

Vinyl is an "experience"

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's something about how listening to vinyl is something of an experience; you have to "work" more to listen to it; you have to get the record out, open up the player, and then be ready to flip the record over when the side finishes... sure it's not a lot of work, but, still, that added bit of effort adds to how bought-in to the experience you are.

And, I don't think anyone will ever prove whether cd's sound better than vinyl; they both can sound great, there's awful examples of both, and amazing examples of both, and there's plenty of people on both sides. But, decent vinyl on a decent record player with a decent preamp, well, it sounds pretty darn good, so, in the end, why not?

Vinyl is still quite popular with underground bands too; a lot of local bands put out 7-inchers still.. they're quite fun indeed.

Digital Vinyl DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

switch from MP3 to WMA so you can add DRM and I might be interested. But I'll have to wait for the Zune version so I can squirt my Vinyl. Chicks dig me.

Re:Digital Vinyl DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

so I can squirt my Vinyl. Chicks dig me.

That's one hell of a fetish, chief. Sign me up.

Re:Digital Vinyl DRM

[Gilmoure]

Didn't Squirt My Vinyl open for the Ramones in '78?

Re:Digital Vinyl DRM

[xoundmind]

Yeah, Richard Hell & the Voidoids stole and renamed their classic, "Love Comes in Squirts".

Laser Pickups

[Doc Ruby]

If vinyl turntables (with USB, natch) used a laser pickup instead of a mechanical stylus, vinyl would be a lot more popular. Then records wouldn't wear out nearly as much. They could be sold used for more money with less damage. And a laser turntable could scan a record at high speed (maybe 333 1/3 RPM, 100x) for portable (lower-fi) playing on iPod, mobile phone, etc.

Laser pickups themselves wouldn't wear out like a stylus used to, which used to put the turntable out of commission until a new one was bought. Which was sometimes expensive, especially when the electromagnetic transducer cartridge needed repair/replacement. Those were expensive, especially the really hifi ones. Today, laser pickups would be cheaper than that old precision EM stuff. And they could still be analog, like an original videodisc, with audiophiles fighting over imperceptible differences in the analog/digital converter.

I'd get one. Vinyl sounded so much better at its best than any equivalent priced digital system I've ever heard. But then, I prefer to listen to music that was produced for vinyl's acoustic response. Kids today could get into it, too, though, if it really is a hybrid of phat old analog and cheap new digital.

Re:Laser Pickups

[k_187]

like this? http://www.elpj.com/main.html

Re:Laser Pickups

[couplekissa]

Yes looks amazing, wish it had a realistic price tho otherwise I would have one right away, The entire sound reproduction path is analogue too

Re:Laser Pickups

[Doc Ruby]

The discouraging part of their promo is the part where they breathlessly offer "Request More Info & a Free CD!"

Re:Laser Pickups

[falconwolf]

If vinyl turntables (with USB, natch) used a laser pickup instead of a mechanical stylus, vinyl would be a lot more popular. Then records wouldn't wear out nearly as much. They could be sold used for more money with less damage. And a laser turntable could scan a record at high speed (maybe 333 1/3 RPM, 100x) for portable (lower-fi) playing on iPod, mobile phone, etc.

Want a turntable with a laser stylus? Check out ELP Laser Turntable. Wish I could afford one.

Falcon

Re:Laser Pickups

[clickclickdrone]

Actually, there is turntable with a laser pickup. Last time I checked they were about $10k but very, very nice.

Re:Laser Pickups

[zakezuke]

If vinyl turntables (with USB, natch) used a laser pickup instead of a mechanical stylus, vinyl would be a lot more popular

Only if you have black vinyl, colored vinyl I've "heard" has issues with laser pickups.

DJs love it

[kd5ujz]

I buy strictly vinyl, unless its a digital file I can not wait for, and then rip from vinyl to mp3 ( my Numark TTXs has SPDIF out,beat that technic).

Re:DJs love it

[mauddib~]

Unbelievable. You trade those nice smooth highs for that which is produced with an mp3 en/decoder. In my very humble opinion, mp3 is the prime reason why people are dissatisfied with the current developments in audio. CD's don't have the best high frequency range either, and especially for well trained ears, this can be a big nuisance. But MP3 just ruins it all away. Perfectly suitable for those who like to hear only strong bass over their thin plastic 5.1 dolby digital (insert some more marketing wuzz here) audio set. Incomprehensible for those who like to make a separation between the different musical parts in a recorded piece. Also, your nice Numark might have SPDIF out, but without a quality A/D converter, you end up with worse audio than the engineer could deliver for you in his recording studio (working with $10k+ dedicated A/D converters). So, if you're going to put your vinyl on MP3, don't bother: buy your music from iTunes shop. Then again, I feel like I'm reacting to someone who just likes to troll.

Re:DJs love it

[kd5ujz]

I use the vinyl for live use, and listen to my mp3s during my day job. If the quality is off a little, I could care less, as I am using $10 sony ear buds. If I had on my denon hp1000s, then I could tell. I will trade mp3 for another format, when all players start supporting another, less lossy, compression.

PRM..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Isn't Vinyl just Physical Rights Management? My car can play a burned CD, even one with MP3s or WMAs on it. I haven't seen a turn-table since I was like 4 (I'm only 21).

Re:PRM..

[mcpkaaos]

Isn't Vinyl just Physical Rights Management?

Maybe for some.

Records never went out ...

[nilbog]

Records never went out of style in two circles that I'm aware of: the DJ scene (obviously), and the underground punk scene. I don't think I've ever been to an underground punk show where the bands weren't selling records.

Re:Records never went out ...

[Sinryc]

I've been to plenty of shows, and records are rare. Not to say they aren't sold, its just that most of the time... no. A big major now. However, my aunt and uncle did buy a record of Brandi Carlile's new album. http://www.brandicarlile.com/

Re:Records never went out ...

[nukular]

..you forgot...audiophiles. They have absolutely never given up on vinyl..... They like pointing out quite often that now...there are far more good turntable models (in absolute numbers) made than even in the heyday before CDs came out. Technics and Numark need not apply.

I've never heard good digital come close to good vinyl. It takes more effort to extract the best sound, but damn is it worth it. I listen to digital and enjoy it, but it definitely doesn't sound as good to me. I do admit that I have not sat down with SACD or DVD-Audio (due to lack of both music and equipment for me to play with), but I don't really see a need at the moment.

Re:Records never went out ...

[brunascle]

well then you're going to the wrong shows.

i can confirm that the underground punk scene is still huge on vinyl. an album that isnt available on vinyl is rare.

Re:Help

[garry danger]

don't worry about it. go make loads of money working in IT and then let them come to you!

The obvious solution

[whitewhale]

The last two records I bought on vinyl (the new records by Of Montreal and M. Ward) came with a coupon for one-time download of DRM-free MP3 versions of the album tracks from the label's Web sites. So I get the big cover art and the intangible experience (they're both double albums on vinyl) but I can still play 'em on the computer without sweating over the process of digitizing vinyl.

Fact is, the vinyl version of the Of Montreal record (which is awesome) has a scratch that makes track 3 repeat the same crazy groove over and over, and it sounds intentional and much, much better than the digital version, which now seems weirdly short. And it comes with four bonus tracks, which are included in the download too but not on the CD version. Obviously some small record labels are betting big on vinyl as a way to keep people buying records, and I'm all for it.

Records with laser pickups are "Compact Discs"

[rhinoX]

Some crazy Japanese company (Sony I believe) released a product called a "Compact Disc" Player (CD Player for short) in the early 80's that implements a scheme vaguely like what you describe. A laser pickup ("needle" if you will) runs over tracks ("grooves"), looking for divots on the surface.

I wonder whatever happened to it..

Re:Records with laser pickups are "Compact Discs"

[Doc Ruby]

I believe it abandoned the "analog" system I described for something more like a computer - "digital" they call it. I heard it sucks, but the kids love it. Though the vinyl is too big to fit in it.

degrading music

[falconwolf]

That's so last year. I'm going to digital Vinyl, I take my Vinyl records, convert them to MP3 then send this out over a modem which I then record as analog audio on the vinyl record. This way I don't encounter the dynamic range limitations of the vinyl.

Why wold you want to degrade music on vinyl like that? You're degrading it when you concert from analogue to digital then again coverting it back to analogue.

Personally I prefer my music analogue to begin with. What I used to do when I got a new album is the first tyme I played it I would record it on my reel-to-reel tape deck. I would then put the vinyl away and play the tape. Unfortunately I lost my stereo eq years ago, however I've been seeing turntables in stores the past several months, some with usb ports. So I've been thinking of getting a new turntable, and maybe a new tape deck, myself. But I'm looking for a store that sales new vinyl before I get one.

Falcon

Re:degrading music

[goombah99]

Why wold you want to degrade music on vinyl like that? You're degrading it when you concert from analogue to digital then again coverting it back to analogue.

What do you think is coming over the USB connection? Analog audio? or digital audio? And what do you think your computer is doing when it plays it over the speakers. Playing the bits or converting them back to audio.

oh yeah, and the original post was modded "funny" by the way.

Re:degrading music

[falconwolf]

What do you think is coming over the USB connection? Analog audio? or digital audio? And what do you think your computer is doing when it plays it over the speakers. Playing the bits or converting them back to audio.

Listening to music on a computer may simply be a matter of convenience. I guess you missed where I said I liked to listen to my music on my reel-to-reel tape deck and that if I get a turntable I may also get a new tape deck. Personally I don't listen to music on my computer, at home I have a stereo with 2 tape decks built in and other than an analogue radio I play when I sleep and the car radio that's all I listen to music on. Well, and a flute I'm trying to learn to play, I used to play the clarinet but that was many years ago.

Falcon

Re:degrading music

[dpastern]

Probably a good idea - my advice, you can pick up high quality 2nd hand Nakamichi tape decks off EBay for vastly cheaper than their MSRP prices when they were 'modern'. Blank tapes themselves are hard to find, if not impossible to find these days. If you get a Nakamichi, you'll want to try and find and buy Metal tapes (type IV), as they offer the best s/n and sound quality, as well as letting you get high enough recording levels to push the hiss down to reasonable levels - my Nakamichi (CR-5) hits +10db on TDK Metal tapes, pretty much negating the need to use Dolby B/C noise reduction systems, which both colour the sound imho. Dolby S is no better ;-) Make sure to go for the Nakamichis which have 3 'discrete' heads (play/record/erase), rather than 2 heads (play+record/erase), they're generally much higher quality heads.

As to turntables, most of the turntables out there today are mega expensive hi end stuff, look on Ebay or Audiogon again for cheaper 2nd hand gear. A Rega 3 will be fine in most instances, especially if coupled with a Rega RB300 tonearm (rather than the cheaper RB250 unit which just doesn't sound as good imho). Other brands that I'd recommend to look out for a Project, SystemDek and Pink Triangle. I'm not a fan of Linn Sondek or Roksan gear, but to each their own.

Dave

Vinyl Makes Music Fun Again

[ecliptik]

At 25 I just inherited my dad's vinyl collection and I've found they make music fun again. When digital distribution of started to catch on I stopped buying CDs, but then it felt like I was just buying filenames. Even when I occasionally bought a CD, I would just rip it to MP3 and put it on my shelf never to bother with it again. Convenient yes, fun not so much.

With vinyl all this convenience goes away. It's fun to go to the record store and sift through 1.00$ bins, or find pressings of newer groups. Then when you get home, you play it. You don't put it into your computer and hit button. You open it up, carefully take the disk out, notice the large liner notes, spin up the table and enjoy. It's more of an event than just rip. burn. play.

Sure it's analog, and there's the occasional distortion, but with a decent cartridge and stylus it's amazing how good new vinyl sounds. Finding spare sleeves to put your favorite albums in then putting the cover them on your wall make for some good excellent wall art too. To me it's similar to why I buy books even when I can get e-books. Life it's just about making everything streamlined and perfect, sometimes you need a little analog grit to keep it interesting.

Of course, I negated myself already by writing about ripping vinyl with 100% Free Software , but that's more for getting my dads old albums onto CD for him.

Re:Vinyl Makes Music Fun Again

[Prune]

Vinyl has a dismal dynamic range. Unless your digital system is really crappy, even jitter rejection in the average digital system today is good enough to cause far less damage than vinyl's lack of dynamic range.

Re:Vinyl Makes Music Fun Again

[whitelabrat]

That's about my experience too. I've only recently begun collecting vinyl after a 17 year hiatus. It is fun. It's a very active process that demands more attention than queuing up 2 weeks of endless MP3's or whatever. Listening to music becomes more than a background distraction. There is just something that is really cool about pulling a record out of it's sleeve, spinning it up on a huge platter and dropping a needle on it. You can watch the tonearm as is progresses across the disk and prepare to hop up and flip the disc when the time comes.

It can be frustrating at times too. I've got a sweet setup. Marantz 8b, tube preamp, full range speakers, Rega P3. Nice. But I have wash the mold off older records and constantly wipe off the dust. Gotta clean the needle. The battery in the phono preamp needs changing. The tubes need biasing and replacing over time. On and on. My other setup is a bunch of cheapo Sony stuff. You hit the power, and drop in a CD. All done with no hassles (and no 60hz hum). But not as much fun. The old stuff is more romantic.

I've got a wide collection. New Vinyl and old. I've concluded that anything needing a wide dynamic range just won't work on vinyl. Classical for example. It sounds very flat. Of course there are some excellent exceptions. But Jazz, Rock, and R&B often sound alright on vinyl cause they can get away with it. But that's all about my own tastes. That all.

Quite frankly, one of my favorite music sources is my Sansa e260r. I replaced the headphones with some better, but cheap JVC earbuds. It sounds great. Why? Who cares. It sounds good. Sometimes it makes me angry that my fancy home stereo that is worth 20X as much doesn't always sound as good. Simple is sometimes better.

One thing that audiophiles often stress is to enjoy the music! That's what it's all about. If you're happy with what you've got, then that's what matters. It's too easy to get caught up with all the measurements and statistics, etc. Just enjoy the music.

With regard to the NPR article. I don't get it. Why would anyone want to use a cheapo turntable to make MP3's? Ugh. It's because these old farts are too cheap to buy the CD's! Vinyl sales are up? Yeah. It would seem that there is a strange group of people, including myself, who are getting into vintage amps, and records. You can get some really great stuff for pennies if you look in the right places! I just sold some beautiful Marantz amplifiers from the 70's. They sound and look nice and are still relevant today and are a great bang for the buck! I also picked up a big pile of vinyl from an estate sale. I could have loaded up my van with all the stuff I could carry for just a couple bucks, but I have nowhere to put it all.

In the end, I think that the tube amp and vinyl thing isn't just about music. Its about being a hobby. That's why I do it. It doesn't have to make sense. It's like the whole unix vs. mac vs. windows thing. We all choose different things for different reasons. Everything has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Re:Vinyl Makes Music Fun Again

[dpastern]

Good stuff. Most people are too lazy to appreciate this aspect of listening to music. Thanks for the link to your blog as well, will check it out.

Dave

Re:Vinyl Makes Music Fun Again

[revengebomber]

Are you the kind of person who enjoys machine code and switches? Psycho.

"DRM rates a resounding 'Duh.'"

[Aluvus]

Are you quite serious?

Let's think about the actual downsides of DRM. Needing a special player? Turntables are not exactly readily available all over. Not being able to make copies? How do you intend to make copies of a vinyl album? Not being able to just drop songs on your MP3 player and go? Not going to be easy with vinyl.

If you want to produce a readily-transportable, widely compatible, copy-able file from a vinyl album (such as an MP3), you're going to need to record the output from playing it on a turntable, and then digitize that. Which you could do with any DRMed file. The old "analog hole".

I know this is /., but not every story that involves audio needs to whine about DRM.

The bump is from turntablism

[Aqua OS X]

The real reason vinyl sales are up is because turntablism has become incredibly accessible and popular. Vinyl has become the medium of choice for turntablism. Moreover, this has also invigorated the market for b-sides and remixes that are all but impossible to find unless you're looking at vinyl.

If sound quality or lack of DRM is having an impact on vinyl sales, I can't see it being big. Walk into any Guitar Center and look at the size of the DJ'ing department. That was nonexistent not too long ago. It's the Technics 1200s that are selling records.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as blatantly obvious?

Re:The bump is from turntablism

[goaty_the_flying_sho]

The boom of independent bands and labels is another driving factor.

I can pick up full albums on vinyl, for less than $10 direct from the label. I get a cooler listening experience and don't feel guilty downloading the tracks later for my MP3 player.

Halo 5

[tepples]

It may well be, however, that releasing EPs is easier and more guilt-free than releasing a 35-minute album on CD. Your reasoning is broken. I've seen "3-disc" releases of 1950s music with less than 27 minutes of audio on each CD.

Re:Halo 5

[mr_matticus]

Those don't seem to be indie bands struggling to make it and having to keep putting out material so people don't forget them--many of those face a tough choice whether to release EPs or wait until they have a full album's worth of material (given the production costs and need to keep mindshare). The small indie bands are the topic of discussion, not the greedy infomercial collections.

Re:Halo 5

[tepples]

Those don't seem to be indie bands struggling to make it and having to keep putting out material so people don't forget them--many of those face a tough choice whether to release EPs or wait until they have a full album's worth of material (given the production costs and need to keep mindshare). So why don't these indie bands just release the EP like NIN did when Mr. Reznor couldn't find enough material to put on Broken beyond the intro and 5 songs?

Re:Halo 5

[mr_matticus]

That's exactly what they do, but at that point, vinyl becomes the superior choice. It is cheaper (say you're releasing a 35 minute EP; that's basically a full record and half a CD--since CDs are slightly more expensive and have higher minimum orders, the proportional ROI on vinyl is much better) and you get "street cred" and generally just a different sort of distribution model. Vinyl in 2007 seems less "corporate." It also has the advantage of being suitably professional that you can still be taken seriously (as opposed to burned CDs with photocopied inserts).

Of course, all of this only applies to those groups who release vinyl at all. Many release EPs on CD exclusively. Many indie bands also choose to release EPs on both media, but not full albums (because it takes more than one record, so they stick to CD).

This is fantastic...

[QJimbo]

I'm sick of disposable music, and the record companies treating people like idiots. This at least shows to me that people DO care about DRM in my opinion.

Right now we have 4 record companies (after the recent merger of Sony and BMG) so I can only see things getting more stale and more controlling. This perhaps shows the start of a possible revolution, one can only hope!

Re:It's Time To Repeal The Second Amendment

[lordmatthias215]

Dude if you're going to spam some offtopic political piece, at least use one that doesn't talk about the 2000 elections in the future tense... More ontopic, the only thing keeping me from buying a USB turntable is the fact that there are no stores that sell new vinyl around here, and the only used vinyl is to be found at Half Price Books, which has an iffy selection.

Turntable emulator

[tepples]

You can analyze the audio playback for noise characteristics and all that good crap all you want, but ultimately it comes down to the listeners preference. There are ways to signal-process the digital audio so that it sounds "warmer" in the vinyl sense: turn down the treble, add a bit of noise proportional to the signal, and use soft saturation with slightly different thresholds on the + and - sides (to add the 2nd harmonics).

wearout of vinyl

[falconwolf]

vinyl also has the benefit of wearing out and making you have to re-purchase albums periodically

Some of us were a bit more careful with our vinyl. As part of my stereo eq I had a reel-to-reel tape deck and the first tyme I played a new vinyl album I would record it on tape then I'd put the vinyl away and play the tape. I don't have my eq anymore but if I can find a store that sales new vinyl, preferably locally, I may go ahead and buy a new turntable and tape deck. Though I haven't seen any reel-to-reels in stores, I have found then online, I have seen turntables in stores.

Falcon

Spectral band replication

[tepples]

An algorithm that does what, now? Invents new sounds to fill the supersonic range? Guessing the brightness and air frequencies based on the lower frequencies is called spectral band replication, and mp3PRO uses the technique along with some extra info stored in a side channel to expand an 8 kHz recording into 16 kHz for playback. The harmoic distortion in some valve amplifiers creates a ghetto form of SBR that some vinyl aficionados prefer.

It's due to LASER - not those USB crappy things

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those crappy products the poster cited are the reason for the surge. The surge is due to high-end LASER record players. Nothing even touches the vinyl, so you get the goodness of vinyl without wear and tear.

Here is one of them: http://www.elpj.com/

Re:It's due to LASER - not those USB crappy things

[night_flyer]

yeah, because everyone can afford 10k for a turntable

Nothing mixes like vinyls

[YGingras]

Have you seen and heard a DJ with vinyls? I mean, a real DJ, someone who mixes. I was peacefully sipping some malt liquor at a random electro industrial bar on a slow day. It was probably in the middle of the week; I recall that we were no more than five in the place. An electro industrial bar is not a place where you expect a skillful DJ. You expect a DJ knowledgable in the latest trends with a huge collection of obscure music that he had from download^W import from Germany or something like that. Songs go one after the other and there is some effort to keep that BPM constant and to make the transition beat-into-beat. I thought that this was the essence of mixing. Then, out of nowhere, came this rave DJ. He was actually a former electro industrial DJ who was visiting his former workplace. And he made a set.

I don't know how to describe the experience. He started a hard song on the CD player (Funker Vogt I think) then he attacked the turntable. He started with a Depeche Mode vinyls, and I hear you scream at the idea of eletro pop being mixed with Funker Vogt, but what he did was brilliant. He jumped on the EQ and isolated the good baseline so typical of Depeche Mode and gently blended it into the hard stuff, just the baseline. A moment later the vinyl was doing backflips over his head; he wanted to plug in voice sample that was on the other side. It was almost instantaneous, he waved his hand over the EQ, the voice sample played, the vinyl flipped again and we were back with the baseline. We assume that vinyls have poor seek time but, in the hand of an expert, a vinyl will seeks much faster than a CD. The DJ continued his dance, mixing in some elements of trance and goa, building an elecro industrial song out of other songs from a wide repertoire of electronic music. When he left, he was not the resident DJ after all, nothing was the same anymore.

I had discover that mixing was in fact a form of composition but it was all gone. I now pay attention to the work of the DJ. The DJ is an artist an his medium is extremely expressive. A good DJ will keep the dancefloor full but only a greet DJ will coerce people into dehydration and renal failure. When I see a DJ lifting the dusty cover of the turntable, I know that I'm in for a good show. I keep the ear open and I enjoy this rare skill that the CD almost killed.

Re:Nothing mixes like vinyls

[SonicSpike]

Cool.

Check these guys out: http://www.snsmix.com/ They mix rock and hip hop and do an AWESOME job of it.

The one reason I have Sirius satellite radio is for Ch #34 "Boombox" It's a channel which does nothing but breakbeats, remixes, and "mash-ups" which is basically what you have described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(music)

I am an audio engineer and to listen to someone use technology to creatively fuse music together makes my hair stand on end.

Re:Nothing mixes like vinyls

[Anonymous Coward]

anything that can be done on a turntable can be done on cdj faster.
Many things that can be done on cdj cannot be done on turn tables.

for example:

instant cues, loops, cueing loops(hot cueing), effects, greater, more reliable and more accurate
pitch control, digital outs with no loss of quality, I think I could on...

Anything that can be done on TTs can be done on CDJs better with the exception of scratching.

As far as the availability of tracks goes, anything released on vinyl is released electronically or on cd first. Not only that, but many things have no or very little vinyl available. Because as one poster already pointed out, nearly everything is produced digitally. Digital downloads (wav, lossless, high bitrate mp3) are the present and future in djing.

Again, the exception being djing that actually depends on physically manipulation of a record as part of the definition of the act: turntablism and the hip hop.

Many of them are now using serato scratch live and final scratch. So if you ask me, it's just a bunch of superstitious bullshit.

That being said, a dj should carry some vinyl and at least have one turntable and know how to operate it.

Re:Nothing mixes like vinyls

[Anonymous Coward]

bassline ffs

Re:Nothing mixes like vinyls

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as the availability of tracks goes, anything released on vinyl is released electronically or on cd first.

Not true. I know of several groups, admittedly small, strange, obscure ones, that still release at least some of their stuff exclusively on vinyl.

Re:Nothing mixes like vinyls

[Anonymous Coward]

> at least have one turntable

Well, yeah, cos a DJ with just one turntable is going to have a tough time doing those smooth mixes!

But on a more serious note - who cares what a DJ mixes on? If the DJ is good, I don't care whether it's vinyl, cd, an mp3 controlled by a timecoded-vinyl that they're scratching, or coming off a harddrive driven by Ableton. As long as it's good - preferably with bass that makes the hair on my neck stand on end - I'll be bouncing around on the dancefloor, not worrying about trainspotting what the person in the dj-booth is using to mix. Sheesh, get over the technology and enjoy it... That said, I did recently buy a turntable with digital out to transfer my collection of Depeche Mode vinyl that's been stuck in the cellar for 10 years!

Re:Nothing mixes like vinyls

[YGingras]

You highlight the value of vinyl here: performance. I first want to mention that even though some high price CD players with pitch control and scratch pad probably offer all what you need, there is no standard interface to access those features yet. What is a DJ to do? Carry all his equipment with him? Some do but if you can handle a turntable you can expect to find all what you need already plugged wherever you go. A vinyl also has the advantage of displaying the waveform (scroll down a bit). Some digital players do, most don't.

But the true value of vinyl is performance. After all, if there is a DJ instead of a pre-mixed recording it's probably because people want a show. There is something stimulating in seeing the vinyls doing backflips and the DJs clamping the headset with his shoulder. He could do all his stuff with a laptop and a mouse but that would not look as good. With the demanding live performance of the DJ, the dancers feel that someone is working hard just for them, they feel some kind of exclusivity. Early electronic band understood the importance of performance a long time ago. Both signers of Front 242 could just press play and jump around on the stage. Yet, they prefer to hire musicians for shows. Others like Wumpscut prefer not to do live performance because they feel that it would be be way too close to a karaoke. Drum machines did not replace drummers and you will see DJs flipping vinyls in raves and top dance clubs for the years to come. Any technical argument is completely missing the point.

Noise shaping

[tepples]

105dB of stereo separation on a 16bit (~96dB SNR) medium? Of course. Even in 16/44, modern dithering with noise shaping pushes most of the dither noise above 15 kHz, where it is much less audible. This results in about 120 dB SNR in the band where noise is most audible (1000-5000 Hz). Noise shaping is not a new concept; it dates back to the RIAA equalization curve of vinyl.

Republicrats are bought and paid for

[tepples]

Work to change the law, then. How should this be done, given that the record labels have far more money to buy off legislators of both major parties than the librarians have?

Re:Republicrats are bought and paid for

[ClosedSource]

According to ShieldW0lf, it's going away with or without your efforts.

But seriously, how was the civil rights movement in the US and elsewhere able to bring about change when the powerful were against them? I'd hardly compare the importance of ending copyright to ending racial segregation, but the point is that change is possible if enough people are willing to sacrifice for what they believe in (Note that downloading songs illegally doesn't qualify as a sacrifice).

One Reason . . .

[bedouin]

I can go to a used record shop and walk out with a huge stack of records under my arm for $30-40. You find a lot of gems that will never resurface on CD or MP3. It's a fun hobby.

One place vinyl absolutely beats CD's

[stox]

I own well over 1,000 pieces of vinyl, and many of them sound better than the CD. This isn't because vinyl sounds better, but because either the master was damaged or poorly remastered for CD. It is amazing how poorly mastered some CD's are. Digital recording does not compensate for an idiot behind the sound board, in fact it makes it much worse.

Magic chemical that causes vinyl to never age!

[freshmayka]

First, Turntables with digital outputs are nothing new. They've been around at least 5 years now. Any audiophile would avoid them because you're stuck with the sound of the built in analog-to-digital converter. Specifically I'm talking about SPDIF, I don't know when the first USB turntable showed up.

Now the subject above is slightly misleading but I wanted to get your attention. I've been a DJ for 17 years and have always loved both the feel and the sound of vinyl. Many years ago I realized that I was destroying the sound of my records within 10-20 plays, particularly when taking them to the brutal conditions at the average rave. I looked around various audiophile forums and found a product called LAST.

This stuff is simply amazing, take a look at the link and the microscopic photos of the record groove after 200 plays. I have records that I treated with LAST that sound just as good today as they did 10 years ago and after dozens of plays.

Anyways, I'm not affiliated with the company but I wanted to let the vinyl addicts and audiophiles here know how to clean and preserve their collection - screw playing that MP3 recording of your vinyl, PLAY DA WAX! But it ain't cheap compared to other products, and it takes a while to apply to each record, but it really does seem like magic what it can do to your LPs.

Easy answer

[jd]

CDs tend not to be of very high quality, by today's standards. 16 bit isn't bad, but anyone with a good sound card can manage to digitize at 24 bits. 44.1 KHz is ok, but most quality sound cards can manage far higher rates. This doesn't make digital bad, it merely makes the digital that we're sold inferior to the digital we can make ourselves.

(It doesn't help that some DRM/watermarking techniques for digital sound degrades the quality further than the mere absolute rates would account for.)

Frankly, I don't expect this to be a major resurgence of vinyl/analogue formats, but if it forces even a few labels to beef up the stuff they're producing, I'm all for it. Who cares if vinyl "wins", if we all "win" by getting a better product? Of course, a better product really isn't likely, but the 0.01% hope that something could improve is better than the near-certainty of nothing changing if nothing challenges the status quo.

Can someone tag this as oldnews?

[bunbuntheminilop]

Now THAT was terrible!

scratching records

[falconwolf]

Repeated play degrades a record, while it doesn't really degrade a CD.

With the newer needles records can't be scratched, there isn't really a physical needle instead lasers are used, at least in high end turntables. Here's one.

Falcon

Damn kids

[Daishiman]

I hate this stupid fad, and I say it as a vinyl lover an serious collector (I'm buying up over 10 records a week). These kids do this out of nonconformism, except that like most idiot wannabe nonformists, they don't know squat about anything (Disclaimer: I'm 20 years old, but I'm really an old fart in a kid's body).

They don't know how to maintain their records, they can't differentiate between high-quality records and a digital-to-analog dump (worthless). They buy modern or popular music that you can get on CDs without the disadvantage of noise floor, they don't have decent turntables, and worst of all, lack decent stylii (a bad stylus will damage the record). I buy records mostly for Jazz that's never been mastered on CD and other such rarities, and play it on a system that's worth more than $200 bucks; really, anything less than that is simply a waste.

And they raise the price and end up destroying the records and then you can't find anything decent because everything's scratched.

Re:Damn kids

[Trogre]

they can't differentiate between high-quality records and a digital-to-analog dump (worthless).

So... you're saying you can tell the difference between a digital-to-analog dump and an analog-to-analog one? Quick better write a paper on it and submit yourself for double-blind tests, because no one else has ever managed it.

Re:Damn kids

[Daishiman]

No, I never did claim such a thing, however I have yet to see any ABX test made on that subject, and I'd gladly participate in one. The point is that any theoretical advantage to an analog medium is destroyed when the original master is digital.

Besides, generation loss is overrated.

Re:Damn kids

[goaty_the_flying_sho]

I'll defend everything about vinyl records except sound quality.

The maximum frequency response for a record on its first play is around 20kHz. CDs stay at that their whole life.

I buy records because they're cheaper, they're better collector's items, the artwork is bigger and listening is more of an "event". I don't pretend that introducing more distortion increases the sound quality though.

Re:Damn kids

[plurgid]

10 > I hate this stupid fad

20 > I'm buying up over 10 records a week

30 > These kids do this out of nonconformism

40 > Disclaimer: I'm 20 years old

segfault: infinite recursion detected at line 40.

if you're not old enough to drink, you're not old enough to whine about these damn kids who don't understand vinyl. You're complaining about yourself dude.

Re:Damn kids

[Trogre]

I agree with you that any theoretical quality advantage to an analog medium (if such a thing exists) is destroyed when the original master is digital, but it doesn't stop there. Future compatibility and possibly shelf-life are also advantages of analog media that suffer no ill-effects from being taken from a digital source.

Re:Damn kids

[dpastern]

It's no different to the old days when you had your midi system turntables, cheap, plastic crap. Lots of wow and flutter, poor mechanical isolation of the motor, suspension on the turntable was atrocious, the tonearm was plastic and coloured (sound wise) and not very rigid, the cartridge was a cheap and nasty ceramic one, with a crappy styli. These sorts of people would handle vinyl carelessly, buy poorly produced and pressed LPs/recordings, and then sit there and bitch and complain at how bad LPs sounded. That's like taking a VW to a grand prix and complaining that it can't beat the McLarens and Ferraris!!! Sheer idiocy.

It's true that badly designed styli will damage a record groove, at least over a period of time, so these idiots were not only not listening to the full potential of their LPs, but damaging it as they played...

Unlike many in that era, I actually took the time to learn more about hi fi and turntables, and to spend the money on decent kit and decent pressings/recordings. And voila, nice sounding music.

Dave

PS I use a SystemDek IIX900 (wanted the 11XE 900AP model, but it'd been discontinued) with a Rega RB300 tonearm, and a Lyra Clavis cartridge. The turntable and tonearm are mid end stuff, the cartridge is a high end one, worth a few grand new.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It never left

[leamanc]

With 90+ posts already, I might be a little redundant here, but allow me to put in my $0.02.

Vinyl has never went away. As mentioned many times already, it has always been the format of choice for indie/punk/alternative fans. This is not a new phenomenon. Add in DJs and you've got a sizable market right there.

For indie fans, some of it is "hipness" factor, but there is a lot to love about vinyl. The big artwork, for one. With even the cheapest turntable setup, you'll notice the sound difference. Some apply adjectives like "warm" to the sound, while some just think it sounds funny. But the point is, it sounds different.

To me, it usually sounds better, as if I can hear each instrument more clearly in comparison to the CD. This is more evident when the album was recorded with vinyl in mind (mostly, pre-1990s). For example, I find that my Velvet Underground and Neil Young records sound so much better on vinyl, while newer stuff like Interpol or The Arcade Fire I find the CD sounds better.

All in all, I love vinyl and always try to have my favorite albums on vinyl, even if I mostly listen to digital audio these days, either on iTunes or the iPod. It's a real treat to put on a favorite record (say a nice triple LP like Neil Young's Decade), if not something I do every day. I'm not the only one that feels this way, and for that reason vinyl will never go away. It will have its ups and downs (like it's up 10% this past year), but it's not going away.

Vinyl Record Sales

[RexRhino]

Vinyl record sales come from two sources:

1. Dance music and Hip Hop DJs who need vinyl records to properly mix.
2. Limited edition collectors items for indie (or pseudo-indie) bands.

Vinyl isn't making a comeback as an alternative to modern formats.

laser needles

[falconwolf]

If records really want to make a comeback, they'll come up with a nondestructive way to read the disc, like a laser beam.

Forget cds, try this. It is a turntable with a laser needle.

I agree that high quality analog recordings are a good thing to keep around for posterity, but analog recordings certainly aren't better for home reproduction (they'll get a little worse every time you play them)

Do the same thing I used to do, the first tyme I played an LP/EP record I'd record it on my reel-to-reel tape deck then put the record away for safe keeping and play the tape. Yea, sure the tape eventually wears out but you've still got the vinyl you can record again.

Falcon

DRM? CDs?

[grasshoppa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but CDs don't come with any DRM worth mentioning. I have yet to have a problem with one at any rate.

Oh, you mean under windows. Ya. Then stay away from Sony's offerings, and turn off autoplay. Problem solved.

lets set the record straight

[jigjigga]

Why are people going to records? Because on the average, due in part to the technical requirements of the format, the importance of engineers, often times the quality of the music, and a few more decent reasons, vinyl is preferred. It isn't that vinyl is inherently better sounding- a good sounding cd can sound better than vinyl sometimes, but there are so so few that do this that it can't compare. Vinyl is better because back when it was put out they had professionals perform the mastering and whatnot. Vinyl has its limitations to be sure, digital in any format (16/44 or higher), but the vinyl almost always sounds better because they knew what they were doing with the music. The warmth factor is important because a LOT of the recordings and mixing done years ago were made with the explicit intention of the producing being played through multiple layers of tube and other such warming/coloring gear. That is why digital sometimes sounds so lifeless by comparison- it is through the digital recording of music being given the "breath of life" that it can sound like vinyl to a degree. For anyone interested, check out Steve Hoffman's forums (stevehoffman.tv) for more info. People who listen to vinyl aren't crazy- people who have never listened to vinyl and somehow have to dig at it because they don't understand the other details are. Good day :)

Whhoooossshhhh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to guess what was that just flew over your head?

hi-fi doesn't really exist in today's marketplace?

[Cordath]

I once read a review of a McLaren F1 that included a phrase that stuck in my head ever since, even though it's turned up in countless sports car reviews over the years.

"Getting into and out of the cockpit of this beast requires the kind of agility that almost nobody capable of affording it possesses."

Likewise, by the time you're old enough to both care about audio and afford a decent stereo, your hearing will already have deteriorated to the point where you simply can't hear much of what you're obsessing over.

A young (i.e. under 20 years old) person with both excellent and absolutely undamaged hearing might be able to hear some output about 20KHz, but not much, and not loudly. (The falloff is quite steep.) The average teenager won't. A teenager who has been listening to his iPod/stereo for most of his life won't. Somebody in their twenties almost certainly won't, let alone thirties or forties.

Now, that's hearing above 20KHz. Hearing above 22Khz is an even taller order. This is one of the reasons why CD's were designed as they are. The engineers did their homework and decided that, even with moderately crappy filters that don't fall off nearly as fast as they could, a low-pass at 22.05KHz would be inaudible. I'm sure that with the wide range of human variability there are a small number of people gifted with exceptional hearing who are able to just barely hear output above 22KHz, and perhaps even a small number of these people will retain that ability past their teens. This, of course, is all when we're talking about test sine-waves. I wish any of these gifted listeners luck in picking out >22KHz details in a musical recording!

Statistics allow me to say with near absolute confidence that you, yes you, cannot hear the effect of the "brick wall" of CD's. Your dog might. Your paperboy is a remote possibility. You can't. I would happily slap down money on the table to bet that you could not tell the difference in a blind test between music that has been low-passed at 22KHz versus 40KHz. The effects of the "brick wall" are merely psychoacoustic.

As for the high-end audio market... What city do you live in? I live in a Canadian city of about a million people. (Calgary) This is not exactly LA, but we have at least half a dozen audio stores where you can sit down and listen to $30K+ systems. (Some that cost *much* more.) Everything from high end B&W to local-grown goodies like Totem acoustic. Yes, the audiophile market is not a high-volume one these days, but it never was. Also, the best sounding rigs I've heard have not been analogue. Some audiophiles really like the sound of vinyl playing through the grandiose euphonic distortion of a SET tube amp. My tastes tend towards something more... neutral. If I really wanted to add that much "color" to my music I'd feed it through an audio editor and apply some filters. I suggest you take a listen to a well recorded SACD or DVD-A album. (i.e. Not yet another #$@%ing remaster of a 30-year old Eagles album.) It's a shame neither format is doing very well because both formats can sound superb.

Anyways, whatever gets your rocks off, I wish you plenty of aural pleasure.

Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of water

[goombah99]

Top notch modems are 56kbps. A DS0 can carry max 64kbps. Semi-OK cd quality is 128kbps. A normal telephone line is 8 bit, MONO 8,000hz.

When you said near CD-quality, you weren't thinking of 8 track tapes were you?

Let's try the math again. First many digital radio stations use ABBAcast or something like it for near-CD quality at 33 to 40Kbs. Even if it's not CD quality it's certainly higher quality that anything that came off the vinyl in the first place. But let's ignore that and incorrectly assume we need 128kb/sec and see how the math comes out.

Audio modems don't actually use the full spectrum of the phone. last I looked they used about 3Khz. Now a vinyl record has a lot of bandwidth. the main limit on the bandwidth is the needles voltage/amplitude response falls off. That's why you equalize them. (which is why your stereo has a different input jack for phono than for tapes) You can only equalize then so far and get a decent sounding thing but you could push this much further if you went to a an analog coding scheme other than amplitude modulation. (hey that's what modems do! how about that).

  So just to have some numbers lets make some up that are not completely crazy. Lets say we could push audio signal recovery out to 30Khz. So that gives us ten 3khz wide modem channels. And since the record is stereo that gives 20 total channels.
20*56kb/sec = 1060 kb/sec

1060kb/sec /128 = 8.4 channels

Hey! that's what I claimed to begin with. I claimed I could fit about 8 cd quality channels (and here we mean 128Kb/sec) on a Vinyl record.

But wait! that's actually a gross underestimate. What determines the bits per second on a modem. it's a combination of two things, bandwidth and signal to noise. A vinyl record has enormously better signal to noise than a telephone. So the number of bits pers second my vinyl can support is vastly higher than the phone.

the shannon capacity scales as:
Bandwidth * log_2 (1 + SNR)
(where SNR is the singal to noise ratio in power)

to if I had 128 times better SNR on a record then that's about 8 times more bits per second.

So you see my Digital Vinyl smokes your CD.

The Real Reason...

[Black-Man]

Everybody knows the DOUBLE album which opens up is just the perfect flat surface to roll joints on.

DRM is overblown.

[Organic Brain Damage]

Maybe I'm naive here, but just which feature of Vista what stops me from plugging the output from one sound producing device, playing a DRM'd music file, into the sound-card input line and "recording" it into a non-DRM'd file?

Sure, it's not a pure 100% digital copy, but then, my worn-out ears and worn-out brain probably won't be able to tell the difference.

This story is almost the opposite

[Nybble's Byte]

of a story posted here 3 weeks ago, Record Labels Struggle With the Album's Demise. So, which is it? Myself, I'd say LPs are doing OK.

The DUH is on you...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the headline: "Sound quality can and will be debated, but DRM rates a resounding 'Duh.'"

A little to smug my friend.

What will stop "them" from forcing the makers of USB turntables to install some sort of "copy protection" in the turntable itself.

Let me guess... aaaaaah, nothing.

Do you really believe that it won't happen, if vinyl "takes off" again as a recording medium?

Re:The DUH is on you...

[snsr]

"What will stop "them" from forcing the makers of USB turntables to install some sort of "copy protection" in the turntable itself." This has been mentioned a few times in this thread. This idea is ridiculous in principle and application.


BTW, Slashdot contributors, Vinyl has been back for almost twenty fucking years. Get with it.

I've heard the laser turntable currently available

[Nybble's Byte]

No thanks. Records have to be scrupulously clean, and you can still have problems. It's expensive, and for the same or less money you can get much better performance with a conventional turntable. The discouraging thing about the laser turntable is it is complex and can require shipping to Japan for service. I clean my records with a state of the art record cleaning machine, but when it comes to playback I strongly prefer conventional equipment because it simply sounds better. And as long as you keep your records and stylus clean, have your cartridge and tonearm properly set up and avoid excessive tracking force, record wear is not a significant concern.

Some exceptions

[dosle]

From a producers point of view, vinyl is another tool in making music. My room mate has recently been after a USB turntable. Why you ask? He wants to pick up old Brubeck vinyl and import them into his all digital collection. You get to know the music a bit more on the vinyl level. My personal use is sampling bits and pieces of random vinyl that is usually bargain bin. The ability to walk into a dusty record store on a Sunday armed with $20 and leave with a crate of unheard of vinyl be it music, historical voice pressings, or children's stories (excellent sampling/crafting right there) goes unmatched. For some of us the thrill is not what we plan on getting, it's finding what we were previously unaware of.

Sound quality.

[Tokerat]

It's not about making the sound EXACT, it's about making the sound BETTER.

CDs win for exact replication, but for things like club music, with lots of sharp synth sounds, bass, etc. A little "natural interference" from the actual physical motion of the vibrating stylus can make it sound "naturally artificial", or, quite to the effect such music attempts to achieve, surreal.

Plus, spinning vinyl is a HELL of a lot of fun. CD decks, not so much.

Re:Sound quality.

[Prune]

It's not that CDs have exact replication but vinyl sounds better, but rather that many CDs have poorly done recording and mastering. It has nothing to do with the medium.

Re:Sound quality.

[RKBA]

It's not that CDs have exact replication but vinyl sounds better, but rather that many CDs have poorly done recording and mastering. It has nothing to do with the medium.

I was always very skeptical about tube audio amplifiers sounding better than solid state amps until I purchased one. As soon as I hooked it up and turned it on my wife exclaimed at how much better the sound was. She is no audiophile and neither am I although I do have a sound system that's at least as good as my ears - on the other hand, that's easy to do because I'm 61! ;-)

So I'm pretty sure that it wasn't just my imagination when I noticed a distinctively more "realistic" sound. I doubt that the sound is actually more realistic, but it does seem to sound better with a tube amplifier. I would think that whatever waveform shaping a tube amp does could be replicated by some sort of R/C passive network, or certainly by an active filter.

Some of the music I play is rather unusual and sometimes emits strange and unexpected sounds (so called "New Age" stuff for us old folks). Since I've been using the tube amp, sometimes I'm startled by a sound from the next room where the stereo is, because it's so realistic it sounds as though someone is in the next room!

Re:Sound quality.

[Prune]

It's not simple waveform shaping, and you can't just use simple passive networks to get it. Tube amps may have higher THD, but THD doesn't correlate with blind tests of perception, because the type of distortion matters, and THD is unweighted. Tubes and transistors have different types of nonlinearity. Tubes have a 3/2 power law, whereas transistors are exponential. This, and common circuit topology used in the respective camps, result in tube amps having high THD but mostly consisting of even low order harmonics, which are inaudible to as much as a few percent. Many tube amps are also in class A and thus avoid the crossover distortion that is audible in the parts per million. Then the clipping characteristics of tubes are much better, whereas when a solid state amp clips, you get huge amounts of transient intermodulation-like effects. Various other things such as masking distortions created by say jitter in the digital system, speaker interactions, etc., can play apart. Finally, tubes lack the thermal memory distortion that transistors have; though these can be dealt with in solid state amps, it's rarely done: http://peufeu.free.fr/audio/memory/

Re:Sound quality.

[stud9920]

Why should the expensive tube amps be generating the distortions you find so enjoyable ? If they are so enjoyable, don't you think the sound engineer in the studio would have placed them for the 98% of people that don't have an elitist sound system ?

Re:Sound quality.

[octogen]

[...cut...]

true

Many tube amps are also in class A and thus avoid the crossover distortion that is audible in the parts per million. Then the clipping characteristics of tubes are much better, whereas when a solid state amp clips, you get huge amounts of transient intermodulation-like effects.

With a good transistor amp (I use a Sunfire Signature Stereo Amp), I don't see a problem here, because:
*) it's a pure Class A, too, so there is no crossover distortion. Even better, it does not get hot and it does not waste power, because of Bob Carver's ingenious tracking-down-converter power-supply.
*) yes, tubes have better clipping characteristics. Anyhow, if your amplifier ever clips, then what you really need is a more powerful amplifier, not better clipping characteristics.
When you need sound quality AND power, then the transistor amplifier probably wins; I have never seen tube amps that can match the quality and the power of the Sunfire transistor amps, and even if someone builds one, it will probably cost 10 times as much as the Sunfire.
Actually, when the amplifier lacks the power required to drive the speakers, the speakers will sound inaccurate and overall sound quality will be bad for this reason, despite of good sound characteristics of the amplifier; sufficient power is essential for good sound quality.

Re:Sound quality.

[Prune]

I don't have a problem with transistor amps. I've built clones of the Pass Labs XA MOSFET amps to drive my low end (my high end is 1800 Watt DC glow discharge plasma derived from Hill's design, minus the helium). And as good as your Sunfires may be, there are far better transistor amps--Halcro's top end amps have the lowest distortion of any commercial amplifier.

Tubes can provide far more power than a transistor, it's just that most audio designers are a bit scared of the power tubes, with their high voltage and need for active cooling (blower, but there are other solutions, and making it quiet is not difficult in my experience). An Eimac 8974 does 2 MEGAWATTS! Transistors are limited to a few kilowatts. Large tubes are still common in radio transmitters, military, scientific (accelerators), and power grid applications. And, they work just fine for audio. Small transmitter tubes such as the 4x250A, which are 250 Watt beam power tetrodes, are used in a few DIY and commercial audio amlpifiers.

Thus, your statement that the transistor amp wins has no technical backing in the power area as well. It simply has to do with economics--quality output transformers for tube amps are expensive, and speakers are designed low impedance with solid state drive in mind (though there is an alternative, a switchmode output transformer which is cheap and has no distortion in the audio band since it operates at ~400 kHz, but is unfortunately patented and thus there's only one company using the design, David Berning Company). A single tube (triode) has more linear voltage gain than a single transistor (CCS load). If you take a given transistor amp, then you can always build a tube amp that has lower distortion and more power if you are free to use as many tubes as there are transistors in the transistor amp.

Re:Sound quality.

[Prune]

BTW, if you're on IRC, if you go to Rizon's #diyaudio channel, I'm Quince there and I can discuss this further.

Re:Sound quality.

[StrawberryFrog]

It's not about making the sound EXACT, it's about making the sound BETTER. .. A little "natural interference" from the actual physical motion of the vibrating stylus can make it sound

Eh, any distortion like that can be duplicated in silicon.

Plus, spinning vinyl is a HELL of a lot of fun. CD decks, not so much.

Some DJs swear by their Pioneer CDJs. than again, many have ditched those in favour of laptops.

Re:I've heard the laser turntable currently availa

[Doc Ruby]

I found keeping the vinyl inside its paper sleeves kept it quite clean. But I found that playing them with a mechanical stylus wore them out fairly quickly. Studies I read in the 1980s (in _Stereo Review_, etc, which were clearly trying to sell CDs) showed that records wore down to worse signal:noise than CDs after less than a dozen plays.

The laser turntable is $9K because they sell so few, so they target the super hifi market with a lot more than just the laser pickup. Now that laser pickups are super cheap, the whole device (maybe not including ADC) should cost under $150, even with good mechanicals for low wow/flutter.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[philipgar]

so, you could have all this technology in place and filters and so forth to take out the noise in order to get 8 128Kbps tracks... As each side of a record can hold ~25 minutes, that works out to 8*128kbps*25*60 bits of data per side... or about 192MB of data per side. That works to about 384MB that could be stored on a record... Even assuming you could fit 8x more data, that is still only 3GB of data on a record.

Lets compare this with a cd which is much much smaller than a record and can hold 700 MB per side (a two-sided one would hold ~1.4GB). Not quite up to the theoretical maximum that you claim your record could get, however consider the size, or the fact that a DVD, which is the same dimensions as the CD, and uses similar technology as it can hold up to 4.7GB on a single layer disc. This is far more data than the record can hold, and requires less sensitive electronics, and much less processing power to decode.

Looks like my "CD" beats your record after all.

No DRM?

[iminplaya]

All those "pops" and "clicks" aren't so random as you think. That's the watermarking.

You just know...

[Quiet_Desperation]

...Volvo will offer a 6 vinyl album in-dash changer.

Re:You just know...

[wjsteele]

Actually, Chrysler had a record player as an option in their cars back in the Fiftys. It was called the Highway Hi-Fi. It didn't use standard records but instead used a propriatery 16 2/3 RPM 7" format (read ARM anyone - that would be Analog Rights Managment.)

Later on, they realized that the custom format wouldn't work and opened up to the standard 45. The 1960 version could allow you to stack up to 12 records in it.

Here is an article from Chrysler about it. http://www.uaw-daimlerchryslerntc.org/images/news/ phono.htm

Bill

Re: Sharing

[santiago]

Sleeping with your wife while you're at work doesn't deprive you of your wife, as long as she's there for you when you want her.

Therefore, sleeping with your wife is OK!

Thanks!!!

Ah, I see you understand the basic premise of polyamory.

Quality?

[RealGrouchy]

Audiophile? Nope. Not me!

I love my vinyl because of the "sound quality" of '60s and '70s music!

- RG>

Awesome

[goaty_the_flying_sho]

This is the best burn I've seen in a while.

Re:I've heard the laser turntable currently availa

[Nybble's Byte]

> I found keeping the vinyl inside its paper sleeves kept it quite clean.

Some would argue that standard paper sleeves slightly scratch records.

> But I found that playing them with a mechanical stylus wore them out fairly quickly.

It depends on the cartridge, the tracking force, etc. I have records I bought new in the 70s that are still in excellent shape because they weren't played on cheap record players and were handled carefully.

> Studies I read in the 1980s (in _Stereo Review_, etc, which were clearly trying to sell CDs) showed that records wore down to worse signal:noise than CDs after less than a dozen plays.

Anything you read in Stereo Review is highly suspect. Julian Hirsch never heard a piece of gear he didn't like, and all receivers and amps sounded alike. If all you base your opinions on are S/N ratios then you're really missing the boat.

> The laser turntable is $9K because they sell so few, so they target the super hifi market with a lot more than just the laser pickup. Now that laser pickups are super cheap, the whole device (maybe not including ADC) should cost under $150, even with good mechanicals for low wow/flutter.

No way. That's just silly. The ELP laser turntable has five lasers and uses a large number of discrete components. It is very complicated, the same way an old copying machine would be a challenge to work on. If you saw one you'd know. The ELP unit was much more expensive than $9k a few years ago; the 33/45 rpm model was around $13k. I don't doubt the units are/were costly to produce, and from a technical standpoint they are a marvel. Unfortunately they don't deliver the ultimate in sonics. Thus they are usually purchased by record collectors, museums, etc. because in the case of rare old shellacs and such the laser turntable is about the only way to play them without causing damage. For archival purposes they have a value. The cost isn't that much of a factor for some audiophiles. If it really delivered better sound, you'd see them around. The truth is, they aren't competitive with conventional high end turntables, and people lose interest in something that has to be shipped to Japan for service.

Re:Help

[Prune]

Learn some game, first read up some David De Angelo, Mystery, Swinggcat (all can be found on P2P), then find guys that are good at it and willing to be your wingmen, and put it into practice. If you work at it, it's like a skill most guys can learn. I used to be the biggest geek until I realized self-improvement is like any other thing you can learn, though takes more effort. But the results have been worth it, and I highly recommend it.

DRM a resounding "duh," but the other way.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Cassettes and CDs don't have DRM. DVD-Audio probably does, along with some of those dumb Sony formats like minidisk, but they're not exactly dominating the market. So "lack of DRM" is a pretty stupid reason to switch to vinyl.

The answer has been found

[chdig]

You have just layed out the key difference between vinyl lovers and the more common digital variety:

"As for amps, it has always amazed me that people *love* the ones that introduce distortion and claim the accurate ones are "cold" and "technical." It's not the amp's job to be warm and emotional; it's the musician's. I run away from any component that advertises "warm" or "musical" sound; those are code words for distortion."

The vinyl sound is warmed, no doubt about it. To me, it just plain sounds better; now, whether it actually is "better", as in more accurate to every perfect sample caught on the timeline of a digital track... I could really care less.

Then there's the record selection. With so many people having given up their vinyl in the past 20 years, there's lots of great albums, complete with full cover work to be had for a few bucks at the local flea market. The search for great new records helps keep a continual interest in discovering new music.

Since I ditched the CD player for a couple of turntables, I've been listening to far more music than I ever did before. That, for me makes a better format.

Vinyl Popular With The Younger Generation

[illectro]

I had no idea how young until I saw this video of a 2 year old girl playing old fashioned records - I'll wager this is probably the cutest reply to this topic, and the one most likely to give audiophiles a heart attack as they watch a toddler take the record from its sleeve and put it on the turntable.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we just witnessed the nerd version of a bar brawl...

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[Nullav]

Lets compare this with a cd which is much much smaller than a record and can hold 700 MB per side (a two-sided one would hold ~1.4GB). Not quite up to the theoretical maximum that you claim your record could get, however consider the size, or the fact that a DVD, which is the same dimensions as the CD, and uses similar technology as it can hold up to 4.7GB on a single layer disc. This is far more data than the record can hold, and requires less sensitive electronics, and much less processing power to decode.

Obviously, this means the LaserDisc is going to make a comeback soon.

Re:Analogue vs Digital - big IF

[residents_parking]

IF you make an analogue recording of something using top of the line equipment (most recordings aren't).

IF you look after your records (most people didn't).

IF you can afford the $$ for top of the line playback equipment (most people can't or won't).

IF you never use an iPod etc (many people do).

You must be thinking about a very small niche. Perhaps there's no debate because there's no-one left to debate with.

In the vast majority of cases, Vinyl serves as a playback effect after digital mastering, the opposite of a "a more accurate representation of the sonic environment".

Nothing wrong with that. But don't try to tell me it's HiFi.

Sound Quality Debated?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Bang & Olufsen linear tracking turntable feeding a dbx decoder. Playing dbx encoded vinyl records through the setup produces a beautiful flat 5Hz to 35KHz scratch and pop free output. I know that most kids today with their mind numbing ghetto music blasting past 22" sub woofers can't hear crap below 120Hz. Alas dbx encoded music arrived too late on the music scene and cost too much money compared to the "free" Dolby encoded tapes to make much of a difference.

Never mind Vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the Vinyl, I weep for the death of the cassette tape!

I tried explaining to my son how I used to type in listings from Micro User magazine, wait four minutes for them to save on my Philips tape recorder, rewind then pray the saved program would load back. Because if it didn't load, it would have to be typed in again.

Then there was the grandaddy of the iPod, the ghetto-blaster! Freedom from the parents record-player you could sit at the top of the school playing field listening to your favorite records or the recording of last week's top 40 from the radio.

Vinyl did none of this. It was the cassette tape that set us free!

Any Punx In The Audience...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always hated audiophiles and record snobs, because I have this half-assed notion about enjoying music regardless of cost of my gear. But that's just me.

But I got hooked on vinyl when a friend of mine gave me some old hardcore compilations. Stuff that doesn't exist anymore. Then I started discovering 7" records from local and underground punk bands. After spending a couple thousand dollars at No Idea Records (Gainesville, FL - represent) I now have a nice collection of obscure and hard to find punk records to go along with my MP3's and CD's.

I still make fun of indie kids who buy records. Most pretentious art-rock bands release CD's AND records at the same time, and these trendy kids spend 30$ or 40$ at the mall on the record. Which is stupid.

Tube preamp with an RIAA curve

[demon driver]

get a good Tube preamp with an RIAA curve Won't that include DRM, then?

OT: Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out

[CBravo]

Hey, I liked that discussion ! :-)

4 products-not 3

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Torq from M-Audio...

I buy music on vinyl

[neoguri]

I buy my music on vinyl. I love it. And every album is unique. A CD can be copied; a perfect copy. Try that with vinyl :)

I don't suppose ...

[KlaymenDK]

I don't suppose you can find me a copy of Herb Alpert's 1971 "Summertime" album on cd, too, then?

As far as I've found, it was only ever released on vinyl, and ripping it to pc is hard because of the much varying levels on that album.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Alpert#Discograp hy

Re:I don't suppose ...

[DerekLyons]

All I did was Google! :)

Sound quality...

[BlueParrot]

All you people talking about sound quality had better be listening to some exceptionally great performance of Mozart's symphony number 40, or quite frankly you could probably get a better improvement in sound by switching artist rather than storage medium...

Audiophiles and packaging

[Prospero424]

I really think that the rise in vinyl sales can be attributed to more than just "audiophiles". It's also about packaging and their popularity in live hip-hop and even electronic music, both of which are increasingly popular among the largest groups of music purchasers. I really do think this is what a lot of people miss when purchasing music online or even on CD: things like album notes, lyrics, and album art. Honestly, I buy most of my stuff on CD. But I have most of my favorite albums on vinyl because I would rather have the "full package" for my collection than just a shiny disc and a 4"x4" piece of paper. Sound quality isn't EVERYTHING.

The effects of aggressive filters

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom Jung (famous digital recording pioneer and founder of DMP records) gave an interview where he talks about the effects of 44.1 on audio. Basically, he said that aggressive slopes have audible effects down a few octaves, and that some sounds with large amounts of ultrasonic content (like a muted trumpet) come out very harsh on CD. Google the interview, it's worthwhile.

"emaculate"?

[RMH101]

...are they translucent white?

Portable = headphones = best

[ThirdPrize]

Record players are ok but you only usually hear them through a hi fi. Since I stuck most of my music on my iPod I am more likely to listen to it through headphones. Listening through phones (not the standard buds) will bring out more detail than any amp will. The amount of detail that I have noticed on albums I have lived with for 15 years is amazing.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[Bush Pig]

Plus you get (potentially) much greater dynamic range. That's the major problem with (analogue) vinyl.

Those are very good points...

[Elbowgeek]

And you're right: most people don't sit around listening to oscilloscopes, they listen to music.

What confuses the issue is that people automatically equate vinyl with analog. Indeed, vinyl is the final method of publishing the master source, but if the master source is ultimately digital, it will only be as good as the digital source.

Vinyl which is produced from all-analog sources with no digital in the chain, when done well, is a stunning experience. An example: Harry Belafonte at Carnegie Hall. Recorded in 1959, it will send shivers up your spine if you have a good, clean copy and a decent turntable. Also, try some of the audiophile vinyl produced around that time by Command Records and others. Stunning in their clarity and dynamics.

You will also note that audio magazines in the 70's were obsessed with lab measurements of the equipment they tested and rarely gave meaningful listening impressions. This is the environment in which the CD was born and because technically it appeared "perfect", it was taken for granted that it was superior. But it wasn't. Nowadays those magazines give more listening impressions than specs and measurements for a very good reason.

Oh, and to anyone who complains about the supposed noisiness of vinyl: First - have you cleaned your vinyl properly? Second - I suppose you go to concerts and berate everyone around you for not making it completely silent just like the CD, eh?
Cheers

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit

[Sycraft-fu]

First off, CD quality in 30-40k. Really? Then why the hell haven't we seen it anywhere? You don't think Apple would kill to have a more efficient format for storing and distributing music?

Well I can't find shit on anything called ABBAcast. To me it sounds like you confused ABBA, an old Swedish pop band, with Abacast, a radio streaming service. Of course, Abacast doesn't have their own codec, they use WMA, AAC, and MP3. Well 30-40k WMA is NOT CD quality, not even close, never mind MP3. The good codecs, like AAC and Vorbis do a decent job at 128k, it sounds as good as CD for most music on lower end gear (like portable players) but still not even close. You are talking in the range of 256k with most codecs to get something that is reliably as good as CD on good gear.

Also you seem to have no understanding of the problems of encoding to a broadband format.

For one, you can't stack your channels right on top of each other. You'll find that you have all kinds of problems. Look at any real broadband system, and you'll find out they've built in space between channels for just that reason. For example TV channels are specified at 6MHz each. Within that 6MHz is a video, colour, and audio carrier. Channel 2 is from 54-60MHz. However, the video carrier is at 55.25MHz, the colour at 58.83MHz and the audio at 59.75MHz. Channel 3 is then from 60-66MHz. You might notice that means there's nothing in the lower edge of the range and you'd be right. The reason is that you don't want the channels bleeding in to each other. You need to leave space if the system is to work.

Next, you've got the problem of assuming that two stereo channels can be used separately. Errr, no. In any analogue system, two adjacent channels will have some amount of crosstalk. That is to say a signal on one channel will bleed over to the other to some degree. You'll notice that most stereo amplifiers specify this amount. Well, with records, it's pretty high due to the way that the stereo signal is recorded. It's horizontal needle deflection, not two discrete tracks. Not a big deal for stereo audio, it's highly correlated anyhow and we don't need a ton of separation to hear stereo, however it'll fuck with your encoding real bad.

Then of course we get to things like error correction, assumptions that the SNR is equal with regards to frequency (it's not) and so on. I'm not going to go in to all the problems in detail since it ought to be apparent at this point that you didn't think this through.

Re:Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit

[Horace2]

Stereo vinyl does have 2 discrete channels, one on the inside groove wall and one on the outside groove wall. There is also considerable crosstalk between channels as you pointed out.

John Peel

[TommyMc]

"Somebody was trying to tell me that CDs are better than vinyl because they don't have any surface noise. I said, "Listen, mate, life has surface noise."

Quality should not be a problem

[Maljin Jolt]

After a little bit of electronics conversion: replacing a diamond needle with just a laser, optical sensor and preamp the sound quality of turntable can be dramatically improved. So buying vinyls is a good investment in the DRM age.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[RockoTDF]

Very funny! Why is it always that I see good stuff when I don't have mod points and there are days of drivel when I do?!

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking idiot, 3KHz *is* the bandwidth of a phone connection.

Don't worry, Sony will figure out how to add DRM

[elrous0]

But seriously, one of the biggest downsides to vinyl IMHO is the $$ required to get a truly quality system. While vinyl may sound better than CD's with the really high-end equipment, CD's are still a better VALUE for all but the most demanding audiophile. You can buy a pretty low-end CD player that will sound comparable to all but the best (and most expensive) turntable system.

This reminds me of the old DVD vs. LD debate back when DVD was first getting started. A lot of people pointed out that LD systems like Hi-Vision MUSE could outperform DVD. But a Hi-Vision MUSE system in 1997 could run well over $10,000 and could offer only marginally better performance than a low-end $450 DVD player. The insanely high-end was there, for those with money to burn. But the true value was clear.

Has anyone ever tried this?

[E2Hawkeye]

Once I hooked up my turntable and rigged the output with alligator clips so that the input went into a tube drive Fender Twin Reverb.

Holy hell that sounded good! There was some hum due to the impedance mismatch, but despite that, Led Zeppelin IV never sounded so good. It filled the room up completely, not with volume, but with sheer sonic completeness. I have no technical reason as to why it sounded good, just that it did. Perhaps we should consider analog equipment, with all of it's analog harmonic complexity, a form of signal processing rather than simple sound reinforcement or duplication.

It's amazing to think that once upon a time, tube driven vinyl jukeboxes were considered normal fare in even the the most backwater dive. Wow.

emaculate?

[sasdrtx]

You mean they have no balls?

The reason why vinyl sounds better sometimes

[Yapz]

There is a reason for some people to claim vinyl sounds better. I don't really 'choose' a system or something like that, i'm pretty neutral and no 'audiphile' spending enormous of money on speaker cables 'cause they 'sound better'.

CD's are mastered extremely bad these days. CD's can have a pretty huge dynamic range. Kickdrums/snare drums and the like should 'peak out' like they are supposed to do. The result? A very good sounding album, every instrument seperated and hearable, bass lines not sinking away in the rest of the music.

Nowadays it's common business to make records EXTREMELY LOUD with -no- dynamics whatsover. It's just a huge wall of sound. It sounds just -bad- (listen to RHCP's Californication), loud and CD's are clipping constantly. However, the vinyl releases of these albums sound pretty good because vinyl just can't get ruined that way and the master tapes are just sounding ok.

Just some links describing this problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_War
http://brianstagg.co.uk/p_t_a_clipressed/
http://one.fsphost.com/roiotrade/loud.html
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=103702

lack of DRM's not a good excuse, but maybe art is

[DriveDog]

DRM, from a CD? Take the analog output from a good CD player, digitize it, there's no DRM or anything else but music, and it's a lot better recording than the output from any machine playing vinyl. Unless we're all implanted with digital receivers to replace our ears, there'll always be some point at which the analog output from any recording medium can be captured. Records are fun and interesting. So are wax cylinders, magnetic wire recorders, Lear Jet stereos (8 track tape players), and even clay cylinders (jugs, pots, whatever), some of which could theoretically be encoded with ancient sounds. Fun doesn't equal performance. Try learning some old Mesopotamian language from spinning pottery. We've lost a lot of art (covers) since 1981. Perhaps retailers (are there still any?) could find a niche selling CDs in special LP-sized covers. Give them some funky fold-outs so they're not convenient to reproduce by scanning and downloading, and there you are.

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if you could make a Vinyl-ROM...

Re:Hmm...

[Rod Beauvex]

You can and they have. I clearly remember reading comments on this very website about people had programs for the C64 that came on vynil. You would play the vynil once and copy the "sound" to the tapes, which would then be read by the cassette player.

Giggle, you're sooo cute when your ears turn red

[goombah99]

First off, CD quality in 30-40k. Really? Then why the hell haven't we seen it anywhere? You don't think Apple would kill to have a more efficient format for storing and distributing music?
-1 point for reading comprehension. I said "near-cd" and I'm using the term that all the on-line radio simmulcasts use so go argue with them. my sole definition which I stated was "better than the original vinyl".

Also you seem to have no understanding of the problems of encoding to a broadband format.
Thank you for your tedious flame sir. I won't bother to point you to my papers and patents on heterodyne modulation.

For one, you can't stack your channels right on top of each other. You'll find that you have all kinds of problems. Look at any real broadband system, and you'll find out they've built in space between channels for just that reason. This is not even wrong. Let's see where to begin?. 1) first in theory there is no reason at all one cannot virtually stack channels without a buffer between them. run them through a acausal anti-alias notch filter. 2) They have to have that buffer for TV channels because the modulation schema and detection schema in use do bleed outside their channels. 3) this is all moot anyhow. The analysis was (*obviously*) just a gendanken argument about channel capacity. Once could do better not making artificial channel boundaries but just using the whole range directly. It's just that by thinking of it as channels of a modulation scheme one already knows the data rate for, one can quickly suss out the expected data rate for the bandwidth without doing any complex maths

Next, you've got the problem of assuming that two stereo channels can be used separately. Errr, no. In any analogue system, two adjacent channels will have some amount of crosstalk. That is to say a signal on one channel will bleed over to the other to some degree...Not a big deal for stereo audio, it's highly correlated anyhow and we don't need a ton of separation to hear stereo, however it'll fuck with your encoding real bad.
BZZT. sorry no. all that is handled by the SNR term. cross talk sets a noise floor. What the noise floor is may depend on the modulation scheme. Now if you wanted to make a point here you should point out that that the plasticity of vinyl and needles may introduce non-linearities that can't support simultaneous use of the full audio spectrum. Granted. However that is only going to lower my argument by some fudge factor. And the argument is only an order of magnitude sketch to begin with so I that's not something to fret at this point. I'm not going to quibble over factors of 2, are you?

Then of course we get to things like error correction, assumptions that the SNR is equal with regards to frequency (it's not) and so on. I'm not going to go in to all the problems in detail since it ought to be apparent at this point that you didn't think this through. Giggle. You are really taking this proposal seriously aren't you? The whole thing is a joke! if you really wanted to store more music on a cd just use Mp3s. good golly. However, the rather intriguing idea here is that if Mp3 had predated audio CDs Vinyl would have had a much larger storage capacity and signal to noise than we conventionally consider. It's very suprising how good vinyl really could have been.

You're just figuring this out?

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Digital apologists be damned, at the very top levels of achievement in sound reproduction, vinyl whips CD ass. At least it used to; CDs have gotten better and they are now quite good. (Some digital tape can be fantastic, beyond vinyl, btw.) In fact, CDs are now so good I would never suggest someone start collecting music on vinyl. But my 25,000+ LPs aren't going anywhere; they're too good to toss and too much work to change formats.

As for my few hundred pre-recorded reel-to-reel analog tapes - sonic nirvana.

Side note - I started my audiophile life as a digital fan. I was contemplating a career in music as a bassoonist and had lots of experience sitting with real instruments being played in real space by real artists. 8-tracks, LPs (on the crappy turntables I had access to), cassette tapes - they all sounded like garbage. I was used to the real thing and nothing provided it. So I didn't buy music at all. Then the CD came out and Phillips advertised it as "Perfect Sound Forever". All the magazines said it was the Second Coming. I swallowed the hype hook, line and sinker. I bought Vivaldi's Four Seasons on Telarc (a supposedly wonderful demo disc) and started shopping. The problem was, everything sounded like crap. Everything. I annoyed the guys at Pacific and any other place I could find and all the demos sounded awful. Finally, I heard about a "high-end" audio shop in Houston called Audio ProPhiles. I went in and the nice saleslady (it was a weekday afternoon and the place was deserted or else she wouldn't have spent any time at all with a poor college student like me) put my CD in the Phase Linear CD player (a Carver subsidiary, originally sourced from Kyocera, iirc) connected to the Krell electronics driving the original Martin Logan planar speakers. This setup, which cost more than a decent car, would surely show me the glory that was CD.

The sound came on and in less than two bars after the violins started I had shoved my fingers in my ears and was literally screaming at the saleslady to turn it off! Somebody had shoved a running dental drill into my ear canals; I was sure of it. I asked her what the hell was wrong with her demo system. She simply replied that "That's what digital sounds like." Then she sat me down at the Goldmund Reference turntable (supposedly the only one in the country at the time, having been bought off the show floor at CES), showed me how to use it, and let me spend an afternoon playing those beautiful, wonderful LPs. Lesson learned.

I've posted about this before and I won't go into details here. The short story is: Digital sucked in the beginning and continued to suck for many years. Then the players and production processes got better. Now, it's far more convenient than vinyl and, arguably, CDs sound about as good if a bit different. On the top end, it's possible to argue that vinyl is still better, but the top end requires more money than I'll ever have.

The bottom line is still the same as it's always been: If you want good sound at a reasonable price buy a subscription to your local symphony. Arguments beyond that I don't care to wage.

Re:You're just figuring this out?

[Rimbo]

Agreed; live is the only way to go. We just bought tickets for the LA Opera's next season, and I can't wait!

I knew my ID was apt.

[Don_dumb]

I sit very well corrected.

Please now allow me to be modded down gracefully.

Thinkgeek has one!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/audio/8be8/ Set Your Old Vinyl Free... Digitally It's a sad life being an outdated media format like the vinyl record. Once you were hi-tech and new with amazing sound... now everyone shuns you in favor of soulless shiny metallic discs. Is that the treatment a true audio pioneer deserves? Don't let your vinyl die a slow and lonely death moldering in your basement for years. Liberate it digitally with the Numark USB Turntable. Simply plug this high-quality turntable into the USB port on your PC (Windows or Mac) and use the included Audacity software to rip your vinyl directly to MP3 (or WAV format) for playback on all your newfangled devices like the iPod. You can even use the Audacity software to give your vinyl a digital facelift by removing unsightly clicks and pops. Now your vinyl can fade away happily knowing It's brain has been transplanted digitally into the future. If only it were so easy for all of us. Product Features & Specifications * Professional quality turntable connects to your PC via USB * Rip your vinyl directly to MP3 or WAV format * Ships with Audacity software (compatible with PC and Mac) for removing clicks, pops, and other undesirable characteristics of vinyl * Audacity supports high-speed recording, then returns music to original playback speed * Audacity software includes ability to export to WAV and MP3 * Anti-skating control for increased stereo balance * Support for both 33.33 and 45 RPM playback speeds * ± 10% adjustable pitch control * RCA line outputs * Plug and Play USB compatibility with both PC and Mac * Packaged with all necessary cables to interconnect with both a computer and stereo playback system

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it's not CD quality it's certainly higher quality that anything that came off the vinyl in the first place

CD's frequency response is limited by the Nyquist limit of 22kHz. Vinyl has no such limitation. In fact, in the early 70s they had a thing called "quadrophonic", a silly idea where you had speakers both in front of you and behind you (sound familiar?). The way it worked was that the rear two channels were modulated with a 40kHz signal before being stamped on the record (the Wikipedia article doesn't fully explain it, although my physics professor did in 1977, but it's been a long time ago and he was far better at explaining than I am. At any rate, this modulated 40kHz signal was on the record, and was demodulated for the back channels.

The Nyquist limit doesn't just hit a 22kHz wall, however. The higher the frequency, the more distortion. At 22kHz you hit total distortion; anything higher than that will produce lower frequencies that are quite audible and quite annoying.

Vinyl beats the pants off of CD for frequency response. At 20KhZ (Which my geezer ears can't come near but your young ones might) there is no more distortion than at any other frequency, whereas CDs are distorted as all hell.

You are correct about dynamic range. Vinyl's dynamic range is limited by noise, although it was usually the noise of the master analog tape until the advent of Dolby, which greatly minimized the noise. Of course, recording studios used the absense of noise to lay on more layers, recording a recording of a recording. You can even hear this on some pre-Dolby titles; Aerosmith's first album comes to mind.

CDs do, indeed, have a far superior dynamic range. However, that dynamic range is seldom if ever used in CDs!

Listen to Led Zepplin's Presence on vinyl, then on CD. The first thing you'll notice is that the vinyl actually has more dynamics, although I have no idea why they would compress the dynamics like that when remastering for digital; maybe the engineer had a bad day, or wasn't as good as the guy who mastered the analog tape. More to the point, you will, even with old ears, notice the frequency response: the vinyl version of Presence has more presence than the CD version.

In fact, I have both CD and vinyl. The CD I made from the vinyl record actually sounds better than the CD I bought.

Where CD surpasses vinyl is noise - there is no noise in CDs.

A vinyl record made from analog tape will sound better than the CD. A CD made from a digital master will sound better than the vinyl counterpart, as when you mix analog and digital, you get the worst of both worlds and the advantages of neither.

There is no point in recording an album digitally and releasing it on vinyl.

Your compressed audio, though, whether AAC, MP3, WMA, Ogg, or anything else is going to sound like shit if you have good speakers, regardless of bitrate. Even to my 55 year old ears.

And yes, I understand that you're talking about multiplexing a bunch of channels on vinyl and yes, you're right, but I think some might misunderstand you.

-mcgrew (see How to rip from vinyl or tape)

Easy Solutions

[Plekto]

First off, the reason to obtain and collect vinyl recording is clear. 80-90% of all music ever released on LP/45/etc was never re-released on CD. That's an astounding amount of music that is gone - outside of a radio station or movie.

For instance, if you want a recording of most 1950s jukebox songs or even stuff like 70s rock bands... most of it wasn't ever re-released. I guess you could get one of those old-time music collections off of late-night TV, but that's equally lame.

Only two or three years ago at the clamoring of the masses of fans did Jethro Tull, for instance, release their live album in its entirety. This was one of the top 100 albums of all time but the CD chopped out all of the filler which made it good. In fact, almost every live album or double LP set in existence was ether butchered on CD or just not available outside of the "anniversary" set.

Then there's comedy. An entire genre that never made it to CD. Thousands of people and routines that are still as funny as ever... but only on record.(in many cases the artists were dead or didn't have the money to go to CD, since the 80s were dominated by the recording industry which shut you down if you didn't have huge sales. Monty Python for instance - half of their stuff isn't on CD, even today.

Or obscure classics like the original BBC version of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Tape and LP only. Finding it on CD... yeah, right. Yet it's one of the best things ever recorded - better than the lame movie that's for sure. There are several audio versions, but not the original radio drama.

And then there's the entire library of music from Motown Records. Thousands of albums... company died at the beginning of the CD era. Yes, there's a revival of the company recently, but it's "classic" - basically the few most famous groups. If you weren't a superstar... sorry.

So it's not just old classical or stuff like Donny Osmond that was on LP. It's an astounding mountain of stuff. Everyone should have a tape deck or record player. The USB is nice, though, since there is software to get rid of the artifacts and problems digitally, then you can encode it at maximum quality to your hard drive(I suggest LAME plus 320K dual-channel stereo at a minimum)

Getting to the solutions:
1: www.dak.com - this was an old company that sold all sorts of oddball audio gear in the 80s. he's back and his software package for recording LPs to digital is probably the most affordable that I know of. You absolutely need a RIAA conversion box unless your amplifier has a phono in/on inside it or the audio will sound quite bad. (they compressed the sound before recording and the circuit de-compresses it to proper levels).

2:www.grado.com - toss the stylus. Get the $80 green one. This sounds virtually identical to their silver and gold models for a reasonable price.(the $60 one, the black is okay. The $80 "green" one is culled out of the blacks by testing to be the top 10% of the black line. the trick is that the hand-picked black models sound as good as the stock sliver models that cost 3-4 times as much.

This humble cartridge beats out $300-$500 audiophile ones. You get huge sound for cheap.(same with grado's headphones - the 60 and 80 are their budget, but sound better/virtually the same as anything under $300(even Grado's other models))

3: http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/cleaner/cleaner.ht ml
This is a good DIY project that will clean most any record spotless. No need to spend $300 on a commercially available model.

Enjoy - go to old garage sales and record stores and buy almost anything. The software will correct most of the flaws and you can resell the LPs once you are happy with the results - so that someone else can enjoy the music.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[goombah99]

Thanks for the intelligent observations. Yes I was just sort of riffing on possibilities of digital sound on Vinyl. If Mp3 had been invented earlier it might well have come to pass that Vinyl held it's own against CDs much longer. Had I the equipment It would be fun to create an MP3 vinyl record as I outlined just for the heck of it.

In any case I'm old enough to remember Quadraphonic which never really took off. (And 8 track which did have it's day in the sun).

are people buying vinyl for quality?

[goodship11]

As someone who just reviewed my 2006 financial info and found I spent over $1,500 on vinyl records, I would have to say the biggest reason is that you can get stuff on vinyl that you cannot get anywhere else (except for the label's computer or file sharing sites that are used by the labels or artists making the music). Eventually someone will rip the vinyl and post it somewhere, but in the meantime, you can either be the first dj on the block with that amazing Ed Banger remix, if you buy it on vinyl.

I'm guessing the increase in vinyl sales is coming from non-Major labels, but I haven't looked at the figures. Of course, Virgin does own V2 and they do release a lot of vinyl (and distribute even more), so it's possible...

And in regards to quality, most people play vinyl on substandard equipment. And DJ's all use Technic 1200's, which are not the most audiophile turntables (but go ahead, try to break them).

Warm tubes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the reason musicians prefer tube amps is the way they clip. When you overdrive a transistor, the waveform is cut off flat. The tube's distortion has rounded edges.

Mind you, we're talking about guitar amplifiers here, not your home stereo. The musician wants that distortion, and he wants it to sound that way. It's as much a part of part of making the music as the difference between a fiddle player and a violinist.

Best conversion software?

[Kazoo the Clown]

A USB turntable is great, but I have a huge record collection that I'd like to convert to MP3 and/or CD format, and the problem is not getting the audio into the computer from the turntable, but efficiently processing the turntable audio into separate tracks & applying noise reduction. What's the best software out there for this? The Numark eludes to having Audacity but doesn't indicate how smart it is-- if all the USB turntable does is eliminate the RCA->stereo phono->USB Audio in connections, it's not very interesting. What's important is smart conversion software. I'd like a one-step solution that will allow me to place a record on a turntable that's fed to a computer and end up with N prep'ed WAV files ready to burn to a CD or convert to MP3, already split by track and noise filtered (on a PC, not Mac)...

Any opinions?

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[OwnedByTwoCats]

If I get time this weekend, I might hook my LaserDisc player back up...

That's a kind of comeback.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[The_Rook]

this was actually done (not the digital part, the high frequency encoding part) back in the early seventies.

at least one four channel vinyl format called for encoding the rear channels in the ultrasonic portion of a vinyl record's bandwidth. you needed a special decoder and a really good phono cartridge for it to work.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[revengebomber]

The number of people with confirmed, working LD players will have doubled!

Return of the Vinyl Album

[Nfin8orbit]

Why would I want to spend money on a USB turntable when I can just run audio out from stereo to comp on RCA lines? I have to record it, then edit the pops and clicks anyway?? Albums recorded in analog sound better than analog transfered to cd. It's a preference thing for me. Some cds recorded with digital equipment may sound great, but they always sound too "tinny" for me tho I have for the most part, gotten sort of used to it. The whole audiophile war digital vs Vinyl is reminding me of a "Coke vs. Pepsi" taste challenge. Both are good.

Re:Return of the Vinyl Album

[Ilgaz]

I guess it is for people who wants a digital archive (probably lossless format) of their huge LP collection.

The USB means less analogue loss too.

BTW if you master your vinyl, really don't waste them with mp3, use FLAC (does it have 24bit capability?) as master format and you can convert -copies- to whatever you want keeping the master.

Re:Return of the Vinyl Album

[Nfin8orbit]

What you say about less analog loss through USB turntable interface to computer sounds reasonable. I hadn't thought of that. Makes me want one now lol.

It's been some years since I tried to use Exact Audio Copy. I wasn't impressed much with the GUI at that time, but maybe I need to check it out again. I have a semi-large record collection. Most, if not all of it has already been transfered to my hard drive. I wanted to reduce the wear and tear on my vinyl. I copied to a wav file, edited it, then compressed music to a high VBR mp3 format which sounded the best to me at the time.

And then people ask why I keep reading /.

[jotaeleemeese]

The parent article is an example of why I do so....

reel-to-reel tape decks

[falconwolf]

Probably a good idea - my advice, you can pick up high quality 2nd hand Nakamichi tape decks off EBay for vastly cheaper than their MSRP prices when they were 'modern'.

yea, my tape deck was an Akia quadrasonic though I don't recall the model number. I go it in Germany for about $300, but when I got back to the states the cheapest I saw was more than $1,000. There weren't many stores that had them though. While there I also got 4 12" reels which allowed me to record 8 hours each of stereo sound, 4 hours of quadrasonic was possible. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find any back in the states which was aggravating because I had already used up all the tape before leaving.

As for what equipment is good now, I have no idea. I used to be able to say what companies offered good stuff but that was about 20 years ago and I haven't followed the industry much since. Actually I was considering building my own, now I'd like to build my own shortwave radio and get my amateur license. I would of gotten it before but I couldn't get good with morse code, I've heard the FCC got rid of the morse code requirement.

Falcon

Re:reel-to-reel tape decks

[dpastern]

Reel to reel decks - as far as I'm aware, the best is Revox. I don't have a lot of experience with reel to reel, but I've heard good things about it.

Dave

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[GWBasic]

CD's frequency response is limited by the Nyquist limit of 22kHz. Vinyl has no such limitation.

That's not really true. From http://www.urpressing.com/tips.html

Excessive treble can even cause the cutting stylus to accelerate so fast that its back edge wipes out what the front edge just cut! It's unfortunate, but treble rolls off, and distortion goes up as you approach the center of the record.

It's worth noting that the CD-4 tecnique had significant problems encoding the carrier tones. (I wasn't alive to witness Quadraphonics, so I jumped on the DVD-A and SACD bandwagon while I could.) From what I understand, the carrier tone used to wear off after 1 or 2 plays on the earliest CD-4 records. The special needle also used to create more hiss. I think CD-4 eventually required half-speed mastering and higher-quality vinyl.

the moral of the story: Getting above 15khz is quite unreliable.

vinyl schminyl

[bandmassa]

Vinyl is not "better", it is not "warmer", it's only that it has a filtering artefacts from the necessary mastering requirements of the medium that adds phase distortions which the listener finds comforting. This distortions can be (and on some albums are) reproduced on digital with the same "better", "warmer" result.

Now, lets stop publishing stories about stupid luddites who prefer their music scratched, dusty and distorted on a tech forum.

Re:Digital Vinyl data capacity blows CDs out of wa

[doom]

In fact, in the early 70s they had a thing called "quadrophonic", a silly idea where you had speakers both in front of you and behind you (sound familiar?).

Well, yeah, it sounds familiar to me. But then I've got an 8-track player.

"Quadrophonic" sound wasn't really that silly an idea -- it was a lot like movie-theater "SurroundSound" -- but there weren't a lot of records recorded that really used it to any advantage. A notable exception was the Who album "Quadrophenia", where they did a lot of interesting things with directional sound. For example, on the line "Can you see the real me- me- me- me- me- ..." the word "me" was originally bouncing around rapidly on all sides of the listener.