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.

[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.

[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

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

[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.

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...

[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: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: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?

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: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.

Not surprising-Art for spaces sake.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another reason that no one has mentioned yet. More space for cover art.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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 DRM

[Gilmoure]

Didn't Squirt My Vinyl open for the Ramones in '78?