Vinyl's Revival Is Now a Phenomenon On Both Sides of the Atlantic

New submitter journovampire sends this report about the resurgence of vinyl: Vinyl album sales smashed records on both sides of the Atlantic in 2014, as a format that recently seemed on its last legs hit astonishing new heights. ...n the UK in 2014, vinyl album sales totaled of 1.3m – six times bigger than its tally just five years earlier (2009). In fact, 2014 represented the most vinyl albums sales in the UK since 1995 – nearly 20 years ago. In the U.S., vinyl sales have quadrupled in the past five years, narrowly missing out on a 10m sales milestone in 2014. Amazingly, the year’s 9.2m vinyl sales haul is the biggest since Nielsen Soundscan records began in 1993 – by some distance.

Comments

Can't DRM or Root Kit Vinyl

[Anonymous Coward]

peace.

Re:Can't DRM or Root Kit Vinyl

[NotDrWho]

Yeah, but if you copy vinyl onto any other medium you risk losing that warm, rich sound you get from telling other hipsters how fragrant your farts smell.

Re:Can't DRM or Root Kit Vinyl

[Sarten-X]

As an experienced audio engineer, I can assure you that I can fuck up a track just as well with analog as with digital. Using digital technology just makes the process faster.

Novelty Media is Novelty

[bigdady92]

Go figure. Hipster trends hit mainstream, give it 2-3 years and vinyl will fall by the wayside as people pickup Zune's and say "THIS IS HOW IT WAS MEANT TO BE!"

Tell me that was intentional...

[silentquasar]

"Vinyl album sales smashed records on both sides of the Atlantic in 2014..."

Vinyl's growth

[Orp]

I'm a self-proclaimed "audiophile" but not in the annoying, trust-my-ears-only way that plagues the hobby (I'm a scientist, dammit). I have a nice tube amp, great speakers, subwoofer, etc.... and I have a turntable as well (and a network enabled player + nice DAC). Anyhoo.... I can speak to the non-hipster side of things. Yes, some of the growth of vinyl has a faddish aspect to it. But, keep in mind, many musicphiles and audiophiles never stopped collecting and buying vinyl even through the meteoric rise of CD.

If you are a major music fan (and do not have an unlimited supply of pirated needledrops on the internet), a turntable is essential. A lot of obscure stuff was never released on CD. A lot of stuff that was released from the past on CD sounded (and continues to sound) dreadful due to the mad scramble to ride the CD wave; nth generation tapes, some equalized for vinyl, were used as the source material. Thankfully a lot of stuff these days that is selling is remastered versions of old stuff from original master tapes (not copies). You can be cyincal about this (say the major labels are just milking old warhorses) and you can also acknowledge that the digital audio technology has increased astoundingly since the late 80s and 90s. What does this have to do with vinyl? Well, vinyl can sound really good if done well. I won't argue that it is a better medium than digital; it simply isn't. But it has its own charms.

I have bought vinyl reissues that were mastered very well, and the vinyl was quiet, lacking surface noise - but about a third of the time I get burned with either lousy mastering (sibilance and related issues - and I have a very good microline cart) or more commonly, ticks and pops in shrinkwrapped new vinyl (and run through a we clean). This is the way it has always been and will always be with vinyl.

A primary motivation I have for buying new vinyl releases of new music is to acquire recordings that haven't been as dynamically squashed in the digital mastering process. While vinyl releases can be very dynamically compressed as well, as a rule, vinyl releases tend to be mastered with more dynamic range than the digital version (you could argue that this is partly, or mostly due, to physical limitations of the vinyl medium). And yes, I acknowledge that most vinyl is either digitally sourced or goes through an ADA conversion.

But mostly I continue to buy vinyl because it's fun - it's part of a hobby I enjoy very much. Spending hours just sitting "in the sweet spot" and listening to music (from any source - digital, tape, vinyl or whatever) is something I enjoy. So while people scoff at the vinyl "revival" I'm just glad to see there are more choices our there for getting good sounding music.

Nah...

[fyngyrz]

...what makes Vinyl the perfect DRM is that it starts out degraded. Far less open dynamic range (not to mention a dynamic range that depends on the amount of data you're trying to pack onto the surface), concomitant shorter playing times, lower signal to noise ratio, poorer channel separation, less resistant to injury and corruption by everything from dust to hair to poor tracking angle, improper tracking force, wow, flutter, warping, groove wear, non-linearities in the stylus coil assemblies, inherent vulnerability to acoustic feedback, and in almost every case, low frequency limits you *can* sense, and soon-to-be-work-off high frequency capacities that you can't sense, but which won't matter if you simply play it a few times in a row, as you'll destroy the fine detail as the tiny, steep modulations in the vinyl haven't had time to recover (spring back into place and recover their elasticity) from the last time the stylus slammed into it, so they will instead, erode.

Of course you do have room for better album art and liner detail/notes, and you just can't knock what came with Cheech and Chong's Big Bambu, truly a watermark event in consumer relations.

And don't even get me started on the tube mythologies.

What this boils down to in the audio sense, in all cases except for two exceptions -- when you're playing vinyl you simply don't have a digital source for or when the digital source has been compressed and the vinyl hasn't -- is that consumers have been duped by Audiophile mythology. Badly duped.

There's every reason to have a turntable in your system, as high-performance as your budget can stand, so you can manage those two exceptions. No point in depriving yourself of something just because there's no adequate digital version. But barring those use cases, if your ears are actually working, you want a CD or better.

signed (Musician, music lover, engineer, recording engineer), me.

PS: You want to hear what a CD is actually capable of (and so also learn what crappy recording techniques and mastering houses have been cheating you out of), go get yourself a few CDs from TELARC, and listen on a good system. No vinyl on the planet can even come close -- and that's just how it should be. Why don't all CDs (and up) sound like that? The vast majority of it can be attributed to bad recording practice and far too much compression (but I repeat myself.) Google "Loudness wars" and learn the ins and outs. It's both fascinating and sad.

PPS: Not associated with TELARC, except they've gotten a lot of my money already, and are going to get more. :)

Re:Nah...

[fyngyrz]

Which all doesn't matter since speakers don't exactly have 120dB range either

No.

Vinyl's dynamic range is about 70 dB on its best, never-been-played before, coming to you on monstrously expensive equipment, precision-mastered day. IOW, you almost certainly don't own any vinyl that is that good, and if you've played it even once, it's not that good anymore, anyway.

A CD's dynamic range is 90 dB until the disc itself fails, and most any CD player will give that to you, or very close to it (buy a good CD player, it's easy and inexpensive to do.)

A good amp/preamp combo can beat 100 dB easily these days (actually since about the late 1970's), so that's not an issue.

Your ear's dynamic range is about 120 dB from threshold of audibility to onset of pain.

The dynamic range of a properly designed, good-sized, mid line (handwaves... $500-$1000/speaker) moving coil multi-driver speaker system (pretty traditional stuff) often reaches 95-100 dB (in an anechoic chamber, at one meter... not your environment, but you still get what you need with a CD.) Tip: You can get some AWESOME classic speaker systems on EBay these days for a fraction of what they're worth.

Bottom line is that a CD player, a decent amp, moderate or better speaker systems, and you can have the whole 90 dB dynamic range of your CD. You'll need a good listening environment (quiet, mainly -- and quieter than you're imagining right now, most likely) and it's not a bad idea to have had a pro control the reflections, either, but it can certainly be done and on a reasonable budget, too -- more than reasonable if you love music, as opposed to just listen to it.

Additional tip: The higher the noise level in your listening environment, the more you have to turn the audio up so that the lowest sound exceeds the noise level. Let's say the noise level in your room is 40 db; then the 90 dB, to be all useful, has to start at 40 and reach 130, which you will hate, your ears will bleed, and you'll probably get arrested to boot. If you can afford the monster gear to hit those SPLs, which most of us cannot. There are limits to how quiet you can get it: your heartbeat, breathing, etc. set a permanent low-limit you can't defeat, even with headphones.

But. You get the ambient noise down, and then your 90 dB can "sit on" a lower starting point, and you can have the quietest sound, much quieter and still hear it, and the loudest sound at something under ear-bleedery. It takes some knowledge and planning, but again, it actually is 100% doable, and if you can't manage it, there are consultants who can. They live for that stuff.

Damnit, I knew this would happen. ok...

[fyngyrz]

However, listening to older music (like the Beatles) is much more enjoyable on the tube devices, the sound is "different".

It shouldn't be. Not unless either your tube amp, or your transistor amp, in a word, sucks, anyway.

Tube amps and transistor amps differ from each other in sound reproduction not at all in the linear zone used to reproduce music. A tube amp may have a slightly higher noise floor (and then again, it may not... but really low noise tube amps will cost ya.)

Where tube and transistor amps differ significantly (meaning, to your ear) are in what happens when you drive them so hard that they can no longer linearly reproduce the signal you're feeding them. A naive transistor amp will hard clip, generating a most unpleasant bunch of harmonics, along with a distorted version of the original signal. A tube amp (given an adequate power supply) will clip softly (by comparison), rounding off the signal instead of cutting the tops into flatlines or droopy reverse trapezoids, and this is much easier on the ear.

Now here is the thing: Anyone who likes music, much less loves it, would never, and I seriously mean never, not just "mostly wouldn't", manage music reproduction in such a way as to have our tube or transistor amplifiers distort. Because the second we do so, differences notwithstanding, the music would have to sound better to reach up through the resulting dreck to the standard of "sounding like shit."

So tube/transistor, difference meme, WTF? This WTF: For a musician, playing a single instrument, and usually that means an instrument producing a relatively simple waveform, the tube distortion *does* add interest (think electric blues guitar for the classic example), and so for the musician, the tube amp is a tool which does indeed get used in its distorted regimes.

But when that sound gets to YOU, the very last thing you would EVER want to do is add MORE distortion to it. You'll have some, because no sound production system is distortion free (the speakers are the worst culprit, followed by the stylus if you use vinyl) but man, you want that to be as near not-a-damn-bit-more as you can manage. Otherwise, your ear will shit in your auditory cortex and crown it with audio battery acid. Hate and discontent everywhere in your mind.

So, no. 1000 times no. Tube amps sound like transistor amps in hifi setups unless someone has completely screwed up your installation, or your ears.

Having gone that far, some caveats: That noise floor thing I mentioned, that's one. Lousy tube amps often hiss like angry snakes. If so, get rid of that POS (or at least try new tubes, and/or have someone replace the capacitors and old carbon resistors in your "classic" pride and joy.) Next, damping factor: For bass, a transistor amp may do a lot better, depending on your speaker systems. This is because transformer coupled outputs from a tube amp (these are typical) can't control the inductive kickback from a moving coil speaker as precisely and decisively as a direct coupled transistor amp can. However, from the tube days, there are speaker systems that were designed with this in mind, and which are extremely well behaved re inductive kickback, and so the end result is similar. This is a multi-variable issue (amp+speaker), and one that takes some knowledge to waltz around satisfactorily. So there's that. Finally, tubes are more likely to be microphonic; in a really high power system, that can cause feedback, which is intolerable; but the (good?) news is, there are very few hifi tube systems with that kind of whip-ass.

You like tube amps, I have no argument with you. I like them too, and I own some great ones. Plus, they glow in the dark, which appeals to my batlike nature. :) But when you say they sound different or better, just, no. Not unless something's been done very wrong, or something is broken.

If you want primo sound reproduction, the place to put your do