Vinyl record sales jump 52% in 2014

[qubit]

Seems that people still have a real thing for this long obsolete format that just won't die.

In the last five years or so, vinyl has become the hottest thing in the music business, or what’s left of it. You know something’s really infiltrated the mainstream when you see actual vinyl albums and turntables at places like Best Buy and Frys.

TG Daily

 

[Frick]

Vinyl's great. If you're into sound and music.

 

[qubit]

Vinyl's great. If you're into sound and music.

Do you mean like in a nightclub?

 

[Frick]

Do you mean like in a nightclub?

Naah all the time, except on the bus. The problem is it's not digital (duh) so you need space for a setup, but again, if you're into it that isn't a problem and in the right setting it can be a nice design choice. And they can sound REALLY, REALLY good. Not to mention the feeling of touching things, it's like reading a huge leatherbounded tome vs reading the same thing on an tablet. It's mood, ambiance.

 

[Maban]

I don't remember if I bought any vinyl in 2014 but I bought around 400 used and new records 2009-2013 ranging from three for a dollar at Half Price Books to my most expensive Nightwish Imaginaerum picture disc for ~$50. I don't really care about the quality as much as I do the nostalgia. I wasn't around when vinyl was mainstream so I have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[R-T-B]

Vinyl? Posh. It's all about Mr. Edison and his Diamond Disk recordings. Their the best thing since the cylinder player!

 

[Aquinus]

Yeah... I prefer my FLAC. Even with vinyl rips in FLAC, you can still hear the noise from the vinyl itself. I would rather get it from the studio as FLAC or on a CD (less preferable) as opposed to vinyl form.

 

[P4-630]

For the people who are into old audio media

 

[AsRock]

Yes, i find that vinyl will typically have more depth compared to CD's which are often low quality and are more cold sounding without as much depth.

CD's just equal convenience and are artificially boosted to try to sound as good.

 

[Frick]

Yes, i find that vinyl will typically have more depth compared to CD's which are often low quality and are more cold sounding without as much depth.

CD's just equal convenience and are artificially boosted to try to sound as good.

Good sounding CD's can be absolutely ballers. The same as any media, it can be crappy and good.

Oh man I want some better speakers/stereo.

 

[qubit]

Yes, i find that vinyl will typically have more depth compared to CD's which are often low quality and are more cold sounding without as much depth.

CD's just equal convenience and are artificially boosted to try to sound as good.

I think you're thinking of poorly mastered recordings which will sound crap on any media. These are typically victims of the so-called "loudness war" which compresses the shit out of the music making sound quality poor.

Get a top quality master and then put it on a record and a CD and the difference will become obvious. If nothing else, there will be zero end of side distortion which all record decks suffer (typically heard as a ragged edge on voices) which is also present to a lesser extent throughout the record, plus much better channel separation and waaay lower noise floor. Finally, the sound off a CD never degrades, no matter how many times you play it or how old it gets, unlike an analog record which degrades from the very first play due to wear and tear.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

As a format thats one thing
for sound now thats something completely different. from what ive heard, digital sound is more damaging to your ears. And i think that is the case.

I have vinyl frrom the Punk days.

Bet it sounds ace, i havent owned a record player for 20 years.

So digital for storage and ease.
Vinyl for quality.

 

[Frick]

for sound now thats something completely different. from what ive heard, digital sound is more damaging to your ears. And i think that is the case.

Ey? Why?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

More rounded sound.

Apparently the wave lengths of vinyl sound are less spiky, i can probably find pics that are more descriptive than my words, here we go

nice and soft from vinyl

Spiky from digital.


This isnt a scientific description. It is meant as how it was described to me by an audologist. so please dont shoot me down.

i am not an expert, i prefer vinyl and the theory above may explain why it is the case for me.

The "spikier" sound damages the little hairs in your ears more than the "rounded" sound.

 

[natr0n]

Modern vinyl recording is not recorded live to vinyl, so it is a false representation.

 

[mx500torid]

I dont know what you mean as "modern" but they do have Direct to Disc that are live and put straight to vinyl.

 

[Aquinus]

More rounded sound.

Apparently the wave lengths of vinyl sound are less spiky, i can probably find pics that are more descriptive than my words, here we goView attachment 62295 nice and soft from vinyl



View attachment 62296


Spiky from digital.


This isnt a scientific description. It is meant as how it was described to me by an audologist. so please dont shoot me down.

i am not an expert, i prefer vinyl and the theory above may explain why it is the case for me.

The "spikier" sound damages the little hairs in your ears more than the "rounded" sound.

That makes no sense, what you're describing is why people think that higher sampling rates cause hearing damage and they use the frequency excuse. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. 192Khz doesn't neccessarily produce frequencies up to that, but rather there is an audio sample for every 1/192,000 of a second versus the 1/48,000 of standard audio. This does increase the maximum possible producable frequency, but it doesn't introduce it which is why it doesn't damage hearing. The higher frequency would have to exist in the recording itself and picked up by audio equipment. Higher sampling rates will reproduce a sound more accurately because instead of having one "point" to describe a sound at any given time, 192Khz will have several, or around 4 samples for every one sample on traditional audio.

I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

That makes no sense, what you're describing is why people think that higher sampling rates cause hearing damage and they use the frequency excuse. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. 192Khz doesn't neccessarily produce frequencies up to that, but rather there is an audio sample for every 1/192,000 of a second versus the 1/48,000 of standard audio. This does increase the maximum possible producable frequency, but it doesn't introduce it which is why it doesn't damage hearing. The higher frequency would have to exist in the recording itself and picked up by audio equipment. Higher sampling rates will reproduce a sound more accurately because instead of having one "point" to describe a sound at any given time, 192Khz will have several, or around 4 samples for every one sample on traditional audio.

I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.

It makes perfect sense to me.

What you are describing is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed and is audio gobblydegook.

You are obviously spoiling for an argument which you think you will win because of your "perceived" wisdom.
I expressed my opinion through terms i imagined members might understand.
You obviously did the complete opposite.


im not sure if you noticed the statement in bold print

This isnt a scientific description. It is meant as how it was described to me by an audologist. so please dont shoot me down.

I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.

About what? the original thread?

If you want me to pick holes in your opinion in post # 7 i will.

 

[qubit]

@CAPSLOCKSTUCK, @Aquinus isn't spoiling for an argument. He just explained why high resolution digital audio gives a better sound and isn't damaging to the ears. It's not gobblydegook.

Unfortunately, I have to go out now, so I can't give a more detailed reply at this moment.

Bottom line is that whoever told you that digital sound "damages ears" either didn't know what they were talking about or was lying to you / winding you up. Think about it, the sound off your PC is digital and you haven't gone deaf listening to it, have you?

That makes no sense, what you're describing is why people think that higher sampling rates cause hearing damage and they use the frequency excuse. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. 192Khz doesn't neccessarily produce frequencies up to that, but rather there is an audio sample for every 1/192,000 of a second versus the 1/48,000 of standard audio. This does increase the maximum possible producable frequency, but it doesn't introduce it which is why it doesn't damage hearing. The higher frequency would have to exist in the recording itself and picked up by audio equipment. Higher sampling rates will reproduce a sound more accurately because instead of having one "point" to describe a sound at any given time, 192Khz will have several, or around 4 samples for every one sample on traditional audio.

I just wanted to clarify that before people start coming to false conclusions.

Troublemaker.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

No i havent and that is not the point of the thread.

It damages the little hairs in your ears is what i said.

This argument has raged since the advent of digitized sound and that is what we are speaking about in essence.

Vinyl........ analogue.

A vinyl record copied onto cd or any other format including FLAC is digitized.

I am old enough to have enjoyed both.

I prefer vinyl...

If you would like me to explain the early recording industry techniques i will, not sure if i can be bothered to though.

Troublemaker.

What little old me ?

oooh look an old analogue wavelength all smooth and lovely. And digital all onny and offy




Me not arguing, me agreeing to disagree,.........

ooooooo bloody digital hurts the little hairs in my ears.

Sorry Mods we appear to be tangentizing again.

 

[qubit]

No i havent and that is not the point of the thread.

It damages the little hairs in your ears is what i said.

This argument has raged since the advent of digitized sound and that is what we are speaking about in essence.

Vinyl........ analogue.

A vinyl record copied onto cd or any other format including FLAC is digitized.

I am old enough to have enjoyed both.

I prefer vinyl...

If you would like me to explain the early recording industry techniques i will, not sure if i can be bothered to though.





What little old me ?

oooh look an old analogue wavelength all smooth and lovely. And digital all onny and offy




Me not arguing, me agreeing to disagree,.........

ooooooo bloody digital hurts the little hairs in my ears.

Sorry Mods we appear to be tangentizing again.

Well, saying the hairs in your ears would be damaged is the same as saying it makes you deaf (or hearing impaired) since without those hairs you can't hear anything.

I know how analog recording works and also digital. Once again, digital audio does zero damage to your ears. In short, the digital sampling recovers the full waveform and a strong analog filter removes any ultrasonic artifacts from the output. It's a complex subject, but I Googled introduction to digital audio which linked to some sites giving a nice intro to this subject if you want to learn more about it - first link especially is rather good. Note that nowhere will you find that digital audio damages ears, that's just a myth.

It's ok to talk about this in this thread, because of the subject of my poll.

Finally, I was just joking with Aquinus about him being a "troublemaker", hence his quote just before it.

 

[Aquinus]

No i havent and that is not the point of the thread.

It damages the little hairs in your ears is what i said.

This argument has raged since the advent of digitized sound and that is what we are speaking about in essence.

Vinyl........ analogue.

A vinyl record copied onto cd or any other format including FLAC is digitized.

I am old enough to have enjoyed both.

I prefer vinyl...

If you would like me to explain the early recording industry techniques i will, not sure if i can be bothered to though.





What little old me ?

oooh look an old analogue wavelength all smooth and lovely. And digital all onny and offy




Me not arguing, me agreeing to disagree,.........

ooooooo bloody digital hurts the little hairs in my ears.

Sorry Mods we appear to be tangentizing again.

The problem with your argument is that by digital you mean more square-like rather than sine-like waves. If that were true, than higher sampling rates would mitigate such damage. The problem is from an anatomical standpoint, I don't understand how it could damage your hearing unless it was too loud. My wife listens to music really loud and if she listened to vinyl just as loudly I'm sure it would damage her hearing just as much.

Also, I do have some vinyl rips in FLAC and they sound just like the real thing. I would be more likely to blame to bad audio device for poor quality sound than lossless audio.

I'll let you believe whatever you want to believe though. I'm not in the mood for arguing. I'm on vacation.

 

[R-T-B]

If you listened to true digital sound (which would be two tones, one super high and one mute), yes it would hurt.

But all digital sound is converted to analog before output by a DAC. No question it won't hurt you... Unless you are blasting your brains out but that's a given.

 

[MilkyWay]

Hahahaha the most laughable thing about Vinyl is that most of it is made from digital recordings these days. In the olden days music was master recorded in analog thus you got full analog quality on a Vinyl.
I have a Garrard turntable with a decent head but i hardly use it, i just prefer to have mediamonkey on my pc play in the background because i can store a gazillion FLAC files.

 

[revin]

Have a Technics RSM270X deck with DBX recorder AND DBX Disc processer.

Technics SLQ2 with Audio-Technica AT-15SS Nude Super Shibata diamond with beryllium cantilever.

Had a special mastered copy of Heart Dreamboat Annie, and coming thru my Infinity RSe Studio monitors was unreal ! It had a Dynamic Range of 95-110db, words cant describe the sound
That was insane album. but even regular records with that cartrage, and even my current AT14S Nude Shibata was such a pleasure to hear.

That remind's me, I got to try it thru the VSX39TX and A/B the Polk 75's and RSe's for some fun !!!

Also have a Picture Disc of Rush Hemispheres and Boston cool looking, shit sound !

 

[R-T-B]

Hahahaha the most laughable thing about Vinyl is that most of it is made from digital recordings these days. In the olden days music was master recorded in analog thus you got full analog quality on a Vinyl.

And the full benefits of analog master degradation with each play. You'd better hope your copy was an early one...

I think people are forgetting it's not digital that's the problem. It's actually a solution. It's compression and dumb formatting of the digital audio. MP3s for example, were pretty shitty compared to good analog. But good analog doesn't come cheap, or easy. Or portable for that matter.

I'm of the opinion good digital (uncompressed from the studio for instance with high bitrate) will clobber any analog system. There is no reason why it shouldn't.