Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 8:34:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 8, 2015 9:13:42 GMT
Interesting, thanks
Hopefully a load more people will get into hifi
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Jan 9, 2015 19:49:53 GMT
Interesting the WAM and PFM both went wild about this article. Are most people here digital rather than vinyl fans?
The article read to me as it being a fruitless goal trying to start collecting vinyl fresh. I have 40 years worth thankfully
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jan 9, 2015 20:10:06 GMT
Another article about a vinyl revival? There have been a few! Like you, I never stopped buying records and have kept them all throughout the life of CD, but I don't think this is much more than a fad, to be honest. I expect it'll go back to being a highly marginal activity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 20:34:11 GMT
Another article about a vinyl revival? There have been a few! Like you, I never stopped buying records and have kept them all throughout the life of CD, but I don't think this is much more than a fad, to be honest. I expect it'll go back to being a highly marginal activity. What do you mean " go back to being a highly marginal activity"? Vinyl was the mainstay of music for many more years than CD or digital. If anything's a fad then it's cd / digital if you're judging it on quantity / time. There'll always be a place for the best quality in any field, and so I think vinyl is fairly safe. People may begin to realise what a con digital music is, especially given that you don't actually own anything permanent when you pay to rent a music file, and end up with an inferior product. Just like DAB radio, it's a step backwards in terms of true hifi. Lawrence
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jan 9, 2015 20:51:13 GMT
I mean it will go back to where it was just a few years ago, with hardly any titles available and hardly anyone buying them. There will always be a few of us mad people who want to hear high quality sound but the vast majority of people couldn't give a stuff and whether you like it or not, that's the market that will be chased by the industry. At the moment, they're making hay while the sun shines by charging premium prices to feed the trend but that will slow down back to where things were. Just my opinion - I didn't say I approve though!
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 9, 2015 20:53:28 GMT
I love both mediums. It is good to see new vinyl being released a lot more. In terms of SQ both are very capable when done right
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 9, 2015 21:34:34 GMT
What do you mean " go back to being a highly marginal activity"? Vinyl was the mainstay of music for many more years than CD or digital. If anything's a fad then it's cd / digital if you're judging it on quantity / time. There'll always be a place for the best quality in any field, and so I think vinyl is fairly safe. People may begin to realise what a con digital music is, especially given that you don't actually own anything permanent when you pay to rent a music file, and end up with an inferior product. Just like DAB radio, it's a step backwards in terms of true hifi. Lawrence It's been a marginal activity since the mid to late 80's Lawrence and why do vinyl fans constantly make comments like this "what a con digital music is, especially given that you don't actually own anything permanent when you pay to rent a music file, and end up with an inferior product" Download sales have only just (slightly) overtaken CD sales in the latter part of 2014, so like me there are many millions who still buy their 'digital' music in a physical form and like to keep it too, so where's the con there? It's certainly cheaper and immediately playable, rather than a lot of the warped/inferior new release vinyl I have bought recently. 2014 quality control isn't what it was in the 70's for sure. I predominantly buy CDs, but I don't own a CD player - and is a lossless digital file an inferior product? Absolutely not, as long as you have the right system to get the most out of it. All lot of assumptions there and no doubt throwing all digital music into the .mp3/aac pot, which I agree can be an inferior product, especially if you have nothing other than a downloaded 128 kbps data file, which is why I and many millions more that don't buy vinyl still like to buy CDs and haven't bought into the whole iTunes business model. A lot of what you have said I just cannot agree with and as for the statement best quality in any field . . . are you saying vinyl is the de-facto superior playback medium there, certainly sounds like it? (don't get me started . . . ). By the way I still buy vinyl myself, bought rather a lot lately, both new and the local charity shop and I still have a modest collection from my early years. Superior though . . . . hmmm, sweeping statement, it might be a preference for 'some' enthusiasts but superior is a rather presumptuous assumption is it not? Far too many generalisations for me to take your post seriously, sounds more like an anti-digital rant than anything constructive.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 9, 2015 21:56:10 GMT
I felt the article was pretty realistic but to get a handle on how popular vinyl is today, (I've published this before) have a look at the graph in this link. m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30250358It rather puts things into perspective, don't you think? I am an out and out vinyl fan and will always buy a vinyl copy in preference to a CD or digital download, but in the process I have had both excellent results, but very many disappointments. By example, many Speaker Corner recordings are sub standard either through crap vinyl or poor original source recording causing noises that should not be present on the disc. A number of so called re-mixed issues have been disappointingly inferior to earlier versions. By example, the very latest re-issue of Pink Floyd albums on vinyl have the upper treble suppressed, causing a lack of cutting edge to the sound. I bought three of these LP's and after one listening will probably never listen to them again because they are flat and soft compared to the original and cheap production version. I have had the same experience with the £350 box set of Beatles library in stereo (not heard the mono version which I understand is well regarded). Absolutely flat compared to their much earlier 'breadbox' re-issue library that was produced on lightweight poor quality vinyl but nevertheless sounds superior to this latest edition. At £350 for the set, this is a major disappointment and my version will remain unplayed as I continue to enjoy the earlier 'breadbox' version. However, there are many new re-issues which really sound great and also new production stuff that I enjoy owning and listening to. Whether the vinyl industry will survive considering the cost of building new pressing machines is very much another matter. Referring back to the link I posted earlier, clearly, the level of production and consumption of the product is very low and presently facilitates audiophiles the likes of me and you. I seriously have my doubts that this part of the industry will be sustainable especially considering that disregarding the likes of MP3, you can now download very high resolution audio files which really do sound very very good. Even I will be jumping on this band wagon soon using the 'Slice' refererred to on another thread. Love good vinyl, will continue to buy it, but don't expect the honeymoon to last.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 23:10:52 GMT
It's been a marginal activity since the mid to late 80's Lawrence and why do vinyl fans constantly make comments like this "what a con digital music is, especially given that you don't actually own anything permanent when you pay to rent a music file, and end up with an inferior product" Download sales have only just (slightly) overtaken CD sales in the latter part of 2014, so like me there are many millions who still buy their 'digital' music in a physical form and like to keep it too, so where's the con there? It's certainly cheaper and immediately playable, rather than a lot of the warped/inferior new release vinyl I have bought recently. 2014 quality control isn't what it was in the 70's for sure. I predominantly buy CDs, but I don't own a CD player - and is a lossless digital file an inferior product? Absolutely not, as long as you have the right system to get the most out of it. All lot of assumptions there and no doubt throwing all digital music into the .mp3/aac pot, which I agree can be an inferior product, especially if you have nothing other than a downloaded 128 kbps data file, which is why I and many millions more that don't buy vinyl still like to buy CDs and haven't bought into the whole iTunes business model. A lot of what you have said I just cannot agree with and as for the statement best quality in any field . . . are you saying vinyl is the de-facto superior playback medium there, certainly sounds like it? (don't get me started . . . ). By the way I still buy vinyl myself, bought rather a lot lately, both new and the local charity shop and I still have a modest collection from my early years. Superior though . . . . hmmm, sweeping statement, it might be a preference for 'some' enthusiasts but superior is a rather presumptuous assumption is it not? Far too many generalisations for me to take your post seriously, sounds more like an anti-digital rant than anything constructive. I imagine vinyl fans constantly say ""what a con digital music is, especially given that you don't actually own anything permanent when you pay to rent a music file, and end up with an inferior product" because that's what they believe ;-). Is it the case that you can pass on your digital music collection to someone, or even sell it? If you can then I stand corrected. I've been listening to music for a good few years and I have yet to hear a digital system that can match my vinyl setup. So for me, unquestionably I prefer vinyl. I would love to be shown the light because vinyl is expensive and can be a PITA (I had to return the last album I bought due to a scratch at the start of the first track) but it hasn't happened yet. As an example, I was given a copy of Springsteen's High Hopes on 180gm vinyl for Christmas. I have the album on CD and have listened to it on high quality Spotify a few times, but when I played it on the turntable it was chalk and cheese, so much better on the tunrntable, I was really quite shocked. It was obviously great for the record industry to get everyone to discard their vinyl and spend money on cassettes, and then cds and then digital files (with a few additional formats in between for luck). However, the biggest con of them all is 24 bit music. At least the other new formats do have some benefits, but 24 bit is just like taking candy from a baby. Yes it's a generalisation, but the discussion would be fairly pointless if we weren't able to make generalisations about our experience. Sorry for the rant. Lawrence P.S. this paragraph from the Guardian article sums it up for me: “Things sound different. They take on a life of their own; they come at you. Vinyl brings something else to it. It has a total warmth to it. Everyone talks about that, but it’s true. People often say, ‘I know that album but I’ve never heard it like that before.’ When you listen to CDs after you’ve been listening to vinyl for a long time, it sounds a bit … synthetic.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 0:15:18 GMT
I felt the article was pretty realistic but to get a handle on how popular vinyl is today, (I've published this before) have a look at the graph in this link. m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30250358It rather puts things into perspective, don't you think? I am an out and out vinyl fan and will always buy a vinyl copy in preference to a CD or digital download, but in the process I have had both excellent results, but very many disappointments. By example, many Speaker Corner recordings are sub standard either through crap vinyl or poor original source recording causing noises that should not be present on the disc. A number of so called re-mixed issues have been disappointingly inferior to earlier versions. By example, the very latest re-issue of Pink Floyd albums on vinyl have the upper treble suppressed, causing a lack of cutting edge to the sound. I bought three of these LP's and after one listening will probably never listen to them again because they are flat and soft compared to the original and cheap production version. I have had the same experience with the £350 box set of Beatles library in stereo (not heard the mono version which I understand is well regarded). Absolutely flat compared to their much earlier 'breadbox' re-issue library that was produced on lightweight poor quality vinyl but nevertheless sounds superior to this latest edition. At £350 for the set, this is a major disappointment and my version will remain unplayed as I continue to enjoy the earlier 'breadbox' version. However, there are many new re-issues which really sound great and also new production stuff that I enjoy owning and listening to. Whether the vinyl industry will survive considering the cost of building new pressing machines is very much another matter. Referring back to the link I posted earlier, clearly, the level of production and consumption of the product is very low and presently facilitates audiophiles the likes of me and you. I seriously have my doubts that this part of the industry will be sustainable especially considering that disregarding the likes of MP3, you can now download very high resolution audio files which really do sound very very good. Even I will be jumping on this band wagon soon using the 'Slice' refererred to on another thread. Love good vinyl, will continue to buy it, but don't expect the honeymoon to last. My experience with Speakers Corner appears to be quite the opposite. Have you tried Crime Of The Century, Joe Cocker, Transformer, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Horses and Santana releases? The digitally mastered Stereo Beatles are disappointing though not really bad. Later 70's early 80's Beatles are not ideal in other ways. At least the reissues have better bottom end. On the other hand the Mono AAA box is outright superb as are the AAA stereo reissues of the Blue and Red albums. These show what the Stereo albums should have been. Labels to generally avoid are the US based Friday Music and 4men with Beards though they can produce the odd decent remaster. MOV generally use digital sources so I only buy their reissues of 90s onwards albums that are scarce and expensive for originals. Even Back To Back (Universal) are producing some decent sounding discs from analogue tapes. Plenty good new vinyl about and Steve Hoffman forum is a good place to find information on mastering and pressing quality.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 10, 2015 0:21:38 GMT
It's been a marginal activity since the mid to late 80's Lawrence and why do vinyl fans constantly make comments like this "what a con digital music is, especially given that you don't actually own anything permanent when you pay to rent a music file, and end up with an inferior product" Download sales have only just (slightly) overtaken CD sales in the latter part of 2014, so like me there are many millions who still buy their 'digital' music in a physical form and like to keep it too, so where's the con there? It's certainly cheaper and immediately playable, rather than a lot of the warped/inferior new release vinyl I have bought recently. 2014 quality control isn't what it was in the 70's for sure. I predominantly buy CDs, but I don't own a CD player - and is a lossless digital file an inferior product? Absolutely not, as long as you have the right system to get the most out of it. I can't argue with much of that, Tim. I'm happy to say that I love both media, and why not? Liking only one is to cut your nose off and limit your music collection. I like buying vinyl from charity shops just as much as I like buying new CDs from Amazon. The fact is, both are capable of achieving outstanding results.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 10, 2015 0:47:25 GMT
I felt the article was pretty realistic but to get a handle on how popular vinyl is today, (I've published this before) have a look at the graph in this link. m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30250358It rather puts things into perspective, don't you think? I am an out and out vinyl fan and will always buy a vinyl copy in preference to a CD or digital download, but in the process I have had both excellent results, but very many disappointments. By example, many Speaker Corner recordings are sub standard either through crap vinyl or poor original source recording causing noises that should not be present on the disc. A number of so called re-mixed issues have been disappointingly inferior to earlier versions. By example, the very latest re-issue of Pink Floyd albums on vinyl have the upper treble suppressed, causing a lack of cutting edge to the sound. I bought three of these LP's and after one listening will probably never listen to them again because they are flat and soft compared to the original and cheap production version. I have had the same experience with the £350 box set of Beatles library in stereo (not heard the mono version which I understand is well regarded). Absolutely flat compared to their much earlier 'breadbox' re-issue library that was produced on lightweight poor quality vinyl but nevertheless sounds superior to this latest edition. At £350 for the set, this is a major disappointment and my version will remain unplayed as I continue to enjoy the earlier 'breadbox' version. However, there are many new re-issues which really sound great and also new production stuff that I enjoy owning and listening to. Whether the vinyl industry will survive considering the cost of building new pressing machines is very much another matter. Referring back to the link I posted earlier, clearly, the level of production and consumption of the product is very low and presently facilitates audiophiles the likes of me and you. I seriously have my doubts that this part of the industry will be sustainable especially considering that disregarding the likes of MP3, you can now download very high resolution audio files which really do sound very very good. Even I will be jumping on this band wagon soon using the 'Slice' refererred to on another thread. Love good vinyl, will continue to buy it, but don't expect the honeymoon to last. My experience with Speakers Corner appears to be quite the opposite. Have you tried Crime Of The Century, Joe Cocker, Transformer, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Horses and Santana releases? The digitally mastered Stereo Beatles are disappointing though not really bad. Later 70's early 80's Beatles are not ideal in other ways. At least the reissues have better bottom end. On the other hand the Mono AAA box is outright superb as are the AAA stereo reissues of the Blue and Red albums. These show what the Stereo albums should have been. Labels to generally avoid are the US based Friday Music and 4men with Beards though they can produce the odd decent remaster. MOV generally use digital sources so I only buy their reissues of 90s onwards albums that are scarce and expensive for originals. Even Back To Back (Universal) are producing some decent sounding discs from analogue tapes. Plenty good new vinyl about and Steve Hoffman forum is a good place to find information on mastering and pressing quality. Oh well, you have another view. To be honest, I can't be bothered to argue with you. Pointless and a waste of effort. I don't agree. End.
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Jan 10, 2015 1:10:13 GMT
One of my reference musics is Van Morrisons Moondance. I have had the original vinyl for ages. A year or so ago I bought a hires remastered version and for completeness I got the original CD version last week. I was amazed how much more of the music I could hear on the CD version compared to the other 2.
Order of preference CD, 96kHz HiRes then vinyl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 6:21:56 GMT
I had precisely this sort of discussion with an old friend and work colleague from decades ago. As a result of being a real astute guy in buying and selling companies he has become exceptionally wealthy. He was always an audio nut (and car nut) and now has the money to indulge that to fantasy levels.
He has gone for streaming, and has a music server and D-A that would make most of us weep. But being of a technical bent, he has found that the thing that releases the music is the clock. He has ended up with a clock module that costs more than most mere-mortal high end systems. He now reckons that it has the musicality of vinyl, but with more resolution and no background noise. He also likes to be able to find music easily, rather than trying to find a CD or record in a massive collection, particularly when it is put back in the wrong place, or worse is in the wrong jewel case.
But to get there he has had to expend a serious amount of money. Now of course you can certainly expend a similar amount of money on a deck, arm and cartridge, and it would be an interesting exercise to do a shootout at the tens of k level. But that is not what most of us do; being subjective animals we have our own subjective preference. I have a large collection of CD's, and since getting progressively back into vinyl have built up many hundred records (mostly charity shops, with some new buys). I reckon that I listen to vinyl perhaps 80% of the time and CD 20% at present.
Craig
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 10, 2015 7:15:38 GMT
I am lucky I enjoy both in my system and both in my case can be pushed further. With a good vinyl system a lot of it sound depends on things like isolation, speed stability having a cartridge and phono that can do it justice with digital, its about keeping that signal as pure as possible. A few months ago I visited Tony C and was totally blown away around how far he pushed digital with his server it was so musical I then visited my friend Vic he had got a really good phonostage and was blown away how good that was yet again the sound just musical. Which is best who knows I loved both of them and know where I have to go with both my vinyl and digital set up to get to that next stage
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 10, 2015 9:20:50 GMT
Hopefully vinyl will sustain it's modest resurgence enough for most new titles to be available in the format. I think that is possible. Not because vinyl sounds better. That plainly isn't the reason for its new popularity. It may survive because it offers an opportunity for a marketing technique called "price skimming". Like with a book, where the product is really the words written, you can sell that same product to different people at different prices. Some people pay £20 for the hardback, usually the first to be available. Some £10 for the early release quality paperback. And some £5 for the eventual penguin version. Same product - different prices. In an industry troubled by piracy, and stolen revenues, the opportunity to "skim" a part of the market with a premium version is going to be spotted by any competent marketing manager. The consumer appeal responsible for the recent growth I think will sustain now it has become apparent. It is based around the tactile experience, the relationship with the media, and to a degree the collector aspect.
Does that create a market for a relaunched PT anniversary? That was the question for the 2nd pint. I think not. The new market is for modestly priced players. But maybe it provides an excuse for a nostalgic flagship. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jan 10, 2015 9:42:15 GMT
That is one of the main reasons that the music business has ossified. The desire they have to sell yet another version of 'Brothers in Arms', for example, is so great because it's easy that there is no support for talented upcoming artists. When they do support one, it is usually totally formulaic and utterly without imagination. For two examples, witness a flurry of bands that sound like Franz Ferdinand. Witness a flurry of bands that contain earnest young men wearing beards and playing acoustic instruments (mandolin essential, banjo optional). Label X signs one, so label Y and Z must get themselves one too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 9:50:27 GMT
In terms of TT model choice the fat is at the expensive end of the market. In terms of model numbers sold it probably doesn't involve hi-fi quality decks at all but Chinese OEM direct drives and Crosley type players. I'm sure the biggest selling decks that you could call hi-fi are the entry level Project and Rega models. That stands to reason as relatively few people can afford or even want to own a mega priced TT. Answer is of course there is a place for a PT Anniversary in the market as long as it is built to more exacting standards and does not try and price itself up with the Latest LP12 versions or SME 30. Some of Arthur's 'cheaper' and more idiosyncratic designs have restricted their sales on appearance/practicality alone.
As for record sales and SQ - The industry is beginning to recognise there is a substantial niche market that plays vinyl on grounds of superior sound. The majors are now releasing many titles that are not just a CD on vinyl. If the perception that most vinyl buyers pay to just display the discs persists we would end up with vinyl MP3s full of crackle and pops. Some vinyl releases unfortunately do follow this description but thankfully it is now a minority.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 10, 2015 10:19:35 GMT
Thinking only about the music and using the kit only as the key...
Hate to say it but vinyl will become rarer and rarer with the odd dead cat bounce.
Digital is the technology that is being worked on and referencing John's post on what Tony has achieve I thing that will filter down
Businesses exist to make money. Music is an art form Somewhere in the middle is the pap that sells in millions
|
|