|
 Past Music Columns
Format WarsCD sales are down, vinyl and download sales are up, and record labels are doing the math.
By Miles Raymer April 24, 2008
In 1987 Big Black released a CD compilation called The Rich Man’s Eight Track Tape with the following admonition printed on the face of the disc: “When, in five years, this remarkable achievement in the advancement of fidelity is obsolete and unplayable on any ‘modern’ equipment, remember, in 1971, the 8-track tape was the state of the art.” Though CDs have hardly gone the way of the eight-track, it’s hard to argue that they’ve earned their longevity—whatever advantages they may have offered in 1983, they’re a crap format now. Given that my speakers and headphones—like most people’s gear, I bet—sound just as good playing 192 kbps MP3s as they do playing CDs, there’s no good reason for me to have heaps of jewel cases and Digipaks on my shelves, in my cabinets, stacked on top of my cabinets, and spilling across my desk. Even at the same bit rate as CDs, sound files are way handier—easier to store, easier to send, easier to copy. They don’t fill up my personal space with disposable plastic crap, and they’re not made from bisphenol-A. The only defensible reason to buy CDs these days is an attachment to music-as-artifact—every so often you see one with really beautiful packaging. But on that front they lose out big to vinyl, which offers album artists a much bigger canvas and sidesteps the annoying problem of fragile jewel cases and CD spindles. If you’re going to own music you have to lug around, vinyl is the obvious choice—even if you don’t respond to LPs as totemic objects, like so many record fiends do, you have to admit that their creamy analog sound beats the hell out of digital reproductions. (That’s right, I said it.) CDs don’t do nearly as much to justify the physical space they require. I’m probably more fed up with CDs than the average person because they’re part of my job. In fact the only people I know who are as tired of CDs as I am are running record labels. Though advances in computer and Internet technology rendered the format obsolete almost a decade ago, only now is its passing really starting to look inevitable—the majors have been complaining about sagging CD sales for years, of course, and when I talked to Drag City, Thrill Jockey, and Flameshovel for this story, they confirmed that they’ve experienced similar drops. But all three labels also report steady increases in sales of digital downloads and vinyl. Those trends seem to suggest a pretty clear business plan, at least for the near-term future, and two local imprints are already on board. This week Flameshovel is putting out Make Believe’s Going to the Bone Church as a vinyl LP and an unlocked MP3 download—it’s the label’s first release that won’t have a CD version at all. This, according to Flameshovel cohead James Kenler, is the way his label might end up releasing everything. One camp of consumers, he says, “doesn’t see any innate value in consumable music at this point. So these people steal music, rip from their friends’ CDs, or don’t really have any strong feelings about the aesthetics of the CDs they do purchase.” He admits that this is a generalization, but it fits more than a few people I know who own huge hard drives full of music and haven’t bought a CD since Napster happened. “The other extreme,” he says, “is that you have someone who cares to the utmost level about the packaging, and they’re the ones who are going to continue to buy music no matter how they do it, and they’re interested in a more tangible connection.” Kenler’s strategy is to cater more to that second set and worry less about people who wouldn’t be giving him money anyway.
Make Believe fans willing to pay for that tangible connection will get a collectible 180-gram LP and a poster in a sleeve of high-quality stock; the album’s being pressed in an edition of 1,000 (450 copies bone colored), and Kenler says any future pressings will be in different packaging so as not to dilute the collectibility of this edition. Plus every record comes with a download code. “People who don’t have record players or are concerned about the portability of LPs,” he says, “can still download it directly from our site and have it for their iPods and their cars.” “In a lot of ways this is a test,” Kenler explains. “Some of the other people in the industry we’ve talked about it with are interested to see how it pans out for us. . . . I don’t know that it means we’ll be doing more releases just vinyl and digitally, or if it means we’re going to try to play up this sort of polarized market we’re looking at. Even with CDs, do we make them more limited in scope, more aesthetically pleasing, spend a little more money on packaging and charge a little more for it for the people who want to buy it, and spend less and concern ourselves less with hitting the broader market?” Bruce Adams, cofounder of Kranky, seems a little more confident about what direction to take. His new label, Flingco Sound System (he sold his share of Kranky in 2005), won’t be selling CDs at all, just album downloads and vinyl. “Rather than invest money in printing CDs,” he says, “I decided to invest in the capacity to sell downloads myself. The onetime investment in software coding will generate returns for a long time. The profit margin on a download album is healthy, too.” FSS plans to put out four albums its first year, two of them digitally and two as digital-vinyl combos. Like Bone Church, FSS’s vinyl pressings are aimed at connoisseurs—Adams believes the “buying physical artifacts” market is shifting toward that customer base. “Record stores are dwindling in number,” he says. “Those that are left in five years might be more like Aquarius Records or Dusty Groove than Tower Records. They will want unique products to draw customers through the door.” It helps that the extremely uncommercial artists on FSS’s release schedule appeal pretty much exclusively to an audience that takes its music seriously—not too many trend hoppers will be checking out the gnarly melted-down black metal of Wrnlrd or the eerie electroacoustic experiments of Haptic. Adams hopes to earn the loyalty of that audience with a subscription service that rewards them with goodies like nonalbum music and posters. “The big advantage in the model that I see,” says Adams, “is the opportunity to have a direct relationship with customers. I can send music directly to them digitally; I can offer special bonus items (both physical and digital) that they can’t get anywhere else.” Adams doesn’t see how self-financed start-up labels have any incentive to mass-produce CDs anymore—sinking $5,000 into a run, he says, “seems like a losing bet for anyone putting their own money on the line.” But that’s not the only reason he’s ditching the format. “Cutting out CDs,” he says, “means more room in my basement.”  For more on music, see our blogs Crickets and Post No Bills. Send a letter to the editor.
|
Flag as inappropriate
Sound dude at 11:50 AM on 4/24/2008
I understand the business and cultural reasons why the traditional CD is going by the wayside, but let's not kid ourselves. When Raymer says his digifiles sound, "as good playing 192 kbps MP3s as they do playing CDs" he demonstrates how little he understands what he's talking about and/or his lack of ability to listen critically.
My personal vote for fidelity would be 1/2" 2-track analog tape, followed by vinyl, CDs then digifiles. However, tape and vinyl are not stable mediums, and are prone to warping and with vinyl the scratches and pops that come with age and use.
CDs by far are the "best" overall solution when it comes to marrying packaging to sound. Period. End of story.
Digifiles, on the other hand, BLOW. Especially MP3s. These are compressed versions of the original source code that sound terrible. The portability factor is huge and it's a great thing. But from a sound perspective, it's an absolute abortion when compared to a CD. 192kbps is of course better than the "standard" 128, but neither are that great. To pretend otherwise, well... the only one Raymer is fooling is himself.
Flag as inappropriate
other bill at 11:27 PM on 4/24/2008
mp3s sound as good as CDs?! Please. Get yer hearing checked mister.
Flag as inappropriate
eric sic at 11:28 AM on 4/25/2008
But what about lossless digifiles? I'm recording my stuff (mostly analog synths, etc.) into a Fostex hd recorder because the Tascam 1/2" reel-to-reel is going to be a hassle. Once mixed down, the output is going to be the equivalent of the lossless digifile... or is there something I'm not understanding about the lossless format?
Flag as inappropriate
St. Andrew at 2:07 PM on 4/25/2008
what 'sound dude' fails to realize is that most people aren't terribly concerned with sound-quality. everyone i know loves music, but i don't know anyone who'd spent more than $50 on headphones. likewise, anyone who claims to know the difference between a cd and 128kbps when played out of tinny laptop speakers is a liar.
p.s. cd's DO degrade over time, regardless of how well they're cared for. vinyl & mp3's on the other hand..
Flag as inappropriate
Victor Perkins at 5:48 PM on 4/25/2008
Sound Dude: CDs deteriorate over time due to oxidization of aluminum. 500 years from now, good luck getting your CD to play; however, 5000 years from now, you can take any of my vinyl albums and play them with a straightpin if you have to. Vinyl is the most solid medium. I have 50-year-old albums that sound better than modern-day pressings.
Flag as inappropriate
weasel walter at 5:58 PM on 4/25/2008
oddly enough i've never had any of my cds "go bad", even after owning them for 20 years, so i don't buy st. andrew's p.s. b.s. at all. if he can support that with evidence, then it might seem like he knew he was talking about. until my 2 decade old cds ceast to operate, i can easily sit here and debunk that claim.
the main issue that disturbs me here is miles saying his system is so crappy he can't tell the difference between an mp3 and a cd, then somebody else says most people don't care about sound quality . . . this is very sad folks. confucious say "garbage in, garbage out".
i mean, what do you listen to music for? pleasure? shouldn't it sound good? isn't it worth investing, i dunno, a few hundred dollars to hear music played back with something close to the fidelity it was intended to have? i'm not an audiophile or gear snob, but i know that a few hundred bucks difference in playback equipment can create a world of difference. uh, it makes recorded music sound better.
great . . . a generation of people who prefer to INFER quality instead of experiencing it in living color. no wonder things are the way they are: if nobody "cares about sound quality" that's what we've got - NO DEMAND FOR QUALITY.
ww
Flag as inappropriate
Mediator at 8:41 PM on 4/25/2008
When will comment posting die?
Flag as inappropriate
Vintasia at 3:21 PM on 4/27/2008
Quality is left for the few of us who realize the passion, time and effort musicians and soundmen put into a recording. Everything else is stolen now, starting with Rap and Hip-hop sampling to decrypting and burning CD's to file sharing on the internet. No musical artist is protected or respected anymore, ask anyone under 25. They all listen to diluted MP3's that they mostly 'stole' or downloaded for free. Why pay for someone's art anymore? At least a painter or sculptor can sell an original to one of the rich folk and get a few bucks out of the deal.
Vinyl is hard to reproduce and if kept in great condition can sound excellent and last a long time but we all know that it is a primative medium at this point. Magnetic tape is the best but it
sheds over time. You can bake it at 160-190 F and it will at least transfer. It's tragic that you can sell a T-shirt for more than your music these days.
Does anyone want to sell their 1/2" 2 track?
Flag as inappropriate
Elias Margellos at 7:47 AM on 4/28/2008
If the recorded music has quality both formats will sell! This is my personal opinion... Of course I prefer the sound of the vinyl. MP3's? No thanks...Not for me! I keep buying vinyl discs & cds. The secret in sales has to do with the quality of the recorded music (I don't mean the recording, but the quality of the recorded songs).
About the tape?....
Anyone out there who wants to sell his/her's, 1/2" TWO track open reel machine?
Flag as inappropriate
Nutman at 9:58 AM on 4/28/2008
I do agree that vinyl is the best hi-fidelity that you can get but it's rather impractible to play these days. CD sound quality is far more superb than any size of digital format. Also, I believe that music should have a tangible quality to it. I still buy CD's and vinyls for the wonderful artwork and production notes that aren't available on downloaded formats. I also still love the experience of going into a record store and flipping through the selections and talking with the clerks (sometimes... if they're not too hipster snobbish). You don't get that with downloading. It's rather instantly gratifying and has turned music itself into a disposable product.
Flag as inappropriate
RJ at 5:32 PM on 4/28/2008
It's interesting to hear the point of view of someone who doesn't have to actually pay for their music source, but...as an average working guy (my retail job pays about 13K a year), I can't afford an internet connection fast enough to make downloading music viable, much less a hard drive or iPod to store it on. My main source of music consists of records and cds from thrift stores. Until record companies put out free mp3 players to promote their product, there will be many of us unable to participate in this digital revolution.
Flag as inappropriate
Koji at 12:10 AM on 4/29/2008
It's a pain to turn them over, but I like records as much as cds. This is an interesting revolution, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Does a turntable use less energy than a CD player?
Flag as inappropriate
D-tron at 9:58 AM on 4/29/2008
Personally, I'm psyched with the current trend. I'd prefer to buy vinyl with a free link to a lossless digital file. CDs do degrade over time, but they'll consistently last for decades if kept out of the sun and moisture. My favorite current way to sell a vinyl? To include the cd with it. Until .flac becomes a more common format or they find a better lossless compression, I love getting something I can digitize to the highest possible format along with pretty much the only way I buy albums these days, vinyl. I will buy the occasional cd/dvd combo from the right artist or the cd at a concert merch booth, but other than supporting the artists, I see cds as DEAD.
Flag as inappropriate
sound dude at 10:25 AM on 4/29/2008
There are some valid points that folks have brought up, especially concerning the longevity of all formats. I would like to point out, however, that when I suggested CDs were the "best" overall solution, there's a reason I put the word in quotes.
That's because I realize and readily acknowledge that while CDs might be the "best" overall solution when balancing sound, medium, etc, they are by no means "perfect."
There are legitimate concerns over CDs degrading w/time. Then again, if my CD "only" lasts for 500 years, as someone suggested would be a "shortcoming," well - I guess I got pretty good value for the $10-15 I originally spent, right?
And I would humbly suggest, vinyl will have issues over the centuries, as well: vinyl WARPS, my friends! It is very susceptible to the effects of temperature and humidity. Not to mention dust and dirt, which will of course render the fidelity advantage vinyl clearly owns moot since you have to get past the snap, crackle and pop.
Tape also has issues, notably the tendency to stretch and warp with ambient conditions. The issue is really what works for one from an optimum perspective, trying to get that elusive "fit" between sound quality, convenience and aesthetics.
Full disclosure: I love vinyl, I still have about 5-600 records in storage. Someone hit it on the head, aside from the music, it was a great tapestry/canvas for artwork, lyrics, etc.
CDs only capture a fraction of this aesthetic and of course digifiles - not so much.
The question regarding lossless files: technically, there really isn't any such thing; the "lossless" part refers to the fact that this file type compresses the file to a less severe degree than the typical MP3.
Now, I love vinyl - but I also love my iPod. Again - back to balance, as a music lover I do make some tradeoffs in quality when it means I can take my entire music collection with me virtually anywhere. That is powerful stuff.
I do use the Apple Lossless format for some stuff, but it will still leave you with large files. Not the 70-80mb typical of most songs, but still 20-30mb, which is still fairly large, especially for players that rely solely on Flash for memory.
The sound quality of Lossless is much better than the typical MP3, but again - not up to par w/vinyl or the original CD file.
To save file space and optimize sound, I generally use the Apple AAC format at a higher bit-rate, 224, which works ok. The AAC format, to my ears, is less harsh sounding than MP3s and the higher bit rate helps compensate slightly for the compression.
The quality issue is of particular interest to me, since I am also a musician. It's frustrating - why spend time/money in the studio finding the perfect sound only to have it end up sounding slightly better than an AM radio in some cases? Might as well record on a vintage Radio Shaack cassette recorder!
It's a shame that the days of hi-fidelity are seemingly over. Remember the days where everyone it seemed had an actual STEREO system? With two big-ass speakers, power, etc?
I miss those days!
Flag as inappropriate
lp_ninja at 10:37 AM on 5/14/2008
The one format that's been around since the very beginning is vinyl. Tapes, 8 tracks, minidiscs...cds are the next to go...
I'm in a band that's actually struggling through this same dilemma. Our digital sales are much higher than our cd sales, so what's the point? Why not award those die-hard music fans willing to spend some of their hard earned cash with a nicely packaged LP and free download?
Flag as inappropriate
lossless_is_the_way at 3:57 PM on 5/20/2008
Not to rain on your parade sound dude but Lossless (WMA, Apple, FLAC) is sonically identical to the CD. It uses Huffman coding which allows the wave form to be represented and reconstructed the same as a WAV file or CD. However it does not store redundant samples like WAV and CDs do. If 20 samples in a row are identical in a WAV or CD the Lossless file will only encode it once with a (X 20)tag. This works similarly as a .zip file.
As broadband internet and huge capacity HDs expand across the world Lossless media will be more and more popular. I know many teen-agers who say MP3 sounds weak and prefer the sound of CDs. Lossless combines the ease of MP3 and the sound of CD.
Sound Dude plz research Lossless and Huffman Coding before you knock it. THX
Flag as inappropriate
sound dude at 3:47 PM on 5/21/2008
LossIsTheWay... I didn't and don't knock the Lossless/Huffman format, I just stated that to my ears it doesn't quite equal CD. Very close, but not quite regardless of what the math says. I actually use lossless quite a bit, when file space allows/warrants. I agree, far superior to MP3 format
Flag as inappropriate
indegruv at 11:07 AM on 5/26/2008
I don't, and will not, download.
Vinyl and cd (and even tapes) is the only way i roll! If its not on any of those formats i don't really consider it "relevant" discography. If its a good track, press it!
Flag as inappropriate
Electrocutioner at 8:26 PM on 7/25/2008
I am no expert on music formats but from a music fans stand point I personally think that CD's are the best format of music out there so I don't know why the music business is disregarding it. The reason why CD's are hurting the most are because most music fans are CHEAP & rather get something for free then to buy it to support the artist. But to be honest Artists make most of there money by touring the country / world at concerts. Well if a CD can last 500 years then that is more than any other format can last. The longivity of a digital format would be long too but you would have to copy them to other hard drive eventually because I'm sure your original hard drive isn't going to last 500 years so you would have to keep copying your digital files from hard drive to hard drive quite a bit over a 500 year period but who the hell here will live that long. From a music fans stand point why wouldn't you want to have music on a CD.
Flag as inappropriate
themis at 12:36 PM on 7/29/2008
"CDs by far are the "best" overall solution when it comes to marrying packaging to sound. Period. End of story."
i agree, but also with my own version of SoundDude's caveat that "best" means "so far"...and also that it contains both sound AND art in a fairly portable format.
as for those saying vinyl is the best...there's some things you should know about:
1. vinyl sounds best when used under optimum conditions. this means cleaning and changing your needle often, cleaning the vinyl before each play, and storing it in a cool dry place in an upright position. considering how lazy and cheap most people are getting with their music collections, i doubt most will do this very often if at all. meaning they will be harming their vinyl.
2. "Master recordings are cut on a recording lathe, where a sapphire stylus moves radially across the blank, suspended on a straight track and driven by a lead screw. Most turntables use a pivoting tonearm, introducing side forces and pitch and azimuth errors, and thus distortion in the playback signal. Various mechanisms were devised in attempts to compensate, with varying degrees of success."
meaning, if you want the vinyl to sound as good as it was pressed, you have to have a more espensive linear tracking turntable. ditto my comment above on why most people won't bother getting one.
3. "with a constant rotational speed, the quality of the sound may differ across the width of the record because the inner groove modulations are more compressed than those of the outer tracks. The result is that inner tracks have distortion that can be noticeable at higher recording levels."
meaning, even if you do everything correctly, an inherent design flaw will cause the songs towards the end of each side to sound worse.
and plenty more reasons. yeah the quotes above are from wikipedia, but no i didn't put 'em there. check those things out elsewhere if you don't believe me.
i can understand the vinyl+digitalDL solution, but the fact is, it costs way more to make vinyl than to make CD's. and then the fans are left with an artifact that has music on it that they will likely never play, and even if they did, would not sound as good.
oh and to the original article writer (and anyone else) who says "my speakers and headphones—like most people’s gear, I bet—sound just as good playing 192 kbps MP3s as they do playing CDs":
your speakers and headphones suck shit. any playback system that makes such divergent quality formats sound identical is not telling you the full story of what artists, producers, and engineers worked to create. get a good amp/interface, speakers, and/or headphones. otherwise, i can't imagine that you care about actually *listening* to music, or that you have any decent ears for the subtleties of well-recorded music.
Flag as inappropriate
commentphile at 10:57 PM on 8/25/2008
i think you have to be a rich man to be audiophile. anyways, as long as the song's quality is good thats fine.
Flag as inappropriate
Igor Alexander at 11:09 PM on 9/15/2008
"CDs deteriorate over time due to oxidization of aluminum."
Why would the aluminum oxidize? It's protected by plastic.
Flag as inappropriate
Igor Alexander at 12:06 AM on 9/16/2008
"the main issue that disturbs me here is miles saying his system is so crappy he can't tell the difference between an mp3 and a cd, then somebody else says most people don't care about sound quality"
I'm not a fan of the .mp3 format (or of any lossy format), but as far as fidelity, it sure beats the hell out of the analog cassettes that at one point were outselling both vinyl *and* CDs. The sound quality of an .mp3 is also much better than AM radio, and possibly better than FM radio. I'm sure that on some material a critical listener could notice a difference between the source and an .mp3 file encoded at 192 kbps (.mp3 has always had trouble dealing with rich, complex sounds like cymbals), but at 320 kbps using a modern encoder, I doubt that most people could tell the difference in a blind listening test.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the popularity of formats like cassette and mp3 is that most consumers would rather have something small and portable even if it means taking a hit in the fidelity department. It was the same story with VHS vs Beta -- Beta supposedly produced higher quality recordings, but VHS had several practical advantages over Beta, among them longer recording times.
Personally, I think the idea of allowing people who bought the record to also download the music for free is brilliant. It gives consumers the best of both worlds; you get an artisanally-produced physical object which possesses an innate beauty and value, but you also get the convenience of digital files which you can listen to on your computer or an mp3 walkman. It's because the mainstream record industry refuses to come up with fresh ideas like this and adapt their business model to new realities that they are stagnating.
Flag as inappropriate
Igor Alexander at 12:50 AM on 9/16/2008
"Magnetic tape is the best but it
sheds over time. You can bake it at 160-190 F and it will at least transfer."
This was only an issue with certain tape formulations that were manufactured in the 70's and 80's. It's not an inherent problem with tape. One problem with tape, however, is that it tends to gradually demagnetize over the years, which means the output (volume) won't be as strong after several decades as it was when the recording was first made.
Flag as inappropriate
Igor Alexander at 1:12 AM on 9/16/2008
"...as an average working guy (my retail job pays about 13K a year), I can't afford an internet connection fast enough to make downloading music viable, much less a hard drive or iPod to store it on."
Give me a break. mp3's are small enough to download through an $8-a-month dial-up connection. A blank DVD (over 4 GB of storage) these days costs about 25 cents, and an OEM DVD burner will run you a whopping $30. I just saw a 2 GB name-brand mp3 walkman at a big box store a few weeks ago selling for about $35. All of this stuff combined costs less than a good entry-level turntable cartridge.
Flag as inappropriate
Igor Alexander at 2:13 AM on 9/16/2008
"Not to mention dust and dirt, which will of course render the fidelity advantage vinyl clearly owns moot since you have to get past the snap, crackle and pop."
Even though I am a fan of vinyl and never really liked CD's all that much, and even though it's possible that vinyl will in the long run turn out to be the better archival medium, I would never claim that records had better fidelity than CD's. Is anyone seriously claiming that vinyl has a better signal-to-noise ratio, better channel seperation, or a flatter frequency response than CD's? That's ridiculous.
If someone prefers the sound of vinyl to CD's, it's not because vinyl more accurately reproduces the sound of the original source material, it's because they like the coloration -- that is to say, the *distortion* -- of vinyl. It's the same reason that some people prefer an old tube amp over a modern solid state one, or prefer the sound of analog tape over DAT tape.
"The question regarding lossless files: technically, there really isn't any such thing; the "lossless" part refers to the fact that this file type compresses the file to a less severe degree than the typical MP3."
Wrong. Formats like FLAC and Monkey's Audio (.ape) truly are lossless. You can encode a CD-quality .wav file into one of these formats, then decompress it, and you'll have exactly the same .wav file that you started out with.
The main drawback to lossless is that it doesn't compress nearly as much as the lossy formats, and so the resulting file sizes are much larger. Downloading lossless files would not be a good option for someone on a dial-up connection.
Flag as inappropriate
Igor Alexander at 2:24 AM on 9/16/2008
"I didn't and don't knock the Lossless/Huffman format, I just stated that to my ears it doesn't quite equal CD. Very close, but not quite regardless of what the math says."
If that's the case, there's something wrong with your playback system, because there is *no difference* between a track on a CD and that same track encoded to a format like FLAC or .ape. Having tested it myself, the tracks are sample-for-sample *identical*.
Flag as inappropriate
Boom Shaka at 1:29 AM on 11/2/2008
TRUE, vinyl doesn't have the dynamic range, s/n ratio, or track separation that CD's do, however, we don't hear digitally so there's an artificial conversion taking place, regardless of what digi format. Vinyl retains the integrity of the recording. Nevertheless, if anyone tries the vinyl vs cd challenge on audiophile sound systems then one would immediate realize the musical benefits of vinyl over cd. (If one can't hear the difference then they either have poor playback setup of have significantly lost their hearing).
TRUE, listening to vinyl takes some effort (cleaning, turning over, storing)but the important point here is that one is engaged in the organic aspects of actually LISTENING to the notes and lyrics rather than falling into the backgrnd while reading, on the bus, etc.
TRUE, listening to vinyl on a mediocre sound system will not be half as engaging as listening on an entry level audiophile hi-fi one. Unfortunately, this path does more often cater to the deeper pocket listeners. But hey, if you can spend $350 for an iPod(including tax), then you can certainly spend another $200-350 for some quality pair of cans or in ear monitors.
Today, there isn't a phono section on a receiver, you have to buy an independent one and those are made by audiophiles for audiophiles. Furthermore, making a small investment in a quality headphone amp and audiophile headphones will get one far closer to the musical integrity of the recording then would a home stereo system at the same cost.
The payoff from all of these points is that one will enjoy the music far more, develop a much greater appreciation for quality, learn technical stuff about audiophile products and begin a path of a musicologist. Eventually, it could make a collector out of you as vinyl has far more resale value, even w/ all the ticks, than cd's, tape, or mp3's, particularly for mono versions.
Finally, some of my favorite bands are releasing vinyl versions w/ free dwnld, fantastic, this is by far the best solution for me as a music consumer.
Flag as inappropriate
Awdeeo Enguhneer at 9:45 AM on 11/7/2008
An article I read a long time ago that sums up the "CD vs. LP" sound quality issue shows that at the 44.1 kHz sampling rate (the CD standard) you get 441 samples every second of a 100 Hz sound (low end), 44.1 samples of a 1000 Hz sound (mid), and only 4.41 samples of a 10 kHz sound (high end). Digital audio represents what gives recordings their "life" or "sparkle" as poorly formed square waves because of sampling limitations. The industry denies this fact and tries to gloss over it as "well, the ear can't really hear it" - I'm sorry, yes, it can. Higher sample rates take more "pictures" of the sound wave per second, but complex waveforms just can't be represented digitally in any form of quality until we reach common usage of 192/24 rates - which digital technology is only now becoming capable of supporting (in terms of speed and the storage capacity required). Even then, this only approaches the quality of an industrial analog recorder.
I still offer artists usage of analog origination technology (industrial audio tape machines) and operate a recording lathe on a daily basis to fulfill the needs of the DJ, audiophile, and vinyl production markets. Using both technologies I can't say digital is "better" or that analog is better or even inferior as there are benefits to both formats now that sample rates in studio equipment are high enough to get a signal that's halfway decent. Digital is more convenient, and we use digital at the highest sample rate for origination, editing, etc. which is much easier than a spool of tape, but once the recording, editing and mastering are done, put this signal on a lacquer then press the vinyl disk and you have a much better end product than a CD or DVD-A in terms of quality.
Flag as inappropriate
Lone Wolf Sullivan at 2:25 PM on 3/15/2009
I have not listened to vinyl since the 1970s. The scratches and other noises always annoyed me, and it was a relief to switch to cassette tapes.
From the 1980s I have owned my own recording studio. I started with pro analog tape on 8, 4 , and 2 track recorders. Half the tracks had DBX noise reduction. Then in the 1990s I switched to ADAT, 8 tracks of digital on SVHS tape, 20 bits. With my 5 ADATS locked together, I can use 40 tracks. However, I still have analog tape machines for playback of my old recordings.
I have some of my songs on the internet as MP3s (192) and they sound as good as CDs or wav files on computer speakers, but worse than cassette tapes on my good speakers. Listeners want a good song with a good performance, the format and sound quality are not as important.
The main thing I want to say is vinyl is crap. SCRATCHES!
Flag as inappropriate
themis again at 3:50 PM on 6/22/2009
"TRUE, vinyl doesn't have the dynamic range, s/n ratio, or track separation that CD's do, however, we don't hear digitally so there's an artificial conversion taking place, regardless of what digi format. Vinyl retains the integrity of the recording."
this is not technically true. ask any producer or artist trying to get massive amounts of bass onto a record, for example. there has to be a bass rolloff in order to get the sound onto the vinyl. not to mention the high end may not "sparkle" enough due to some necessary high end rolloff (lest certain frequencies distort in the transfer).
vinyl, and analog recordings in general, may seem "truer" to many ears, but they actually just a different conversion process than digital. some people call this superior, some disagree.
what i mean is: in recording, mastering, and pressing vinyl and other analog media, certain compromises (like the ones i mentioned above) are made due to the old technology. however, when that technology was new, opposite adjustments were made to analog playback systems that compensated for what was lost. so when people talk about vinyl (or even tape) sounding "better", they may be right - but it requires both pieces of the puzzle to work properly. amplifiers originally made for analog devices were tweaked by the manufacturers to add certain frequencies, volume boosts, and even certain types of harmonic distortion which made playback sound better.
so, an indie kid picking up a vinyl record today and popping it on any old turntable will not be getting the full picture. definitely true if the turntable is plugged into some tiny cheap amp with small speakers, or a digital turntable with USB or SPDIF out.
and we may hear "analog", but analog recording and playback is still electronic equipment converting sound into electrical impulses and back again, so there is ALWAYS a conversion going on. the only listening experience that is truly "natural" is live acoustic instruments going straight through the air to a human ear.
Add a comment