View Full Version : Why are we falling for the great vinyl scam?
Try this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/falling-great-vinyl-scam/
Got bored half way through, gave up.
Also disappointed as it was the telegraph and there was no mention of
Madeline maccan or lady fuckin Di:D
An interesting view from how some non-Audiophile folks view vinyl. I also find it very interesting that 7% of vinyl buyers do not own a turntable? What's that about?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
An interesting view from how some non-Audiophile folks view vinyl. I also find it very interesting that 7% of vinyl buyers do not own a turntable? What's that about?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I believe its about supporting the musicians etc as much as anything, plus having something physical to show. Most younger ones download and buy the special vinyl it seems. A lot of young folk around here do it
rigger67
22-04-2017, 16:13
Got bored half way through, gave up.
Also disappointed as it was the telegraph and there was no mention of
Madeline maccan or lady fuckin Di:D
You're wrong there - scroll down to the bottom and just below is a picture of the woman with her two sons and this headline :
Princess Diana lives on in her sons - what Prince Harry and William have done this week proves that
You couldn't make it up ..
paulf-2007
22-04-2017, 17:24
An interesting view from how some non-Audiophile folks view vinyl. I also find it very interesting that 7% of vinyl buyers do not own a turntable? What's that about?
Sent from my iPad using TapatalkNot much different to those with thousands of albums they will never have time to play. Collectors or hoarders call 'em what you will.
Seriously though the hipsters are buying turntables and vinyl, then using the " free " download to listen digitally and never play the vinyl.
Not sure if I agree with the sentiment of the article, but the video clip on the care, handling and maintenance of records offers good advice.
Dynamics
22-04-2017, 17:45
As much as I admire the smooth relaxed sound you can get from vinyl and its worth investing in it for this purpose, as well as astheticalky too, my attitude is it still forms a minor proportion of the music market with streaming services. The decline of CDs from the 80s rise around 2000 when the Internet picked up pace, is no coincidence, for obvious reasons around file sharing etc. But I read once that average spending on CDs per person is less than 1 or 2 CDs per month, so if everyone had a streaming service the music industry would be doing better and more artists would start coming in as revenues would be higher. We would be back to the 80s heyday. So you can invest in vinyl but if people don't download or subscribe to streaming services, which is the new way of mass music availability in this century without cost of production like cd and vinyl, we won't ever get back to the CDs heyday in terms of revenue for the music industry.
But I read once that average spending on CDs per person is less than 1 or 2 CDs per month, so if everyone had a streaming service the music industry would be doing better and more artists would start coming in as revenues would be higher.
Highly unlikely much of this 'extra revenue' would make it's way to artists. They could just pay them more now, couldn't they? It's not like digital distribution is getting more expensive, is it?
Most likely why artists tour so much (to generate direct income) and sell vinyl and - heaven forfend - cassettes direct to fans. CDs. too.
I believe its about supporting the musicians etc as much as anything, plus having something physical to show. Most younger ones download and buy the special vinyl it seems. A lot of young folk around here do it
Long may it continue!
Dynamics
22-04-2017, 19:12
Highly unlikely much of this 'extra revenue' would make it's way to artists. They could just pay them more now, couldn't they? It's not like digital distribution is getting more expensive, is it?
Most likely why artists tour so much (to generate direct income) and sell vinyl and - heaven forfend - cassettes direct to fans. CDs. too.
I think it will get to them for the smaller players certainly, if the industry does better on the whole. The ed sheerans etc will always do well because they have huge impact. But the music market is now half what it was in 2000 by revenue, when cd started declining. So it's more difficult for record companies to pay relatively unknown artists more cash with the same costs they have. Digital distribution is cheaper clearly but this is not reflected in the model at the moment as most streaming firms like tidal, Spotify, are loss making. I suspect due to marketing and implementation costs which must be huge. Record firm are making money but a smaller section of the pie. The new artists will command more from pay per stream royalties as the overall size of the streaming market gets bigger and they will do that if more people buy into streaming, because the relative proportion of money to be made from records is tiny in proportion to that which could be made by them via streaming (which is increasing much faster than vinyl and a much bigger market to vinyl too). Whilst I think it's good to support artists with vinyl purchasing, if people really want to support artists to the way music is now being listened to, buy vinyl I'd say, but get a streaming sub too. Enough said from me.
I think it will get to them for the smaller players certainly, if the industry does better on the whole. The ed sheerans etc will always do well because they have huge impact. But the music market is now half what it was in 2000 by revenue, when cd started declining. So it's more difficult for record companies to pay relatively unknown artists more cash with the same costs they have. Digital distribution is cheaper clearly but this is not reflected in the model at the moment as most streaming firms like tidal, Spotify, are loss making. I suspect due to marketing and implementation costs which must be huge. Record firm are making money but a smaller section of the pie. The new artists will command more from pay per stream royalties as the overall size of the streaming market gets bigger and they will do that if more people buy into streaming, because the relative proportion of money to be made from records is tiny in proportion to that which could be made by them via streaming (which is increasing much faster than vinyl and a much bigger market to vinyl too). Whilst I think it's good to support artists with vinyl purchasing, if people really want to support artists to the way music is now being listened to, buy vinyl I'd say, but get a streaming sub too. Enough said from me.
Perhaps. But I don't see new bands forming, rushing to get playtime on Spotify or similar. They are forming new audiences away from established and/or larger publishers and distribution concerns. Lots of smaller labels do well but seem to focus on live performance and more direct relationships to their listeners. The model you refer to is old and tired, and in the service of long-established businesses who are presently trying to ram MQA down my throat. No thanks.
I have a streamer (or sorts) - it's called a radio, and has the added value of having much of the music curated for me, and the advantage of benefitting from another human's investment in time and discovery, on my behalf. When I'm feeling less curmudgeonly (sorry, that last sentence was a bit grumpy), I entertain ideas of getting some kind of streaming mechanism going, but the main driver for this (our children) don't seem to give a monkey's whether their tunes are available on the house system or not.
But, to each, his/her own. And we'll likely end up with something streamy, sometime. :)
Perhaps. But I don't see new bands forming, rushing to get playtime on Spotify or similar. They are forming new audiences away from established and/or larger publishers and distribution concerns. Lots of smaller labels do well but seem to focus on live performance and more direct relationships to their listeners. The model you refer to is old and tired, and in the service of long-established businesses who are presently trying to ram MQA down my throat. No thanks.
I have a streamer (or sorts) - it's called a radio, and has the added value of having much of the music curated for me, and the advantage of benefitting from another human's investment in time and discovery, on my behalf. When I'm feeling less curmudgeonly, I entertain ideas of getting some kind of streaming mechanism going, but the main driver for this (our children) don't seem to give a monkey's whether their tunes are available on the house system or not.
But, to each, his/her own.
I do all 3 tbh. Got spotify, although its only mp3 320kb, plus my own files which I can access in several ways, and internet radio too which has come on leaps imv. So much music there it gets hard to find time to spin cd far less vinyl. Still, its nice to have options and the only one that costs money really is Spotify, and although I'm poor I find it value.
As I was exposed to steaming by the other members here on AoS, I got on Google and did a ton of reading. It says that Spotify specifically pays a fee for every stream of a song, to the record company that owns it, and the artist's share amounts to $0.0007 per play! So Tidal comes along and advertises themselves as the artists streaming company! Because they pay a whopping $0.007 per play. Ten times what Spotify plays, but artists generally have no or little choice who is streaming their music, the rights to their songs belongs to the record companies, and most record companies have signed with both providers. I did the math, and if you record a killer hit song, and you get a million plays! You will get paid a whopping $7,000. Certainly a long way from the millions they got paid back in the late 70's, by the time you break that up between all who receive royalties for any given song, the average musician is not getting rich from his music. Perhaps these prices are similar to what one makes from standard radio play? But it sure doesn't measure up to what a band was making through album sales, which streaming replaces. Radio play only gave you a tease, one song from an album, played when they wanted, not when you wanted. It made you want to buy the record! But streaming allows you to hear your favorite song as often as you like, along with the rest of the album, no need to ever buy the album. And now you can even hear full lossless files from Tidal, so what motivation does an artist have to record?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
, so what motivation does an artist have to record?
If their motivation for making music is making money I'd be happy if they don't bother recording.
Think it has to be part of the motivation. Why give up your life to something if you dont get well paid for it. ;) No, I dont think all by any means go into it for money as such(well maybe a bit). fame maybe more; everyone who is young fancies a bit of fame'' til they get it. I am sure that the top artists get lots of cash so that is the target. if everyone of them made a fortune the music would stink
Why do you need to give up your life? 1 album every 2 years that's say 5 songs a year you need to write. Do that in your spare time. If you are in a band and more than one member is writing that is even less to do. Most of the musicians I know have full time jobs. They still find time to write, rehearse, record and play gigs.
Okay if you want to gig full time that is a job but then you can only do that if enough people like your stuff that they will pay to come and see you. That means it makes more sense to put your material out there for free. You will be able to make a living but you are unlikely to get rich. At least you get to do what you love for a job, though.
So the days of writing one hit song and retiring to a mansion with royalty cheques landing on the doormat every day are over, but nothing lasts forever.
Stratmangler
22-04-2017, 22:14
That means it makes more sense to put your material out there for free
No it doesn't.
It makes a lot more sense to own your own publishing, because things like TV & radio stations are actually pretty good at paying royalty payments.
The same will apply to streaming companies. Revenue from them may not be all that great, but at least whoever owns the publishing will get the due payment.
So the days of writing one hit song and retiring to a mansion with royalty cheques landing on the doormat every day are over, but nothing lasts forever.
I don't think those days ever really existed.
There's the odd one, but they're few and far between.
The ones that really pay? You don't even have to look that far, because they're right under your nose. Think mundane things, such as national radio jingles. I know of one widow who still gets royalty cheques for her late husband's work, and she's not rolling in it, but she's not too badly off either.
Dynamics
22-04-2017, 22:58
James blunt was talking about the very small royalties he gets paid per stream, on some Cambridge student union talk on you tube I watched, but these royalties represent the commission based amounts he gets paid by the streaming services no doubt via his own record company. The streaming firms also get charged by the record companies for putting their artists on the streaming sites./services. And it's important to remember too that these well known artists will have their own fee based record contracts with the record companies too. I bet pretty much all artists do. It will be tied to a percentage of actual revenues the record companies make from him no doubt. So it's not as if these relatively small per stream amounts are his only revenue stream. But I wonder too how these streams rack up and the amounts of streams he has too.
The ones that really pay? You don't even have to look that far, because they're right under your nose. Think mundane things, such as national radio jingles. I know of one widow who still gets royalty cheques for her late husband's work, and she's not rolling in it, but she's not too badly off either.
True, the bloke who wrote the Channel 4 fanfare did quite well out of it and it was only four notes.
I knew a bloke once who wrote the theme for an Australian gameshow, he stood to do quite well if the program was popular but it was cancelled before it ever aired. That's decades ago now though. I doubt they are so generous anymore, nothing like as much money in TV as there was.
walpurgis
22-04-2017, 23:15
nothing like as much money in TV as there was.
I'll bear that in mind when I renew my more expensive licence :).
Anyone who wants to get famous in the music business has to work their butts off. One cannot just wrote a song every now and then, and be famous. You've got to play! Be seen! Collect a following, and slowly start to slip your original music in with the cover songs, and once you reach a point that you are making enough that you can quit your day job, you are still a long way from the top. Some guys I know had a band 10 years ago, the most popular local band in my area, maybe ever. They had a contract with Jim Beam! To post pictures of their liquor bottles on either side of the stage, paid them $500 a gig to do this! They played for $1500 a show! And had not a single original song of their own. They did, but never played them out. They could play a corn field and 400 people would show up. After about 5 years of this, they gave it up, it was just too much work for the money. By the time they paid their agent, the sound man, light man, promoter, etc. and divided the money up amongst themselves, and paid taxes and drugs and alcohol, it just wasn't worth the effort, and they had to retreat to save their families and preserve their sanity. And they never even came close to producing a record.
The old days when a hot young band would get noticed by a record producer and he would cut them a check on the spot. And they would go on to make millions. That happens very little anymore. Now days most stars were produced by the agency. Disney takes a young face and buys them songs to sing, and uses processors to give them that unique voice, and choreographers to teach them to dance, etc. they travel the world and make hundreds of millions! And once they are too old, they discover they never had any talent in the first place. And the company drops them for the next Fresh face. Very few pop stars even write their own music anymore. Of course there are exceptions. But it certainly isn't like the old days. I'll be stuck in the 70's for the rest of my days.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Anyone who wants to get famous in the music business has to work their butts off. One cannot just wrote a song every now and then, and be famous. You've got to play! Be seen! Collect a following, and slowly start to slip your original music in with the cover songs, and once you reach a point that you are making enough that you can quit your day job, you are still a long way from the top. Some guys I know had a band 10 years ago, the most popular local band in my area, maybe ever. They had a contract with Jim Beam! To post pictures of their liquor bottles on either side of the stage, paid them $500 a gig to do this! They played for $1500 a show! And had not a single original song of their own. They did, but never played them out. They could play a corn field and 400 people would show up. After about 5 years of this, they gave it up, it was just too much work for the money. By the time they paid their agent, the sound man, light man, promoter, etc. and divided the money up amongst themselves, and paid taxes and drugs and alcohol, it just wasn't worth the effort, and they had to retreat to save their families and preserve their sanity. And they never even came close to producing a record.
The old days when a hot young band would get noticed by a record producer and he would cut them a check on the spot. And they would go on to make millions. That happens very little anymore. Now days most stars were produced by the agency. Disney takes a young face and buys them songs to sing, and uses processors to give them that unique voice, and choreographers to teach them to dance, etc. they travel the world and make hundreds of millions! And once they are too old, they discover they never had any talent in the first place. And the company drops them for the next Fresh face. Very few pop stars even write their own music anymore. Of course there are exceptions. But it certainly isn't like the old days. I'll be stuck in the 70's for the rest of my days.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This.
paulf-2007
23-04-2017, 09:00
Anyone who wants to get famous in the music business has to work their butts off. One cannot just wrote a song every now and then, and be famous. You've got to play! Be seen! Collect a following, and slowly start to slip your original music in with the cover songs, and once you reach a point that you are making enough that you can quit your day job, you are still a long way from the top. Some guys I know had a band 10 years ago, the most popular local band in my area, maybe ever. They had a contract with Jim Beam! To post pictures of their liquor bottles on either side of the stage, paid them $500 a gig to do this! They played for $1500 a show! And had not a single original song of their own. They did, but never played them out. They could play a corn field and 400 people would show up. After about 5 years of this, they gave it up, it was just too much work for the money. By the time they paid their agent, the sound man, light man, promoter, etc. and divided the money up amongst themselves, and paid taxes and drugs and alcohol, it just wasn't worth the effort, and they had to retreat to save their families and preserve their sanity. And they never even came close to producing a record.
The old days when a hot young band would get noticed by a record producer and he would cut them a check on the spot. And they would go on to make millions. That happens very little anymore. Now days most stars were produced by the agency. Disney takes a young face and buys them songs to sing, and uses processors to give them that unique voice, and choreographers to teach them to dance, etc. they travel the world and make hundreds of millions! And once they are too old, they discover they never had any talent in the first place. And the company drops them for the next Fresh face. Very few pop stars even write their own music anymore. Of course there are exceptions. But it certainly isn't like the old days. I'll be stuck in the 70's for the rest of my days.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalkunique voices? They all sound the same after spending time with voice coaches.
Your comment about drugs and alcohol, to some extent, is not amusing in the slightest.
You've pretty well summed up the situation AlphaGT, there is seemingly no original thinking, poetic writing, beautiful melody or harmony now; nothing 'grabs me' the way it used to.
I detect very little passionate expression of a deeply felt personal view on something in what I hear, and any tension in the performance is more to do I imagine with the artist's inner desires to 'make it', or the difficulty in reaching a note.
The predominance of women with perfect teeth, eyebrows and tits is noticeable, as is the usual Mariah Carey style of singing which emphasises vocal dexterity to the point of absurdity.
In the 70s the originating singer-songwriters had something to say, and did so with only relatively minor alteration of ' the message' from the people in charge. My collection is full of it.
The arrival of the corporate control, notably with Stock Aitken and Waterman, marked a change in which they were now the driving force, producing reactionary socially acceptable 'bubble gum' and using pretty people to perform it.
Now it is Simon Cowell and others running it, and this reflects the increase of corporate power in the world in general IMO. Anyone not controlled in and by a dumbed down world is ignored, and in a democracy, the principles of which seem now to apply to everything because of the use of stats, the lone voices of truth can be easily ignored, and even ridiculed by those who consume the pap.
Twelve years ago when purchasing a new MOTU digital interface at the Guitar and Amp shop, the guy there said that the most bought music by 18 year olds was then DSOTM. Compare the creativity in that album with what is done now in an age of samplers and synthesisers, and with Autotune. This change is a tragic loss and a cloning of people; a cultural cess pit. (Now, er, my spelling and punctuation?)
unique voices? They all sound the same after spending time with voice coaches.
Your comment about drugs and alcohol, to some extent, is not amusing in the slightest.
My comment concerning drugs and alcohol wasn't meant to be amusing, only honest. The physical cost, along with mental cost, caused stress within the band, and was causing great stress at home. Trying to hold down a job at the factory and play 3 gigs a week lead to some real abuses and was eating up what profits the band was making. Probably one of the main reasons they broke up and stopped gigging. My friend who was a guitarist used his profits to build a nice recording studio, but several of the others had nothing to show for their work.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
RobbieGong
23-04-2017, 10:41
You've pretty well summed up the situation AlphaGT, there is seemingly no original thinking, poetic writing, beautiful melody or harmony now; nothing 'grabs me' the way it used to.
I detect very little passionate expression of a deeply felt personal view on something in what I hear, and any tension in the performance is more to do I imagine with the artist's inner desires to 'make it', or the difficulty in reaching a note.
The predominance of women with perfect teeth, eyebrows and tits is noticeable, as is the usual Mariah Carey style of singing which emphasises vocal dexterity to the point of absurdity.
In the 70s the originating singer-songwriters had something to say, and did so with only relatively minor alteration of ' the message' from the people in charge. My collection is full of it.
The arrival of the corporate control, notably with Stock Aitken and Waterman, marked a change in which they were now the driving force, producing reactionary socially acceptable 'bubble gum' and using pretty people to perform it.
Now it is Simon Cowell and others running it, and this reflects the increase of corporate power in the world in general IMO. Anyone not controlled in and by a dumbed down world is ignored, and in a democracy, the principles of which seem now to apply to everything because of the use of stats, the lone voices of truth can be easily ignored, and even ridiculed by those who consume the pap.
Twelve years ago when purchasing a new MOTU digital interface at the Guitar and Amp shop, the guy there said that the most bought music by 18 year olds was then DSOTM. Compare the creativity in that album with what is done now in an age of samplers and synthesisers, and with Autotune. This change is a tragic loss and a cloning of people; a cultural cess pit. (Now, er, my spelling and punctuation?)
+1 Dennis. Like you my collection is crammed, probably 90% 70's - early 80's.
I've often had the conversation at work and most are in agreement that during that period we were blessed with the cream of all genres - the artists, lyrics, musicianship, rhythm - the music ! just fab, the vast majority of it.
There was much that we now call legend, genius - hardly any sight of much worthy of such accolade since.
Fact is music is great but the music business sucks and always has done.
Remember 'Home Taping Is Killing Music'? The idea that if we carry on buying blank tapes and copying our mate's albums then the musicians will all pack it in and there will be no more new music?
Insulting crap of course and indicative of the ugly corporate mindset the business had then and still has now. Rather than them stop the making of music to punish us, we should just stop buying it and demonstrate to them who actually has the power in the relationship.
Almost all of my music is full of content of great significance Robert, and it became the main 'thread' in those days to express feelings about politics and psychology in a non formal and poetic way.
These artefacts were so influential in my formative years, and I have the better ones on CD as a reference for my own aspirations. Now there is a paucity of stimulating revelatory stuff around, or at least that gets exposure, but it must be possible to create art which has the same impact on a more mature and worldly person in his 60s, as did that stuff in those days for the young in their 20s.
We could start a thread on what was the music which we think the greatest because of its content and impact on our lives; most of my own choices would I am sure meet with agreeing appraisal.
In February I went to the V&A to an exhibition of the 60s revolution, and it was very refreshing to see the extent to which it really was involving the arts universally; what was said was valid, and still is, and we don't seem to have improved the human condition much.
Fact is music is great but the music business sucks and always has done.
Rather than them stop the making of music to punish us, we should just stop buying it and demonstrate to them who actually has the power in the relationship.
Been 'doing that' since 1980.
Albeit mostly .. buying on average 1 brand new recording a year. Often none for 2 years.
Take full advantage of the Massive accumulated store of recordings... already existent and long ago paid for.
As for Music business;
Son's friends have a moderately successful Band; Marianna's Trench (only in canada tho)
Their Muzak is imo unpleasant teen market stuff, of no interest to me.
Odd as 3 of them have serious music education credentials
They sell their recordings online.. directly.
Most of their income derives from performances though.
That said each of the 4 of them 'take home' close to 200$k per annum.. so far.
Surprised the hell outa me too.
Haselsh1
27-04-2017, 18:54
I have never stopped buying vinyl so I guess I'm not falling for anything.
gwernaffield
12-07-2017, 20:51
i have never stopped buying vinyl , the thought of paying for a download that can be lost if the pc or the mac dies with all the information on is beyond me and to go through the hassle of having to re- download everything i could remember i just don’t want to do it ,
at least with vinyl i have something i own permanently and can sell if I needed too ,
try and do that with a down load in 5 years’ time as the technology has moved on with another digital format taking its place and the software for playing the format has changed ,
vinyl will still be here as long as turntables and the accessories are being made I don’t feel ripped off when buying vinyl
as it will be played for years to come
Mf M6500i kef R 900 speakers ,Michell odyssey turntable ,trichord delphini dual mono phono stage's MF M6 Dac and M1cdt
:lol: try selling digital, even the companies producing it are finding it difficult to sell!
I feel there real scam is trying to sell HiRez digital at rediculous prices much of which doesn't sound any better than the LoRez stuff!
Audio Al
13-07-2017, 16:12
I did not bother reading the article
Easy , either buy vinyl or dont buy vinyl
Sorted :)
I buy vinyl and allways have done , Love it and allways will do ;)
Minstrel SE
13-07-2017, 16:43
I am just about to start a thread asking if anyone uses vinyl as a primary source of recorded music?
I have made my decision that vinyl will be down the list as a bit of fun and retro hobby if you like.
I bought a new Pink Floyd double album for £25 and after my initial satisfaction with the purchase I found that that the pops and clicks were making me think if this is the right way to be buying music.
Ok it was enjoyable when in the zone but at those prices I wont be having much of a collection and it was mastered from the digital remaster. We conveniently ignore the giant elephants that it gets damaged every time I play it, gathers dust, has limited low frequency bandwidth and sounds worse in the inner grooves
Most of my recent vinyl purchases have been charity shop records in excellent fully inspected condition. I havent upgraded my turntable because Im not sure where I am going with this.
Even Minidisc and FM radio is taking priority for me
I reckon the hipsters are driving the mini revival and possibly for the wrong reasons. I never really considered record shops as a Mecca of friendship and information so I dont really understand record store day other than a marketing attempt to inflate prices and shift units.
I know a nice sound comes from vinyl but at what cost and trade offs. That Floyd album will be worth a small fraction of what I paid because its not the original vinyl recording.
When vinyl was first available to me, there was no other choice apart from the inferior cassette. The Philips engineers will tell you that cds do not sound worse and will measure better in every important parameter.
So I will just enjoy vinyl as a bit of fun with its obvious flaws
Brave post on here that is Martin...good luck!
Bigman80
13-07-2017, 16:57
I am just about to start a thread asking if anyone uses vinyl as a primary source of recorded music?
I have made my decision that vinyl will be down the list as a bit of fun and retro hobby if you like.
I bought a new Pink Floyd double album for £25 and after my initial satisfaction with the purchase I found that that the pops and clicks were making me think if this is the right way to be enjoying music.
Ok it was enjoyable when in the zone but at those prices I wont be having much of a collection and it was mastered from the digital remaster. We convenintly ignore the giant elephants that it gets damaged every time I play it, gathers dust and involves a ritual of loading it up
Most of my recent vinyl purchases have been charity shop records in excellent fully inspected condition. I havent upgraded my turntable because Im not sure where I am going with this.
Even minidisc and FM radio is taking priority if Im honest with you.
I reckon the hipsters are driving the mini revival and possibly for the wrong reasons. I never really considered record shops as a mecca of freindship and information so I dont really understand record store day other than a marketing attempt to inflate prices and shift units.
I know a nice sound comes from vinyl but at what cost and trade offs. That Floyd album will be worth a small fraction of what I paid because its not the original recording.
When vinyl was first out there was no other choice apart from the inferior cassette. The Philips engineers will tell you that cds and digital do not sound worse and will measure better in every important parameter.
So I will just enjoy vinyl as a bit of fun with its obvious flaws
Brave indeed, Martin.
What I would say is that in my experience, to reach a similar level of sound quality from digital that I have attained in vinyl playback, it would cost thousands. I'm pretty sure it could cost about £10k. There is not digital source that I have heard or tried that gets near it.
I agree that these hipster types are pushing the cost of vinyl up and the urgency or remastering classic albums may be driving the quality down.
As for pop and clicks, it gets better with better gear. I remember thinking when I got a bit higher in the food chain that my Vinyls surface noise improved as much as the gear I was using.
A record cleaner held massively too. In real usage terms, I am pretty sure it's not that easy to wear a record out either.
If you want to see why most of us audio-fools choose vinyl, listen to a very good setup.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Minstrel SE
13-07-2017, 16:58
Yes it is and Im bracing myself. :) Yes I do accept that vinyl can sound wonderful and joyous with good equipment.
I do enjoy my vinyl but Im getting a bit confused if the emporers new clothes scenario is going on.
Im trying to be honest with myself now and I'm moving mentally to a place where I would be quite happy to click and download if the resolution/quality is high enough. I do now for the occasional i tunes track but dont really consider 256kbps to be good enough
Sofa.... Coffee... Click and download is starting to make ideal sense. I wonder whether we need to hold a physical copy of the music.
Im still confused though because I dream images of SME arms :)
Best wishes
Martin
Arkless Electronics
13-07-2017, 17:04
Brave indeed, Martin.
What I would say is that in my experience, to reach a similar level of sound quality from digital that I have attained in vinyl playback, it would cost thousands. I'm pretty sure it could cost about £10k. There is not digital source that I have heard or tried that gets near it.
I agree that these hipster types are pushing the cost of vinyl up and the urgency or remastering classic albums may be driving the quality down.
As for pop and clicks, it gets better with better gear. I remember thinking when I got a bit higher in the food chain that my Vinyls surface noise improved as much as the gear I was using.
A record cleaner held massively too. In real usage terms, I am pretty sure it's not that easy to wear a record out either.
If you want to see why most of us audio-fools choose vinyl, listen to a very good setup.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
I would say the exact opposite!! Any CD player, no matter how bad, still sounds very good.... To match even the cheapest CD player would take around £1200+ (new prices) from vinyl.
I do enjoy my vinyl but Im getting a bit confused if the emporers new clothes scenario is going on.
I know what you mean. trouble is I keep hearing vinyl set-ups that are just ridiculously good. We had some of them at the last MiBO. One of them was using a cartridge from 1968. It was as good as anything I've heard digital do, possibly better. You can't just walk into a dealer and walk out with something that good, a lot of time and experience has gone into getting those set-ups so good. Money too.
Now I can get 90% of that quality from the Parasound cd player I bought on here for 45 quid. That'll do for me. Not as good but close enough and a lot less bother. Not everyone is me though. But my point is if you care about sound quality and really want the best you can't just dally with vinyl, you've got to get serious with it.
Bigman80
13-07-2017, 17:14
I would say the exact opposite!! Any CD player, no matter how bad, still sounds very good.... To match even the cheapest CD player would take around £1200+ (new prices) from vinyl.
Who buys new?
You can destroy digital for £600. Easily.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Arkless Electronics
13-07-2017, 17:21
I'll also go as far as IMHO unless using an MC cart you will never equal digital.... just for Oliver:D
walpurgis
13-07-2017, 17:31
Dunno about streaming, but I've heard CD and records sound equally amazing.
Simon_LDT
13-07-2017, 17:35
I think if you have a decent set-up in either, both digital and analog can sound amazing. For me, both of mine are modest but I can get great sound from all sources connected, for me it's all about the mastering. The mastering is 90% of great sound, with playback gear the other 10%. Don't matter how good and/or expensive your gear is, feed it shit and shit comes out. IMO of course. :D
Bigman80
13-07-2017, 17:35
I'll also go as far as IMHO unless using an MC cart you will never equal digital.... just for Oliver:D
:)
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
13-07-2017, 17:39
Don't matter how good and/or expensive your gear is, feed it shit and shit comes out. IMO of course. :D
Yeah. There are some crap recordings about in whatever format.
Who buys new?
You can destroy digital for £600. Easily.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
okay I'm going to bite - what are we talking here? Second hand and dropping on bargains like a bastard? I'm guessing we are not including the cost of a proper cleaning machine? Just phono stage, turntable, arm and cart? What's you £600 set up that will easily kill anything digital?
Bigman80
13-07-2017, 17:49
okay I'm going to bite - what are we talking here? Second hand and dropping on bargains like a bastard? I'm guessing we are not including the cost of a proper cleaning machine? Just phono stage, turntable, arm and cart? What's you £600 set up that will easily kill anything digital?
Not "anything" digital, any "bad CD Player" as Jez said.
Project carbon £160 eBay now
Firebottle OTP-MK2 £300
Grants AT95 with shibata £125
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Not "anything" digital, any "bad CD Player" as Jez said.
Oh right. That's disappointing, thought you had it cracked there for a minute ;) yes there are a lot of barely average CD players about.
Bigman80
13-07-2017, 18:06
Oh right. That's disappointing, thought you had it cracked there for a minute ;) yes there are a lot of barely average CD players about.
Lol, not all digital, but I'd happily put my rig up against anything digital under £5k new.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
My approach is that life is too short to be purist in any format. Gave up on that ages ago. These days my music collection spans downloads, rips, CDs, vinyl and streaming. I have a system which caters for all so if I see something I want or like I can have it. Often I'll buy an LP or CD and not play or even open it for months.
Then I'll come round to it again and think ooh I should give that a spin. I think a lot of new vinyl is taking the pee for what it costs though but occasionally I'll splurge on something a bit special.
Keep telling myself to get to more record fairs and make time for proper crate digging.
Lol, not all digital, but I'd happily put my rig up against anything digital under £5k new.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
I'd suggest that an Rpi2 with an audiophonics V2 or 3 board, and an iFi PSU, would better your analogue rig for about £140 ;)
Minstrel SE
13-07-2017, 19:17
I know what you mean. trouble is I keep hearing vinyl set-ups that are just ridiculously good. We had some of them at the last MiBO. One of them was using a cartridge from 1968. It was as good as anything I've heard digital do, possibly better. You can't just walk into a dealer and walk out with something that good, a lot of time and experience has gone into getting those set-ups so good. Money too.
Now I can get 90% of that quality from the Parasound cd player I bought on here for 45 quid. That'll do for me. Not as good but close enough and a lot less bother. Not everyone is me though. But my point is if you care about sound quality and really want the best you can't just dally with vinyl, you've got to get serious with it.
Yes I know what you mean and where you are coming from. Ive heard a couple of these ridiculously good systems and they do seem to do what digital can never do. Even on more modest equipment there is a tendency to think digital can never do this.
To put it very simply they bring different things and Im not saying CD sound was ever perfect. Its pretty good though and it did develop since launch.
I just wonder how much bias and subjectivity clouds the debate.
I just question whether the amount of experience time and money is worth it in dealing with a rock tracing a vinyl groove. £18000 for a Linn where the noise floor is never going to be silent or records manufactured perfectly? This makes me question how far purists go with it and whether its an ancient technology that should have just died away
Anyway each to their own and its fun having a dabble with different formats
Bigman80
13-07-2017, 19:41
I'd suggest that an Rpi2 with an audiophonics V2 or 3 board, and an iFi PSU, would better your analogue rig for about £140 ;)
haha. Erm, well I can't see that happening at all but I'm happy to find out if someone would like to oblige?
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Yes I know what you mean and where you are coming from. Ive heard a couple of these ridiculously good systems and they do seem to do what digital can never do. Even on more modest equipment there is a tendency to think digital can never do this.
To put it very simply they bring different things and Im not saying CD sound was ever perfect. Its pretty good though and it did develop since launch.
I just wonder how much bias and subjectivity clouds the debate.
I just question whether the amount of experience time and money is worth it in dealing with a rock tracing a vinyl groove. £18000 for a Linn where the noise floor is never going to be silent or records manufactured perfectly? This makes me question how far purists go with it and whether its an ancient technology that should have just died away
Anyway each to their own and its fun having a dabble with different formats
I am glad this ancient technology has not died because after pursuing digital for 25 years I found the return to vinyl a revelation. Nearly all digital systems I have heard sound errr.....digital and even though vinyl does have its faults I find it the best medium for seriously listening to music.
I suffer listening to Spotify to research and find music I like but would certainly not buy a digital version of it, for me it has to be vinyl or nothing. This is not because I am in anyway a slave to vinyl I just find it far superior to listen too.Sooooo many of my CD,s just sound awful in comparison although I have heard some file based stuff that is acceptable in an entertaining way played via a mega expensive system I could never afford.
I'd suggest that an Rpi2 with an audiophonics V2 or 3 board, and an iFi PSU, would better your analogue rig for about £140 ;)
had a sound problem with mine but its singing again now with the new moode. Alas I now prefer jriver22 out to my Chinese dac/pre, so its not getting a look in at moment which is a bit of a shame. Think though, everyone looks for different things when they look for their perfect sound(their) being the dominant word.
I substantially agree with your first post Martin but wish to add two things.
There are other disadvantages to vinyl; mechanical resonances resulting from masses and compliances, max S/N ratios of the order of 50, maybe 60dB, and marked distortions. Any mechanical device, particularly cartridges and speakers, have these in abundance compared with CD.
I am in that exact same position as you, but looking to implement a streaming system.
The other factor which many of us will have, being of a certain age, is that we imprinted with vinyl in our formative years, and this occurred in a period of major improvement of the format.
If we neglect the effect of imprinting and habituation on all of our values, we do so to our own disadvantage.
Minstrel SE
14-07-2017, 07:06
I am glad this ancient technology has not died because after pursuing digital for 25 years I found the return to vinyl a revelation. Nearly all digital systems I have heard sound errr.....digital and even though vinyl does have its faults I find it the best medium for seriously listening to music.
I suffer listening to Spotify to research and find music I like but would certainly not buy a digital version of it, for me it has to be vinyl or nothing. This is not because I am in anyway a slave to vinyl I just find it far superior to listen too.Sooooo many of my CD,s just sound awful in comparison although I have heard some file based stuff that is acceptable in an entertaining way played via a mega expensive system I could never afford.
Yes that interesting. I have lowered a humble ADC/ Ortofon/ Audio Technica and thought this sounds more alive, more involving, more organic, more visceral...(whats the word im looking for) than I remember on cd.
Then Ive sometimes loaded the cd up to compare and it sounds solid and well..... digital....maybe a bit clinical, cold and uninviting. Enjoyable in its own way but perhaps missing a certain je ne sais quoi.
I am aware that Im far from a reference turntable, Arm and Koestsu. Having heard systems like that they are truly amazing with vinyl so I know what you are getting at and I cant disagree that there seems something special which digital recordings cant convey.
So I admit I am confused bcause I see why people love vinyl and also why people criticise vinyl. That I feel is why the debate goes on and on because its not a clear cut decision of abandoning older formats.
I sold all my vinyl 25 years ago but I have enjoyed coming back to it on my terms . Where Im going though, Im not sure. The prices, record store day and hipsters all cheese me off.
I continue to buy very cheap vinyl and have found some lovely albums.
Some of my cheapest vinyl and oldest vinyl has been the best.
I agree there are many technically inherent problems with vinyl compared to the technically superior digital formats but I don't judge what I hear technically or by reading a specification sheet. A lot of folk continually throw technical parameters for and against vinyl and digital and think that matters.
It makes me smile because when I sit back and listen to my system knowing I have so much distortion in my amps, speakers and vinyl, and it is so inaccurate and technically inferior to digital, IT STILL SOUNDS SUBLIME!:)
RobbieGong
14-07-2017, 09:46
I am glad this ancient technology has not died because after pursuing digital for 25 years I found the return to vinyl a revelation. Nearly all digital systems I have heard sound errr.....digital and even though vinyl does have its faults I find it the best medium for seriously listening to music.
I suffer listening to Spotify to research and find music I like but would certainly not buy a digital version of it, for me it has to be vinyl or nothing. This is not because I am in anyway a slave to vinyl I just find it far superior to listen too.Sooooo many of my CD,s just sound awful in comparison although I have heard some file based stuff that is acceptable in an entertaining way played via a mega expensive system I could never afford.
+1 :thumbsup:
had a sound problem with mine but its singing again now with the new moode. Alas I now prefer jriver22 out to my Chinese dac/pre, so its not getting a look in at moment which is a bit of a shame. Think though, everyone looks for different things when they look for their perfect sound(their) being the dominant word.
Hi Grant, is yours the V2?
Hi Grant, is yours the V2?
Mine is a 2b. Forgot which audiophonics board but it was fairly expensive at time. £70 i think.. works perfect now, but i just dont seem to use it. Go so many ways to listen now lol
haha. Erm, well I can't see that happening at all but I'm happy to find out if someone would like to oblige?
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
When I say 'your', I meant the spec you listed in your earlier post...
Project carbon £160 eBay now
Firebottle OTP-MK2 £300
Grants AT95 with shibata £125
Ive still got my shibata :eyebrows:
Mine is a 2b. Forgot which audiophonics board but it was fairly expensive at time. £70 i think.. works perfect now, but i just dont seem to use it. Go so many ways to listen now lol
This is the one I'm referring to...
http://www.audiophonics.fr/en/kits-modules-diy-dac/audiophonics-i-sabre-dac-es9023-v2-tcxo-raspberry-pi-20-a-b-i2s-p-10176.html
...I use it in my kitchen setup, it's an improvement over the IQaudio it replaced
not sure if its a mk 2 but its a ES9023 sabre. been a while since ive seen it. lol its quite good and better, for me, than the iq
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.