
Sony plans to make vinyl records again - petethomas
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/30/vinyl-records-are-so-popular-that-sony-plans-to-make-them-again/
======
bcrescimanno
As someone who started collecting vinyl about 3 years ago, it's about the
difference between passive and active involvement in music. So much of our
music consumption these days is a largely passive activity. We have music in
our headphones while we work. We have music on in our cars while we drive. We
have music on in the background of social events. While modern digital formats
have given us true ubiquity of music (seriously, thanks to Spotify and Apple
Music and LTE connections, even the old "1000 songs in your pocket" claim from
the first iPod could be regarded as "quaint") they've driven the trend further
and further away from active involvement in music.

Contrast that with vinyl. The act of putting on a record indicates a desire to
do more than put on music in the background. Walking across the room, thumbing
through your collection, pulling the record from its sleeve, etc.--the ritual
of it all changes one's frame of mind in approaching the music: it's by
definition a more active involvement.

When I want to have music on, I reach for my iPhone and Apple Music. When I
want to _listen to music_ I grab a record.

~~~
eanzenberg
I dunno.. digital music just sounds better, is more consistent, portable, and
all around easier to play than vinyl.

Why stop there? Do you also churn your own butter, milk your own cows, shave
with a straight razor?

Personally, I think it's just silly hipster bias.

~~~
cheeseprocedure
Due to physical limitations of the medium, mastering the vinyl release of an
album is often (usually?) a separate process than mastering the digital
version.

One of the consequences is less compression/clipping, better dynamic range,
etc. for the vinyl version. This can have a huge positive impact on sound
quality.

You don't have to be a nutbar audiophile to appreciate it, either - you can
even hear the difference between old rock albums and their heavily compressed
re-releases.

[http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-how-does-
masterin...](http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-how-does-mastering-
differ-vinyl-and-digital-releases)

[http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-
war](http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-war)

~~~
consto
Maybe decades ago, but I find it hard to imagine any recording studio still
having an analogue recording process. Sure the different mediums may call for
different mastering, but the loudness war wasn't a result of limitations of
tapes/CDs.

~~~
cc439
You're right in that the loudness war wasn't the result of the limitations of
the CD format, it was the result of the newfound capability inherent in the
format. The "loudness war" was a continual ratcheting up of dynamic range
compression, something easily achieved with a digital representation of the
intended soundwave.

The manner in which the album is recorded (analog vs. digital) doesn't matter,
it's the limitations of the format for which the master is intended. The
physical limitation of a needle tracking a groove measured in microns places a
hard limit on the amount of compression which can be applied to the dynamic
range. You can't make a needle follow the kind of narrow, jagged, shallow
groove that would be the result of using a "loudness wars" era master meant
for the CD format.

That said, the number of "got to have it" albums which were caught up in the
loudness war isn't enormous. The biggest victims were re-releases of classic
rock albums during the 90's but the original records with the true mastering
are widely available in the used market. While there are some classic albums
begging for a vinyl focused remaster, there aren't too many people clamoring
for Limp Bizkit's catalogue to be rereleased without all the trickery employed
on the CD master. There are also a ton of garbage "vinyl remasters" out there
cashing in on the trend. For example vinyl rerelease of the early Modest Mouse
catalogue is just garbage. I seriously think they lied about finding the
original masters and just took the CD master and added "crackle and pop" on
top to mask the obvious half-assing. That or they used the worst pressing
supplier on earth.

------
kristiandupont
I confess, I am part of this trend. And I just got into it, so I get no
"before it was cool"-claim to fame. Not sure where that leaves me on the
hipster-scale.

Buying CD's used to be a weekly ritual for me and I missed it for years.
Putting on a new album on a Saturday afternoon with a beer or glass of wine
while I start cooking is a very enjoyable moment for me. Now, obviously this
was for the most part because I would have access to new music. That
experience has not come back as I can put on anything on my laptop. However,
there is a nice sense to putting on an album and being "forced" to play it
from one end to the other. With streaming, I have a tolerance of 10-20 seconds
of jarring music before I lose my patience and skip the track. Which is good
but also means that I miss out on some of the tracks that take more effort and
are in the "acquired taste" category. And in my experience, those tend to stay
pleasant whereas the hits suddenly reach a threshold after which I can't stand
listening to them any more.

~~~
eterm
But why buy vinyl instead of buying CDs?

I understand your point about listening to a whole album being preferable to
singles, I feel the same way but I'd still much rather listen to a CD than an
LP.

~~~
k-mcgrady
The problems I have with CD's that I don't with Vinyl:

\- CD's scratch and then skip easily

\- CD's come in horrible plastic covers that break if you look at them wrong.

\- Skipping to a certain part of a song is much more difficult with CD's.

\- The benefits vinyl provides (large artwork and liner notes/ lyrics, posters
etc.) don't all apply to CD's and at that point there's not much/any benefit
CD's have over digital.

~~~
danmaz74
> \- Skipping to a certain part of a song is much more difficult with CD's.

Are you serious?

~~~
k-mcgrady
Completely. Well, ok, not really :) I debated including it because it's not
something I do very often. I do think it's true though. On a CD you hold the
skip button and have to guess where you are (pretty sure none of my CD players
showed a timecode when skipping but it's been a while). With vinyl you can see
a physical representation of the length of the track and estimate much better
(i.e. the solo is half way through so I put the needle in between these two
lines and I should be close).

NB: I'm thinking about actual CD players here, not your CD through iTunes or
something where you can click to skip on a progress bar.

~~~
Symbiote
The first CD player I used, which my parents bought in about 1988, showed the
current time when you held down the "Fast Forward" button. I don't think I've
ever owned one that didn't do this.

Nowadays, a good professional CD player (or DJ equipment) will have something
like an infinite-turn knob, which you can use to seek.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Hmmm maybe I'm just remembering wrong then. It's been a long time since I had
a dedicated CD player.

~~~
edmccard
>maybe I'm just remembering wrong then.

Nope; many CD players, like the first one I got in 1986, had only a two-digit
led display for the track number -- there was no time display at all.

EDIT: It was a Fisher Studio Standard that looked like this, so I guess it did
show an "index number" while scanning through a track.

[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J08NITOv2FA/hqdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/J08NITOv2FA/hqdefault.jpg)

------
kazinator
Frank Zappa on vinyl, BAM (Bay Area Music magazine) [1987]:

[http://www.afka.net/Articles/1987-01_BAM.htm](http://www.afka.net/Articles/1987-01_BAM.htm)

BAM: Working with a computerized synthesizer, do you find that vinyl is no
longer the most desirable way to present your music? Will you be releasing CD-
only recordings?

FZ: Well, vinyl never really was all that terrific a medium anyway. Some
people cling to the belief that vinyl sounds better. I don't know. Not to my
ear. I like it on digital tape myself.

BAM: There's supposed to be a warmth to vinyl.

FZ: Well, let's analyze what the word warmth is. Does warmth mean a lack of
top end, or an extra bunch of frequency bulge at 300 cycles. What the fuck is
warmth? How do you quantify that in audio terms?

BAM: Critics don't have to quantify in audio terms. We use words like warmth.

FZ: Yeah, well, you know, you can demonstrate pseudo-warmth in a technical way
in the studio by using a broad-band equalizer and boosting things around 300
cycles, you know. It just gets pudgier. And you roll off the top end a little
bit, and things start to sound, you know, warm! – if that's the kind of sound
that you like. I don't particularly care for that sound.

\--

Mix Magazine [1983]:

[http://www.afka.net/Articles/1983-06_Mix.htm](http://www.afka.net/Articles/1983-06_Mix.htm)

Mix: The complaint has been that the digital tape sounds great, but when you
transfer it to an analog medium you get a whole different sound.

FZ: You do get different stuff, and the reason you do is that the dynamic
range of the digital tape is 90 dB and the dynamic range of a record is about
45 to 50 dB. So you can't let all the peaks go where they would normally go –
you have to compress it. But if you're going to plan for the future, I think
ultimately records are going to be released on compact discs, little laser
discs, and they've got 90 dB. There's a way to do it. I'll compensate to get
it on a piece of vinyl and still have the right thing digitally.

~~~
cthalupa
Frank Zappa also was releasing recordings in the age prior to the Loudness
War.

Digital is a superior format. But I still buy vinyl because a good half of
vinyl recordings out there aren't completely fucked by applying a compressor
that destroys the dynamic range.

~~~
kazinator
Vinyl recordings are _absolutely_ degraded by a compressor; it's necessary to
reduce the dynamics so that the record can be cut, and so the needle doesn't
skip out on playback. Something has to make the material fit into the limited
dynamic range.

There is also pre and post equalization applied:

Wikipedia info:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization)

The bass has the shit rolled down out of it, and is boosted back on playback.

If you image search for "RIAA circuit", you get lots of hits for phonograph
cartridge pre-amp circuits that implement the playback EQ.

By the way, another Zappa article, on this topic, about record cutting!

[http://www.afka.net/Articles/1980-01_Musicians_Only.htm](http://www.afka.net/Articles/1980-01_Musicians_Only.htm)

> _The album was cut at half speed, a lengthier process, obviously, but
> resulting in far better definition and dynamics. At normal speed, deep
> flanging like that used on JOE 'S GARAGE can play havoc with the record
> cutting head. When the two sides of the stereo are out of phase, the groove
> almost vanishes and your stylus will leap clear and scythe a path across the
> rest of the vinyl. One of the advances he's looking forward to is the
> improvement in cutting techniques so the head's relationship to the disc can
> be updated many more times during a cut, boosting the fidelity._

Good grief ... the vinyl issues! Flanging was used and the head skips due to
the channels being out of phase, gotta cut at half speed.

~~~
cthalupa
Degraded, yes. But as you mentioned, the RIAA curve gets applied back by your
phono preamp, which takes care of a lot of the issue.

Modern digital recordings are often ran through a compressor to the point
where there's zero headroom left. Hell, there are albums where things outright
clip even on the lossless version on the CD. Plenty of others have so little
wiggle room that you'll see clipping on any compressed format.

Certainly, there are plenty of albums out there that use the same shitty
masters as the CD. But plenty of others don't.

One of my favorite albums from the past few years, The Flesh Prevails by
Fallujah, for example, has a completely different master for the vinyl. The
dynamic range is great. The CD master, to me, has several songs that are
nearly un-listenable due to the mastering on the CD.

I'd love if I could just pay for the good master in a digital format. But as
someone who is primarily a metalhead, masters are shitty far too often.

So I have to wait to find out if the vinyl releases are better, and then buy
and then rip them if so. Then spend 5 or 6 hours per side manually removing
crackles and pops and other noises...

I don't like it. But it is what it is!

------
afandian
If you think this direction is bizarre, consider the 'cutting edge'.

In the 21st century my 'CD player' (Spotify) is tracking everything I listen
to so they can sell the data to a company who will build a comprehensive
psychological profile about me and try to influence where I spend my money (or
worse, which way I vote).

This tweet specifically was bare-faced about it and appeared to be saying "our
users are fine with this".

[https://twitter.com/SpotifyBrands/status/875795928438931456](https://twitter.com/SpotifyBrands/status/875795928438931456)

I can't blame people for wanting to go back to analogue, where the appliance
you got to do a job did only that job.

~~~
OberstKrueger
Theres a middle-ground though that doesn't require you to go back to analogue
listening from decades past. Use something like iTunes or whatever other
equivalent application with your own music. If you're not comfortable with
possible tracking from digital downloads, you can still rip CDs to it. Seems
more convenient than going back to LPs and all of the physical management that
that entails.

~~~
amelius
And you think that Apple can't detect which CDs you ripped?

~~~
Symbiote
Then use an open source media player. There are plenty, personally I use
Amarok.

------
gjem97
It always makes me cringe when people say that records "sound better".

Here's my unsolicited theory on why vinyl was preferred (by some) to CDs in
the 90s and 00s. It wasn't the form factor, it was the dynamic range of the
masters. I don't know if it was caused by the advent of digital recording, but
the loudness war [1] certainly got going around the time that CDs were
becoming popular. So comparing a classic vinyl record did sound better than a
newly mastered CD, but not because of the digital recording, simply because
the dynamic range of the music was better.

Now that doesn't explain the recent renaissance of vinyl, which appears to
have more to do with the ease of spinning, and the presentation of a coherent
larger work of art (as opposed to singles on Spotify).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war)

~~~
mitchellshow
Also, since most everything is recorded digitally these days, there are almost
no "true analog" mixdowns, which means you're pressing a stair-stepped digital
frequency onto vinyl.

With the exception of wealthy purists (read: just Radiohead), that vinyl
you're listening to is actually the digital recording pressed onto vinyl, not
an analog recording pressed to vinyl.

~~~
teilo
There is no "stair-stepping" in digital recordings.

The sample-rate of a CD exceeds the effective resolution of even the best
vinyl pressing. Furthermore, the Nyquist limit guarantees that it is
impossible to perceive the sample rate of a CD, and even with a bit-depth of
16, you have 50% more dynamic range than vinyl is capable of.

Add to that the fact that a master is generally 96Khz, 24-bit.

~~~
flavio81
This is theoric considerations, not practical.

For frequencies from about 2Khz to the limit, the dynamic range of the LP is
over 100dB. The quoted 60-66dB dynamic range is only because takes into
account low frequency rumble.

CDs are mastered with 44KHz sampling rate which is now generally accepted as
too low for high quality audio. Yes according to Nyquist, you could capture up
to 22KHz with no problem with such sampling rate, but in real life you run
into all sorts of problems related to filtering on both the ADC and the DAC.
It is too low for implementing a good DAC and ADC.

As for the LP record, they can extend beyond 20KHz easily, in fact i have
records with info up to 50KHz which can be then played back correctly -- CD4
quadraphonic records.

CD- quality audio, in real life use, introduces non linear, non-musical
distortions that detract from the sound, while vinyl records mostly have the
typical 2nd harmonic distortion and in controlled levels.

Furthermore, LP record distortion diminishes with program level (softer sounds
are less distorted), while PCM DACs, by nature, do the opposite. This isn't
nice to the ear.

~~~
teilo
> This is theoric considerations, not practical.

With all due respect, there is nothing remotely practical about the
theoretical ability of any medium to record frequencies above 22Khz. Do you
play your CD4 quadrophonic records to your pets? On what? Ribbon tweeters?

Furthermore, the ability to perceive dynamic range attenuates with frequency.
So once again, you are back at the limits of human hearing, even if I accept
what you say about the theoretical DR of vinyl. And what if what you say is
true? Can you show me any recording with a dynamic range exceeding, say, 70dB?

It is also relevant that the dynamic range of vinyl is a function of the
circumference of a track, and decreases as the record plays. It also decreases
every time you play a record.

And what you say about DACs has not been true for many years. These days, even
run-of-the-mill DACs employ oversampling.

~~~
flavio81
> And what you say about DACs has not been true for many years. These days,
> even run-of-the-mill DACs employ oversampling.

Oversampling does not solve the issue i have commented, which is that 44KHz is
too low. Read about filtering at the ADC and DAC stages. Read about the
pros/cons of using FIR-digital, IIR-digital, brickwall-analog filters at them.
Oversampling with a FIR filter was already used on the second CD player on the
market, the Marantz CD63 aka Philips CD-100 of 1980. All through the eighties
_all_ kinds of DAC+filter combinations have been used and now in 2017, despite
any combination you use, higher-resolution (say, 96Khz sampling rate) audio
sounds better. 44KHz isn't enough.

You see, what happens is as you approach the 22KHz limit, all sorts of nasty
stuff will happen with the audio. No matter what filter you use, the upper
octave (say 10-20KHz) will have any of the following ills:

\- ringing \- rippled frequency response \- wild phase shifts. \- pre-echo or
post-echo

So, again, let me repeat: 44KHz isn't high enough. Using a higher sampling
rate like 96KHz or more, allows to move such problems away from the audible
range.

> With all due respect, there is nothing remotely practical about the
> theoretical ability of any medium to record frequencies above 22Khz. Do you
> play your CD4 quadrophonic records to your pets? On what? Ribbon tweeters?

Yes there is. What this means is that a system that can resolve up to 50KHz
will have clearer reproduction of the 10-20KHz range, which is so important to
add definition to the sound. "Clearer" as in "less artifacts and distortions."

> It is also relevant that the dynamic range of vinyl is a function of the
> circumference of a track, and decreases as the record plays. It also
> decreases every time you play a record.

What decreases on the inner grooves is the ability to record higher levels
_for the high frequency ranges_ (>14Khz). And even this is a limitation that
is self-imposed by record cutting engineers to make the record easily playable
on the cheapest kind of stylus, the 0.7mil spherical stylus.

Advanced stylus shapes (line-contact, shibata, hyperelliptical, Fritz Gyger
FG70, JICO SAS) wouldn't have any problem with this.

~~~
teilo
Uh huh. And if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, all these
problems go away.

Seriously, you’re just spouting audiophile mumbo-jumbo and confusing issues
encountered during mastering with limitations of the final recorded media.

I’m done here. Arguing with audiophiles is pointless.

~~~
flavio81
This is not audiophile stuff, this is audio engineering stuff, that you would
find on AES papers for example.

------
oflannabhra
I started collecting vinyl back in 2006, when my uncle passed and left me a
turntable and a small collection. I grew up with Napster, CD-Rs, iTunes, and
iPods.

I've always seen my generations attraction to vinyl as a response to the
ephemeral nature of digital music. Vinyl is orders of magnitude less
convenient, but it is concrete. When I spend my $5-30 dollars, I own a
physical good that I can manipulate. I think this also answers the question
"Why vinyl?" \- it is the most physical of all music mediums.

I think that is a strong psychological component for humans. This has only
grown with subscription services, where I spend $10 every month, and don't
even have a library to browse.

I've never really cared about vinyl's sound, and actually listen mostly to
digital records. But as far as giving a sense of ownership and intimacy, vinyl
wins.

~~~
fortyfivan
< But as far as giving a sense of ownership and intimacy, vinyl wins

This. I've been a record collector for 20 years, mostly focused on rare
Brazilian music - [https://www.novedos.com](https://www.novedos.com).

I don't DJ anymore so it's primarily a collector thing for me. Aside from the
master tapes, an original vinyl copy is as close as you can get to the
original recording, which is special. I'm far from an audiophile, so it's not
about the sound, it's about the feels.

------
cranjice
I collect my favorite artist albums on vinyl for a few reasons:

* Big artwork and liner notes. I have shelves on my wall to display my current favorite albums and change them out over time.

* Conversation piece. Friends can actually browse a collection and talk about common interests. It's fun to hang out and listen to records with people.

* Vinyl requires some heavier duty stereo equipment. Regardless of how you think the vinyl itself sounds, it's a great way to get into building an actual hifi system, and that will make any format sound better. The stereo equipment becomes a hobby and collection in itself.

To me it's not a competition. Different formats can happily coexist. I own
many albums on several formats (Vinyl for the living room, CD for the car,
etc.) I use streaming too, especially for discovery and portable use.

And then there's the whole debate between lossy and lossless compression :)

P.S. For those who are interested in vinyl but annoyed by the prospect
flipping records every few songs check out an auto loading turntable. These
can stack several records and automatically play them one after another.

~~~
gmarx
I love that you call it a "hi-fi" which is what it would have been called the
generation before mine. We always called it a "stereo". I've always been
amazed by how rare it is for a person to be interested in a system that makes
the music sound better. The difference between an iPhone with the default
earbuds and a $5000 stereo rig with speakers is astounding but only a tiny
fraction of the listening public cares

~~~
tnecniv
At least in my experience, it's one of those things that you don't know what
you are missing until you have it.

I remember when I bought my first pair of IEMs. They were pretty cheap, but
still better than whatever earbuds came with my iPod at the time. After
listening to the new IEMs for a while I was unable to go back to the Apple
ones because they sounded so much worse. If you asked me a few days prior, I
would have told you the earbuds sounded fine.

Then I got a real pair of headphones...

~~~
gmarx
yup, that's the downside of the hobby. I spent years chasing improvements
which only satisfied me for a week. Took me years to stop and enjoy "good
enough". Recently played something on my system for a musician friend and he
was unimpressed...then I was crestfallen

~~~
tnecniv
You eventually get to a Pareto optimal front where the changes you make to
your system aren't necessarily better, just different (i.e. more bass at the
loss of some other part of the spectrum, which you may or may not prefer).

------
aarmenante
If you're into house/techno/disco all the best records get released (or
rereleased) on vinyl first, before eventually getting out as a digital
download.

Also for artists, the profit margins are higher selling an LP (or even better
a cassette) then releasing it to a small fanbase on Spotify. It's a better way
to connect with a band you like than just streaming a track on your iPhone.
You get the artwork to look at, and it's fun to read the production notes.

I can't remember the last time I bought an album on iTunes or even beatport.
If I really want the digital copy I'll look for it on bandcamp.

~~~
torrent-of-ions
Really? Last time I was into listening to new trance (pre ~2006) there were
only a small handful of labels that still pressed vinyl. I haven't seen
turntables in the wild for years, alas. Maybe it's different with more
"underground" house and techno and disco, though.

~~~
aarmenante
I'm not sure about trance but "cool" techno/house is all being pressed on
limited run distributions ( > 5000) before hitting digital downloads.

I might be in a bubble living in Brooklyn, but I'm seeing more record bags
than thumb drives these days.

Sites like themixtapeshop.com and turntablelab.com are putting out great stuff
every week so it's easy to build a set. You don't need to go digging through
dusty bins to get records these days.

~~~
whatok
If you get all your records from the same place as everyone then your sets are
going to sound the same as everyone else.

------
danielbln
What I love about Vinyl, compared to everything else, is that it's amazingly
low-tech. You can build a playback device out of a sheet of paper and a
needle. It won't sound great, but it will work.

On the flip side, in order to build a play back device for MP3 or CD from
scratch you'll need electricity, massive amounts of highly specialised
knowledge and realistically a chip fab.

This has no real practical relevance in the modern world, unless you're
stranded on an island with nothing but a bunch of Vinyl, but I still like the
thought.

~~~
dungle6
> out of a sheet of paper and a needle

Don't do this with any vinyl you care about. It will destroy it pretty good.
Microgroove records since the 50s were made for a fine tipped stylus, not a
needle.

------
api
I feel like this is what happens when you reach the enlightenment stage with
technology. I have a phone with eight 64-bit CPU cores built with 10nm
lithography, and I cook on cast iron. "New" or "old" doesn't matter. We have
things that do things. Pick one.

~~~
klodolph
Yeah, I definitely prefer the opposite. I cook my food with a WiFi enabled
microwave and route all my phone calls through a cast-iron IBM 1401.

(What does "enlightenment stage" mean?)

~~~
api
I meant a stage at which shiny and new doesn't mean anything. A truly post-
technological civilization would just have tools and would pick the right tool
for whatever it wanted to achieve. Sometimes that's something exotic and new
and sometimes it's a candle.

~~~
klodolph
Supposing I want to show off my wealth and status, isn't a brand new gold
iPhone a relatively effective way of doing that? Does that make me post-
technological?

------
combatentropy
I think there's something to the analog hiss, even the scratches.

Tangentially, someone on Hacker News mentioned Cathode
([http://www.secretgeometry.com/apps/cathode/](http://www.secretgeometry.com/apps/cathode/)),
a terminal program that emulates old analog monitors. Screen glow, burn-in,
noise, even occasional sync hiccups, can all be tuned to the nth degree, which
I have, and now I'm hooked. I think it's also the sounds that can be added,
but that's another psychological topic.

I don't own a record player and usually aim for consolidation, digitization,
and the annihilation of clutter. But you can only go so far before it gets too
cold. Even Google's Material Design and similar UI fashion is too sterile.
There is evidence that the constantly circulating, subtle film grain in movies
used to pleasantly tickle the retina, and I think vinyl background noise is
similar.

~~~
qb45
Nice, although the front part of CRT where image actually forms is frankly an
anode ;)

------
arethuza
I must saw I am mystified by this - I grew up with LPs, singles and cassettes
in the 70s and 80s and I can't say I miss them.

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
Giant-sized artwork, liner notes, inserts, etc.

I grew up with CD's. The vinyl primarily just feels like a collectible to me--
something I can look at, turn over, read the liner notes while listening to
the music, etc. I don't even really listen to the vinyl's I have, I use the
digital rips instead.

~~~
mohaine
I agree. I don't think most people are actually listening to these. I'm
guessing most people don't even own a player (or even a home audio system to
hook it to). Has there been large increase in player sales as well? I'm sure
there has been an increase but I doubt it had any way to go but up.

If it comes with a free download then vinyl is pretty much the perfect box to
sell downloads at a brick and mortor. Thin but wide so you can't steal it
easy. Lots of room for pretty artwork and extras. And nostalgia, something the
cd/cassette anti-theft box didn't have. Well, The extra large cd boxes did at
first but then they quit making those.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> I don't think most people are actually listening to these.

Given the high price of most brand new vinyl I'd be highly surprised if this
was true. I do think you're on to something though. I will listen to the
digital/streaming version of a record I have much, much more often than the
vinyl copy. Usually if it's a new release I'll buy the vinyl, sit down and
enjoy it start to finish, and then the only time I'll play it after that is
the odd evening/weekend when I want to sit down and do nothing but listen to
some music. It's kind of something you'll put aside time for (like watching a
movie) but at the same time you'll still be streaming in the background all
day at work.

~~~
mohaine
I will admit to not actually looking at the prices of vinyl but is it much
higher then just a download or much higher then cd/tapes were historically?

~~~
tnecniv
A new vinyl album is typically $20 a disk. That's more expensive than a
digital album, but a lot of times new vinyls come with download codes for MP3s
these days as well.

------
cr1895
>Philips invented the cassette tape in 1962, first introducing it to music
fans a year later. Thanks to its compactness, portability and sound quality,
it quickly began to surpass the vinyl record in popularity.

This seems suspect...

According to this figure (going back to 1973 only) vinyl still far outpaced
cassette sales until the mid-80s.

[http://blog.thecurrent.org/wp-
content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014...](http://blog.thecurrent.org/wp-
content/blogs.dir/9/files/2014/02/units-vs-dollars-riaa.jpg)

~~~
nolok
Man, these two charts side by side really show the total financial abuse/great
move (depending on POV) that was the music CD and selling an entire album at
once to people who only wanted a few songs.

It was not the norm before nor after, just an outlier, but one that brought
billions of dollars in. No wonder they fought so hard against downloading
(both legal and illegal).

~~~
cr1895
This is also interesting: [https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-streaming-is-changing-
music-agai...](https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-streaming-is-changing-music-again)

Curiously, during cassette tape dominance in the early 90s album length was
12.5 tracks. This increased to 15.8 in 2003, as CDs dominated. It has declined
again to 14.2 tracks.

They state,

"With subscription pricing and the ability to easily skip among artists (as
opposed to per-album or per-song charges, which were the norm), streaming
pushes users to listen to explore new artists. This has the potential to
reduce the concentration of the very top artists and albums, while also
helping music lovers find what economists refer to as the “long tail” of the
industry."

// totally unrelated complaint: searching Google for the above chart was super
frustrating, giving almost exclusively "what sounds best" results when I was
trying to find sales figures. Searching for the HBR article I linked above
(which I had read previously but forgotten details of) was equally fruitless
on Google "average album length" and variations kept returning "what's the
best length for an album" results. Had to switch to DDG to find the HBR
article, and with the same search term it was the third result. WTF google?! I
keep noticing less helpful results.

------
sp332
I wonder if they'll be manufactured differently if they're going for a wider
audience. You can sell a 180-gram colored disc to a superfan for $40 but if
you're aiming for 18% of the market, maybe they'll be more lightweight,
brittle, even dingy-looking.

~~~
k-mcgrady
180g + color isn't the standard though, it's the premium version. At the
moment it seems like most new stuff is released at that weight but older stuff
is much thinner. Hopefully they'll start producing more of that again because
£20-25 (which seems to be the standard price here) is pretty pricey.

------
LesZedCB
I like vinyl for the same reason I make americanos with my work's espresso
machine which makes both espresso and coffee. It's a process. I enjoy the
ritual of heating water and pouring it into espresso, even though the machine
does the same thing I am doing.

------
tcbawo
The large format of vinyl makes a great placeholder for art, notes, lyrics,
etc. Fans respond when you give them something physical to connect with.
Especially if you combine the physical object with a digital download, it
seems like a net win.

------
aurelian15
Oh, for goodness sake, Sony, would you please just master CDs decently? I
know, that would mean that you release your intellectual property to the world
in uncompressed¹ quality, in a world where people frivolously commit
abominable criminal acts such as copying and sharing their media.

But pretty please? I don't want to resort to an archaic medium with 10 bit
effective dynamic range if I can have 16 bit on a CD. I don't want your petty
streaming services. I don't want to download music amateurishly encoded in a
lossy format (almost) older than me.²

I know. I'm probably the weirdest of all, longing for this sterile, lossless
sound of digital awesomeness. But can I please, for once in ages, buy a CD
that has been decently mastered, that I can copy onto my computer and listen
to with my headphones and enjoy?

I think I'm now going to put on “Dark Side of the Moon” from 1973 and cry
myself to sleep, weeping, because something so old can sound so good, whereas
decades of modern music, decades of culture and art have been sacrificed to
the capitalist gods of the loudness war.

¹ Both in the dynamic range and audio codec sense. ² MPEG-1 Audio Layer III.

------
kazinator
Remember, folks. An audiophile is someone who listens to equipment, not music.

He can hear the difference between 0.1% THD and 1% THD, but can't tell Mozart
from Beethoven, or Kenny G from Coltrane.

When people claim about how they are emotionally moved by certain speakers,
but not others, chances are the _music_ is shit.

When the music is good, I'm still moved by a 64 kb/s encoding using 8 bit
uLaw, played through laptop speakers.

~~~
protomyth
> When the music is good, I'm still moved by a 64 kb/s encoding using 8 bit
> uLaw, played through laptop speakers.

I'm not an audiophile, but I disagree with your assertion. I did love going to
concerts in the 90's and early 00's. In February of 1993, I saw Stone Temple
Pilots opening for Megadeth at the Fargo Civic Memorial Auditorium (not the
Fargo Dome, think bigger high school gym). I liked their album, but was pretty
much there to see Megadeth.

When I heard STP in concert (an frankly its not the best venue particularly in
ND in Feb) including the megaphone in Crackerman, it blew me away. You can
feel the range, and I loved their music ever since. I will say that the CD and
mp4 are loved because of a memory more than how they sound.

------
amelius
There's a lot of music that isn't even available anymore in any formats other
than digital.

It would be cool if there was a service where one can "burn" (or press) a
vinyl record from a bunch of mp3/wav files, and print a nice sleeve.

~~~
ian_d
_Pressing_ a one-off record isn't worth the cost because of the requirement of
creating a pressing mother. (Mastering, creating a lacquer, a mother, a
stamper, then finally pressing.) However, for one-offs your options are
basically an acetate (which'll wear quickly with play) or a lathe-cut dubplate
(which can be a bit lo-fi depending on process).

There's a bunch of lathe services available:
[http://carverycuts.com/home/dubplates-
order.html](http://carverycuts.com/home/dubplates-order.html)
[http://www.audiogeography.com/records/](http://www.audiogeography.com/records/)
[http://vinylcarvers.com/](http://vinylcarvers.com/)
[https://www.cutadub.com/](https://www.cutadub.com/)

------
blakesterz
I'm 1/2 surprised the headline wasn't "Millennials are killing the music
streaming industry" seems like headline writers love the "Millennials are
killing" things lately.

~~~
rainbowmverse
We are a metaphorically murderous bunch.

------
ryandrake
Finally being able to get rid of all my physical media was super satisfying.
Cassettes, CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays. All sold to one of those buy-back places for
pennies on the dollar. All the clutter--gone. All the heavy boxes to pack up
and unpack every time I moved--gone. I couldn't imagine going back to
collecting physical music doodads again, especially doodads as space-
inefficient as vinyl. My huge bookshelf is next. I have PDF version of the
most useful ones anyway...

------
proyb2
When I heard Bosendorfer Grand piano on vinyl, I was shocked and deeply into
the low bass richness that I could never hear in high definition audio.

------
avenoir
In my early 20s I used to spin dance music (melodic and tech trance) and have
accumulated a pretty large vinyl collection before Technics mk2s went largely
extinct and I moved on to CDJs. But I could have sworn that vinyl sounded some
much richer and warmer than digitized formats. A part of me is happy vinyl is
making a comeback.

------
petetnt
Unless we get more pressing plants all around the world, big labels doubling
down on vinyl will only mean the inevitable crash.

The ones that have kept records alive to this day (that is independent labels)
are already suffering under the load major labels are pushing releases in,
especially on record store days. Want your record pressed? Fine, but just
after we press 20k copies of this Saturday Night Live OST LP, that's
previously only been available in every flea market, record store and garbage
can in the world.

When you cater for the crowd that flocked in during the trend are already
switching to the next hip thing, soon all we are left with is tons of useless
releases filling the bins.

------
Animats
Then people play vinyl records through a turntable that outputs via an A/D as
a USB device.

Some DJ use vinyl records which contain nothing but a time code track. This
feeds a system which plays out the proper audio segment from downloaded
data.[1]

[1] [http://djtechtools.com/2014/03/20/building-a-dvs-timecode-
dj...](http://djtechtools.com/2014/03/20/building-a-dvs-timecode-dj-setup-
for-20/)

------
xemdetia
Part of me wonders if the stickiness of this more has to do with the fact that
both cassettes and CD's are not successful mediums right now. It quickly
becomes a least common denominator- vinyl still works the same. I feel I get
similar feelings about technologies that I drift to whatever tech seems the
most stable for long term usage. Why invest in this if it is going away in 2
years? I feel like the IoT stuff often falls into this category.

------
timonoko
Somebody should try if you can print records on laser printer. If you print
circular lines, the needle should stay between the walls of ink. Transparency
might be better than paper, because it is smoother. I do not have record
player anymore, so I cannot test this theory. On 78 speed record those
squiggles are huge, and well with capabilities of laser printer.

------
wowtip
Why not instead focusing on reinventing the LP?

One side disc, large format, laser pickup, analog recording.

Bring together the good parts from both LP and CD / DVD.

~~~
dungle6
Lol.. other than the one side part (turtle anyone?) what you're proposing is a
laserdisc. Ie an actual thing. They're not coming back either because they
died. Vinyl never died it just declined. Simplicity of playback equipment is a
big reason why. Also nothing stops anyone from putting a CD in a 12 inch jewel
case or sleeve of some sort.

~~~
thatwebdude
Laser disc never died either; just ask my 8th grade science teacher and his
collection of documentaries. Still (!) evidence of use today.

------
gdubs
This crowd would probably enjoy "The Revenge of Analog", by David Sax. The
entire first chapter is "The Revenge of Vinyl" and goes deep into the rise,
fall, and rebirth of physical records – including interesting bits on the
handful of places left that are capable of printing records, on scarce presses
from a bygone era.

------
chaoticmass
Article says the cassette tape was released to music fans in 1963, but really
the cassettes and players at that time were mostly used for dictation and
voice recordings only because the quality was not high enough for music.
Cassettes did not start to be used for music until much later. Dubious
reporting from WaPo.

------
cartoonfoxes
I've spent a significant fraction of the last 20+ years staring into screens.
Analogue tickles my brain the same way computers and anything electronic or
digital did when I was a kid. I have no illusions that my preference for vinyl
in purchased media is anything other than emotional.

------
j_s
Vinyl records are a great market segmentation these days. Very few collectors
are struggling to get by.

------
itsoggy
I had a habit of collecting white labels and test pressings of house and dance
tracks, I have no idea what most of them are called or who they are by, but I
can think of one and remember where it is in the crates.

If I had a load of Track 1's in iTunes, I wouldn't have a clue!

------
hashkb
As long as nobody is claiming they sound better, and it's just for fun and
nostalgia, I'm all for it. It really bugs me when vinyl buffs try to argue
their rig sounds better or warmer or whatever than the same rig with a digital
(or non-vinyl analog) source.

~~~
aarmenante
From a technical point of view I get why the argument is stupid, but playing a
well pressed/mixed record has a visceral pleasure that is hard to explain.
It's kind of like driving a manual car. Sure, it's dated and we've invented
safer, easier ways to change the gearing while driving, but people who like
experiences like that all know it's something more than a "hipster"
indulgence. It's simply adding a level of complexity to something you love.

I could even argue it's something akin to the reason people use Vim or Emacs
over JetBrains or Atom ha

~~~
torrent-of-ions
Except JetBrains and Atom are disastrously slow which is the only real reason
for preferring one text editor over another.

------
jasonkostempski
Another record comeback? The last big record shop in Buffalo, that's been
around since 1976, just had it's going-out-of-business sale a few weeks ago.
Maybe they could have stayed afloat if they had waited just a little longer.

------
ddingus
I love this discussion. And will add, the each play is unique. That's the
thing I like about vinyl, it's a moment one time you're there and it'll never
happen exactly the same way again.

------
zzo38computer
This can be good if they can make vinyl records, for one reason, being the
simplicity of the technology. Quality is not the issue, and neither is
convenience.

This does not mean that CDs are worthless, however.

------
divenorth
To me the motivation is obvious. It's the difference between collecting
trading cards vs virtual trading cards. There is something to be said about
having a physical collection.

------
ChuckMcM
Maybe they could make something that I could carry around with me that I could
use to play recordings of my favorite songs from those vinyl records.

------
pasbesoin
I wonder how they're going to wedge DRM into them. /s

(Perhaps you have to be of a certain age to get this...)

------
jakelarkin
had a friend who was really into vinyl and I agreed to help him move. that was
a mistake.

------
agumonkey
Hopefully some video high "dpi" vynils too :)

------
flavio81
Turntable nerd here (over 5000 posts on a forum dedicated to turntables).

Let me give you my take on this, as unbiased as possible:

Records do not automatically _sound better_ than CDs. However, there are many,
many cases in which the LP sounds better than the same CD.

First let me dispel some myths of vinyl playing:

\- "Records wear": Assuming your turntable is a good one (no cheap Crosley
record players), and your stylus is not worn, and your stylus pressure is
below 3.0 grams (as it would be the case in ANY half-good tonearm and pickup),
and your record is clean, and the pickup is correctly aligned, then record
wear is a non-issue. Under those conditions records were found to last 1000
plays with no significant sound degradation on an AES (Audio Engineering
Society) paper. And this with 1965-67 pickup technology. Modern pickups and
styli are still gentler.

Of course, if any of the above conditions is not met, the record will wear!

\- "Records sound with pops and crackles": This does not happen with a good
turntable and well cared records. Record reproduction is mostly free from such
noises. Note that lower quality turntables do emphasize noises caused by dirt,
as well.

\- "Any turntable gives you high quality sound, better than a CD": This is a
favorite one of the hipsters. There are many turntables out there that are
bad, poor, or mediocre. You need a good turntable to enjoy the sound.
Fortunately due to the big used-TT market, you can get turntables that were
pretty expensive when new, for little money.

Now, WHY should one play/buy records instead of CDs (or MP3/etc)?

As a music lover, it is very important to be able to play LPs. The main
reasons are:

1\. There is a huge amount of music that isn't available on CD nor MP3. For
example records from record labels that went bankrupt. Or music that simply is
not popular/mainstream. Sometimes you can find MP3 transcriptions of such
records on the internet, but often those are done with poor care giving really
bad audio, compared to having the record played by you on a good system.

2\. There are cases in which the LP record is much, much better mastered than
the comparable CD or MP3. Example: Frank Zappa's You are What you is. The CD
was done using really exaggerated, wrong compression which truly destroys the
sound, and you don't need to have any kind of high-end system or "golden ears"
to notice the difference. It is that striking.

Another example? AC-DC's "back in black". The modern (2000s) remaster has
heavy, dynamics-destroying compression compared to the original (1981)
release. Which you can enjoy buying the LP record.

3\. There are cases in which the LP record gives you the truly original
release of the album. That is, before the producer (or artist) subsequently
decided to alter the mix, do overdubs on it, etc. Example: Frank Zappa "Hot
Rats" record; the 1969 original release is radically different from the CD
release due to all sorts of edits and remixes done.

4\. Music done on the LP era (1948-late 80s) was _intended_ to be released on
LP, so there is a convention that albums follow:

\- Sides: A versus B. Sometimes the album will have a different concept in
side A versus B, for example A dedicated to more danceable music, B dedicated
to ballads, etc.

\- Hit tracks are expected to be located at the beginning on each side. You
see the track that is a beginning of each side and you can bet this was an
important track for the artist.

\- The last track of the side is usually a softer, mellower track.

These conventions are interesting and are preserved when you buy the LP.

5\. Artwork. The difference in picture area between a CD and the LP is
striking. Gatefold records (there are many of them) give you about 64x32cm
(25x13") picture area, which is a lot. If the gatefold is triple (like in
Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique"), this is an area of 96x32cm (38x13"), which
is huge.

6\. Printed lyrics & Bonus material: Since the sleeves are so big, many kinds
of different 'extras' can be included with each record, and sometimes they do
add a lot of value to the experience. For example:

\- "Captain Fantastic" (Elton John) includes a whole comic book inside.

\- Stevie Wonder's "Innervisions" (1976) includes a nice booklet with all the
printed lyrics in lavish style.

\- Many records came with stickers or posters.

\- Devo's "Duty now for the future" cover art can be pried apart for framing.

\- etc.

Basically, the LP record adds much more to the "experience" of listening to
the album. At least for a music lover.

------
brianzelip
my vinyl weighs a ton

