Is vinyl making a comeback?

[Ed62]

I was reading somewhere that vinyl records are making a comeback. They say digital recordings can't reproduce all the subtleties that vinyl can. It seems that some audiophiles are resurrecting vinyl. I doubt I could hear the difference, myself. I'm not getting any younger, so I'll stick with digital. I don't have time for scratches or cracks.

Ed

[TheRic]

You mean my old collection of vinyl records might actually be worth something!!! The wife has been wanting me to throw it out for years, just couldn't bear to see all those records go to the trash.

[avaserfi]

Ahh, the myths in the audio world...

It is simple fact that that CDs are technically superior to vinyl in terms of quality. While some may argue the conversion from digital to analog is a lossy one they clearly are unaware of the credible research in regards to this subject matter.

Now the question becomes which has a better implementation. In looking at the current trends in the industry with focus on recording quality vinyl has more consistent superior recordings and there are reasons for this. While some seem to claim that all the recordings are done by the same people and copies of each other this just isn't so. This is due to inherent flaws within vinyl that do not allow for the flexibility of CDs in terms of mastering. The end result is lower amounts of compression must be used otherwise the needle is forced out of the groove. Due to this limitation of vinyl more care is used in its mastering process resulting in a higher quality recording as compared to the majority of CD releases. This is actually why vinyl has gained a reputation as being superior to CDs when it in fact is not in a technical sense. If mastering engineers would start doing their job in such a way to maximize audio quality on CDs this resurgence would likely have never occurred.

[JSUPreston]

Really, it's because folks are starting to realize that most stuff coming out on CD is garbage anyway.

Seriously, other than some contemporary Christian music, I think we've bought maybe 5 or 6 CDs in the past several years. My wife and I both agree that some of the best music coming out is either from the "old guys" or is from the 70's. Greats such as Three Dog Night, Clapton, etc.

This coming from someone in their mid 30's. And yes, I still have a turntable and some vinyl at the house. I need to hook the turntable up to the computer and pull those albums down to the hard drive, use Audacity to clean up the wav files, and burn back to disc. Now that I've said that, I think I hear the RIAA knocking. Let me go see...........<&%@*^NO CARRIER>

[Tequila]

Vinyl is not making a comeback. There's always a few people who think that classic is better, and sometimes it is. But the huge adoption rate of mp3 players has proven that the vast majority of people are not demanding audiophile quality out of their music.

[germdoc]

Ahh, the myths in the audio world...

It is simple fact that that CDs are technically superior to vinyl in terms of quality. While some may argue the conversion from digital to analog is a lossy one they clearly are unaware of the credible research in regards to this subject matter.

Ah, Mr. Serfi, my poor misguided friend...

The tracks on the wax master are lovingly carved as a direct reflection of the music, not a digital approximation. Just as an integral can only approach its object, the CD can only approach the beauty of the real thing.

Most of my 600 or so records have been carefully listened to hundreds of times to the point that I can (or could, anyway, 30 years ago) remember every crack and pop. My friends used to buy me new copies of records I already owned, as they got tired of listening to worn-out records.

More seriously, I have a pretty full set of Elvis Costello's early records, and I would put any of them up against the "remastered" CD's that I got to replace them.

My ears don't lie!

[big tim]

To some extend everyone is right.
And indeed a great deal of care was put into the cutting of the master disc. I worked for the RCA Studios in Toronto in the fifties and early sixties right in the period when we switch from mono to stereo records. I cut many masters for RCA to make records for the Canadian market. There are several challenges to consider when making the master:
As you got closer to the centre of the disc it becomes more difficult to reproduce the audio, particularly the higher frequencies, this is of course because the same amount of signal has to be crammed in a groove length which is roughly less than half of that length per revolution at the beginning of the disc. The problem is not so much with the cutting of the signal but the reproduction. The cutting needle has a triangular tip but the playback stylus has a round or sometimes slightly oval tip and as a result can not trace a high frequency signal as well as the cutting needle can cut it. Classical records were typically not cut as close to the centre as popular records. Another problem was dynamic range, the signal would have to be cut loud enough in order for the low level passage not to be obscured by the inherent noise of the record and potential amplifier noise, yet the louder passages must not be so loud as to cause the “wiggle” cut in the grove to encroach on the previously cut groove or the next groove. With mono records that’s all you would have to watch for. Once stereo came along, were the needle not only moves sideways but also up and down, there was the danger of the cutting needle actually lifting off the record in high level passages. Even before stereo came along variable pitch was developed, where the travel of the cutting head across the record was increased(more space between grooves) in order to make room for louder levels. The same principal was used later in stereo with not only variable pitch but also variable depth. A signal to effect these variables was taken from a playback head situated ahead the regular playback head, this early signal was processed to effect the required changes in pitch and depth. If we were not familiar with the tape we would often listen to the tape first to get an idea of the dynamic range and loudest passages and adjusted the basic level before cutting the master.
For many years I worked with a chap who recorded birdsongs and brought out many LP’s of birdsongs. Cutting the masters for those LP’s was a real challenge
My .02, I know booooooring.

Tim

[Knottscott]

Vinyl never died AFAIK. There's always been a strong following of vinyl and tube amps....it just become out of fashion. Tubes, vinyl, silver halide photographs....all superior technologies to their higher tech and more popular replacements. There are pros and cons to each for sure, but in terms of resolution, transistors, digital sound, and digital photographs have a pretty noticeable disadvantage IME. One of the smartest engineers I've ever met still manufactures tube amplifiers and preamps for highend audio systems, and makes a good living at it....Convergent Audio Technology (CAT).

[avaserfi]

Ah, Mr. Serfi, my poor misguided friend...

The tracks on the wax master are lovingly carved as a direct reflection of the music, not a digital approximation. Just as an integral can only approach its object, the CD can only approach the beauty of the real thing.

Most of my 600 or so records have been carefully listened to hundreds of times to the point that I can (or could, anyway, 30 years ago) remember every crack and pop. My friends used to buy me new copies of records I already owned, as they got tired of listening to worn-out records.

More seriously, I have a pretty full set of Elvis Costello's early records, and I would put any of them up against the "remastered" CD's that I got to replace them.

My ears don't lie!

You clearly didn't read my post thoroughly DAC technology is old and refined enough to the point where there is no audible difference. The reason that the vinyl typically sounds better than CDs is exactly what you touched on the mastering - nothing else. If you truly are interested in delving into this topic read up on any publications about DACs, their audibility and design, in the Audio Engineering Society's journal.

For those who don't know DACs are digital to analog converters.

Also, ears might not lie, but your personal bias does hence the need for controlled ABx/double blind tests to determine this audibility as done by the JAES.

[germdoc]

I thought I was being humorous with my post but must have missed the mark.

In any event, here is a simple explanation of how digital approximates analog, meaning it can never be perfect:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Now, I'm not an audiophile snob like some people I know (e.g., former FIL) who swear by vinyl, but I would disagree "it is a simple fact" that CD's are better, in fact it's a very complicated and controversial fact.

I have been quite disappointed with some recent CD's I have gotten that have incorrect treble levels, different levels from track to track, etc. Maybe this is the mastering, but for $14-16 or whatever I expect a better product.

[JoeyGee]

Man, I thought you guys were going to talk about vinyl interiors. Now there are some memories. I can still remember the smell of the black interior on my mom's 1976 Buick Skylark on a hot summer day...

Good times. Oh, and for what it's worth, it had an AM radio with an 8 Track. Try reproducing THAT sound on an iPOD.

[avaserfi]

I thought I was being humorous with my post but must have missed the mark.

In any event, here is a simple explanation of how digital approximates analog, meaning it can never be perfect:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

Now, I'm not an audiophile snob like some people I know (e.g., former FIL) who swear by vinyl, but I would disagree "it is a simple fact" that CD's are better, in fact it's a very complicated and controversial fact.

I have been quite disappointed with some recent CD's I have gotten that have incorrect treble levels, different levels from track to track, etc. Maybe this is the mastering, but for $14-16 or whatever I expect a better product.

It seems that there are more misconceptions here. Firstly, you are right DACs do approximate the actual sound, but the technology behind them is so advanced that they now have the ability to be inaudible in this approximation. If you are serious about finding out why/how read up on the JAES articles as I previously mentioned. Secondly, CDs are technically superior to vinyl that is fact; just look at the actual specifications of each medium.

The reasons you are complaining about CDs is yet again due to mastering, not an inherent quality of the CD itself.

Most "audiophiles" have no scientific basis for any of their claims, just simple biased results. This is why high end cables, tweaks and various esoteric gear sell so well. My statements are based on actual, peer reviewed, credible publications published by the most respected and well known audio journal.

Yes, I pursue the hobby of audio with maximum diligence and care as is shown by my builds which are based only on the credible research within the field.

Edit: Unless there is something actually new brought up it is unlikely I will respond to this thread any further due to the typical trend within these threads. In my experience, these threads will degenerate quickly due to 'fanboyism' and so far any and all retorts have already been previously addressed which means I am repeating myself pointlessly.

[Hoover]

It's a case of analog vs. digital. Analog is still my favorite. Even Neil Young prefers analog. He claims the sound is truer.

[germdoc]

I will resist the urge to come back with highly technical articles pulled from the archives of Stereophile magazine, though I do have them...

I will however throw in a few non-scientific reasons LP's are better than CD's:

1. Cover art is much better. Carly Simon's decolletage looked much better at 12x12" than 4x5" (if you know the album I'm referring to you're a child of the 70's).

2. Though you can carry a CD in your pocket, you can't hang it on the wall like wall art.

3. All those crackles and pops have a specific meaning, like when you accidentally bumped the turntable while you were making out to Santana.

4. You can't play a CD backwards to listen for hidden meanings or start it at the "hidden" groove--one record I had had "3 sides", depending on where you put the needle down.

5. You miss out on the joy of finding an obscure Japanese virgin vinyl pressing of an old Roxy Music album in the second-hand store.

6. There are no record company demos anymore at that store either.

7. What else are you going to use your giant bottle of Discwasher for?

8. How else are you gonna separate the buds from the stems and seeds? (If you lived through the 60's and 70's you know what I'm talking about.)

9. The lyrics are SO MUCH easier to read LP-size, not 4x5", esp. now that most of us need reading glasses.

10. They make much better frisbees, though I agree CD's are better for coasters.

[avaserfi]

I will resist the urge to come back with highly technical articles pulled from the archives of Stereophile magazine, though I do have them...

I will however throw in a few non-scientific reasons LP's are better than CD's:

1. Cover art is much better. Carly Simon's decolletage looked much better at 12x12" than 4x5" (if you know the album I'm referring to you're a child of the 70's).

2. Though you can carry a CD in your pocket, you can't hang it on the wall like wall art.

3. All those crackles and pops have a specific meaning, like when you accidentally bumped the turntable while you were making out to Santana.

4. You can't play a CD backwards to listen for hidden meanings or start it at the "hidden" groove--one record I had had "3 sides", depending on where you put the needle down.

5. You miss out on the joy of finding an obscure Japanese virgin vinyl pressing of an old Roxy Music album in the second-hand store.

6. There are no record company demos anymore at that store either.

7. What else are you going to use your giant bottle of Discwasher for?

8. How else are you gonna separate the buds from the stems and seeds? (If you lived through the 60's and 70's you know what I'm talking about.)

9. The lyrics are SO MUCH easier to read LP-size, not 4x5", esp. now that most of us need reading glasses.

10. They make much better frisbees, though I agree CD's are better for coasters.

I can't argue with any of those! Also, I should point out you can make some pretty cool bowls out of a crappy piece of vinyl by heating it in the oven for a short while and then forming it. I have one on my coffee table .

As far as the magazines go Stereophile is full of fluff and caters towards the audiophool not the knowledgeable although occasionally they get things right (their measurements are an example). There is a reason I cite the AES as they are the foremost authority in the audio world as far as research goes. It actually takes a large amount of credibility and scientific forethought to have an article published in the prestigious journal. BTW I am likely aware of the article you mention.