Is the resurgence of vinyl LP's a fad?

[doifeellucky]

Well probably the same reason cassette tapes were never very popular. They plain suck to play. Having to fast forward to find a song is plain annoying. CDs combined portability with good quality and ease of navigation. Yes, I still enjoy CDs.

Cassette tapes not popular. Lol. You may have heard of this device called the Walkman. Sony sold well over 200 million of the cassette variant alone. It transformed the way we listen to music. I had boxes of SA90s. From memory if you went into Richer Sounds in the late 80s and early 90s that’s pretty much all they had behind the counter,

Walkman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Personal stereo - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The history of the Walkman: 35 years of iconic music players

Before the iPod was even a thought, Sony had sold hundreds of millions of its iconic cassette players

www.theverge.com

 

[spl84]

Cassette tapes not popular. Lol. You may have heard of this device called the Walkman. Sony sold well over 200 million of the cassette variant alone. It transformed the way we listen to music. I had boxes of SA90s. From memory if you went into Richer Sounds in the late 80s and early 90s that’s pretty much all they had behind the counter,

Walkman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Personal stereo - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The history of the Walkman: 35 years of iconic music players

Before the iPod was even a thought, Sony had sold hundreds of millions of its iconic cassette players

www.theverge.com

I was responding to another user who was comparing them to cds. Surely you saw that. I personally think tapes were pretty popular for a period. I'm old enough to remember a time where cassette tapes were everywhere. I owned many tapes and still do but when I discovered cds I never bothered with tapes again. So they were popular but could never compete with compact discs.

 

[davidf]

This is insane!
Levitating turntable, Yoda would be impressed.

View attachment 6983
View attachment 6982

View: https://youtu.be/OFEbLXdZ4ws?si=mKZwglIHaxKscQtb

A tonearm should be anchored to the same chassis/sub chassis as the platter. The only movement should be between the stylus tip and the record groove. Things just addressing an issue that doesn't really exist, and relying on "something cool" to sell.

 

[Jasonovich]

A tonearm should be anchored to the same chassis/sub chassis as the platter. The only movement should be between the stylus tip and the record groove. Things just addressing an issue that doesn't really exist, and relying on "something cool" to sell.

True, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[davidf]

True, but interesting nonetheless.

Only from an "oooh, look at that" point of view. And when that's worn off, you're left with a flawed design.

 

[froze]

That's not actually important, thing is mastering is by necessity different for vinyl. If I'm correct. And they can't compress the recording as high as they can and do for CD.

When they master a recording today they do it on digital, it is then mixed on a digital board, and transferred to a digital medium...CD, when they make a record from that same recording the vinyl gets the recording from a digital master mixed in digital format. Very few artists today are mastering their recordings on both digital and analog, and none are mixed in analog anymore. The reason why most artists today do not master their work in both is cost...but more and more artists are beginning to do both.

All the major labels, often like to use terms like “mastered from” or “sourced from” the analog tapes when it’s really a digital transfer dumped to vinyl. if they specify “CUT from the tapes,” however, then it’s all analog.

A purely analog recording would be something that was recorded on tape and produced using manual equipment to mix, master, and press into vinyl. A purely digital recording would be recorded on a computer program such as Pro Tools, mixed, mastered, and produced digitally, and eventually burned onto a CD as an MP3 or audio file. If the record came out in the early 90s and afterward there is a good chance that there was a digital mastering step involved. Full AAA releases are quite rare today and most of them use a digital step in either mixing or mastering.

Most punk and indie rock bands use many more analog techniques than hip-hop, electro-pop, or EDM acts.

 

[spl84]

When they master a recording today they do it on digital, it is then mixed on a digital board, and transferred to a digital medium...CD, when they make a record from that same recording the vinyl gets the recording from a digital master mixed in digital format. Very few artists today are mastering their recordings on both digital and analog, and none are mixed in analog anymore. The reason why most artists today do not master their work in both is cost...but more and more artists are beginning to do both.

All the major labels, often like to use terms like “mastered from” or “sourced from” the analog tapes when it’s really a digital transfer dumped to vinyl. if they specify “CUT from the tapes,” however, then it’s all analog.

A purely analog recording would be something that was recorded on tape and produced using manual equipment to mix, master, and press into vinyl. A purely digital recording would be recorded on a computer program such as Pro Tools, mixed, mastered, and produced digitally, and eventually burned onto a CD as an MP3 or audio file. If the record came out in the early 90s and afterward there is a good chance that there was a digital mastering step involved. Full AAA releases are quite rare today and most of them use a digital step in either mixing or mastering.

Most punk and indie rock bands use many more analog techniques than hip-hop, electro-pop, or EDM acts.

Because of the recent surge of demand for analogue music more artists are recording to tape. It's not alot, and it's true that most modern music is recorded digitally, but I rarely every listen to modern music because most of it is garbage so that doesn't concern me very much. Most of the music I'm into is stuff from the 50s through the early 90s, even some early grunge, of which MOST was recorded to analog tape and works very well when cut AAA by a top level mastering engineer. If a record is "AAA" then it cannot have a digital step. That would prevent it from being all analog. One high profile company is in some very hot water for selling what they claimed were AAA records when they were mastering to a DSD file, but that's a whole different topic. Despite what you may think, there are currently producing alot of all analogue records or as many as they can. By it's very nature, it's a finite process. Companies like Analogue Productions and Cohearent Audio are busy mastering as many records as they can because the demand is currently there. They are working with record labels like Atlantic, and Rhino. Atlantic is working with Analogue productions on a 75th anniversary series which is amazing. Rhino is doing a "Rhino HiFi" series of AAA records which is amazing and several of the titles are already sold out as they're limited to 5000 copies of each release. As you say digitally recorded music is now the norm and has been for some time, but analogue still has it's devotees and there is a growing demand for it.

 

[davidf]

The Foo Fighters have their own studio, and I know that their album Wasting Light was recorded analogue, and that Dave Grohl bought the analogue Neve mixing desk that was used somewhere - been a while since I watched the documentary so I've forgotten, might've been Sound City. Not sure if their following albums have been made the same way, but Dave wanted that analogue sound which he felt suited the music. While it sounds good on CD (for the style of music), it does seem to sound better on vinyl.

 

[DCarmi]

might've been Sound City.

You are quite correct. I did watch the documentary and good it was. See the wikipedia page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_City_(film)

 

[twinkletoes]

So they were popular but could never compete with compact discs.

But they did, they were sold along side CD's for nearly 20+ years .... I remember CD's costing the same vinyl does today it wasn't until the late 90's early 2000's where the became afordable enough to make a it a purchase without thinking. Some CD's are now starting to creep back up in price too I noticed.

I remember walking into HMV and picking up a a copy of "Fat of the land" with Saturday job money and costing my 15 quid, I was only being paid £2.30 an hour, that was a weekends worth of money. Back then it crippled me LOL. Kids are being paid nearly £10 hr these days.

 

[spl84]

But they did, they were sold along side CD's for nearly 20+ years .... I remember CD's costing the same vinyl does today it wasn't until the late 90's early 2000's where the became afordable enough to make a it a purchase without thinking. Some CD's are now starting to creep back up in price too I noticed.

I remember walking into HMV and picking up a a copy of "Fat of the land" with Saturday job money and costing my 15 quid, I was only being paid £2.30 an hour, that was a weekends worth of money. Back then it crippled me LOL. Kids are being paid nearly £10 hr these days.

I'm not knocking tapes, but once the cd era started, tapes were not outselling CDS. That's all I'm saying. Cassette tapes were never killed off, nor was vinyl. They had their devotees . Now Vinyl is outselling CDs, but during the cd era the they were king. I'm also speaking from an American perspective. You're obviously from Great Britain. Things could have been different there and I i have no idea, lol