The future of vinyl

[manicm]

Ee

In the absence of proper artwork or album details there will always be a demand for physical ownership, also to rip as you please for car, portable etc - copy laws notwithstanding. I think LHC is just wrong there. There is a certain satisfaction to be enjoyed even from CD.

No because 90 percent of album art work sucks and I can download an album in flac and listen to it in my car using my portable music player.

That's your very shaky opinion, some artists still do care about artwork etc, even some pop artists.

The best album artwork for me would be Captain fantastic and the brown dirt cowboy by Elton John but how many bands/singers have the money to pay artists to come up with something like that? The answer is very few so the album artwork ends up being the last thing on their minds and this is why so many album artworks end up sucking. ?

With software a good sleeve doesn't have to cost the earth. It's about creativity. Or sometimes even just good photography. And any artist who's proud of their work will want to make an interesting sleeve.

Even with todays computer sortware most still suck. Most of the album cover artwork by prog band Yes are beautiful to look at because they hired someone who know what he was doing. My all time favorite album is October rust by gothic metal band Type O Negative but it looks like they made the album cover artwork themselves and result is it sucks.

Well then they just didn't give a toss, but there are some who do.

 

[manicm]

There are also those who are just averse to using pcs and software amongst the older of us.

Indeed, far happier to use my phone, my tablet and apps (with AirPlay) and keep PCs out of it. (I do use a Mac Mini when ripping any new CDs to iTunes and for syncing/backing up devices but I rarely stream from it.)

Seriously I have friends who have built up sizable collections of CDs, and even though they have pcs, tablets and the latest phones, they still use portable cd/radios in their pool rooms etc. They really couldn't be ars#d.

 

[chebby]

We're talking about *them*, the people that are happy to listen to everything from their phones and Bluetoothing it to cheap speakers, no PC or software involved. And *them* dictate the market.

That'll be me then

Don't worry, I mostly download/rip BBC audio content and most of what I stream is French/South American music (i'm fed-up with the last 50 years of regurgitated pop/rock) so no 'dictating' here.

 

[MrReaper182]

We're talking about *them*, the people that are happy to listen to everything from their phones and Bluetoothing it to cheap speakers, no PC or software involved. And *them* dictate the market.

That'll be me then

Don't worry, I mostly download/rip BBC audio content and most of what I stream is French/South American music (i'm fed-up with the last 50 years of regurgitated pop/rock) so no 'dictating' here.

Going off topic here but since you mentioned South American music do you like Paulo Moura?

 

[Al ears]

I agree with everything you have said. As far as the corporate machine goes, this is perfect, but how long before the public "backlash" against 'non ownership' by buying some other format?

Not as long as they can just hit "buy now" or even just play on their phone and listen to a track instantly they'll never care. "Ownership" is irrelevant as long as whatever you want to listen to is always available. In fact ownership may even come to be seen as a bad thing, being restricted to only being able to listen to what you actually own? No thanks, why would anyone want that when they can listen to any track at any time they like? People will never care about ownership unless and until one of the big players goes out of business and even then I suspect it'll only be if Apple goes bang and people suddenly find they can't listen to their iTunes anymore but that isn't going to happen.

Nicely put.

Don't you believe it sonny. It could happen. Ownership counts a lot to some and likewise the ability to sell on said product when you've had enough of it. If you have the right stuff be that CD, SACD, or vinyl you can be in for a killing. Which is more than can be said of your MP3 downloads. However, each to their own as its your choice.

Music is music whichever way you choose to listen to it.

 

[The_Lhc]

=David@FrankHarvey]I agree with everything you have said. As far as the corporate machine goes, this is perfect, but how long before the public "backlash" against 'non ownership' by buying some other format?

Not as long as they can just hit "buy now" or even just play on their phone and listen to a track instantly they'll never care. "Ownership" is irrelevant as long as whatever you want to listen to is always available. In fact ownership may even come to be seen as a bad thing, being restricted to only being able to listen to what you actually own? No thanks, why would anyone want that when they can listen to any track at any time they like? People will never care about ownership unless and until one of the big players goes out of business and even then I suspect it'll only be if Apple goes bang and people suddenly find they can't listen to their iTunes anymore but that isn't going to happen.

Nicely put.

?

?

Don't you believe it sonny. It could happen. Ownership counts a lot to some and likewise the ability to sell on said product when you've had enough of it. If you have the right stuff be that CD, SACD, or vinyl you can be in for a killing. Which is more than can be said of your MP3 downloads. However, each to their own as its your choice.

You appear to think we're on different sides of the argument. We aren't.

 

[Al ears]

=David@FrankHarvey]I agree with everything you have said. As far as the corporate machine goes, this is perfect, but how long before the public "backlash" against 'non ownership' by buying some other format?

Not as long as they can just hit "buy now" or even just play on their phone and listen to a track instantly they'll never care. "Ownership" is irrelevant as long as whatever you want to listen to is always available. In fact ownership may even come to be seen as a bad thing, being restricted to only being able to listen to what you actually own? No thanks, why would anyone want that when they can listen to any track at any time they like? People will never care about ownership unless and until one of the big players goes out of business and even then I suspect it'll only be if Apple goes bang and people suddenly find they can't listen to their iTunes anymore but that isn't going to happen.

Nicely put.

Don't you believe it sonny. It could happen. Ownership counts a lot to some and likewise the ability to sell on said product when you've had enough of it. If you have the right stuff be that CD, SACD, or vinyl you can be in for a killing. Which is more than can be said of your MP3 downloads. However, each to their own as its your choice.

You appear to think we're on different sides of the argument. We aren't.

Apologies if I misread your posts.

 

[iMark]

Rather than digitizing your own records, which has its charms, it would be much more helpful if the record companies would digitize their analogue mastertapes and release them as SACD, Bluray Audio and Hires download. Even a Redbook CD will sound better than my original record. I suppose the only advantage of doing my own digitzing is that there are no mastering engineers that f*ck up the process.

I have some great sounding records that I have digitized with Vinyl Studio and did a bit a crack and pop repair as well as using a slight noise filter. I would actually buy an SACD of these recordings rather then do it myself with my amateur kit.

 

[Vladimir]

Rather than digitizing your own records, which has its charms, it would be much more helpful if the record companies would digitize their analogue mastertapes and release them as SACD, Bluray Audio and Hires download. Even a Redbook CD will sound better than my original record. I suppose the only advantage of doing my own digitzing is that there are no mastering engineers that f*ck up the process.

I have some great sounding records that I have digitized with Vinyl Studio and did a bit a crack and pop repair as well as using a slight noise filter. I would actually buy an SACD of these recordings rather then do it myself with my amateur kit.

If you look in the Dr. Loudness database for Ghost In The Machine, an album by The Police, you will notice that the best results are on the original CD, and the remastered versions and SACD release are with hotter output. Most likely if someone compared the SACD and CD version, he/she would prefer the slightly louder SACD thinking it's due to higher resolution.

 

[The_Lhc]

You appear to think we're on different sides of the argument. We aren't.

Apologies if I misread your posts.

No worries, I probably didn't make it clear enough, I'm very much in the "personal ownership" camp, I listen to vinyl, typically buy CDs and aside from the occasional Soundcloud track I don't use streaming services at all. My comments have been trying to illustrate how the majority of people now consume music, us lot are distinctly old-fashioned now, compared to "them out there" but there's an awful lot more of them and they're the ones dictating the market now.

 

[iMark]

If you look in the Dr. Loudness database for Ghost In The Machine, an album by The Police, you will notice that the best results are on the original CD, and the remastered versions and SACD release are with hotter output. Most likely if someone compared the SACD and CD version, he/she would prefer the slightly louder SACD thinking it's due to higher resolution.

The vinyl rip (LP from 1981) scores a tiny bit better than the CD (1984, US). The SACD from 2003 score about the same as the CD (1984, FR). I suppose the most interesting thing here is the fact that there is difference between the CD from the US and the one from France. Very weird is that the SACD from 2003 is has much more dynamic range than the replastered CD from the same year.

Weighing up all pros and cons I would think that the 2003 SACD will give you the best sounding consumer copy of the master tape.

 

[Vladimir]

If you look in the Dr. Loudness database for Ghost In The Machine, an album by The Police, you will notice that the best results are on the original CD, and the remastered versions and SACD release are with hotter output. Most likely if someone compared the SACD and CD version, he/she would prefer the slightly louder SACD thinking it's due to higher resolution.

The vinyl rip (LP from 1981) scores a tiny bit better than the CD (1984, US). The SACD from 2003 score about the same as the CD (1984, FR). I suppose the most interesting thing here is the fact that there is difference between the CD from the US and the one from France. Very weird is that the SACD from 2003 is has much more dynamic range than the replastered CD from the same year.

Weighing up all pros and cons I would think that the 2003 SACD will give you the best sounding consumer copy of the master tape.

There are so many inconsistencies, one can never relly on the general assumption that media resolution is imminently tied to better mastering or higher sound quality. It's always good to do your homework and look arround before spending 300 quid on CDs or SACDs.

 

[Al ears]

You appear to think we're on different sides of the argument. We aren't.

Apologies if I misread your posts.

No worries, I probably didn't make it clear enough, I'm very much in the "personal ownership" camp, I listen to vinyl, typically buy CDs and aside from the occasional Soundcloud track I don't use streaming services at all. My comments have been trying to illustrate how the majority of people now consume music, us lot are distinctly old-fashioned now, compared to "them out there" but there's an awful lot more of them and they're the ones dictating the market now.

Ah, I too am in the same camp. I do however us all available music format depending on what genre of music I am listening to e.g. Classical will be CD, SACD or hires downloads, blues and jazz will probably be on vinyl.

I don't think there really is a group of people dictating the mark any more than buyers did in the past, there is just more choice ( which cannot be a bad thing).

 

[The_Lhc]

I don't think there really is a group of people dictating the mark any more than buyers did in the past, there is just more choice ( which cannot be a bad thing).

Well, yes, that's what I mean, the majority of people are now choosing to stream from the net, rather than buy outright,

 

[Al ears]

I don't think there really is a group of people dictating the mark any more than buyers did in the past, there is just more choice ( which cannot be a bad thing).

Well, yes, that's what I mean, the majority of people are now choosing to stream from the net, rather than buy outright,

I guess it's easy to do and if you can get on with the quality of streamed music then why not? I don't think they are going to stop producing albums on CD in the near future, vinyl sales although still very small in the great scheme of things is are still on the increase.

 

[expat_mike]

I think that when Steve Jobs was initially marketing iTunes and downloading music, he pointed out that most albums contain only one or two standout tracks, and the rest are just padding. He argued that it was good for people to have the option to buy and download just the individual tracks that they wanted, rather than the whole album.

I think many people now enjoy buying/streaming these individual tracks, and over time this habit becomes the norm - so the proportion of music buyers who prefer to buy whole albums, whether vinyl or cd, will decline over time.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think that when Steve Jobs was initially marketing iTunes and downloading music, he pointed out that most albums contain only one or two standout tracks, and the rest are just padding. He argued that it was good for people to have the option to buy and download just the individual tracks that they wanted, rather than the whole album.

The problem there is that many albums, on first listening, will have tracks you don't like, or you think are average. As you listen to an album over a period of time, that changes, and you find yourself liking tracks you intially weren't keen on or didn't even like. I've done that when transferring music to my iPod - I'd only put the better tracks on, or the louder ones for when I'm out in traffic and there's a lot of background noise - but I'd find myself wanting to listen to another track off the album, or the album in its entirity.

I think many people now enjoy buying/streaming these individual tracks, and over time this habit becomes the norm - so the proportion of music buyers who prefer to buy whole albums, whether vinyl or cd, will decline over time.

Vinyl seems to be bringing back the enjoyment of listening to a whole album. I generally listen to a whole album anyway, unless I'm testing stuff.

 

[Gazzip]

Vinyl seems to be bringing back the enjoyment of listening to a whole album. I generally listen to a whole album anyway, unless I'm testing stuff.

I have a digital source only system and have been this way for over twenty years. I find that with streaming I jump around from track to track a lot. Less so with CD but I do still skip the occasional track. I do however seem to enjoy listening to a whole album start to finish but do not usually seem to be able to control myself with digital. Maybe a turntable is the answer to my impatience.

 

[drummerman]

I think that when Steve Jobs was initially marketing iTunes and downloading music, he pointed out that most albums contain only one or two standout tracks, and the rest are just padding. He argued that it was good for people to have the option to buy and download just the individual tracks that they wanted, rather than the whole album.

The problem there is that many albums, on first listening, will have tracks you don't like, or you think are average. As you listen to an album over a period of time, that changes, and you find yourself liking tracks you intially weren't keen on or didn't even like. I've done that when transferring music to my iPod - I'd only put the better tracks on, or the louder ones for when I'm out in traffic and there's a lot of background noise - but I'd find myself wanting to listen to another track off the album, or the album in its entirity.

I think many people now enjoy buying/streaming these individual tracks, and over time this habit becomes the norm - so the proportion of music buyers who prefer to buy whole albums, whether vinyl or cd, will decline over time.

Vinyl seems to be bringing back the enjoyment of listening to a whole album. I generally listen to a whole album anyway, unless I'm testing stuff.

Good post

 

[matthewpiano]

I pretty much exclusively listen to whole albums, whether on CD or vinyl. The only exceptions are sometimes with classical recordings, when I may want to listen to one sonata, concerto, or symphony in-depth, but not the coupling.

There are often tracks on rock/pop albums that only really make sense within the context of the album.

 

[iMark]

I remember that my listening habits changed when I went from LPs to CDs. I used to focus on sides of LPs (except for classical music that would stratch to both sides of the LP).

Then the CD came along with the option to program the tracks in your favourite order, if you could be bothered to do the programming. I then would mainly listen to the whole CD.

Steve Jobs probably had a point when he said that many albums only had 2 good tracks and the rest was filler. I think this was an unintended consequence of artist feeling the pressure to fill a CD with about 60 mins of music while they would only release about 40 mins on an LP.

Even with all our CDs in the iTunes library, we still tend to listen to whole albums.

 

[MrReaper182]

What does it matter if someone listens to a whole album or just a selection of songs. I'm an album guy but people can listen to a bands/ singers work how they like.

 

[tonky]

In reply to the comment attributed to SJ - "only 2 good songs on a cd - the rest is filler" - I think he's entitled to his opinion but his interest was developing an innovating product by which people could easily access only the music they wanted to hear. With a remark like that - I certainly wouldn't say he was a music lover - in fact far from it. He's making a statement only to justify "an ease of use product by which to pick your (i) tunes!". He was only into making money!

Most comments I have read so far about how people like to listen to their "tunes" indicate - like me - they are album/cd lovers. Most good artists pack an album with a variety of decent music overall. The running time of a cd affords them the facility of a bit more musical experimentation In my opinion. - Good for the consumer for sure!

tonky - the naim of the game is music

tonky

 

[Gazzip]

What does it matter if someone listens to a whole album or just a selection of songs. I'm an album guy but people can listen to a bands/ singers work how they like.

It doesn't matter although some would say that albums are compositions that should be appreciated as a whole. All down to personal preference IMO as it should be.

 

[The_Lhc]

What does it matter if someone listens to a whole album or just a selection of songs. I'm an album guy but people can listen to a bands/ singers work how they like.

It doesn't matter but it goes a long way to explain why people don't buy physical formats anymore, which is what we're actually discussing. So it might not matter but it is entirely relevant.

Personally I think it's just convenience, give people the option to get something now, without leaving their chair and most of them will take it, rather than get in the car, drive into town, fumble around for some change for parking etc etc. Even if you order the CD online you still have to wait a few days for it (or weeks if it's eligible for Amazon Prime delivery...).