digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin

wired.com — As counterintuitive as it may seem in this age of iPods and digital downloads, vinyl —the favorite physical format of indie music collectors and audiophiles—is poised to re-enter the mainstream, or at least become a major tributary. Talk to almost anyone in the music business' vital indie and DJ scenes and you'll encounter a uniformly optimistic...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Wagnerian, on 11/05/2007, -30/+19YES TO THAT! Now how about ditching crappy MP3s for FLAC files, eh?
    • luciferin, on 11/05/2007, -4/+7While I'm all for the adoption of FLAC I don't understand how you can speak about it in the same sentence as vinyl.
      • polyGone, on 11/05/2007, -6/+2...besides....why would you replace a compressed format with a non-compressed format?
        • polyGone, on 11/05/2007, -2/+4or just dig me down........it would be ogg you'd replace mp3 with......
    • Twoodge, on 11/05/2007, -10/+8The only reason people still hold on to vinyls is for the nostalgia factor, DJing and the fact that most modern music is produced by a ferret high on crack (with the inevitable 'remastering' when a vinyl record is officially reeleased on CD). Digital lossless files hold far superior quality to vinyl.
      • Lythium, on 10/30/2007, -7/+13Lies!! Even your vaunted "digital lossless files" will never be able to imitate those wondrous hissing/crackling sounds you get with vinyl!! Music just isn't as enjoyable it isn't overlaid by the sound of a cat losing a fight to a bowl of Rice Crispies ;)
      • ZachSka87, on 11/05/2007, -4/+4Here's an idea...read the article before you comment.
        • popfrogs, on 11/05/2007, -4/+2Blasphemy! Where do you think you are, Slashdot?
    • Nerevar, on 10/30/2007, -3/+4Yeah I'm fine with ditching CDs as long as I get the music in some kind of lossless format. FLAC is preferred though.
  • puddlegum, on 11/05/2007, -16/+56I would agree! Vinyl will outlive the CD. It has outlived every other music media. Vinyl + digital download will cover not only the consumer but the collector as well.
    • Rahodeb, on 10/29/2007, -21/+3Maybe when download speeds increase to allow me to download in full quality like a cd. Until then, you're giving me the choice between a scratchy record, and a lossy download. No Thanks.
      • chrispen, on 10/30/2007, -2/+14Do you have dialup? Because with most broadband it probably takes less time to download a lossless album than it does to drive to a store, find what you are looking for, purchase it, and then drive back home.
      • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1And take better care of your records.
    • Tomchei, on 11/05/2007, -6/+19Vinyl will outlive the CD but will never be mainstream as the headline implies.
      Its day has come and gone.
      • betobeto, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9Mainstream? Definitely not again. Healthy niche market? More like it.
  • patthew, on 11/03/2007, -19/+71While a lot of people will say that there's a huge quality difference between vinyl and CD, I think you'd really find that on most consumer end stereos the difference is negligible.

    That being said, I still find the whole vinyl listening experience much more fulfilling than listening to a CD. I love seeing the album art full sized, and I don't care who you are but those damn pops make it so much more personal feeling. Plus everybody loves making their favorite band sound like the chipmunks, which is done much more easily with a record than with any other format.
    • Rahodeb, on 11/05/2007, -13/+101Plus, I like popping a record into my car record player and jamming out on a long road trip. I mean, who needs cd's. Plus, I just remember where each song break is on the record and move the needle there when I want to, it elevates song changing to an art form. I am sooo cool.
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/30/2007, -14/+24There are grooves of silence on the vinyl so you can tell where the song breaks are.
      • Tyr7BE, on 11/01/2007, -8/+34Most people who collect vinyl won't be skipping any tracks. I don't have a collection, but I know a lot of people who do, and they unanimously agree that one of the best parts of the vinyl experience is choosing the record to play and playing it to its completion. It's the same mentality that prevented foobar2000 from having a song progress slider for the longest time. If you're listening to music, you're going to listen to it the proper way, not like some kid with a 20 second attention span. You listen to the album in the way it was intended to be, not just playing your favorite tracks, and not skipping to that really catchy part of the song. It's almost a ritualistic thing - you commit yourself to the record and don't change it until it's finished. If you don't understand this, then vinyl probably isn't for you, and you're more likely to gravitate towards the CD. Keep in mind, it was the ability to easily skip tracks that led to the whole 'two good songs and 12 filler tracks' mentality that has wormed its way into modern music production.

        As for cars, do people seriously still play CDs in their cars? Just about everyone I know has moved on to MP3 players and RCA jacks.
        • Pasqualz, on 10/30/2007, -16/+5Tyr7BE, May you wake up tomorrow and find that your underwear is not where you thought it was, and may your head explode you ritualistic, rigid, blind traditionalist ballbag!
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5......You plan on stealing his underwear?
        • Phyltre, on 10/30/2007, -3/+25I find it disturbing when increased flexibility in an entertainment medium is somehow portrayed as a downfall. It's what old fogeys have been doing for thousands of years--"Back in the day, we didn't skip tracks! We sat down, cleared our schedule, and took it all in as the artist intended...a solid block of music! And we liked it! You kids and your track preferences...listenin' to the musics and the skippin' with the jello and the pudding..."
          • sholt, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Personally, I like my Mona Lisa's with eyebrows.
          • Rahodeb, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I think it's when the shortfalls of a technology are portrayed as features that the term "fanboy" is usually appropriate.
          • AxeSwinger, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3I guess I'm one of those old fogeys. But I agree with you the sound quality might be better but the negatives are too great. I wore out records, had records melt or scratched accidentally. Does anyone else remember holding the tape deck next to the speakers so you could get a copy of a song to play on your Walkman. Sure albums are better on vinyl but I can think of only maybe a hand full of albums that are worth the trouble.

            Obviously, I'm not an audiophile but if you listen to bands live you hear imperfections anyway so why try to recreate a "sound" that only exists in a laboratory (studio) anyway.
        • Jugalator, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4But why would you want to ENFORCE that just because you don't like it? Lack of self control + big ego??
        • Toast1185, on 10/29/2007, -4/+7I bought it, let me listen to it how I want to.
        • MikeWanDo, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Why is that the "proper" way?
      • CLShortFuse, on 10/30/2007, -2/+2I upgraded from Stock Car Radio to MP3CD player and now Bluetooth + Aux IN + MP3 CD player. Now I use my phone to play music via A2DP. (More space than a 700MB CD since I have a 2GB MicroSD but will get a 6GB MicroSDHC). CDA format (1411kbps) is pretty much dead
        • andsoitgoes42, on 11/05/2007, -1/+3You actually took the time to post that? Yes, you're SOOO cool. We care. I've set up a little work shrine for you now. It's got your little non-profile picture and some candles, I'm going old school, it seems ironic so that makes it even cooler.
        • Tyr7BE, on 11/10/2007, -2/+2Yeah that's pretty much the way to go. Don't mind the child just above me, he's still struggling to find the power button on his CD player so he's a bit jealous ;)
          • DrStephanHeimer, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1Did I insult your favorite flash in the pan band? Ii'm sure your listening to them right now singing about how much their life sucks and how much pain their in.
            You have no clue about audio fidelity, or how sound actually works and your just talking out of your ass like a troll. Not to mention that the noise floor in a car is so high anyway its impossible to have a decent listening experience.

            So please shut the ***** up.
        • DrStephanHeimer, on 11/12/2007, -1/+1@CLShortFuse

          Right because bluetooth + mp3 equals audio fidelity

          but then again if your listening to Linkin Park or some other ***** emo band you probably don't want to hear it too clearly or you might realize it sucks
    • griz, on 10/30/2007, -2/+22Amateur!! With the record in your car, you just hit the right combination of bumps to get it to go to the track you desire.
    • Seph7, on 11/02/2007, -11/+69So audiophiles don't like barely noticeable compression that allows you to fit CD's on iPods cause they sound bad. But pops on records are amazing and make it sound more personal. You people are ***** up
      • dafragsta, on 10/30/2007, -9/+6I used to think I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a 160kbps mp3 and a 192kbps and on up. I've since written that off as completely wrong. Doing an A/B listen on a good album with a good mix, you notice that mp3 compresses the sounds, especially the midrange, into very thin representations of a frequency range, hoping the end product won't have noticeable frequency gaps. It does a fair job, but it doesn't replace the missing info. I also thought there wouldn't be much difference between 16-bit 48kHz and 24-bit 96kHz, which is very hard to discern until you start processing the audio. 24-bit 96kHz with 64-bit internal precision starts to really make correcting audio with an EQ much more productive.
        • Snyder, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4You're either misguided or seriously pretentious. Without doing an A/B test, even the so called "audiophiles" would be hard pressed to know if they are listening to a high quality VBR aac or a CD. Granted every audio codec produces minute flaws in various forms specific to their format that an ear trained on that codec's methods can spot after careful examination. But these are not blatantly noticeable flaws. These are the flaws almost no one can hear, and the number plummets even further if you take away the A/B testing.

          As for 24+bit/96+kHz... you say it's hard to discern before processing the audio, but you can do it? So you are saying you can hear the difference between a CD (that hasn't been crippled to enhanced the differences) and its DVD Audio counterpart? Do you have Superman ears, because the bluff on most all "audiophiles" was called years ago. Process the audio if you want, but unless you are one of the few with Superman ears, you are suffering from the Placebo effect. 24+bit/96+kHz has one true legitimate use, and it isn't for listening. It's for the overhead it provides producers when recording, producing and mixing with the intent to mix down with dithering to 16bit/44-48kHz.

          Stop spreading FUD.
    • FlashBazbo, on 10/30/2007, -1/+18"Plus everybody loves making their favorite band sound like the chipmunks"

      ZOMG, you've just articulated the absolute bestest, most terrifically amazing argument for vinyl!
      And I'm dead serious about this.
    • scottschiller, on 11/05/2007, -0/+6Vinyl I think has been reduced to a "specialist" format these days - primarily DJs, collectors and lastly (and most amusingly,) audiophiles. I'm a DJ and have a decent collection of records because I enjoy the hands-on format and mixing music that way, but I have found some quality issues with records. They won't be replacing CDs or MP3s due to the convenience factor, and the average person isn't terribly picky about music quality from an audio perspective. The dynamic range (most quiet to most loud sound volumes possible) and digital-ness of CDs mean they never lose quality, as opposed to records - so ultimately, they win, "loudness war" arguments aside.
      Nifty BBC thing on this:
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/onemusic/distribution/ ...
      There's a term, "Inner Groove Distortion", which refers to the way in which a record quality degrades as the needle moves toward the inner-most parts of a record. High-pitched sounds, "C", "S", "T" letters, cymbals, high-hats and so on are some of the most noticeable elements which are audibly distorted, sort of like when you have a radio station slightly out-of-tune. (Radio sometimes exhibits this phenomenon by itself I think, due to its own frequency response limitations.)

      Getting back to the record realm, I have noticed that some records are pressed or produced better than others and sound quality varies - some have little or no noticeable IGD, whereas others are terrible. I still like the hands-on aspect of DJing and mixing records, and I guess I'm willing to accept some format limitations in exchange for the "real thing." (Even if it was some trip-hop band that was recorded digitally in the first place, then pressed on wax, etc.. amusingly enough.)

      Oh and digg me down if you must, but there was a green-themed site about 10 years old that had some quite informative comments on this same article just today, for anyone who's interested.
    • Rooster99, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2If you want to hear the difference between the warmth of vinyl, against the digitization of CD's do what my Dad showed me - He played a record of a pipe organ hitting some really low notes. It sounded really nice. Then he played the same recording on CD. While it was by no means bad, the sound was definitely nicer from the vinyl. Plus even today with a lot of dance music on both digital download and vinyl, the vinyl always has punchier and noticeably deeper bass especially on loud club/PA systems.

      But having said that, my mp3 collection doesent melt and warp on a hot day, and at roughly $20 a 2-track record, the mp3 will probably always be a more practical solution.
  • whinyfanboy, on 11/05/2007, -21/+6And you rip vinyl to mp3, how ?
    • Winters, on 10/30/2007, -9/+31That leads to another point. If there was REALLY a market for vinyl other than DJ's and fanboys, don't you think the recording industry would be all over it?
      • ISurfTooMuch, on 10/30/2007, -4/+20Yeah, the same way they were way out in front on the digital download thing. Yep, they saw that one coming years before it became popular.
        • dafragsta, on 10/30/2007, -1/+9The recording industry hasn't been out in front of anything since they had a hand in killing the public domain.
      • Lythium, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4Turntable-to-CD interfaces are available in many tech stores... I trust you know how to get from a CD to an MP3? I've also been hearing about USB-turntables. Ta-da!
      • Lythium, on 10/29/2007, -2/+0Double-posted
    • liquidhalcyon, on 10/29/2007, -0/+20There are a couple of ways. USB record players or Using an audio capture card and software are popular.
      • orithidon, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1those are really cool, I have one and you end up getting that classic raw sound from your LP...definitly worth getting if you own records..here's one:

        http://cgi.ebay.com/Crosley-USB-RECORD-TURNTABLE-L ...
      • Rahodeb, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4That sounds convenient. I guess I'll just sell my cd player and not use the "rip to mp3" button that exists in just about every media player now. Does it come complete with pops and crackles?
        • Cymrubeats, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1You can't have a vinyl sound when you rip it to a digital format...the whole difference between digital and vinyl is the fact digital is sample based (fractions of the sound) and vinyl is a constant stream.
          • trogdoor, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4"the whole difference between digital and vinyl is the fact digital is sample based (fractions of the sound) and vinyl is a constant stream."

            And you assume that the difference is audible because?

            With a high enough sample rate you can get to the point that the momentum of the diaphragm in the speaker will completely eliminate any square wave. Claiming that digital lossless audio can never sound as good as vinal is like claiming that losslessly compressed digital images that are printed out on a piece of paper can never look as good as analog prints on the same paper at the same DPI, if the DPI of the picture is greater than the DPI of that which prints it, how the hell does the fact that it is "sampled" into pixels make a difference? And that is completely ignoring the other bottleneck of what your ears can actually perceive.
          • richIsBored, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1 Snort Snort WEEEEEE!
    • patthew, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3There are the coupons that were mentioned in the article, or what I'm sure most people do is just download the mp3s from "alternate means" after they've bought the album on vinyl.
      • Lythium, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5I thought the coupons were a fantastic idea... It's nice to know that some bands are actually still in touch with their fan base.
    • edicius, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9How are you "techie" enough to be on digg, and not know how to do that?
      • Phyltre, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2Just maybe, like most people, he hasn't seen a vinyl record/player in years and doesn't know how to interact with one?
        • popfrogs, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2Just maybe, like most people under the age of 30, he hasn't seen a vinyl record/player in years and doesn't know how to interact with one?

          There, fixed that for ya. And of course, my apologies to all you raver kids that will take issue to that statement; you're in the minority of your peers.
          • Phyltre, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4I'm pretty sure the average Digg user, statistically, is below the age of thirty. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 19-27, depending on how you arrive at the numbers.
    • SocialPoison, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7If you already own a decent record player:
      http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/mp3/85fb/

      And if you don't:
      http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/mp3/90a0/
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/30/2007, -0/+13I want a front-loading vinyl record slot on my computer!
      • therightclique, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2you have to heat the records up and fold them in quarter sections before sliding them into the slot. that's the downside. it's time consuming.
    • Dragular, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1Aside from that, Coheed & Cambria had a deal (may still have, unknown) for their new album where if you pre-ordered the Vinyl, you got the digital download for free as a bonus. I don't know if it was a DRM'd, "only good on your PC shove off if you wanna listen anywhere else" deal, but that seems like the way to go for some of these indie groups at the very least.
      • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1hopefully good (non-emo) bands will do this some day.
    • TroubleInMind, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2USB turntables can be had at Costco for less than $150. At that point it's just like ripping any other media to mp3
    • minorthreat, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10vinly has RCA outs. Convert that to a 3.5mm jack with a $2 cable found at radioshack. Which plugs into your computers sound input. Record the sound using windows sound recorder.. or your favorite fancy pants audio software that you paid $200 for. Then use your favorite software to covert .wav to .mp3...hell you may even be able to skip that step.

      I'm honestly suprised a digg user would not be able to do this with a blind fold on. Whats next? How do I plug my xbox into the TV?
      • Xanium4332, on 10/29/2007, -5/+2ahem, $2 cable, you need to spend at least $50,000 just to retain the 'sonic quality' of the music. Also make sure the power lead to your computer also costs at least $20,000 to ensure you get pure sound (or you can get one that adds warmth to the music).

        Oh and to those people who REALLY like CDs, don't forget to paint the rims green, it somehow (and nobody can explain how) makes the digital audio sound fuller, deeper, and more clear, did I forget to mention CD's are digital...
        • dcmiltown, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2For $70,000 I'll just skip the "warmth" and "pure sound". I notice the difference on certain albums, especially classic rock, but for newer stuff the difference is negligible. Especially since music is mostly digitally produced nowadays.
          • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1since at least 50% of all modern music uses something like a Line 6 PodXT, everything will sound digital anyway, and it is AWESOME!!!
    • CLShortFuse, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Line-In
  • whinyfanboy, on 10/31/2007, -13/+8There's no market because in the 21st century everyone just loads their music on an iPod and vinyl records aren't very portable.
    • Masefield, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4The new iPod vinyl. It's a white turntable that fits in your packback.
    • yojiffyskippy, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1Not portable and you can't steal... um .... I mean share vinyl.
    • solid12345, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Not portable, what a tool you are. You've never been to a party...with live people have you?
      • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I haven't. Please describe your ***** party to me.
    • bungoman, on 11/02/2007, -1/+3There is a huge market for vinyl, it's just not the mass market. I myself own far more records than I do CDs and I am not alone. Vinyl is cheaper to manufacture in small numbers and is perfect for non-mainstream bands.
  • ScornForSega, on 10/30/2007, -15/+48Meh, this is a bunch of crap. Most people don't give two ***** about sound quality. As evidence, I present all the damn 128k mp3s you find on the net. They simply can't hear the difference.

    Can vinyl sound better than a CD? Definitely. Are people going to put forward the extra effort of dealing with vinyl to experience that quality? I seriously doubt it.
    • ISurfTooMuch, on 11/02/2007, -3/+8Why digg this post down? I totally agree that many people either can't hear the difference between a ***** MP3 and a higher-quality sound recording or simply don't care.
      • DarkDx, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5I hate ***** mp3s.
        • therightclique, on 10/30/2007, -4/+2i love ***** mp3s. reminds me of growing up on the farm.
    • luciferin, on 11/02/2007, -4/+9It's dugg down by a few because the technical differences between vinyl and CD are mostly negligible. The impurities you gain from a vinyl cancel out any gains you get from having an analog signal due to having no sample rate. And as for the argument that it limits the compression levels that studios put on audio.. vinyl still limits the dynamics!

      CDs have better quality. Mathematically.
      • bwizard, on 11/02/2007, -2/+1Have you every hard a .mp3 @ club level verus vinyl then you might know what you are talking about.
        • NSMike, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3Have you every gan to skool then you might know how to rite english.
    • maxsunset, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4I unfortunately agree with you. Most people just dont care, and the convenience far outweighs any improvement in sound quality for most. I just hope there's enough people out there who DO care and let vinyl (and SACD/DVD-A for that matter) live on.
    • popfrogs, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3With the crap that people listen to these days, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the latest White Stripes album or a recording of cats mating in a steel drum, let alone the difference between analog and vinyl.
      Find a good Fear or Meatmen record on vinyl (in mint condition), put it on a turntable and you'll hear a lot of difference between that and a flat sounding CD.
    • mozillaman0, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3I agree that most people don't care, but 128kbps is starting to get weeded out more and more by 160 and higher I find. Most torrents are somewhere between 160 and 320, and there is a lot of songs on Limewire at 192.
  • hoppy44, on 10/29/2007, -6/+4I'm old school and the first thing I did after reading this article was to look for turntables on Craig's List. I've got a stack of records from my parent's basement, so yeah, I might spend $50 to hook up a turntable to my stereo for the chance to hear them again in their 'original' format.
    • Urusai, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Slim Whitman never sounded so good!
    • jd72277, on 10/30/2007, -1/+12if you are "old school" shouldn't you already have a turntable?
      • honus, on 11/01/2007, -1/+12I'm a race car driver.

        Right after I read his comment I looked for a Ford GT on Craigslist.
    • edwartica, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2wannabe.
    • VictoryGin, on 10/30/2007, -0/+8You shouldn't stack your records... it's bad for them
    • chsbrgr, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6On a $50 turntable that 'original' format is going to sound like a wood chipper.
      • betobeto, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Absolutely true. It takes more than $50 to hear what is the big deal about vinyl. More like several times that amount. In fact many people switched to CDs because their $50 turntables always sounded like ***** in comparison.
  • HollowMarkeD, on 11/02/2007, -4/+31Its nice an all, but there are a few statements in the article that are plain not true

    "Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary." Fact remains a human can listen between 20-20,000Hz, psychoacoustics means doubling that will be indistinguishable from reality, then they add a bit on top just to be sure i.e. 44.1kHz, the CD. So sound quality isn't a good argument.

    However, for having a thing to cherish, love and to hold Vinyl is great and I use it at home whenever I have time to relax and go through the ritual of brushing dust off the grooves :)

    they really should get out of the loudness war on CD's its ruining their sound and I'd cite that as more a reason they are getting less popular; at the moment a lot of CD's have as little bit rate as 128 MP3's
    • banq59, on 10/29/2007, -1/+14And Nyquist's theorem for sampling rate is only used to determine the minimum needed sampling rate for a given frequency. Why this is mentioned in the article at all is baffling.
      • marklarznexyne, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Because for a given sampling rate you cannot have anything "useful" in the reconstructed signal for frequencies above half of the sampling rate. Actually you have to filter the signal before you sample it to avoid aliasing.

        But still he's just plain wrong. It's not like anyone can listen to anything above 20kHz.
        • RockinRoel, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1You do notice the difference between a below 20kHz note and a below 20kHz note, combined with upper notes higher than 20kHz. Or at least I read that somewhere. It does change the color of the sound a wee bit.
    • btgoss, on 10/29/2007, -2/+6I agree with your comments 100%. However so much of today's main stream youth music culture is about loudness, I think that has just as much to do with it as anything. Once today's main stream youth stops wanting loud bass thumping noise, then things like sound quality will make a main stream comeback.
      • popfrogs, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1That's what Radiohead is for, to fill in the gigantic blank where harmonic popular music should go.
      • RockinRoel, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3I don't mind the loud bass, if it actually jumps out. What you get these days is an equal stream of loudness. Paradoxically, this makes the music sound dull by lack of dynamic.
    • gwalbridge, on 10/30/2007, -3/+4Well, true as your argument may be (that humans only audibly hear tones somewhere within an average of 20 - 20,000Hz), I can speak from experience that professional audio engineers still utilize high quality record players to play vinyls with "pink noise" on them to get a feel for a room/environment. The quality of the analog signal far surpasses the digital signal of other mediums, which is why this method is still used today. Additionally, the nature of pink noise requires a medium that is not "boxed in," in terms of the frequencies that it can retain, such as vinyls.
      • HollowMarkeD, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5I''m sure top professionals do do that, but (I guess) thats more to do with that has been the reference they've chosen, rather than it being an endorsment vinyl has superior sound. If they always use pink noise vinyl from even before CDs were invented; they'll still use it today. They need a "reference" sound with which they can recognise different rooms harmnic resonance and such. Other top professionals use Cd's of their favourite tracks for the same purpose.
    • gwalbridge, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3Also, it's hard to tell from your wording, but it seems as though you're thinking that 44.1KHz is a frequency which is "played" from the medium. That's not the case at all... 44.1KHz is the sample rate at which the frequencies are played. For example, at 44.1KHz, the data on the medium is sampled 44,100 times per second.
      • luciferin, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3From my reading he does understand this:
        "Fact remains a human can listen between 20-20,000Hz, psychoacoustics means doubling that will be indistinguishable from reality, then they add a bit on top just to be sure i.e. 44.1kHz, the CD. So sound quality isn't a good argument."
      • HollowMarkeD, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4No, it was my wording. :) Its a consequence of the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem; to hear in a certain range you need to double the sampling rate. The theorem states (from wiki):
        "Exact reconstruction of a continuous-time baseband signal from its samples is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth"

        If you only wanted to hear up to 19kHZ (which most people can't hear above anyway) you'd only need a sampling rate of 38.5KHz. CD's were designed to have more harmonic range than most humans can hear.
    • leverarchfile, on 11/02/2007, -3/+4although we can only hear up to 18-20k, there are plenty of harmonics present far above that, which DO have an audible effect upon the sound we hear. i.e. if you strum a guitar, and then play a 44k, or even 192k recording there IS a difference. by the very fact that you are sampling.
      as for the warmth argument,
      analog systems produce a lot of 2nd harmonic, to sounds which adds warmth. this is just down to the way they work.
      transistor based systems give third (ithink) harmonic, which is still distortion, but its effect is different to the warmth given by anaalogue systems.
      • therightclique, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2the only reason recording studios record higher than cd quality is to main the integrity of added digital processors (reverbs and etc). afterward a dithering process is applied to help maintain those things in the final mixdown.
        • leverarchfile, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1also, ive always presumed, to allow for time-stretch, and maniuplations like that.
    • maxsunset, on 10/30/2007, -1/+9"at the moment a lot of CD's have as little bit rate as 128 MP3's"
      What? This makes no sense!
      Music mastered for CD's gets compressed to be louder, data compressed a-la mp3s. The actual data streaming off of a playing CD is uncompressed. Different definitions of compression.
      • HollowMarkeD, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I was referring to CD's being (dynamically) compressed so much they have very little range in volume, similar to a poor quality mp3 (which is electronically file size compressed)
    • StaticThunder, on 11/02/2007, -2/+4Try a CD recording of pink noise sometime at 44.1 kHz. Arguments about harmonics to the contrary, you can't HEAR harmonics about 22kHz, so if they are there or not doesn't matter in the slightest. You won't be able to tell the difference. If you want to compare high speed professional tape to CDs, sure, for audiophiles that have superhuman ability to detect phase noise, but a CD recording of a record is indistinguishable from a record for normal humans.

      But don't get me started on mp3s. There IS a problem with compression. There is no such problem with a 44.1 kHz .wav (ie., a CD).
    • VIPAccess, on 10/30/2007, -4/+1How is it wrong? Just because we can't hear it doesn't mean it's not there.
      • StaticThunder, on 11/02/2007, -1/+6This is the dumbest argument for vinyl ever.

        You can't hear it. But its still there! But you can't hear it.

        Is the purpose of a recording to present things for you to hear? Or is there some other reason you want to play a recording. If its the former, than by definition, it doesn't need to produce things you can't hear. Do diggers merely need a remedial logic and rhetoric course or has stupidity become a pandemic disease?
    • HalFTW, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3"Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove"
      "...began selling USB turntables alongside vinyl, can't keep them in stock"
      Made me lol.
    • gavin422, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1No no no. The human ear cannot tell the difference between a 44.1kHz sample rate and a 96kHz sample rate or whatever. That's just way too many samples. And vinyl does not contain more data than a CD - vinyl is always limited by the machinery that is used to cut it. You are not getting a "perfect copy of the sound wave".

      Mind you, I'm not arguing that vinyl has lower quality than CD - it does have better quality. But vinyls are not the "perfection" that CDs can never approach.
  • Drexus, on 10/29/2007, -1/+9I'm all for the record. I would suggest a new LP format to combat the digital control age. A high density LP the size of a 45. Standards would specify that the player find the edge on it's own and read some encoded information as to the position of all the tracks. So the user can simply tell it to skip to the next song - reducing the chance of damage.
    • Firehed, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3So, an audio DVD?

      Yeah, yeah, I know. I think vinyl tends to sound better too, but a cheap DAC is going to be more than sufficient for most people when the alternative is spending hundreds to thousands on a turntable that performs well.
    • ISurfTooMuch, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8You could even eliminate the stylus entirely. There's absolutely no reason the tracks can't be read by a laser instead. That would prevent the album from being worn down each time it's played.

      In fact, I believe such a turntable was already developed. I seem to remember seeing one on sale years ago.
      • parkerhiggins, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6I think I saw the same one. It was $15k. Until that comes down (which it would, of course) I don't think it really has any place except in the audiophilest of households.
        • betobeto, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1You mean this one right?
          http://www.elpj.com/
          I frequent a vinyl fans forum and opinion from some members who actually have it (and deep pockets too), is that sound quality really isn't that superior to that of conventional TTs and that much of the warmth and groovy analog sound is lost to the "laser needle", which kind of defeats the purpose.
      • AttilaD, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3http://www.howstuffworks.com/cd.htm
        • DarkDx, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3And your point is...?
        • ISurfTooMuch, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3Not the same thing. A CD uses the laser to read digitally-encoded discs. I'm talking about using a laser to read an analog disc in the same way that a stylus does. However, since the laser is not a physical object making contact with the vinyl, it doesn't gradually wear it down like a stylus does. And since the medium is analog, it doesn't suffer from the bitrate issues that can make a CD sound worse than an analog recording.

          And, BTW, if anyone isn't convinced that CD's aren't the best-sounding audio medium out there, check out the DVD-Audio format. These discs use a higher bitarte than CD's, and they sound better. Not just better to an audiophile. Compare the same album on CD and DVD-A, and you'll easily tell the difference. FYI, although these discs will play in a standard DVD player, a player designed especially to handle them will play their higher-quality audio track, making them sound amazong.
    • FreakyT, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6But remember, since we're now in the digital age, it should also have a complex DRM scheme. For example, the record's encoded information could include a unique ID which is bound to the first turntable on which it is played.

      Also, it self destructs if you try to bypass the encoded section.
      • Xanium4332, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4or knifes the track to lower the 'resolution' of the audio...
    • Doorz, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Old Hat: Technics made that way back 1984. infrared sensor could 'see' the tracks and you can program the songs like a CD player. I own three of them, all work fine: Google SL-Q6, SL-Q15, etc.
      http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/3/34098/Technics ...
  • blackhydra, on 10/30/2007, -15/+4Digg me down.
  • jeremyduffy, on 11/01/2007, -11/+46Oy. Audiophiles.

    CDs are cheap, durable, and can be filled with music in just a minute or two. They also have dual use as data storage and backup. It's because of this that they won't go away until something better comes along.

    What you'll actually find is that small memory devices are going to replace CDs (as soon as they get a little cheaper). No normal person cares about vinyl (and I bet most people under 20 don't even know what it is).

    This is just like when I tried to convince my photographer friend that people would stop using film (which has happened).
    • conrail, on 10/30/2007, -4/+9It's not the convenience, it's the experience. I've noticed my listening habits have changed ever since I started listening to music almost exclusively through my computer and iPod. I've ripped hundreds of albums, but keep skipping through the tracks when they come up at random.

      As for photography, as much as I enjoy digital and my DSLR, I've noticed that the quantity of pictures has increased greatly (taking 10 where 1 would have been taken in the past) but the quality (composition, etc.) has diminished.
      • PaperMonkey, on 10/30/2007, -3/+1Exactly, people don't put the effort in anymore... why have a thoroughly enjoying audio experience that would take an hour or so when you can skip through the first 30 seconds or so of each song until you find the song you "just have to hear" and then run out and post a million pictures of your friends making stupid faces with half the picture obscured by your thumb.

        I take many pictures of my daughter with our point and click digital camera but when I want a nice picture of her I get out my SLR, compose a shot and then take the picture. digital is convenient but the fact is there is a lot of things you can do at home with a minimal dark room set up to play around with your own images that never turn out the same in photoshop.

        Besides, it was a real accomplishment the first time I successfully 'dodge & burned' a print in the dark room. It sounds cliche but everyone is in way too much of a hurry to bother trying to learn a craft.
      • therightclique, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6the composition is all in you. the camera has ZERO bearing on the composition. if you know what "composition" means.
    • luciferin, on 10/29/2007, -2/+2Well, film hasn't disappeared here. I guarantee that your photographer friend still uses film for certain things. While digital can have sharper images with MUCH cheaper storage, it is still more expensive for comparable equipment. You can get a cheap SLR for ~$100, while the cheapest DSLRs are currently $200-$400 for a decent model.
    • bungoman, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2If you're in a band it is way cheaper to have 500 7" records pressed than it is to have 500 CDs pressed. CDs are only cheaper in massive quantities.
      • naldwell, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1If you only needed 500 CD's, couldn't you just get your band members and some of their mates to write them with their home computers? I mean, CD's are cheap and everyone has burners these days...
    • blackhydra, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1I am under 20 and know what vinyls are.
      • scottschiller, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2You mean, "Records." ;)
        • akman360, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1I'm only 17 and I just can't get enough of Vinyl. Seriously, vinyl beats almost any other audio format hands down. Period.
        • akman360, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1I'm only 17 and I just can't get enough of Vinyl. Seriously, vinyl beats almost any other audio format hands down. Period.
  • HappyScrappy, on 11/02/2007, -6/+29*****.

    Vinyl has to be manually started, stopped and flipped over. And they stopped making changers for them in the 70s. And you can't play them in the car.

    It's a remote control world.
    • honus, on 10/31/2007, -3/+8Bingo. Vinyl is the anti-portable. As such, it really doesn't have the legs to make it.
      No matter how many people want to believe that vinyl will one day be the medium of choice for music, it isn't going to be. It doesn't add up.
      • krasherspk, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5The best suggestion I've seen is the combo of digital download and vinyl. You get the best of both worlds. The portable music which can be used on the go and for the collector in all of us, vinyl for relaxing home use.
    • Tyr7BE, on 11/02/2007, -2/+8When you read a book, you have to manually go buy the book, open the covers, and turn the pages. And you can't read a book on any computer. I'll call ***** on anyone who says books will make any sort of comeback against eBooks.

      It's an Internet world.
      • PaperMonkey, on 11/05/2007, -0/+3Granted, I don't run in as geeky a crowd as I did in University but even the house of 4 computer science majors and the one planning nerd.. The house with 5 people but 11 computers would pick a paper book over an ebook any day of the week. eBooks are an option but they will never replace physical books.
      • HappyScrappy, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2It's easier to read a book on the toilet or on the plane than read an eBook.

        Also note it is easier to listen to a CD (esp. rippeD) on the toilet or on the plane than to take vinyl to either of these places.

        Thanks for helping out my argument.
    • ELCad, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4You can play them in a car:
      http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9687999-1.html
    • VictoryGin, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2my record player stops on its own, and i only have to press play and it moves the needle to the beginning of the record and drops it by itself. and it was only $70 brand new bought in 2007...
      and no, i can't play it in the car, but that's what my ipod is for.
    • kahrytan, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1They make changes for them now. But they are digital now. http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Technica-AT-PL120S-Pro ...
    • RockinRoel, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Vinyl has an entirely different experience to it. It's not meant to be very portable. Vinyl is meant to be used in HiFi installations or by DJs. Playing vinyl records is an experience, like watching TV. You can make TV as portable as you want, but you'll still like the big screen in the living room (or cinema, to create a DJ analogy) best. Another benefit: it's so big that you'll be more likely to take care of it. You're going to drop a CD or your iPod faster than a vinyl record. You'll get a broken record about as often as your iPod's broken.
  • abaddon, on 10/29/2007, -2/+23rd rock from the sun foretold this i wonder how many other things it got right
    • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1it didn't get ANYTHING right. have you even seen that show? its horrifying.
  • bryantee, on 11/10/2007, -2/+24Did you bother reading the article? Lots of vinyl comes with coupons to redeem the album in a digital format online. Winning combo I think.
    • SocialPoison, on 10/29/2007, -2/+2Cool idea... but I've yet to see it...
      • Tyr7BE, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4Have you bought much vinyl lately? This is a very common thing.
        • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2no. it isn't.
        • Tyr7BE, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1yes it is :p

          See that Victory guy's comment below for some examples. Granted, old timey records that you buy in the used record store aren't going to have this. We're talking about new releases that go straight to vinyl
      • VictoryGin, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2all records from Sub-pop, Merge, Saddle Creek, just to name a few, come with downloads
  • Evildudetx, on 11/02/2007, -10/+11Vinyl had its chance and people stopped buying it. This is just a nitch market that will flare and die out.....again.
    • Rahodeb, on 10/29/2007, -4/+6Agreed, it's propped up on nostalgia and some kitschy sense of fashion.
      • nakani, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3+ turntablism, an entire musical genre ;)
        • therightclique, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2do you even know what the word 'genre' even means?
          • nakani, on 10/31/2007, -0/+11. a class or category of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic music.
            So... yes.
    • tdelet, on 10/29/2007, -3/+4People (the masses) stopped buying vinyl in favor of tapes and tapes sound worse and wear out faster...but they are more convienent. CDs and, more so, downloaded music is even more so. Vinyl will remain a niche with DJs, wannabes and audiophiles with their pricey equipment, their tube amps, their 'listening rooms' and, seemingly, way too much time on their hands.
    • mabhatter, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1but Vinyl has longevity.... I can pull out a 90 year old 78, put it on a hand crank phonograph and have music... try that with an ipod!

      vinyl is historical, in 100 years it will still work if stored properly... that's proven Digital stuff like CDs is too short-lived and flash is too new to be guaranteed yet.
  • subwoffers, on 10/30/2007, -0/+7Don't you just love the awesome album cover art, posters and inserts they came with?
    • boredsam, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2I have a Cheech and Chong album that came w/ a huge (over a foot long) rolling paper. And yes, I still have the paper.
  • ericdano, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4Um, I buy vinyl because it is cheaper. I can go to Berkeley and walk away with 40 albums for about $50.
    • albeec13, on 10/30/2007, -6/+3Yeah, maybe if all you listen to is old Beatles albums and Etta James compilations. Find me 40 newly or recently released albums on vinyl for that price, and I'll go buy a turntable today.
      • Tyr7BE, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Ok, granted the latest Britney or "Fitty Cent" isn't going to come released on vinyl, but you can still find platters and platters of good stuff that's brand spanking new. Go check out http://www.dustygroove.com/ for some examples. I know people who make biweekly orders there and they're consistently putting on brilliance over the speakers whenever I'm over.
  • jakewho, on 10/31/2007, -4/+5this is good news. now if we can only get everyone to stop recording digital and go back to analog tape.

    then all will be right again.
    • luciferin, on 10/29/2007, -2/+2I think that would be fantastic and a boon for creativity, it's more complicated and expensive. Pink Floyd wouldn't have been the same if they had todays equipment.
      • heilig, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1not only that, but alot of artists do it already. even back in the 80's, the stray cats wanted to record their albums with an all tube studios like the old rockabilly artists did. brian setzer still uses a giant analog echo unit for his guitar sound, though they made a foot pedal that is light and compact.
  • dfective, on 10/30/2007, -4/+8I love vinyl, I love its warm sound. I own a studio and work in the industry. I hate to tell you but this is wrong...

    Online record pools have taken over. They are easily accessible. The days of surfing the record pool by hand are over. I still buy vinyl release because sometimes people do not release on anything other than it. But it does not happen that much anymore. I really wish that vinyl would not wear out like it does. I remember when all the DJ's were laughing at cd jockeys... now look whos laughing. And actually most Dj's are doing the laptop setup now. Ableton Live took over. DJ's will keep vinyl pressing around for a long time. But it may very well disappear gradually with the newer generation of DJ's doing things different. You could be doing other creative things instead beat matching. Really, why beat match manually if you do not have to? It seems kinda selfish because you could be enhancing the performance doing other things.
    • SpectralSounds, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3Because beat matching and counting bars is half the fun/skill of mixing records.
      • PixelD, on 10/29/2007, -2/+1exactly...otherwise you're just a prick with an ipod. "I can press the automatic sync button, I should do my jesus pose now".
        • dykast, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1God i love the "automatic sync" line. If your mixing with Vinyl, CDs, Final Scratch/Serato..your still beatmatching. If you are using Ableton, yes it will beatmatch, but you still have to cue the songs, mix, eq and pick the right song. Why should someone who knows how to beatmatch and has been doing it for 10+ years perfectly have to prove to a crowd he/she knows how to beatmatch and waste time doing that when they can be adding to the set doing other things(efx, loops, keyboards ect...)..

          Really this article is right and wrong. In the DJ world, Vinyl has been dying for years. I predict it will go pure digital in the next 5 to 10 years for the traditional club/bar dj. On the other side, the audiophile/indie type individual, it is here to stay.
      • Jodo116, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't call beatmatching and counting bars fun or skillful. It's the basics of DJing. If you think it takes skill to learn the basics your kidding yourself or your one of those DJ's that only mix at the end of a track and don't play around with music. Sequencing, cuts, sound focus/defocusing, scratch, spins...these are what make it "fun" which can all be dealt with even more if you don't have to worry about the basics of beatmatching, counting is still needed of course.
        • SpectralSounds, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Of course its the basics of DJing, I also stated its half the fun, and for me it is. But, dont talk down to me like you are some superstar DJ, its pretty pathetic.

          • jonstafari, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I think Jodo's adding something, but the statement he makes is convoluted to some extent. by that, i mean, you cant not know the basics and then start doing some technical things to your tunes. you have to crawl before you walk.... also, he's right in hinting that you dont want to spend all of your time counting bars and beats, barely mixing your tunes. however, i cant say a good dj is based on how many knobs, switches and bells they have during a set. i mean, if you cant mix a decent tune, then why bother adding the extras? unless you're trying to cover up a bad mix....

            just my thoughts. i think both of you are right, and contributing something useful to this banter. however, there's some basics you just cant get around.
      • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1you don't know what "mixing records" means, do you?
    • Jodo116, on 10/29/2007, -1/+0Your right. About 14 years ago when I started to DJ it was about 95% vinyl DJ's. And whoa was it an expensive hobby. While I feel that turntablists will probably take the longest to die in this digital changeover, I find a lot of the DJ's that do it for a living have switched to the laptop setup. Why pay $20 bucks for 1 vinyl that has 1 great track on it, when you can buy that same track online for $2. I'd say today we are over 50% exclusively using CD-J/laptop setups in the clubs.
    • jonstafari, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2come on now. maybe you've never spun a tune in your life, but to cut the beat matching/blending/mixing aspect down to some automated "feature" is an insult. taking away creativity? no. you know what turns me on, you know what turns people on... beat matching, scratching, extended blends and deep mixes, live pa.... you know what's creative? taking two separate pieces of music and "beat matching" them together. and you know what... all of that sounds like rubbish if you dont know how to blend/count beats/whatever... yeah, queuing it up in said application is dandy an all, but you really think it's spot on every time? I've used quite a few "DJ Programs"; each with their own flaws and perfections. Whilst they try to get the human aspect solidly nailed, it never properly works out that way. Honestly, the programs now can add to the repitoir of a solid DJ, not "automate" the process or remove the "creative" aspects. The DJ has to queue the right tunes (manually or with the computer); and if you're not too keen on your abilities, regardless, your mix will sound daft.

      My point is... You cant "mix" and not know some of the basics about "mixing". If you cant count a beat on your own, with your own ears, then you wont be able to count it out when the computer "mixes" it for you. You'll never learn the beauty of playing an honest tune.
  • neufutur, on 10/29/2007, -8/+3I run a print magazine (since 1998) and "Talk to almost anyone in the music business' vital indie and DJ scenes and you'll encounter a uniformly optimistic" .... is utter crap.
    Fanboys and scene whores are the only people who legit like records. Our company policy is to review CDs first and foremost, vinyl if we have to, and we are one of the few print magazines that stand up to the record labels that try to pawn off digital versions of albums on us.
    Fight the power; if you run a music magazine, request a full-art, finished copy of a CD. The record industry makes tons of money off of your hard work in crafting a review, you should be able to actually get a hard copy for your efforts.
    http://www.neufutur.com is us online. We are the only magazine that guarantees reviews for every physical thing we receive.
    • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2stop advertising your ***** on a public forum.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 10/30/2007, -1/+5 I mix with cdj1000mk2 and believe it pisses over mixing with vinyl for creativity, Example how much does a vinyl cutter cost compared to a cd writer.
    But vinyl wins in the category of physical presence.
  • seamushc, on 10/29/2007, -3/+2Personally I would love to see vinyl make a comeback. It might be a way for the record (see its in there name) industry to make a comeback.
    • b3mus3d, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1yep, everybody wants to see the record industry make a comeback...
  • conrail, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6Playing a record can be a more satisfying experience than listening to a digital file, but you need a much better system to get good sound. In addition to quality speakers, you need a quality turntable (almost impossible to find these days) and a good amp/equalizer system.

    The plus side to going through all this is that it makes listening to music more than just the background for web surfing or online chatting. With a good stereo, the listener can really savor the music, not skip randomly through thousands of tracks, clicking the FWD button until something catches their 3 second attention span. Of course, when they sit down and actually listen to this stuff, they're going to find a lot of new music lacking.
    • Magnolit, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3I recommend turntables from Pro-Ject. http://www.project-audio.com/
      • betobeto, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Second that. Pro-Ject TTs, together with NAD gear, are the closest thing to audiophile equipment within the reach of a working class person salary. (I own those and I can attest to that).
  • rogerbly, on 10/30/2007, -7/+5nice. Vinyl sounds so freaking good with the right gear. Also, can I please have my analog cellphone back.... this highly-compressed CDMA, TDMA stuff sounds like crap.
  • logicalguy, on 10/31/2007, -7/+6Nothing like a big black vinyl disc to make me feel... closer to the artist... Dorks.
  • Kyderdog, on 10/31/2007, -5/+15Wax Cylinders have alway a better sound than Vinyl... I think Wax Cylinders will kill the CD.... Buried
  • xoticpt, on 11/02/2007, -5/+3I don't understand how Vinyl sounds better than CD... How do they originally record the sound? I would suspect using computers, and digital converters, etc... The pressed Vinyl can't sound any better than the original recording which a CD is supposed to mimic.
    • leverarchfile, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0thats a good point.
      IN my opinion, vinyl is best for listening to music origninally mastered for vinyl. i.e. taking into acount the dynamic range etc. listening to music mastered for CD in vinyl format is quite silly.
      • meamog, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1You do know that artists and engineers master records differently for CD and vinyl... right?
        • leverarchfile, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0that is the point i was making, so yes.
          I was also making the point that they don't always. i.e. often just for CD, and then just press the version to vinyl to keep the kookie indie kids happy.
    • VictoryGin, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3you would suspect incorrectly
    • HollowMarkeD, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3Its interesting that recording music did go down the route of making everything digital, then after they listened to it found it sounded too "harsh". Basically we're all so used to hearing a tiny bit of tape/valve distortion from Elvis etc; it sounds musical to our ears and we miss it if it isn't there. These days producers recorded with digital then put back in subtle distortion to make it more musical.
    • xafofo, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1that's exactly what i was thinking. almost all music is recorded digitally nowadays. so the analog vinyl would have to be made from digital data. it might sound better because of the larger dynamic range.. but then again you can also keep the larger dynamic range for digital release.. but stupid people keep wanting LOUDER and more compressed music
    • PaperMonkey, on 11/02/2007, -2/+2Vinyl (by which I mean proper vinyl) sounds better because it is analog and pressed from an analog master. Digital converters and digital masters have no place in vinyl. If you are going to destroy the integrity of the master itself then there is little to no point in making a vinyl pressing of it. In those cases it really is more of a gimmicky thing... if it is a pressing of an analog master then you can't beat the combination of the sound quality and the album art and liner notes that actually say something not just a listing of who owns what sounds and songs and who's dog they are thanking...
    • sholt, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4The current rise in vinyl popularity is a reaction to the "loudness wars" in the music industry. Because of the physical properties vinyl, it can't have its dynamics compressed to the same level as a digital format, like CDs; and it ends up having a much higher dynamic range *in practice* (specifications be damned). This results in a quieter, but "more open" sound, which some people prefer.

      That said, if labels were to change their mastering practices and actually use the extra dynamic range even 16-bit digital audio provides, vinyl would be dropped like a rock.
      • scottschiller, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Related "Loudness wars" YouTube video, an engineer shows waveform examples with music (really good):
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

        I agree that it ruins the original recording, since everything sounds equally "loud" all the time due to all the compression (not mp3/zip but MAKING THE WAVEFORM ALWAYS "LOUD" LIKE THIS, AS A VISUAL EXAMPLE.) TV commercials are another good example, as they want to be heard and get your attention.
  • techmaster, on 10/30/2007, -2/+13Records sound better than CD's, WHEN THEY ARE NEW. But after you've listened to a record many times, because a needle physically makes contact with the record surface, the record's quality degrades. A CD simply has a light beam reading it, there's no physical contact. If you treat a CD well, it will far outlast a record, and 10+ years later it will sound as good as the day you bought it. THAT is why they switched to digital formats in the first place. The only reason records still exist is because the hands-on physicality of the medium makes it easier for DJ's to queue songs. Next, somebody is going to try to claim that the Victrola players are making a comeback.
    • sonnybobiche, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1Incorrect. A vertical tracking force of 1-2 grams (which modern cartridges can easily work with) does not, for all intents and purposes, affect the record.
      • scottschiller, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I heard somewhere that after about 7 or 8 plays, a record does start to degrade somewhat. I can confirm that repeatedly scratching a record (back and forth ie., backcueing over the beginning of a song etc.,) will wear it down. I tried it on an old Henry Mancini record once in a mix, and heard it get audibly more distorted every time I played the record forward. Very odd.
  • fader0003, on 11/02/2007, -1/+5The problem with vinyl is that the sound quality degrades over time. CD's do not, however you can always copy your CD's and listen to the copies and never worry about them scratching. Vinyl, you have good sound for a while, then you're stuck. I'm sticking with downloads and CD's personally.
  • PeppermintPig, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3I like Vinyl and CD. I don't think CD's are going to phase out in the near future, though. The Coffin is meant for the established recording industry that doesn't understand how to roll with changes. CD's should become cheaper, and I'll still be spending about the same amount on discs as before, which means more purchases :)
  • dhVyse, on 10/29/2007, -5/+3I consider myself an audiophile. I prefer digital music over ANY form of physical media. Who still has a CD player in their car? Guess I'm too young to appriciate vinyl(23).
    • PaperMonkey, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Do whatever you have to do to find a record player and some good albums and treat yourself to a listen. If that means going over to a random relative's house or to the house of a friend who's parents have a turntable so be it. If you are interested enough in music to consider yourself an audiophile then you owe it to yourself to have a listen. If you have the money you should get a turntable and an analog reel to reel tape deck because you will undoubtedly come across old reels if you start looking for good music.
  • SilverBlade2k, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3wow, the ultimate DRM....no easy ripping and you need big bulky equipment to play vinyl, and you need to manually start/stop the player and the recording.
  • playuhh, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2It would be awesome.
    Major Record Labels fall. Independent Labels and Artists on the rise.
    Death of the CD and the art only visible when you're the one holding it.
    Big, sexy album art. Plus a DL for your mp3 player.
    Records that look WAY sexier than a CD or a JPG.
    and momma makin brownies n fresh lemonade!
    • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1you don't know what "sexy" means, do you?
  • cgruber, on 10/30/2007, -3/+4If you actually believe this I got a bridge to sell ya. Seriously the amount of completely stupid ***** on digg is what's dragging this site down.
  • burnttoast11, on 10/30/2007, -2/+10If CD's do die, it's not going to be because vinyl. Ridiculous.
  • pmc64, on 10/30/2007, -4/+4are we going back to 8-tracks next?
    • tdelet, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1I'll finally be able to play my Frampton Comes Alive 8-Track again!
  • macwac, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1All you need as a deejay is Serato Scratch Live.. and play high quality MP3s and you got everything..

    Probably the reason as to why they see an increase in sale is because there is a great increase in deejays.. not a whole bunch, but definitely a great increase - you'll see this especially in the US and in Asia. Unfortunately for the music industry its not big enough market to replace CDs.. its a niche market of collectors, individuals with special interests and deejays. Most deejays are however using Serato or CD DJs.. with the aid of a Mac Book Pro - The reason for this is simple.. lugging 60kg of records on flights is simply not economical and most of all tiring.. and a lot of the time the vinyls get stolen or broken. Its easier to bring your laptop and your Serato or ask the club to have a Serato Scratch Live setup for you.

    If your wondering what i'm talking about, go here: http://www.rane.com/scratch.html
    Also ableton is very hot: http://www.ableton.com/

    Vinyls will definitely not become the NEW thing... it might be cool to have and collect for some, but there is no way the average public will be buying the equivalent of their CDs/MP3s in vinyls
    • tdelet, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2The key thing you said is "high quality mp3s," which most people don't have. 128K stinks, of course you can hear the difference. I high quality mp3 (and I'm not one of these 'looseless' promoters, I'm happy with 256ish VBR) and decent equipment makes a huge difference.
      • macwac, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2I agree 128kbps just doesn't cut it.. (can you believe thats what they charge 1 dollar for? its crappier quality than CDs and Vinyls.. and if your to buy a CD you at least get the casing and album art and its at a cheaper price!) 256/320kbps is good for my system. You'd need it at that quality in order to play it over a club system to give it a good sound.
  • yojiffyskippy, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1Vinyl? Sounds like the record industry pushing another lame copy protection scheme!. /*joking*/
  • thecontinental, on 11/01/2007, -1/+7Sorry, I'm from the days of vinyl and if I never had to handle a record, buy/change out the needle cartridge, flip a record to the other side or worry about scratches and pops it would be fine with me. Yeah I can hear the difference and know that a cd can be scratched and an mp3 can be lost. The crappy mp4's from iTunes sometime shred (new foo fighters anyone?) and they can sound kind of harsh..but the ease of downloading, burning to cd, playing from an iPod, burning an mp3 disk for the car out weighs a bit of sound improvement. I figured that the vinyl fad would come back and that's cool for those who have not experienced it...but for me you can have it. I was done with vinyl when I bought Steely Dan's Gaucho cd in '88.
    • cgruber, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4You're too old to use this site (and too smart). Now get off my lawn.
      • thecontinental, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3HAHAHAHAHA!! That was funny..for a young whippersnapper.


    • Doorz, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0Yeah, i remember buying The Gaucho on CD and being absolutley annoyed cause at the end of the title song there was a 19khz sine sound whistling away and destroying any belief i had that CD's were perfect. That was 1985. Inbetween there have been about 4 re-releases of this album on CD , and you know what: I all downloaded them lossless and burned to CD. I bought this album once, and in unsatisfactory quality, so i'm sure not going to buy it again. BTW anyone has a vinyl of 'the Gaucho' to spare?
  • mcfreak, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Where can you even buy "New" Vinyl's online these days?
    • tdelet, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4Exactly, if average people don't even know how to buy a product it doesn't have much of a future.
    • leverarchfile, on 11/01/2007, -3/+0hmv ebay etc.
      for someone on digg you somehow managed not to master google. well done clart.
      • therightclique, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3idiot. he was making a point that "normal" people won't know where to get records, but EVERYONE knows where to get CDs and MP3s.
        • leverarchfile, on 11/01/2007, -2/+0no. he was asking; Where can you even buy "New" Vinyl's online these days?
    • sholt, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2amazon, for one.
    • bungoman, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Uhhhhhhhh there's like 50000 record labels that still sell vinyl. A good portion of the bands I listen to have lots of vinyl only releases and they were all made in the last 5-10 years.
  • Ramble, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1Vinyl sounds really good if you firstly have high quality prints of vinyl, and secondly if you invest a lot in proper tips, proper motors, etc.
  • kr0n0s82, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1This article is trash. The use of dynamic range compression does not reflect a failure of the media itself. The recording industry can choose to preserve fidelity instead of loudness, but chooses not to. Preserve fidelity first. Then perhaps we can compare apples to apples and see which format allows for better sound. All of that aside, we should be waving goodbye to CDs anyway and adopting its HD successor, SACD ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD ) except SANS the DRM. Then certainly the discreet nature of the format will be less of a factor of which sounds more like the real thing.

    Thank you RIAA
    • fognozzle, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2SACD only offers higher fidelity at frequencies the human ear can't hear. It's a waste of money.
    • sholt, on 11/02/2007, -1/+1Hasn't SACD already been going nowhere for the past 12 years or so?
  • Varjak, on 10/29/2007, -1/+1Yeah, those motown and glen miller compilations are selling like hot cakes in goodwills across America.
  • bobangitanov2, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2I like the science behind the article... Nyquist, etc...
    I'd like to see people do blind experiments to see if one can tell if they're listening to a CD or a vinyl record. The only way to
    tell that is by hearing the noise the needle makes before the actual track starts.
    • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1that's why your digital audio would NEED to be a rip of the vinyl. NO ONE would be able to tell the difference.
  • jooaakim, on 11/01/2007, -6/+3I've said this for years. A CD never was anything you want to own, its too small and ugly for that.
    An LP is art. Hopefully both inside and outside.

    I blogged about it about a year ago too; http://www.joakim.nl/wordpress/2006/09/24/download ...
    • bingobongony, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3You probably shouldn't be asaying that anymore. A black circle is art?
    • cgruber, on 11/02/2007, -2/+4So what part of a LP is more attractive than a CD?
      • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1well, it takes up a lot more room. its bigger. it won't fit in small spaces. you can't put it in your pocket. its pretty big.
  • SoundJudgment, on 10/30/2007, -3/+2When will "Yes" be performing in concert again? I want to phone for tickets.
  • robertjava, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4As others have stated, much more is needed to play and maintain records than to play (do you even "maintain"?) a digital file. It seems ever 5 years or so we see other article proclaiming the renaissance of vinyl. It simply isn't going to happen.

    And not to be confrontational, but a lot of the old "warmth" we love is a reflection of inferior sound quality.

    Additionally, who wants to go through the trouble of backing up vinyl? And finally, producing a gigantic, easily damaged record isn't exactly eco-friendly.
    • mabhatter, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1but can you dig out 40, 60, 80 year old CDs and play them on any regular record player... that's nearly 100 years of backward compatibility!!! I can't see RIAA sanctioned anything allowing DRM to function in 50 years from now.
  • Toupee, on 10/30/2007, -1/+5Honest question: How many of us, especially on Digg, even use CDs anymore? *If* I use a CD, it's because I'm about to rip it to my computer, which is rare anymore because I download almost all of my music from eMusic. I have my entire collection on my PC and in my 60gb MP3 player that I use a tape adapter to play in my car.

    That said I would love to see vinyl make a comeback just because it is a fantastic 'hard' format. Your digital files could go haywire - your vinyl won't. And you get a massively satisfying piece of album art that jewel cases can't compare to. Then again, as far as 'hard' formats go, CDs are a lot more durable. But since I probably won't be actually USING the hard format 95% of the time, I almost feel like it's nicer to have a huge piece of artwork as a symbol of the music. I honestly feel like it's a valid tradeoff.
    • therightclique, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2most normal people still use CDs. digg users don't, but when was the last time any of us was normal. nineteen ninety never.
    • 3leggedHorse, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2 CD's give you access to DRM free music and you have a hard copy.
  • tuxidomasx, on 10/31/2007, -3/+6For the record, I kinda have a thing for vinyl

    (see what i did there?)
  • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Wired is ouyt of tocuh. Vinyl is not becoming more popular with anyone. DJs and idiots who think it med them audiophiles to liek them, have ALWAYS used vinyl. This is not some new thing.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.