Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades

[marty]

Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades

Streaming may be king, but fans of physical albums are weighing in with record sales growth

www.bbc.com

 

[XV-1]

This is only the USA.

 

[Al M.]

Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades

Streaming may be king, but fans of physical albums are weighing in with record sales growth

www.bbc.com

What does that even mean?

The vast majority of modern recording is digital. And even when mastered from older analog tapes, most modern LP masters are digital.

So is this a triumph for Analog?

No, it just means that many people prefer their digital delivered over vinyl.

Digital rules, for better or for worse.

 

[Al M.]

If you want modern real Analog, try the excellent Tone Poet series from Blue Note, for example.

But those sell in the thousands, not millions.

 

[marty]

The vast majority of modern recording is digital. And even when mastered from older analog tapes, most modern LP masters are digital.

No, it just means that many people prefer their digital delivered over vinyl.

Totally agree. And that's exactly what I don't get. Playing an LP that used digital anything to make it just seems non-productive, futile, (and even stupid) to me.

 

[mtemur]

What does that even mean?

It means vinyl is mainstream now and it’s demanded by more customers. This will help mastering/cutting facilities to keep their doors open, new pressing plants to be built and eventually force the industry to manufacture better records. This will also create a demand for full analog recording.

 

[Al M.]

This will also create a demand for full analog recording.

In your dreams. Yes, perhaps among aficionados, but not among the masses. Pure analog will still sell only in the thousands or at best tens of thousands -- or make that a few hundred thousand in the most optimistic case, but not in the millions.

 

[jeff1225]

Totally agree. And that's exactly what I don't get. Playing an LP that used digital anything to make it just seems non-productive, futile, (and even stupid) to me.

It's kids driving this trend, not audiophiles. They are buying records for the cool factor or nostalgia. But I agree with you 100%, get a good streamer and DAC and save yourself some $$$.

 

[dminches]

Totally agree. And that's exactly what I don't get. Playing an LP that used digital anything to make it just seems non-productive, futile, (and even stupid) to me.

Marty, if an album, original recorded to reel was mastered to digital and cut to both vinyl and 24/192 files which would sound better on your system?

 

[Al M.]

It's kids driving this trend, not audiophiles. They are buying records for the cool factor or nostalgia.

And their turntables have a (gasp) USB port.

 

[jeff1225]

And their turntables have a (gasp) USB port.

I have a kid that works at my company that's obsessed with vinyl. He just bought a Bob Dylan album for $50 (that can be had at any used record store for $10) and plays it on a Crosley player that costs the same. The arm on the Crosley doesn't have a way to adjust the VTF, I can only imagine the damage done to that $50 record every time he plays it.

 

[bonzo75]

I have a kid that works at my company that's obsessed with vinyl. He just bought a Bob Dylan album for $50 (that can be had at any used record store for $10) and plays it on a Crosley player that costs the same. The arm on the Crosley doesn't have a way to adjust the VTF, I can only imagine the damage done to that $50 record every time he plays it.

At least he is spending only 50 on an irrational purchase.

 

[Ron Resnick]

 

[COF]

Totally agree. And that's exactly what I don't get. Playing an LP that used digital anything to make it just seems non-productive, futile, (and even stupid) to me.

Perhaps I can explain why someone would want to play LPs that used digital masters.

For many people, there's a lot more to the appeal in playing records than "whether the master was analog or digital." In fact, for me the focus on whether a master was digital or analog seems a bit misplaced. (Though I understand it is not, for certain audiophiles)

First, as a backstory: I abandoned records for CD around the time most people did back in the 80's. I had no problem with digital sound and until fairly recently, my main source has been digital. Started with CDs for many years, then streaming my losless ripped CDs from a server, then adding Tidal etc. My problem is that once I had limitless tracks available at the swipe of my finger, I had a harder time focusing on the music as I used to. It was a "careful what you ask for scenario." Especially with streaming I tended to surf music as I'd surf the internet: "This sounds cool, but what about this next one...swipe...or that one...swipe...swipe...swipe..."

Even when I was saving tracks/albums/artists to favorites, I rarely re-visited them because there was always something new to check out at my fingertips. Music listening took on a restless quality - I had "Music ADD."

Getting back in to records about 7 years ago (and eventually buying a Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable/Acoustic Solid arm/Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge) was a game changer. Records were so much nicer as aesthetic objects than playing with yet another app on my iphone. There is a thrill to a record arriving at my doorstep (or one I find at a store) that swiping on my phone can never match.
And turntables are damned cool! Best of all, I found myself effortlessly focusing for entire albums. It cured my Music ADD.
Collecting and listening to music had not been more fun and engaging since...I dunno when.

But, being an audiophile, of course I care about the sound. Turns out I LOVE the sound of vinyl (especially on my turntable set up). I tend to prefer it to my digital source.

But what about analog vs digital masters?

I don't give a damn. Why not? The first reason is: Whether an album came from a digital master or analog, vinyl still sounds like vinyl (to me and many others). It's going to have to be mastered slightly differently for pressing on vinyl for one thing. For another, the sheer amount of technical kludges required to write music in to wax squiggles and drag them back off with a rock imparts a specific sound. I've compared numerous records to CD versions, which I know came from the same original digital masters, and the vinyl still sounds more vinyl than the digital signal. It still imparts a bit more texture and density to the sound, so I still often prefer the vinyl.

And in the bigger picture, nothing about a master being digital or analog inherently entails "it will sound good." An analog master could have been crappy sounding or great sounding. A digital master could have been crappy or great sounding. It's the sound quality of the master/transfer that is by far more important than "whether it was analog or digital." Which is exactly what I find among my records from different masters.

So for me, I'm not practicing some digital-vs-analog-format-ideology with my music choices. I don't rate the sound on "whether it came from X master" but simply on how a record sounds. And I have tons of records, from the 80's up to recent releases, which came from digital masters but sound friggin' fantastic. It would be bizarre to me to reject listening to them "because they came from a digital master."

So even with a digital master, I still find I get the vinyl sonic signature in the end, it can still sound outstanding PLUS I get the addition of all the elements I love about records: the aesthetics, the satisfaction of interacting with the music as a physical object, the satisfaction of using my turntable, the tendency to concentrate better on the music, etc.

Plus, vinyl gives me an excuse to unplug from the digital world for a while, in terms of not having to interact with yet another damned screen. Again: a bonus whether a record came from a digital or analog master.

I hope you understand now why it's not "non-productive/futile/stupid" for many people to spin records even if they came from digital masters. It just takes understanding that others have different goals/proclivities/experiences that are satisfied in different ways.

Cheers.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Thank you for telling us your thoughts.

Please note that Marty ended his post with "to me." This recognizes that other people feel and think and hear differently.

You recall that even in the 1980s you had "no problem with digital sound." You were lucky. I found early digital to be amusical and virtually unlistenable from an emotional engagement point of view.

 

[COF]

Thank you for telling us your thoughts.

My pleasure; worth what you paid for 'em.

Please note that Marty ended his post with "to me." This recognizes that other people feel and think and hear differently.

Yes I noticed he said "to me" but I take that it was confusing "to him" why anyone would want to listen to vinyl from a digital master.

He responded to: "many people prefer their digital delivered over vinyl."

with "And that's exactly what I don't get..."

So I sought to help him "get it" - why some people still prefer the vinyl delivery mechanism even if from a digital master. I wasn't, of course, out to convince him to change his own taste and start listening to vinyl sourced from digital.

You recall that even in the 1980s you had "no problem with digital sound." You were lucky. I found early digital to be amusical and virtually unlistenable from an emotional engagement point of view.

I remember CDs sounding odd for quite a while. Sort of anti-septic. But I think that improved, and also like most I made the adaptation over time. I'd still hear music on turntables and, yeah, the vinyl sound was also attractive. But I could hear benefits in the new format.
It also helped I'm sure that eventually I used tube amps and still do

But even now I hear advantages to digital over vinyl and visa versa, so I certainly haven't abandoned listening to digital. Since the overall experience of spinning records feels richer, I do tend to reach for records more often.

 

[Al M.]

Perhaps I can explain why someone would want to play LPs that used digital masters.

For many people, there's a lot more to the appeal in playing records than "whether the master was analog or digital." In fact, for me the focus on whether a master was digital or analog seems a bit misplaced. (Though I understand it is not, for certain audiophiles)

First, as a backstory: I abandoned records for CD around the time most people did back in the 80's. I had no problem with digital sound and until fairly recently, my main source has been digital. Started with CDs for many years, then streaming my losless ripped CDs from a server, then adding Tidal etc. My problem is that once I had limitless tracks available at the swipe of my finger, I had a harder time focusing on the music as I used to. It was a "careful what you ask for scenario." Especially with streaming I tended to surf music as I'd surf the internet: "This sounds cool, but what about this next one...swipe...or that one...swipe...swipe...swipe..."

Even when I was saving tracks/albums/artists to favorites, I rarely re-visited them because there was always something new to check out at my fingertips. Music listening took on a restless quality - I had "Music ADD."

Getting back in to records about 7 years ago (and eventually buying a Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable/Acoustic Solid arm/Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge) was a game changer. Records were so much nicer as aesthetic objects than playing with yet another app on my iphone. There is a thrill to a record arriving at my doorstep (or one I find at a store) that swiping on my phone can never match.
And turntables are damned cool! Best of all, I found myself effortlessly focusing for entire albums. It cured my Music ADD.
Collecting and listening to music had not been more fun and engaging since...I dunno when.

But, being an audiophile, of course I care about the sound. Turns out I LOVE the sound of vinyl (especially on my turntable set up). I tend to prefer it to my digital source.

But what about analog vs digital masters?

I don't give a damn. Why not? The first reason is: Whether an album came from a digital master or analog, vinyl still sounds like vinyl (to me and many others). It's going to have to be mastered slightly differently for pressing on vinyl for one thing. For another, the sheer amount of technical kludges required to write music in to wax squiggles and drag them back off with a rock imparts a specific sound. I've compared numerous records to CD versions, which I know came from the same original digital masters, and the vinyl still sounds more vinyl than the digital signal. It still imparts a bit more texture and density to the sound, so I still often prefer the vinyl.

And in the bigger picture, nothing about a master being digital or analog inherently entails "it will sound good." An analog master could have been crappy sounding or great sounding. A digital master could have been crappy or great sounding. It's the sound quality of the master/transfer that is by far more important than "whether it was analog or digital." Which is exactly what I find among my records from different masters.

So for me, I'm not practicing some digital-vs-analog-format-ideology with my music choices. I don't rate the sound on "whether it came from X master" but simply on how a record sounds. And I have tons of records, from the 80's up to recent releases, which came from digital masters but sound friggin' fantastic. It would be bizarre to me to reject listening to them "because they came from a digital master."

So even with a digital master, I still find I get the vinyl sonic signature in the end, it can still sound outstanding PLUS I get the addition of all the elements I love about records: the aesthetics, the satisfaction of interacting with the music as a physical object, the satisfaction of using my turntable, the tendency to concentrate better on the music, etc.

Plus, vinyl gives me an excuse to unplug from the digital world for a while, in terms of not having to interact with yet another damned screen. Again: a bonus whether a record came from a digital or analog master.

I hope you understand now why it's not "non-productive/futile/stupid" for many people to spin records even if they came from digital masters. It just takes understanding that others have different goals/proclivities/experiences that are satisfied in different ways.

Cheers.

Thanks for your thoughts on vinyl from digital masters. That is certainly one way to look at it, and everyone has theirs.

As for ADD from streaming, your kind of experience is exactly what I was afraid of, one of the reasons I have not adopted streaming. I still spin old-fashioned physical CDs, which I am sometimes ridiculed for (not that I care).

Another reason why I am still spinning physical CDs is that they sound better (especially when there is a reclocker between CD transport and DAC) than most streaming, which has an artificial, "synthetic" sound texture. I did hear great streaming, but it is really hard to get right and/or the implementation is expensive, money that I am just not interested to spend. I put that money into optimizing my CD playback, and am super happy with my choice. It was the right one for me, without any doubt.

 

[dminches]

Thanks for your thoughts on vinyl from digital masters. That is certainly one way to look at it, and everyone has theirs.

As for ADD from streaming, your kind of experience is exactly what I was afraid of, one of the reasons I have not adopted streaming. I still spin old-fashioned physical CDs, which I am sometimes ridiculed for (not that I care).

Another reason why I am still spinning physical CDs is that they sound better (especially when there is a reclocker between CD transport and DAC) than most streaming, which has an artificial, "synthetic" sound texture. I did hear great streaming, but it is really hard to get right and/or the implementation is expensive, money that I am just not interested to spend. I put that money into optimizing my CD playback, and am super happy with my choice. It was the right one for me, without any doubt.

The complication is that there are many albums for which the streaming (or downloadable) version has much better mastering than the older CD version. So many of the original CDs were burned from analog sources without much care. Many sound like crap. More recently, many of the classic rock and jazz albums have been remastered to digital and sound superior.

My point? It isn’t just about the format. Often times is it about the mastering.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Since the overall experience of spinning records feels richer, I do tend to reach for records more often.

Interestingly I derive no incremental value or utility or benefit from the physical manipulation of physical media. I feel no positive nostalgia whatsoever.

Compared to the non-fussiness of CDs and compared to the convenience of streaming, I find analog playback klunky, organic, tweaky and a bit annoying.

 

[Al M.]

Thank you for telling us your thoughts.

Please note that Marty ended his post with "to me." This recognizes that other people feel and think and hear differently.

You recall that even in the 1980s you had "no problem with digital sound." You were lucky. I found early digital to be amusical and virtually unlistenable from an emotional engagement point of view.

It depends on which early digital. Classical often sounded really good, and Bruckner's Ninth Symphony with Guilini/Vienna Philharmonic on DGG, recorded in 1989, is still a go-to CD for me and others for audiophile glory. It also happens to be the best interpretation and performance of the work that I know.

Yet early pop/rock CDs could be truly atrocious. I have a CD version of the debut album by Black Sabbath that sounds fantastic, especially the last 15-minute long three-part song. It is a remaster from 2016, and I played that song recently for an audiophile friend, also a Black Sabbath fan, on my system, and he just loved how it sounded. Yet then I played the same song from a CD from 1990 (I believe) and he was just as shocked and appalled as I had been when I first heard it. He thought Ozzy's voice in the beginning sounded very sharp, but then I said, you haven't heard the worst yet. When Billie Wards drums started, the sound was excruciatingly painful: thin, no weight whatsoever, and the reproduction of the skins of the drums, which are heard rather prominently on that track, was so heavily tilted towards the treble that the hits on the drum skins each almost sounded like (thin) cymbals. Back to the 2016 remastering, and there we heard the drums again in all their glory, with weight and heft, with a *much* lower center of tonal gravity, believable drum skin, and there was real bass. The difference was just vast.

I have heard that some early pop and rock CDs were made from vinyl masters that had the RIAA curve of treble emphasis, and that curve was *not* corrected for the CD pressing. That may be hard to believe. Yet that 1990 Black Sabbath CD sounded just like an example of such an unequalized transfer.

I have three CD masterings of Joni Mitchell's "Blue" album. The 1990 mastering sounds decent (certainly much better than that early Black Sabbath mastering), but the newer masterings, one from 2019 and one from 2021 (I believe), sound considerably better, with a substantially warmer voice and less distortion. The newer version of these two is yet a bit better than the 2019 version.

That is also a reason why I like to actually have the albums on CD (or you could also have them as download), rather than having to rely on the version from streaming. With the latter you never know what you get.