Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time since 1986

[Big Weed]

I think with vinyl, the limitations of the medium force the audio engineers doing the masters to not overdo it as far as compression, boosting the bass, etc. so the end result was better. With CD's, those same limitations don't apply so all the dynamic range was compressed out, bass pumped up or other changes done resulting in the music sounding more harsh.



Unfortunately, a lot of vinyl being re-issued today is not just a reprint but is remastered. I find the modern era remasters to be inferior in many cases to what was done originally. Maybe some of the CD mastering mentality is creeping in to the extent that is possible. Example, the Chicago Transit Authority 50th anniversary vinyl reissue. I had an older copy but not in the best shape so I sprung for this. The first time I played it I was shocked by how bad it sounded. Had to switch to my old copy before I finished the 1st of the 4 sides. It was much preferred to me even with some pops and clicks due to its condition. .

Analog is better. Compact Discs sound harsh . You won’t find a cd in my house. But you will find 5 turntables. And they don’t “cost 20 thousand “. Three Pioneer and two Technics , none of which cost me more than 100.00. And a few of these were TOTL for their day.

As to remastered vinyl, you are correct. I have the 45 rpm package of Creedence Clearwater Revival ( there are about a dozen in the box) . And I have all the originals when they came out in 1969/ 71. Those sound better.

I invite those don’t believe vinyl is all that popular to visit Audiokarma. Org. You’ll learn a thing . Or two.

 

[kfbkfb]

http://www.pspatialaudio.com/stylus_wear.htm
^^^
"...the acceptable stylus-wear limit is reached for a conical stylus
of 0.0007" (18µm) radius in under ten hours if tracked at 5 grams."


A few years ago, I bought an AT-LP60 as a stopgap until I decided
what to buy for a long term solution to Vinyl playback (including CD-4
discs), I stopped using it since it has a tracking force of 3.3g (I know
I'm getting OT again, but I thought this stylus wear info might be
useful).


Kirk Bayne

 

[anotherguyTN]

I can't explain it but I have digitized vinyl records on my computer and burned them to CD.
I have noticed that the digital audio sounds pretty much like the LP. Clean with the analog warmth.
I have purchased a CD of the same album and the CD sounds strident. It lacks the musicality of my homemade analog-to-digital-to-CD copy.
It must have something to do with the format conversion (bit reduction) from the studio master to the CD format.

I have a fairly large collection of vinyl and cassettes and have bought a good used turntable and a cassette deck for converting them to MP3s, but I'm skipping burning them to CD since most of my music listening is in my car now, and my car has bluetooth, USB, and an auxiliary jack but not CD, and definitely not cassette.

 

[Kelly A]

I can't explain it but I have digitized vinyl records on my computer and burned them to CD.
I have noticed that the digital audio sounds pretty much like the LP. Clean with the analog warmth.

Extra distortion sounds clean? That "warmth" is actually harmonic distortion.

 

[frankberry]

Whatever I'm hearing is much more pleasing to the ear and far more musical.
One of the problems with many CDs is high frequency aliasing, chirps and squeals which accompany the high frequencies.
I detect more aliasing on commercially produced CDs than on CDs which I burn.

 

[oldies76]

Vinyl tends to be stupidly expensive, especially when its content length is only 50-65% of a CD.

Thankfully, antique malls STILL exist and those few used record stores. You can find an ORIGINAL release of the same vinyl, that's released today for about 80-90% LESS.

Who the hell would spend 30 bucks for a reissued Eagles album, when you can find the basic 1976 release for three bucks and in great condition.

And thousands for a quality TT today?? Glad I kept my 1990 Technics 1200.

 

[TexasTom]

I can't explain it but I have digitized vinyl records on my computer and burned them to CD.
I have noticed that the digital audio sounds pretty much like the LP. Clean with the analog warmth.
I have purchased a CD of the same album and the CD sounds strident. It lacks the musicality of my homemade analog-to-digital-to-CD copy.
It must have something to do with the format conversion (bit reduction) from the studio master to the CD format.

Most of the CDs in my collection sound very good, but there are exceptions. In particular, I have one commercially-made CD that is very shrill and strident sounding. Per the CD label, it was made from an analog master (AAD) and I think that I understand what caused it to sound so terrible.

The mastering process for making vinyl records is somewhat lossy at higher frequencies, which means that an analog master meant for cutting a vinyl record has some high frequency boost to compensate for those high frequency losses. (This is aside from the pre-emphasis process that was also done for all analog vinyl masters, with a corresponding de-emphasis curve is present in the electronics in the phono input on home audio equipment.)

However, CD mastering process is *not* lossy at high frequencies, which means that if the old analog master meant for cutting a vinyl record is not re-equalized, it is going to sound awful on CD. So my theory is that some of the reason for problems with the sound quality in CDs sounding harsh (especially early on) simply comes down to the failure of the record labels to properly correct the equalization of these old analog masters before using them to produce CD masters.

 

[spt87]

Thankfully, antique malls STILL exist and those few used record stores. You can find an ORIGINAL release of the same vinyl, that's released today for about 80-90% LESS.

Who the hell would spend 30 bucks for a reissued Eagles album, when you can find the basic 1976 release for three bucks and in great condition.

And thousands for a quality TT today?? Glad I kept my 1990 Technics 1200.

Agreed - and you can search a bit to find used but close to new condition. The hunt can be part of the fun.

Back in the day I used to read Audio magazine and marvel at amps that were going for 20,000 - and you needed two for stereo!

I'm pretty into music, play two instruments and in my A/V system tend to prioritize the sound over the video - but I just can't imagine I'd notice that much difference from my $400 Audio-Technica turntable to one that costs 4 or 5 figures. The main reason I spent what I did is I wanted 3 speeds (most just have 33 and 45), a tone arm with an easily removed head shell to switch between a microgroove LP/45 stereo cartridge and a mono 78 RPM cartridge. Along with that the ability to adjust the tracking weight when switching between those cartridges (I will say for anyone into older 78 RPM releases, my setup gives spectacular results - these old shellac records can sound very good to excellent when played with the correct stylus, cartridge and tracking weight).

And then there are the monster cables grabbing people's money - that would be another thread.....

 

[TheBigA]

So my theory is that some of the reason for problems with the sound quality in CDs sounding harsh (especially early on) simply comes down to the failure of the record labels to properly correct the equalization of these old analog masters before using them to produce CD masters.

I agree with that. I've read several books about records made in the analog era. Berry Gordy talks about mixing records at Motown to sound good on AM radio. If they took those exact mixes and transferred them to CD without re-EQ, they'd sound awful.

 

[MarcB]

We have a big vinyl section at the Walmart where I work. Part of my job is picking orders for Walmart.Com and I picked a couple vinyl albums for customers including MJ's Thriller. (The customer also ordered a Crossley player). And during my time on the cash register I've rung up a few vinyl albums including a Country album.

 

[CTListener]

I agree with that. I've read several books about records made in the analog era. Berry Gordy talks about mixing records at Motown to sound good on AM radio. If they took those exact mixes and transferred them to CD without re-EQ, they'd sound awful.

I bought a lot of Motown singles as a kid and a teen, and every one sounded shrill and tinny on the stereo. I'd turn up the bass and reduce the treble to make them listenable. They did sound punchy on AM, though.

 

[KeithE4]

I bought a lot of Motown singles as a kid and a teen, and every one sounded shrill and tinny on the stereo. I'd turn up the bass and reduce the treble to make them listenable. They did sound punchy on AM, though.

You have to remember that the average Ancient Modulation radio of the 1960s didn't have treble and bass controls. It was a 6- to 10-transistor portable (plus some remaining All-American Fives from the '40s and '50s that hadn't died/been scrapped) that had tuning and volume controls, a 2 to 5 inch diameter speaker, and that was it.

Those singles were played on cheap mono table-top record players (some with changers) with the same cheap audio circuitry, not the family living room stereo. Low tech, even for that era. But that's what most kids had in those days, and that was the audience that Motown was selling records to. We were buying the Temptations, not Mantovani.

 

[landtuna]

When I returned from Viet Nam in the mid 60's FM in the Bay Area was just ramping up and popular music began replacing the original long format classical that was the original FM content. I remember listening to the first couple of FM popular music outlets, hearing music that had been AM's frequent playlist reps just 5 years before and not being able to identify the tracks for a significant number of seconds - the fidelity was so incredibly different.

 

[oldies76]

Agreed - and you can search a bit to find used but close to new condition. The hunt can be part of the fun.

Back in the day I used to read Audio magazine and marvel at amps that were going for 20,000 - and you needed two for stereo!

I'm pretty into music, play two instruments and in my A/V system tend to prioritize the sound over the video - but I just can't imagine I'd notice that much difference from my $400 Audio-Technica turntable to one that costs 4 or 5 figures. The main reason I spent what I did is I wanted 3 speeds (most just have 33 and 45), a tone arm with an easily removed head shell to switch between a microgroove LP/45 stereo cartridge and a mono 78 RPM cartridge. Along with that the ability to adjust the tracking weight when switching between those cartridges (I will say for anyone into older 78 RPM releases, my setup gives spectacular results - these old shellac records can sound very good to excellent when played with the correct stylus, cartridge and tracking weight).

And then there are the monster cables grabbing people's money - that would be another thread.....

Stereo Review was another good magazine. Lots of now- vintage ads on home stereos and parts.

Oh, I remember those monster cables, fortunately I just went for the budget RCA's at radio shack or some other electronic store back then. They lasted years!! Heck, I even bought those concert tapes on reel to reel and cassette, now those weren't so good. I stuck with Ampex and Maxell.

 

[Mediafrog+]

I bought a lot of Motown singles as a kid and a teen, and every one sounded shrill and tinny on the stereo. I'd turn up the bass and reduce the treble to make them listenable. They did sound punchy on AM, though.

While 12" LPs in the 50's and 60's generally were of good audio quality, 45s were a different animal, and the sound could vary widely depending on the manufacturer. Seems by the early 70's those issues had been mostly resolved, probably due to better quality phonos/stereos becoming widely available.

Interestingly, I've heard a number of RCA 45 RPM Classical disks from the early 1950's, and the sound quality is pretty close to the LP versions. But then Classical always got a lot more attention when it came to higher fidelity.

Agree with you on AM radio masking 45 deficiencies back in the day.

You have to remember that the average Ancient Modulation radio of the 1960s didn't have treble and bass controls. It was a 6- to 10-transistor portable (plus some remaining All-American Fives from the '40s and '50s that hadn't died/been scrapped.

Probably a very good thing that the All-American Fives died and were scrapped. The "hot chassis" circuit design could be downright dangerous if the radio wasn't handled properly, and the problem would get worse when capacitors and resistors aged and deteriorated. You would never get away with selling that sort of electronics today. Let those howling dogs rest in the landfill.

In the latter days of the vacuum tube era, radio kit manufacturers (Heathkit, etc.) would boast of their circuit designs that included an isolation transformer, which eliminated the shock hazard.

 

[boombox4]

Probably a very good thing that the All-American Fives died and were scrapped. The "hot chassis" circuit design could be downright dangerous if the radio wasn't handled properly, and the problem would get worse when capacitors and resistors aged and deteriorated. You would never get away with selling that sort of electronics today. Let those howling dogs rest in the landfill.

In the latter days of the vacuum tube era, radio kit manufacturers (Heathkit, etc.) would boast of their circuit designs that included an isolation transformer, which eliminated the shock hazard.

Later models of the AC/DC style tube radio (and some transistor AC models) had all-plastic cases where none of the chassis was exposed, with an additional 'interlock' (basically the AC line plugged into the back of the radio), with which the power was disconnected from the chassis any time the radio was serviced (replacing a tube). My folks' GE radio, which was a pretty good one, had one of those.

 

[boombox4]

I'll miss the CD more than the LP. The CD was a terrific idea: good audio, higher portability, and it would never wear out. That said, the CD era lasted at least 20 years (late 80's-late 2000's).

The Download era didn't last long, though, did it. 1998 or so (when Napster made the MP3 super popular) to 2011-2013 or so? Maybe 15 at best.

 

[DaveBayArea]

Whatever I'm hearing is much more pleasing to the ear and far more musical.
One of the problems with many CDs is high frequency aliasing, chirps and squeals which accompany the high frequencies.
I detect more aliasing on commercially produced CDs than on CDs which I burn.

I've done some painstaking digitization of older LP's that were never re-released (in this case for our radio station's music catalog) and notice the same thing as you. A digitized version of an LP source sounds the same as the record. I use a Technics 1200 with a good phono preamp and a Lexicon Alpha USB interface to get to the PC, and record with Audacity. What I notice is that the waveform of a vinyl LP, for the most part, exhibits none of the clipping found on a lot of today's modern CD's or digital downloads. It's like the mastering engineers are in the same kind of loudness war that broadcasters had a few years ago. One notable exception was a recent digitization I did of "Lost and Found" by Jason and the Scorchers. It was never re-released, but the vinyl sounds harsh - like a CD. Guess what - the waveform has the same hard limiting. But it plays back way louder than anything else on the turntable, and given the genre (??punk country??) I think that's what they wanted in the mastering.

Dave B.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I keep hearing people such as Bruce Springsteen are dropping a new single or album. This would be riskier with vinyl.

 

[JBraddock]

I'll miss the CD more than the LP. The CD was a terrific idea: good audio, higher portability, and it would never wear out. That said, the CD era lasted at least 20 years (late 80's-late 2000's).

The Download era didn't last long, though, did it. 1998 or so (when Napster made the MP3 super popular) to 2011-2013 or so? Maybe 15 at best.

While streaming appears to be the prevalent method of consuming music now, physical sales of albums (mostly CDs) are still ahead of digital downloads (legal). If I read the numbers correctly, physical sales went up slightly between 2018 and 19, mostly due to vinyl. Digital sales continued to fall. Eras overlap. While it may be easier to stream, in areas where cell service is spotty, some kind of storage media has to be used. Nowadays I guess that's primarily a chip in a phone.

I still burn (MP3) CDs for use in my 2007 vehicle. For me, pressing play is easier than messing with pairing a phone. I would assume newer vehicles would accept a thumbdrive full of music for plug and play.

...a recent digitization I did of "Lost and Found" by Jason and the Scorchers. It was never re-released, but the vinyl sounds harsh - like a CD. Guess what - the waveform has the same hard limiting. But it plays back way louder than anything else on the turntable, and given the genre (??punk country??) I think that's what they wanted in the mastering.

"Lost and Found" was eventually remastered and released on Acadia's "EMI Years" CD in 2008. My recollection is that the sound was improved over the LP. The Acadia release appears, alas, to be out of print and expensive to acquire. But it's good to have Jason & The Scorchers available in the library no matter the source.