John, what are you calling "better"? I think that's the crux of the matter. What constitutes a more
enjoyable listening experience is very subjective, it's actually not factual in any sort of
scientific sense. If you mean that, in THEORY, a modern digital recording and reproduction chain
SHOULD be closer to output=input vs. previous analog technologies (tape, grooved disks, etc), then
yes I can see where it's hard to come up with a fact-based argument against that based on the kinds
of things we measure to quantify output and input (although some people, myself not included, will
tell you that what we're measuring for isn't the point -- this is where you get into quasi-religious
digital vs. analog arguments). But that's not what listening to music is all about. For you, I
think, based on what you say, it's more pleasurable to listen to digital sources. For others, it's
not. For me, I want the most natural and/or least irritating sound qualities. Sometimes it's
digital, sometimes it's older analog formats, depending on the program content and depending on the
craftsmanship involved in creating the end product.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new normal - "hits" are hard to come by, the vinyl niche continues to
thrive


Not just an opinion. Simple fact. Claiming the vinyl is better is like
denying climate change.

Best,
John Haley

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> My point was exactly your point. The sound quality of lousy-sounding CDs
> and hi-rez have nothing to do with the technology or format, as I said in
> my original posting. I also said, the better sounding LP is the state of
> the art until a better-sounding digital version comes out. Given today's
> economics of the reissue business, that is not likely in many cases. I
> don't agree that vinyl "loses" any "battle" since listening enjoyment is
> very subjective. All of the LPs I've overseen are made from the same
> sources as the digital (ie the digital master files). Some people have
> expressed a very strong preferences for LP. They like the sound of that
> media on their playback system. The problem I have with your OPINION is
> that "better" is just that, an opinion. You prefer the sound of digital,
> others prefer analog playback. Fortunately, there is a thriving niche
> market for those who prefer vinyl. I am happy about anything that is
> profitable to those in a position to fund reissues of great music.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:17 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new normal - "hits" are hard to come by, the
> vinyl niche continues to thrive
>
>
> The solution to all of this discussion is simple. We should be cutting an
> optimal digital signal into shellac records for the long term. ☺ We don't
> even need a wide frequency response to carry the digital signal.
>
> Tom, with all due respect I think your comments about liking the
> engineering on some LP's better than their CD or hi-def counterparts is off
> point. That really has nothing to do with the format and everything to do
> with the human fallibility that goes into making all of these things. If
> the same audio product is pressed into vinyl and put on CD or a hi-def
> format, the vinyl is going to lose that battle every time. Vinyl is just a
> fad based more on nostalgia than anything else. I, for one, will be glad
> when it passes.
>
> Best,
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Dave Burnham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Tom is correct; 78s can't possibly have the same hi-end content as LPs
>> because of the limitation caused by speed vs. stylus size. However in my
>> own experience, I have tens of thousands of 78s stored in out door units
>> which endure the temperature extremes of South Ontario, (winter lows below
>> minus 20 degrees C.(0 degrees F.) and summer highs over 30 degrees C. (90
>> degrees F.) and beyond, without any apparent deterioration over many
>> years;
>> however I never bring records inside from deep freeze to indoor warmth,
>> but
>> a fellow collector, (David Lennick), told me that that's even an
>> unnecessary precaution, that he does it all the time without a problem.
>>
>> db
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:54 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> > 78s are quite brittle and breakable, so long-lasting only if carefully
>> stored and used. And, no offense to any of the fans on list here, but they
>> are hardly high fidelity to their source. Everything from the recording
>> system (frequency-limited, essentially no top end, very high noise floor,
>> most of this caused by the cutting elements and methods because Nick Bergh
>> has demonstrated that what hit the cutterhead was actually pretty high
>> fidelity although treble-lacking, as early as the early 1930s) to the
>> release medium (commercial shellac was almost always very noisy, variable
>> from unbearably noisy to too noisy for comfortable listening) were stacked
>> against high fidelity. LPs got closer, especially as the technology
>> evolved
>> (less distortion in the cutting chains, quieter vinyl compounds).
>> >
>> > As one who has had a hand in selecting content for modern LP reissue
>> projects, and approved test pressings, I can say that the quality level of
>> both the cutting and pressing is very impressive. It's still a craft, but
>> I'm happy to say there are craftsmen out there, here and now.
>> >
>> > Because it's a luxury-priced niche, much more attention CAN be paid at
>> the factory (but not always is) to matters like plating and pressing
>> quality, vinyl compounds and sleeve printing. It's not a mass medium like
>> days of yore, so it doesn't need to be manufactured to the most cost-cut
>> point to be competitive. I maintain that many buyers of modern vinyl are
>> buying a physical artifact, something consider beautiful and collectable,
>> and that is why they niche will remain healthy. The mass market either
>> wants to pay nothing for music, or wants to pay very little for something
>> that is very convenient and instantaneous, which is why vinyl will always
>> be a niche. What has made me happy in the past decade or so is that the
>> niche has emerged as big enough to be viable and have some economies of
>> scale. The fact that new and refurb presses are still coming on-line, and
>> the fact that I know there is a 3-month wait to get something pressed in
>> any quantity right now, tells me the niche is very healthy and the economy
>> has room to scale up a little bit (but not overbuild). I also know that
>> the
>> really good cutting engineers are booked months ahead too.
>> >
>> > As for the usual disdain about the low-tech nature of LP records vs a
>> modern digital chain, my ears tell me all I need to know. If more CDs and
>> other digital products sounded better, I'd be standing in the back row,
>> hook-horns raised, in agreement. But, alas, too many CDs, especially
>> remasters of content originally put out on LP, sound awful. That's not the
>> fault of the technology, but it is the state of the art for at least those
>> albums, since one can't buy a better-sounding product except the LP. When
>> there is a better-sounding CD or high-rez digital alternative, I favor
>> that
>> as my listening source.
>> >
>> > -- Tom Fine
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Bishop" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 12:55 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new normal - "hits" are hard to come by, the
>> vinyl niche continues to thrive
>> >
>> >
>> >> 78s weren't ever pure shellac, which is too brittle, there were all
>> kinds
>> >> of fillers in them, like later vinyl records. Many post-war 78s were
>> made
>> >> with vinyl compounds. But I'm sure the best shellac discs hold up very
>> >> well.
>> >>
>> >> Properly-produced vinyl is a very stable medium and a cheap material
>> too. I
>> >> don't know how long a record could remain an accurate document sitting
>> on a
>> >> library shelf - a few hundred years, a thousand? Maybe archives should
>> >> purchase some lathes and start training people to master and cut vinyl.
>> It
>> >> may be a better option than digital for long-term preservation - or at
>> >> least the best physical backup available.
>> >>
>> >> Artists who record digitally and upload to bandcamp or soundcloud will
>> more
>> >> likely than not have their music be inaccessible in a hundred years,
>> while
>> >> those who produce vinyl albums or singles, whatever the aural
>> shortcomings,
>> >> will see theirs survive.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Frank Strauss <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Diamond Disks!
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Chris Bishop <[log in to unmask]
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Most people don't even want downloads let alone CDs. So in that
>> sense
>> >>> vinyl
>> >>> > is as doomed as every other physical medium.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > But I disagree that vinyl is a dead medium at this time. The DJ
>> scene is
>> >>> > stronger than ever in every genre.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Records produced 50 or 60 years ago can be pulled off the shelf,
>> cleaned
>> >>> > and played with almost no deterioration from age. What medium is
>> more
>> >>> > stable in average storage conditions?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Chris
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:28 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > It's the old question--do you want fame or money? Many "artists"
>> of
>> >>> > today
>> >>> > > apparently keep their day jobs and go for fame by giving it away,
>> >>> > thinking
>> >>> > > fortune will follow. Seems like it seldom does, and this has very
>> >>> little
>> >>> > > to do with basic talent. It's a recipe for a lousy pop music
>> world,
>> >>> > which
>> >>> > > to my ancient ears is just what is happening. Meanwhile any
>> third-rate
>> >>> > pop
>> >>> > > artist from the past can sell out a hall today. Thank goodness
>> they
>> >>> are
>> >>> > > there.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > As for vinyl, it's a blip and a fad. If it gets people listening
>> who
>> >>> > > otherwise wouldn't be, then fine, I like it, but we who ought to
>> know
>> >>> > > better mustn't kid ourselves. As a format, vinyl is a dead one,
>> and it
>> >>> > > deserves to be. Of course I'm not tossing out my record
>> collection,
>> >>> but
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > > a person who restores old records in modern formats, I have no
>> >>> nostalgic,
>> >>> > > romantic illusions about vinyl's supposed virtues. If people are
>> happy
>> >>> > > listening to it, then be happy and go for it. But as "audio
>> people"
>> >>> let's
>> >>> > > not go fooling ourselves.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Best,
>> >>> > > John Haley
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Tom Fine <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> >>> > > wrote:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > > Interesting stats from Nielsen:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>>
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/22/10816404/2015-album-sales-trends-vinyl-catalog-streaming
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Soundscan does not pick up the whole market, but the trends seem
>> >>> > > credible.
>> >>> > > > Interesting that Adele fans are also vinyl fans in such a
>> pronounced
>> >>> > > way. I
>> >>> > > > wonder if the back-catalog trend was just a blip because so much
>> of
>> >>> it
>> >>> > is
>> >>> > > > now in print either as downloads or physical media, just about
>> every
>> >>> > > > "golden age" audiophile favorite is not out in new-remaster
>> vinyl,
>> >>> and
>> >>> > > what
>> >>> > > > CDs are left in the pipeline are heavily discounted. But, that
>> said,
>> >>> > the
>> >>> > > > market to create great new music is not really there -- artists
>> make
>> >>> > more
>> >>> > > > just touring and releasing a song here and there via download or
>> >>> video
>> >>> > > > streams. So why get in a studio and create great art? There was
>> also
>> >>> an
>> >>> > > > interesting interview in the latest issue of TapeOp magazine
>> with the
>> >>> > > > Minneapolis hip-hop collective Doomtree. One thing they said
>> that
>> >>> stuck
>> >>> > > in
>> >>> > > > my mind is that there is a penalty today for taking the time to
>> write
>> >>> > > > great, meaningful lyrics. The music-buying public wants catchy
>> >>> phrases
>> >>> > > and
>> >>> > > > well-worn stereotype statements set to music, they want simple
>> >>> ditties,
>> >>> > > and
>> >>> > > > simple sells.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > This report looks at unit sales for the first half of 2015:
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>>
>> http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/us-album-sales-fall-4-in-first-half-of-2015-as-cd-rules-market-just/
>> >>> > > > The problem that isn't documented in unit sales is that
>> copyright
>> >>> > owners,
>> >>> > > > artists and everyone else with a stake in making quality music
>> get
>> >>> > > pennies
>> >>> > > > on the dollar from these streaming services, and that's the main
>> >>> growth
>> >>> > > > area as far as consumer uptake (yes, the vinyl niche is
>> thriving, but
>> >>> > > it's
>> >>> > > > a tiny niche compared to overall music sales, and does not
>> produce
>> >>> > enough
>> >>> > > > revenue to float any artist or major copyright owner). I think
>> it was
>> >>> > > very
>> >>> > > > foolish for the record companies to surrender to streamers on
>> the
>> >>> > cheap.
>> >>> > > > They should be charging royalties like radio, plus a download
>> fee,
>> >>> and
>> >>> > > the
>> >>> > > > streamers should be forced into a model where everyone who
>> streams
>> >>> > pays a
>> >>> > > > monthly fee. Most of the streaming is freebie streaming, and
>> that
>> >>> just
>> >>> > > > doesn't produce enough revenue. If I were an artists, I'd say
>> you get
>> >>> > > > nothing for free streaming, and if I'm a hit-making artist I'd
>> say
>> >>> you
>> >>> > > get
>> >>> > > > nothing without paying me regular download fees.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > -- Tom Fine
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Frank B Strauss, DMD
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>