I will admit not hearing any of these rare birds you two cited. I don't like mono sound with
classical music, so I don't collect in that direction. Maybe we'll have a disk-spinning get-together
at an ARSC Conference one day, comparing excellent examples of the wide-groove craft with excellent
examples of the long-play craft.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark Johnsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new normal - "hits" are hard to come by, the vinyl niche continues to
thrive


Dennis,

Yes, I was just going to say. Z-Scrolls and their brethren are unlike any
(other) commercial issues. ​Noise almost ceases to be a problem in E++, M-
and M copies. As for sound, just consider the solo cello, the instrument
most suited to the medium. (Plus the cello is naturally monaural.) There's
hardly a CD or LP that compares sonically to, say, the Casals Bach Suites.
(I'm not talking transfers.)

clark

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Dennis Rooney <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Some best-quality examples: Victor discs pressed from 'Z' material in the
> mid thirties; French and German Electrola pressings; U.S. Columbia discs
> from the same period. (Their metalwork was at its finest from 1934-39, then
> fell off steeply afterward.); Prewar German Telefunken and DGG, Prewar
> Japanese pressings on Nippon Columbia and Nippon Polydor; Prewar Australian
> pressings; English Decca FFRR discs never played with fibre or steel
> needles (unfortunately, rarely found except in unplayed stocks); to name a
> few. Of course, the disc is presumed to be unworn, carefully handled and
> properly stored. The addition of vinyl and similar compounds to the shellac
> biscuit after WW2 did improve disc noise; however, it was often vitiated by
> poor metalwork and pressing quality, not to mention the compressor-ridden
> recording techniques employed by RCA Victor in the lead, and the dreadful
> post-production dubs of Columbia 78 rpm masters from the lacquer
> originals. *Au
> fond*, there seem to be too many members of this list who labor under the
> error that vinyl can be "cut". Only the lacquer master is cut (unless you
> do DMM), the vinyl disc is invariably pressed. It's a boneheaded error
> along the same line as referring to a Columbia Royal Blue pressing as "blue
> wax".
>
> DDR
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Dennis:
> >
> > What do you consider the "best quality examples"? I'm all ears! Let's be
> > clear that my comments were about the shellac mass media. Since I'm a fan
> > of a lot of pre-LP jazz, I have a lot of reissue products made from metal
> > parts and lacquers, which are definitely lower noise and usually have
> less
> > scratchy distortion than the release media. But again, I was talking
> about
> > shellac mass-market release media. I will stick with my point that due to
> > inherent lack of high end and monophonic by nature, 78s are less high
> > fidelity to the source than well recorded stereophonic LPs pressed on
> good
> > vinyl, but will agree that there's plenty of listenable, enjoyable music
> > out there that originated in that era (the best of which, to my taste,
> has
> > been expertly transferred from lacquers or metal parts and restored with
> > tasteful craft rather than a brute-force approach).
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Rooney" <
> > [log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The new normal - "hits" are hard to come by, the
> > vinyl niche continues to thrive
> >
> >
> > Tom Fine's comments re 78s suggest he perhaps hasn't listened to the best
> >> quality examples of the format. No sane person would make any claims for
> >> audio superiority, especially since all 78s are monophonic. However,
> >> wide-range *per se* is not as crucial as low distortion, good cutting
> and
> >> intelligent record EQ. Noise is both variable and relative: some discs
> are
> >> noisy, others amazingly quiet given the material. What is not debatable
> is
> >> their superior survival when stored in an environment that does not need
> >> to
> >> be more scientifically controlled beyond ensuring reasonably stable
> >> conditions.The best of them will remain a pleasure to hear for an
> >> indefinite period, presuming both their physical survival and a method
> >> with
> >> which to reproduce them.
> >>
> >> DDR
> >>
> >> On Wed, 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 1006 Langer Way
> >> Delray Beach, FL 33483
> >> 212.874.9626
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> 1006 Langer Way
> Delray Beach, FL 33483
> 212.874.9626
>