Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

nme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 410 posts

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#281

Post by fragmede »

simias wrote: post #94
tzs wrote: post #71

Is anyone working on a reasonably priced turntable to play vinyl discs without degrading them? In the mid '80s, Finial Technology announced such a turntable, and had a working unit at CES in 1986. It had a stylus that contained laser interferometers that could very accurately and precisely measure the distance from the stylus to the grove walls. It kept the stylus near, but not touching, the groove, getting the audio…

I remember reading an article about somebody 3D-printing vinyls a couple of years ago. It sort-of worked but it wasn't quite there yet. Still, 3D printing technologies improves very fast nowadays so maybe in the not-so-far future it'll make more sense to just print a new vinyl from the master the current one is too badly damaged rather than spend money on a super expensive turntable? In either case I feel like it's s…

I looked into 3d printing vinyl but it didn't make sense for my use case, which wasn't analog temp files.

We have the technology to 3d print records, though the audio-fidelity maybe isn't there (~2 years ago) for music more subtle sounds (jazz or classical). It also did not seem possible on an (affordable) FDM 3d printer and I didn't have access to an SLA 3d printer.

Keep in mind prints would take hours to do, on top of the usual delicateness of 3d printing.

Part of the joy of having a record is the rest of it, the album cover, the notes, etc. I wasn't trying to copy an existing record, so for me there was considerable effort required for those parts as well which made it harder to justify the extra effort 3d printing a record would have required.

Which brings me to my last point. There are numerous services that will accept a digital audio file and mail a physical record, in the $200-500 range (length/size dependent). Depending on your budget (esp compared to gaining access to an SLA printer and your time), that may be more effective.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#282

Post by tenebrisalietum »

tuscen wrote: post #275
TylerE wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strongly disagree. A major reason is that you can't really get away with the crappy loudness war style mastering on vinyl. Just because of that they sound way better than most digital masters.

This is not the problem of a medium (be it a vinyl or a CD). You can put the same crappy mastering to a vinyl.

I thought vinyls needed to be specially mastered to prevent the needle from basically being pushed to the adjacent grove by an amplitude that's too high on the track.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#283

Post by electrograv »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #139
renlo wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My very limited understanding after talking to someone who was interested in this stuff, is that people are concerned with quantizing of the signal, which will happen with that laser solution. I’ve heard this is why audiophiles also use magnetic tape. To be clear I heard this second hand and am not directly familiar.

A completely analog laser scanning solution is entirely practical. There's no reason to sample it digitally. But honestly, this seems like insane overkill. Vinyl has a ridiculously limited dynamic range, and digital recording at 24/48 is practically transparent even with low-end prosumer equipment. At the high end you have to work quite hard to spend more than $4k on a spectacularly clean and neutral studio-grade ADC…

As far as DACs are concerned, you’d be surprised: A few hundred dollars (e.g. Topping D50) can get you drastically better performance than many multi-thousand dollar “audiophile DACs”:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/m...

Now as far as speakers are concerned, yes, you’ll need to spend at least a few thousand for a stereo pair capable of doing justice to this level of precision and dynamic range.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#284

Post by tenebrisalietum »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #151

CDs are dying, but they are mostly being killed by streaming services, not by vinyl. Digital music formats are still the king by far. The vast majority of people don't even care that their streamed music is lossy and they lose out on high frequencies that their ears can't hear and their headphones can't reproduce. Vinyl appeals to hipsters and dumb audiophiles (there are smart audiophiles, but they aren't buying viny…

> Cassette tapes could replace vinyl someday as the hip alternative to digital music

well, there is DAT ...

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#285

Post by thoughtpalette »

radlad wrote: post #177
mytailorisrich wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to buy a physical medium then CDs are the obvious option because objectively they are superior to vinyls in every aspects and they can also come with nice booklets. I think that the hip-value of vinyls is extremely important. I write that as someone who had no choice but use vinyls and tapes until I got a CD player...

My partner and I have our favorite albums in vinyl with the covers framed on the wall. You can't do that with CDs. Or you shouldn't.

Just bought some of these "vinyl frames" for our living room. It's wonderful being able to express your favorite albums in art form.

I disagree with the original comment parent strongly.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#286

Post by mulmen »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #269
mulmen wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a hipster but I have a vinyl record collection. So do my friends, we trade records and each have very different collections. I enjoy "the ritual", it allows me to recollect who gave me an album or the night I went to the show. None of my friends organize our records the same way. Some are chronological by release. Some simply alphabetical. Some chronological by acquisition date. Some combine an element of gen…

It's cause I know how little time I have to do stuff in my life already, and the idea that I'd spend my already scant time cataloguing bulky records and having to worry about them whenever I move is pretty stressful.

That's your choice and nobody is criticizing you for that. Nobody is telling you to go buy records. Other people are allowed to spend their time and money how they see fit. That does not make them "hipsters" or wrong.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#287

Post by fzeroracer »

kalleboo wrote: post #271
fzeroracer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDs are far from objectively superior, considering that there are many CDs which are completely sealed but suffering from disk rot due to poor quality control rendering them completely useless. A lot of older CD-based game systems are going through this problem where they're becoming unplayable despite no wear or tear. The best of both worlds in my opinion is a vinyl + code for a digital copy, which seems to be the d…

And [literal] tons of vinyl has suffered warping from heat, being stored incorrectly. Or degraded from just being actually played on a record player more than a few times. Despite not being impervious, CDs are far more durable than vinyl records.

You're making a false comparison here.

Vinyl, when stored properly, will be fine. Yes, they suffer from wear and tear when used frequently, but you would have to use it quite a lot for that to happen.

CDs, even when stored properly, never used and still wrapped, will suffer from disc rot due to quality issues. This renders them completely unplayable. Calling CDs objectively more durable ignores that there were A LOT of poorly made CDs which have a considerably shorter lifespan.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#288

Post by RickSanchez2600 »

We used to have a turntable stereo that was mono with one speaker built into a console that had a wooden lid on it on top so it could be closed and we used it as a computer monitor holder. My nephews stole my vinyl records inside of it. It was damaged in a flood and we never replaced it.

Turntables these days are expensive, but worth it for the vinyl experience.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#289

Post by mises »

reaperducer wrote: post #54
benologist wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's mostly nostalgia because if you listen to music a lot in album form you'll ruin them, if you have kids you'll ruin them, if you have friends you'll ruin them, if they're near a window you'll ruin them, your record player can ruin them, an earthquake can ruin them. This is a music format with moving, degrading parts. I think LPs are bad for our environment compared to digital. I don't need tens of kilogra…

I don't need tens of kilograms of plastic to enjoy music What brand of computer, MP3 player, or phone are you using that isn't made of plastic and filled with minerals that come from strip mines and processed with chemicals like cyanide?

The marginal negative environmental externality of one more digital song is very low. That of a record is essentially constant.

Re: Vinyl set to outsell CDs for first time since 1986

#290

Post by mudlus »

Makes perfect since, in the virtual age collectables will have more value than the thing anyone can access. Reminds me of an article I can't find about the lack of middle road anymore for many goods, you either care a lot or don't care at all about what you're getting. McDonalds vs Wagyu. Where's the bespoke Coke? (actually my wife enjoys elderflower syrup in her soda water)
Post reply on HN