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

50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

lightcapai.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 348 posts

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#61

Post by Clamchop »

chollida1 wrote: post #46

Makes sense. Most kids I know put records up on their wall as art. or as a way to pay artists directly by purchasing their album at a concert If you want to listen to music then Spotify runs circles around vinyl as a medium. Records really suck for music quality which is why everyone dumped them when tapes came along and then even more so when cd's became a thing. If Vinyl was a good medium to listen to music then no…

Minor nit, cassettes were and are mostly worse audio quality than records and they coexisted for decades with their respective compromises. Cassettes replaced 8-track in the portable space and eventually enabled the Walkman.

CDs killed both.

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#64

Post by greekrich92 »

jonhohle wrote: post #55
stefanfisk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But sadly often horrible mastering.

That’s not the mediums fault. I’m sure during the 70s and 80s there were equally horrible vinyl masterings.

I have a record collection and a cd collection. It was not the same. So many CDs of older music sound bad on CD. Recordings made during the CD era sound fine though, but I'm not an audiophile. Maybe the "loudness wars" are a complaint for some.

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#65

Post by browningstreet »

microtonal wrote: post #44
thechao wrote: post #20

My dad grew up in the 50s & 60s. During COVID he purchased my daughters' the, I quote, "shittiest briefcase record players" he could find. Both girls listen to their music on their devices, but also buy vinyl. The other day, my eldest came down from her room complaining that her vinyl "sounded awful". I told her to bring it up with their Grampy. His response: "you can't appreciate good playback until you've heard awf…

I was going to ask, when are the youngsters going to discover CDs? Much less prone to degradation to vinyl, lossless ripping, superior quality.

Never. Now we have tiny music (digital), and big music (LPs), so no need for medium music (CDs).

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#66

Post by microtonal »

mattsolle wrote: post #26

I was in this demographic for a log time. I wanted to support small artists in ways past just going to their shows. This seemed like a nice way to do that (not a big shirt guy for bands). It also helps that you are not only getting music but a large(ish) art piece as well with the vinyl covers. It also feels good to physically have and own something. I recently bought a Portable CD player as well. I think a lot of th…

It also feels good to physically have and own something.

I gave all my CDs (probably more than a 1000) away about a decade ago. I find physical media annoying, they take up space and require more effort to use them. All those CDs became more of a burden. I guess it's because I grew up with cassette tapes, portable tape players, then CDs, then Discman, then Discman with buffering. Having gone through all of that, being able to play music on your phone is... excessively nice. I also care more about the music than the packaging -- if I want something nice on the wall, I would get a painting, litho, etc. instead.

The only thing I really miss is old-school music discovery. Reading reviews, then going to a record shop, listening a stack of records to decide, talking to record shop owners and friends for scoops, etc. was so much more fun than letting algorithms do recommendations. And after spending your monthly pocket money on two albums, you were invested in the music.

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#67

Post by maccard »

frankzander wrote: post #4
toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

I am one of these people. I buy to support the artist (usually $40-$50 for an album), but listen to the digital versions via Jellyfin and Plex (to avoid Spotify). I’ll also donate directly to artists, or buy tickets to their shows even if I cannot attend. Great analysis.

Tbh I would like to have a donation button on a artist website so I can donate and than download the album I like where I like.

In my band, we sell digital lossless albums on bandcamp for just that reason.

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#68

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #41
HPsquared wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody would work if housing and food were super cheap, for instance.

There are overwhelming examples of people who continue to work when all of their basic needs are met. Some work because they love to, some work because they have to; we, collectively, should be trying as hard as possible to make work optional (automation, etc), because the point of life is to live, not to work. Some combination of Abundance [1], Solarpunk [2], etc. The entire planet will eventually be in population d…

> the point of life is to live, not to work

I'd love to learn how you came to this definitive conclusion. At no point in human history have humans not worked (I'm sure there are some limited exceptions, none of which have been sustainable).

Perhaps you meant to say the point of life is to survive, but you have to work to make that happen.

Re: 50% of U.S. vinyl buyers don't own a record player

#69

Post by toomuchtodo »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #68
toomuchtodo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are overwhelming examples of people who continue to work when all of their basic needs are met. Some work because they love to, some work because they have to; we, collectively, should be trying as hard as possible to make work optional (automation, etc), because the point of life is to live, not to work. Some combination of Abundance [1], Solarpunk [2], etc. The entire planet will eventually be in population d…

> the point of life is to live, not to work I'd love to learn how you came to this definitive conclusion. At no point in human history have humans not worked (I'm sure there are some limited exceptions, none of which have been sustainable). Perhaps you meant to say the point of life is to survive, but you have to work to make that happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_Five_Regrets_of_the_Dy...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ralph_Waldo_Emerson

“Art is the proper task of life” -- Nietzsche

"Art is to console those who are broken by life." -- Vincent van Gogh

Broadly speaking, creation is the meaning of life, not work, although some creation could be considered work. Survival is table stakes to achieve self actualization and a chance at finding meaning and contributing to the commons during a lifetime.

Post reply on HN