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

101–110 of 348 posts

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

#101

Post by xboxnolifes »

bob1029 wrote: post #34
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…

480i content, CRTs, analog signal chains, non-digital transports, film grain, et. al., provide opportunity for our imagination to step in and produce a better interpolation than the ground truth might otherwise provide.

At least with CRTs, it's not just the imagination. It's the actual analogue interpolation creating a different image than the raw pixel-perfect without blurring/smoothing.

This video and timestamp comes to mind: https://youtu.be/2sxKJeYSBmI?si=ikuOuZl-Ho5_VK4k&t=1613

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

#102

Post by izacus »

nine_k wrote: post #58
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.

I sometimes see how artists who I follow on Bandcamp write about their struggle with ordering the production of vinyls, shipping delays and troubles, etc. I'd rather them spend this time on doing their art, or going on with their lives. If you want to give an artist a token of appreciation, send them money . I always increase the suggested price of an album or track on Bandcamp to some interesting-looking number. To…

I struggle to figure out how you came to the conclusion that a soulless money transaction is somehow comparable to buying a custom made vinyl album someone spent time on.

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

#103

Post by bpev »

mrob wrote: post #95
numpad0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't, because just about anything available is better than CDs. Vinyl craze is actually not about "warmth", just genuinely more data.

The only additional data that (some) vinyl has over CDs is inaudible ultrasound. Ultrasound is intentionally omitted from CDs because they're intended for humans to listen to. In all audible aspects a correctly mastered CD release is closer to the original sound than any vinyl. And if you really want ultrasound (perhaps your dog enjoys it), you can get digital releases at higher sample rates.

It's not really about the data on the vinyl, and not really about sounding closer to the original. The vinyl flavor comes from the equipment. It's an analog device interacting with the real world, so the process of getting the sound from the vinyl to the speakers introduces a different sound. And some music sounds more pleasing with that process. Could you achieve something similar by using the digital release and running it through a filter? Probably. But it definitely does impart a sound difference.

Since CDs are digital sound, there's not really the same reason reason to use CDs over a digital release.

edit: fwiw, I don't agree with the parent talking about more data, either. Since pretty much all the music these days is digital pretty much right through the entire recording process, I don't think this is all that relevant. I guess maybe sometimes they might use a different master for vinyl though? But regardless; if you're looking for "more data", you're not going to use either a CD or a vinyl.

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

#104

Post by mrob »

bpev wrote: post #103
mrob wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only additional data that (some) vinyl has over CDs is inaudible ultrasound. Ultrasound is intentionally omitted from CDs because they're intended for humans to listen to. In all audible aspects a correctly mastered CD release is closer to the original sound than any vinyl. And if you really want ultrasound (perhaps your dog enjoys it), you can get digital releases at higher sample rates.

It's not really about the data on the vinyl, and not really about sounding closer to the original. The vinyl flavor comes from the equipment. It's an analog device interacting with the real world, so the process of getting the sound from the vinyl to the speakers introduces a different sound. And some music sounds more pleasing with that process. Could you achieve something similar by using the digital release and ru…

Much of the vinyl noise and distortion is pressed into the vinyl itself. Even if you play it using an optical player it will still sound worse than a good CD.

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

#105

Post by chollida1 »

risyachka wrote: post #57
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…

Spotify is popular because it is cheap, convenient and has all the music in the world. No one uses it because of quality or because it is the best medium for music.

> Spotify is popular because it is cheap, convenient and has all the music in the world.

Glad you agree with me:)

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

#106

Post by robocat »

I-M-S wrote: post #37
HPsquared wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Saving the economy by turning water into a luxury item. The op-eds basically write themselves.

Your cynicism is too close to the truth.

Liquid Death, CocaCola branded water, and household water filtration are unbelievable luxuries. Manufactured status for the masses. And my examines are truly luxuries: they are unnecessary for drinking water in developed countries.

Pools and green lawns have higher status when water is more expensive/scarcer.

I don't hang out with extremely high-status people, or the extremely wealthy, but I'm sure both of those groups have some surprisingly luxury water.

Luxury is a human concept that is completely disconnected from the underlying product.

Provenance, Branding, Myth, Environmental, Science all matter for status.

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

#107

Post by numpad0 »

mrob wrote: post #95
numpad0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't, because just about anything available is better than CDs. Vinyl craze is actually not about "warmth", just genuinely more data.

The only additional data that (some) vinyl has over CDs is inaudible ultrasound. Ultrasound is intentionally omitted from CDs because they're intended for humans to listen to. In all audible aspects a correctly mastered CD release is closer to the original sound than any vinyl. And if you really want ultrasound (perhaps your dog enjoys it), you can get digital releases at higher sample rates.

People used to say human eyes can't perceive >60fps.

It's also just CDs, not digital formats in general. Grab an audiophile and ask their opinions about digital PDM/PCM formats, high bitrate AACs even, against true vinyls. They wouldn't have as much opinions as they do against CDs.

Also: 44.1kHz sampling rate != arbitrary waveform up to 22050Hz, unless music you're listening to consists of pure sine waves(and not even classic Yamaha FM sound chip signals).

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

#108

Post by Rubberducky1324 »

numpad0 wrote: post #76
microtonal wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They don't, because just about anything available is better than CDs. Vinyl craze is actually not about "warmth", just genuinely more data.

> just genuinely more data.

Mastering is mostly done purely digital, so only when they are pressed are they converted to analog grooves. This can never add new data / information.

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

#109

Post by Rubberducky1324 »

numpad0 wrote: post #107
mrob wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only additional data that (some) vinyl has over CDs is inaudible ultrasound. Ultrasound is intentionally omitted from CDs because they're intended for humans to listen to. In all audible aspects a correctly mastered CD release is closer to the original sound than any vinyl. And if you really want ultrasound (perhaps your dog enjoys it), you can get digital releases at higher sample rates.

People used to say human eyes can't perceive >60fps. It's also just CDs, not digital formats in general. Grab an audiophile and ask their opinions about digital PDM/PCM formats, high bitrate AACs even, against true vinyls. They wouldn't have as much opinions as they do against CDs. Also: 44.1kHz sampling rate != arbitrary waveform up to 22050Hz, unless music you're listening to consists of pure sine waves(and not eve…

> Also: 44.1kHz sampling rate != arbitrary waveform up to 22050Hz, unless music you're listening to consists of pure sine waves

Every signal can be represented as a combination of pure sine waves. That insight is the basis of Fournier analysis / transform.

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

#110

Post by numpad0 »

xboxnolifes wrote: post #101
bob1029 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

480i content, CRTs, analog signal chains, non-digital transports, film grain, et. al., provide opportunity for our imagination to step in and produce a better interpolation than the ground truth might otherwise provide.

At least with CRTs, it's not just the imagination. It's the actual analogue interpolation creating a different image than the raw pixel-perfect without blurring/smoothing. This video and timestamp comes to mind: https://youtu.be/2sxKJeYSBmI?si=ikuOuZl-Ho5_VK4k&t=1613

obligatory supplement: everyone used CRTs for monitors back then, albeit of different resolutions for PCs and for watching TVs. It's not like devs had to mentally simulate the effect.
Post reply on HN