Shady scams and other silly business ideas to take advantage of earnest new vinyl collectors

this was from back in May but I dunno if it got posted on this or another of the myriad vinyl revival threads, but fascinating stuff here:

“There are only two companies worldwide that produce lacquers. One of these companies is a one-man operation in Japan run by an old man who produces the lacquers in his garage. It’s excellent quality, but who knows how much longer he can and especially will want to continue to do this. When we are in contact with him, we attempt to order as many lacquers as we can in order to stock up as much as possible. You don’t really know when you will reach him again. The other company is in the USA and serves a large portion of the market. It is practically a monopoly. This is not good for business.”

Then there are the cutting machines. The most popular and well known of these were developed in Germany by Neumann and were produced until the early 1980s. To operate these machines a so-called stylus is needed, which carves the groove into the lacquer to store the music on the disc. “Today, these styluses are produced by one company worldwide,” says Lubich, “by Apollo in the USA, where the lacquers are also made.” One person, Maria, was responsible for the entire production of the styluses and she had mastered the process, according to Lubich. “Maria knew exactly which adhesives were the right ones, and that you couldn’t use the large vats because the consistency of the adhesive would change. Then she retired, and for a long time the styluses were qualitatively just not as good.”

http://www.factmag.com/2015/05/07/pressed-to-the-edge-vinyl/

it's okay, there are plenty of records already.

"We've had sixty, seventy years of making records. That's stage one. Now we sample them".

My first Urban Outfitters: Vintage Vinyl=Roached looking Traffic albums in bags for $12 a pop.

Excellent!

This is truly a Golden Age for garbage vinyl.

saw the second issue of that jazz on vinyl partwork in the newsagents the other day (John Coltrane's Blue Train), and it's priced at £9.99 rather than £14.99, don't know if that indicates that the first issue sold better than anticipated or worse than anticipated

that's how is was in the advert: https://www.deagostini.com/uk/collections/jazz-vinyl/

"Standard Subscription: Issue 1 is just £4.99, Issue 2 is £9.99, Issue 3 onwards is £14.99"

My partner has just given me a subscription to Wax & Stamp for my birthday, which gets me a newly released LP and 12" each month. This makes sense, as he knows what I like but doesn't know where to find it, and so he's had some detailed discussions with the curators in order to establish compatibility. As past selections confirm, the shipments jump around genre-wise, which is a key reason why he went for it. So for starters, I got a Tuff Love 10" EP (Glaswegian C86/dreampop jangle, chosen by Josie Long) and a Mo Kolours album (UK hip-hop/jazz/soul cut-ups, akin to Flying Lotus/Knxwledge). Very happy with both, good start.

Half speed mastered vinyl reissues of albums by the Rolling Stones, Cream, Free, the Police, Simple Minds and John Martyn

Wasn't that what Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs used? I seem to remember half-speed mastering being their selling point (or one of them) in the '70s and '80s.

(and I'd love to hear that Cream in mono -- the stereo mix is moronic -- but not for $40 or whatever)

The process involves the original master tape being played back at 16 2/3 RPM, precisely half its recorded speed, while the cutting lathe is similarly turned at half the desired playback speed.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but this doesn't make sense to me... Aren't master tapes normally literal tapes? So how could their playing speed described as "16 2/3 RPM", which is a vinyl term? Also, shouldn't the precision of the cutting lathe be more important than the cutting speed? I guess cutting them at slower pace can increase the precision somewhat, but this sounds kinda snake oilish. And most importantly, if the listeners are care so much about the fidelity of the sound, why not just by these albums on CD instead of (what I presume will be) much pricier vinyl?

if the listeners are care so much about the fidelity of the sound, why not just by these albums on CD instead of (what I presume will be) much pricier vinyl?

Vinyl people don't want the sound to be better in an objective sense, they want it to be "better" in a "it just has more warmth" sense.

Official explamanations

In overly simplified form, the master tape is played back at precisely half its recorded speed while the cutting lathe is similarly turned at precisely half the desired playback speed. This process gives the cutting head twice the time to cut its musically complex and physically demanding analog groove into the lacquer. This luxury affords considerably more accuracy with matters such as frequency extremes and microdynamic contrasts.

sounds plausible and somewhat BS-y... aka the audiophilia sweetspot

this sounds right. by packing in twice the waveform definition into the same space it would result in a better sound. it's sort of the principle that makes 45 sound better than an album. or when you are recording on a 4track, you turn up the speed to get a better quality recording. playing back a more accurate master will result in better sound.

Vinyl people don't want the sound to be better in an objective sense, they want it to be "better" in a "it just has more warmth" sense.

― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:26 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

go on...

xp
The waveforms end up occupying the same space, it's just cut slower, which is supposed to make what's there more accurate.

Vinyl people don't want the sound to be better in an objective sense, they want it to be "better" in a "it just has more warmth" sense.

― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:26 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

go on...

Whatever the reason for preferring vinyl, CD has inherently better sound reproduction capability than vinyl, no matter how the vinyl is mastered. And if you really want to go to true audiophile territory, most of the albums mentioned in the article are also available on SACD (which has even better sound reproduction than CD), though you really have to have the proverbial golden ears to notice the difference between that and a regular CD.

So preferring these half speed vinyls isn't really a matter of wanting the best possible sound quality, because that can't be acquired on vinyl. I completely understand if people prefer vinyl for other reasons, be it larger cover art or nostalgia or the fact than many records aren't available in other formats, but when they say they prefer it for its inherently better sound quality, that's just snake oil.

i'm not talking about half speed masters, i'm talking about "vinyl people"

So preferring these half speed vinyls isn't really a matter of wanting the best possible sound quality, because that can't be acquired on vinyl.

i don't know about this particular set of half speed mastered vinyls we're talking about, but in general this isn't necessarily true.. and i'm not talking about obscure shit, major stuff like Deep Purple - In Rock, Duran Duran's self titled, it's hard to get a decent CD.

but when they say they prefer it for its inherently better sound quality, that's just snake oil.

you've heard of the beatles, right? well in the 80s they put their albums out on CD. they sounded like shit. they put them out again 7 years ago and they sounded really good but NOT THE SAME as the original "vinyls". almost "remixed". the beatles! so people aren't just being dumbass hipsters when they want good vinyl.

but i agree in a perfect world or whatever, every CD would be mastered properly with the correct tracklisting and without dave mustaine re-recording his vocals

or something

also vinyl people buy vinyl because it (used to be?) cheap

signed, captain obvious

Yeah, I agree that in some cases there's aren't a good CD master available, but I wouldn't have thought it applied to a band as big as The Beatles. I would've thought their albums would've been remastered at least three times by now, considering how many people would buy them. What was the problem with those remasters from 7 years ago?

(xpost)

also vinyl people buy vinyl because it (used to be?) cheap

Yeah, that used to be the reason why I bought many albums on vinyl too. But nowadays with vinyl being hip and CD being unhip, CDs are as cheap as dirt. Often you can get a new or a good quality used copy of an album for less than it would cost to buy it as MP3s on Amazon.

Anyway, that's not pertinent to this discussion, because I assume these half-speed super-mastered vinyls will cost much much more than the same albums on CD. (Or even on SACD, in some cases - you can buy an SACD version of the Police album they mention for 20 quids on Amazon.)

http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-factory-news/sound-leisure-new-vinyl-jukebox/

Whatever the reason for preferring vinyl, CD has inherently better sound reproduction capability than vinyl, no matter how the vinyl is mastered.

no no, the opposite is true. vinyl inherently better sound quality. not sure where you're getting your information

Er, since it's a commonly known fact, there a lot of sources, but this is possibly the best overall analysis of various myths relating to vinyl:

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29

The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.

Besides the lower dynamic range, there are other issues that make vinyl worse in sound reproduction, such as the fact that low bass sounds have to be mastered in mono to stop the needle from jumping out of the groove.

And of course there's the fact (which is the biggest reason I don't like vinyl) that the sound quality of the record will inevitably deteriorate the more you play it, which isn't the case with CDs. This is particularly irksome when buying used records, because you'll never know how good the record you're buying is gonna sound.

I guess all this doesn't matter that much in rock music or other genres where a lo-fi aesthetic is common and flaws in the sound reproduction are not big deal to the listener. But the two genres I listen to most are classical and electronic music, and sound quality is important to me, so I'm not particularly enamoured by vinyl. Sadly, these days a lot electronic music gets its physical release only on vinyl (or even worse, cassette), though thankfully most of that stuff is usually available as FLACs or WAVs too.

I completely understand if people prefer vinyl for other reasons, be it larger cover art or nostalgia or the fact than many records aren't available in other formats, but when they say they prefer it for its inherently better sound quality, that's just snake oil.

― Tuomas, Friday, February 19, 2016 3:00 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Additionally, if listeners are seeking the best quality analog playback -- that is, the analog format that most closely reproduces the original master tape -- that'd be reel-to-reel tapes, not vinyl. But they're expensive (used or, especially, new), the nostalgia market for reel-to-reels is minuscule, and only one company makes new reel-to-reel decks (and only started doing so recently).

the two genres I listen to most are classical

CDs are definitely the way to go for classical music, not least for not having to flip the record over halfway through and interrupt the performance.

i only buy vinyl but sound quality is not really a concern for me. the larger art and the availability of really cheap used vinyl is the main reason that i got into collecting vinyl in the first place. then as my cd player died and i stopped driving (the car CD player being where i consumed most my CD music) and even stopped using the CDr drive on my computer, i found the used record market stayed the same.

ofc this thread seems about "earnest new vinyl collectors" not sure if it is the collectors that are new or the vinyl that is new, cos new vinyl is a ripoff.

thread applies to either, noobs buying old "hot stampers" or old heads buying some new subscription scam

Tuomas your crusade against any listening format other than CDs is so tiresome, you parade your ignorance around like it's a badge of honor.

ilx is full of posters on that crusade

the two genres I listen to most are classical and electronic music, and sound quality is important to me, so I'm not particularly enamoured by vinyl. Sadly, these days a lot electronic music gets its physical release only on vinyl (or even worse, cassette), though thankfully most of that stuff is usually available as FLACs or WAVs too.

― Tuomas, Friday, February 19, 2016 9:25 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm with Tuomas. Replace "classical and electronic music" with "jazz" and that's me. I like vinyl but rarely buy it anymore (and hardy ever "new" vinyl). CDs are pennies on the dollar now and sound as good today as they ever did or ever will. I've been buying albums I've wanted for years because they're just so inexpensive.

That said, two things I definitely "collect" - Dead bootlegs and a lot of ECM stuff - frustratingly seem to be holding their value on CD for some reason

Tuomas your crusade against any listening format other than CDs is so tiresome, you parade your ignorance around like it's a badge of honor.

What ignorance? I said CDs are inherently better at reproducing sound, which is a fact. And I also said I understand why some people choose vinyl for various reasons, but it's not for me, and tried to explain why my particular listening preferences make CDs (or lossless files) a better choice. Where's the "ignorance" or "crusade" in that?

I rest my case

I admit that this is a pet peeve subject of mine, but that's because I know a lot of vinylphiles, and I've heard these claims about vinyl's better sound quality a zillion times, so I tend to try to debunk them whenever I come across them. But that doesn't mean I'm firmly against vinyl or don't think there are many valid reasons why people can enjoy it. And some albums do sound better on vinyl than on CD, mostly ones that were released in the early days of CDs (when CD mastering was still in its infancy, so a lot weird choices were made) and haven't been remastered since. But there's no objective basis for the claim that vinyl is inherently better than CD as a medium for reproducing sound. (Obviously it's better for reproducing the visual art used on album covers.)

objectively it seems like an analog waveform is better than a digital waveform, simply by not being limited to "bits"

objectively it seems like an analog waveform is better than a digital waveform, simply by not being limited to "bits"

If the music you're listening to is less than 35 years old, chances are it was recorded digitally.

i listen mostly to music older than 35 years

this thread was funny when we were making fun of vnyl, surely there's a different thread for format wars??

^^^

The waveform issue is also discussed in the vinyl myths article I linked to above, it's well worth reading.

but there are like twenty threads for debating and/or trolling vinyl vs cd. "ah but you see, vinyl ITSELF is the scam" may be your opinion but it's not really what this lolthread is about.

please, somebody post a link to a new subscription service or something.

surely there's some new article complaining about Record Store Day?