Back to the future: Vinyl record sales double in '08, CDs down

[swag]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9124699&source=NLT_PM

January 2, 2009 (Computerworld) Audiophiles have long argued that vinyl records offer better sound quality than CDs or MP3s, but their stoic loyalty in the face of change was seen as little more than a nostalgic bias during the 25 years in which digital recordings came to dominate the music industry. In recent years, however, sales of LPs -- that's short for long-playing records, kids -- have more than doubled online and are regaining overall market share, thanks to new converts looking for more than they can find in an MP3 selling for 99 cents online.

In 2008, 1.88 million vinyl albums were purchased, more than in any other year since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking LP sales in 1991. The previous record was in 2000, when 1.5 million LP albums were sold. More than two out of every three vinyl albums bought in 2008 were purchased at an independent music store, according to SoundScan.

Vinyl record sales rose 14% between 2006 and 2007, from 858,000 to 990,000. In contrast, CD sales plummeted over the past three years, from 553.4 million in 2006 to 360.6 million in 2008. MP3 sales grew from 32.6 million to 65.8 million during the same time period, according to SoundScan.

Newbury Comics' store manager Dan Phipps holds a vinyl copy of Beck's Modern Guilt.Industry observers say vinyl record sales have skyrocketed because new buyers are discovering the value of owning albums, with their cover art, large liner notes and warm sound.

"There's nothing like a vinyl record. It's analog. It sounds as close as you're going to get to the artist. If you're that guy who sits in that optimum space in your living room, you're definitely going to hear the difference," said Steven Sheldon, president of Los Angeles-based Rainbo Records.

. . .

[tigereye]

1. what goes around, comes around...

I know folks who still buy quite a bit of vinyl. Good deal!

[swag]

2. I still buy quite a bit of vinyl.

Can't believe how expensive some of the new issues and reissues are, but still finding lots of good used vinyl.

Got a great 2 LP King Tubby compilation not too long ago.

[tigereye]

7. when you consider how cheap they were in the first place

and how cheap they are used!


I have a bunch of stuff I bought used lying around that still has $2.35 stickers on them! :rofl: or even less!

[Pierre.Suave]

4. I buy quite a bit

and have invested money in a nice Turntable/Phono Amp for them. It has gotten to the point that if there is both a Vinyl album and a CD available, I will buy the Vinyl album and then transfer it to my computer if I want a digital form of it.

[Forkboy]

3. My friends and I still grab some here and there.

Sunn O))) on vinyl seems even heavier, if friggin' possible. :scared:

Sadly, the local Newbury Comics near me is starting to suck as hard as Strawberries did. x(

[SoxFan]

5. I'm starting to worry, too

It's becoming more of a pseudo-hipster gee-gaw emporium. If you want an action figure of some obscure anime character, a Stewie Griffin toilet paper holder, or an ironic Cheez Wizz t-shirt, you're in luck, but the selection of oddball used cds seems to be dropping off significantly.

[leeroysphitz]

6. What can you expect. People just aren't buying or selling music the way they used to.

[Deja Q]

8. Vinyl uses more oil... and "Funplex", on vinyl, has got to be the most blatent irony of them all...

:rofl:

[madrchsod]

9. going on a vinyl shopping trip today-looking for early rufus...

180 gram vinyl is the bomb....

[Tighelander]

10. My Thorens turntable sounds great

I bought it for a buck 10 years ago and in 2006 I started to digitize my collection, and started buying more. I think twice as many as I started out with, and have told myself to stop buying used vinyl. I have 3500 tracks in iTunes that are from vinyl. My musical choices have expanded since buying the used stuff. I love the Mambo type music that I never bought before. It is time consuming for me to do it though.

[originalpckelly]

11. There a large number of problems with physical contact analog...

but there should be a way to do analog in high quality, with low noise with no physical motion.

Perhaps something that was like a card, protected from dust in a sheath of some kind, one that would slide open in a player. It could uses lasers like CDs to read media, but it would be all analog, with little movement.

[billyskank]

12. Trouble is that high quality analogue costs lotsa money

because you need high quality, high precision equipment. That was the digital revolution: digital never was "better" than the best analogue stuff, and anybody who claimed so was ignorant. But, digital technology brought reproduction quality that was Good Enough to the masses in low price commodity equipment.

[Tighelander]

17. Laser Disks and Video Disks

Laser disks, a favorite of mine, is a 12" optical disk for video that could have analog audio picked up by a laser.

A short-lived video format, I think the name was Videodisk, came out in the late seventies or early eighties and was a really just a vinyl record in a protective sleeve that would open in the plalyer to be read with a needle. Neither the picture or sound was very good.

[sammythecat]

13. The trouble is that it's not that often that

I'm not too often listening to music in that "optimum space in my living room" with optimum equipment and the ears of a pre-teen, and when I am in my optimum space I'm more than satisfied with good quality digital sound.

For me, the convenience alone of listening to exactly what I want to hear and nothing else, as often as I want to hear it with just the touch of a button on a hand-held remote far outweighs the hassle of fussing with the old Thorens and a high maintenance vinyl record. I've been a audiophile since grade school, but at 58 I seriously doubt I'd be able to detect the subtle differences between vinyl and digital even in ideal circumstances. In fact, I doubt most people of any age or circumstances would be aware of the difference unless they were asked beforehand to try and detect which format they were listening to, and I suspect even then the margin of error would be substantial.

I don't mean to sound arrogant or too dismissive, I do believe there are differences that can be measured with the right equipment, I just think those differences would be comparable to the differences between a $1,000 bottle of wine and a $5,000 bottle of wine; completely subjective, inconsequential, and mostly silly.

[billyskank]

14. Let's make a better analogy

The difference between acoustically optimised hi-fi equipment and an ipod is like the difference between the $1,000 bottle of wine, and a bottle of beer. But there is a purpose and a place for both in the world.

[sammythecat]

16. Although I don't have an ipod and don't know what they sound like,

I would expect that, other than convenience, it would have no advantage whatsoever over the acoustically optimized hi-fi equipment. It would be inferior and your analogy with the expensive wine and the bottle of beer would be spot on, but I was attempting to make an analogy based on a somewhat more balanced competition where the conclusions drawn would be, I think, a bit more subjective than objective (ridiculously expensive bottle of wine vs downright immorally expensive bottle of wine).

I should have made my thoughts clear. I was thinking of comparing high quality digital and analog equipment, high quality analog and digital(not 128mps) recordings, and an average adult ear. Then weighing the, in my opinion, more than adequate sound quality of digital sound versus the relatively slight gain in sound quality that would be almost imperceptible to all but the severe audiophile with near perfect, or at least excellent, hearing.

When ease of use (which leads to frequency of use), versatility, and maintenance requirements are compared, I think digital blows away analog. With analog one has to be concerned with needle and cartridge quality and condition, tonearm balance and tracking, reliability and trueness of the turntable mechanism, and the condition of the vinyl recording itself which will deteriorate somewhat with every playback no matter what you do. While tinkering and caring for this stuff can be sort of fun at times, most all of the time I just want to hear the music and don't want to even think about the equipment.

Digital, on the other hand, can be copied onto brand new disks forever, and for a pittance. While digital equipment can and does break down, it doesn't steadily degrade, it just stops working. Replacement is fairly easy and inexpensive. Plus, digital editing is simple, easy, and gratifying. Overly long and tedious intro, cut it out. 60 seconds of clapping and hoots at the end, get rid of it. Want to hear song 2 or songs 2,3, and 13, ten times in a row while you lie down or wash the windows? No problem at all with digital, but I'd go nuts trying that with analog.

As you say, there is a purpose and a place for both in the world. I'm not arguing that at all. In fact I hope analog never dies. I think it should always be there and available for those with the equipment, conditions, ear, and temperament to take advantage of it's slight, but measurably superior sound.

[mitchum]

15. Aren't you in Portland? I bet you are familiar with the noise and power electronics subcultures...

that are now using cassette tapes as the preferred medium.

Me? I'm gonna lead the Edison wax cylinder revival!