Not All iPods — Vinyl and Turntables Gain Sales 405
Says the New York Times: "With the curious resurgence of vinyl, a parallel revival has emerged: The turntable, once thought to have taken up obsolescence with eight-track tape players, has been reborn."
Betamax (Score:5, Funny)
Time to get that Betamax player out of the attic!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah you young'uns. I'm going upstairs to get my imagination out of the attic!
(Yes, that's the best I could do)
Re:Betamax (Score:5, Funny)
Ah you young'uns. I'm going upstairs to get my imagination out of the attic!
(Yes, that's the best I could do)
Ha. We crowd-source our imaginations. Why think for ourselves, when we can share our brilliance in real time, peer to peer, in under 140 cha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When your market is so small (Score:5, Interesting)
You only have to sell a couple albums more than usual to claim huge percentage increases.
Re:When your market is so small (Score:5, Insightful)
You only have to sell a couple albums more than usual to claim huge percentage increases.
But a small part of a big market is still worth having. Any idea what 1% of the entire recorded music market is worth?
Re:When your market is so small (Score:4, Insightful)
But a small part of a big market is still worth having. Any idea what 1% of the entire recorded music market is worth?
Vinyl didn't account for 1% of the entire recorded music market. It was 1% of full album sales, which have been dropping precipitously.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What do you mean? RIAA of real-world numbers?
Re:When your market is so small (Score:5, Funny)
The market is really hipster douchebags. They're competing with thick-framed square glasses and retro 1980s video game t-shirts. The music industry doesn't really figure into it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn’t exactly call the DJing market small.
Then again, there are things like Stanton Final Scratch, where you need turntables, but not Vinyls (other than the ones containing the time codes).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pfft... (Score:5, Funny)
Kids these days and their newfangled "vinyl" cheap rubbish. Give me my Bach on a wax cylinder, and then get off my long-dead lawn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What did you think of this sentence, Grandpa?
The turntable, once thought to have taken up obsolescence with eight-track tape players
These kids today, eight track tapes sucked and always did. And they don't listen, do they? I tolds these punks about eight tracks almost five years ago in Good Riddance to Bad Tech : [kuro5hin.org]
Blame the Sound Engineers (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor Sound Engineering is why CDs do not sound good enough; source recordings should be at least 48khz minimum and they downsample to CD - if done properly, the CD should sound just fine to everybody but the fanatics with good enough hardware, software, and/or imagination to find something wrong with it. My record player didn't have more dynamic range - and it wasn't the cheapest model either.... that is, excluding the pops and scratches which did give it a larger dynamic range.
Besides, LP has many more flaws like how they lack BASS and need it reduced and then boosted on playback. It wouldn't matter if we had 96Khz 32bit sound on DVDs - sound engineers would continue try to wreak everything again. What is needed is an embedded volume code for the player's decoder / amplifier circuit to use to instantly raise or lower the volume so these sound engineers can continue to mess everything up to a ridiculous extreme without actually throwing away sound quality. This would also allow people to ignore the dynamic compression by telling the player to ignore the encoded volume/dynamic range track.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans have a range of 20Hz to 20kHz Even at 96Khz sampling would take you to 48 kHz which is twice human hearing
The closer you get to the Nyquist limit, the worse the aliasing. You can't hear a 30 kHz tone, but you can tell the difference between a pure 1kHz tone and a 1kHz tone that's mixed with a 30 kHz tone; it affects the harmonics.
Re: (Score:3)
Aliasing isn't an issue as you approach the nyquist frequency, it is an issue when you pass it.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of aliasing. Aliasing occurs in any sampled digital data. When a digital photo is badly aliased, the pixels are big; like on an old low-def TV set when a slanted line looks like stairsteps instead of a straight line. With a 45 degree angle the aliasing would be apparent (given low enough resolution), while a horizontal or vertical line would show no aliasing at all. In a photo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any time you see the word "perfect" you have to doubt. If a 20 kHz modulated tone is "perfect" in a CD than if you doubled the sampling rate you would have twice perfect. Kind of like "twice infinity". There is no such thing as perfect.
You are entirely correct about "anti aliasing filters"; they only filter. It's similar to antialiasing in digital photos, in that you don't get less real aliasing, it just makes the aliasing less apparent. Ending the transition band at the Nyquist limit (or just below) rids y
HA! (Score:3, Funny)
and now try put disk copy protection on that!
oh wait...
Actually... (Score:2)
and now try put disk copy protection on that!
Actually, there are turntables for analog to digital conversion---I've wondered aloud what's going on here with no copy prevention. See http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1469166&cid=30350490 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, especially if you have one of these over-priced badboys [vestax.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Possible, but in reality most vinyl discs are a direct transfer from the digital master used for the CD, including the brick-wall mix.
Re:HA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Possible, but in reality most vinyl discs are a direct transfer from the digital master used for the CD, including the brick-wall mix.
Incorrect. You have to carefully master a recording before you can press it onto vinyl. Particularly bad masters sometimes won't even press, the material won't take it and it'll collapse. Not quite as bad but still worse masters will produce a groove that is unplayable. Bass-heavy records have a shorter running time due to the required groove size modifications. Certain stereo panning tricks can cause turntables to skip, so they have to be removed or reduced on vinyl masters.
There's probably some vinyl discs mastered that are just a DAT shoved through to a presser, but they're not common.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any stats/details on that because my experience is the opposite. Pretty much every vinyl album I've bought in recent years is significantly differently mastered to the CD.
Looks like the music execs aren't that dumb... (Score:3, Interesting)
FTFA:
Interest from younger listeners is what convinced music industry executives that vinyl had staying power this time around.
Taking this at face value, it seems like the music industry execs aren't that stupid: the market wants something, let's give it to them.
Don't they worry about piracy, though?
Some are traditional analog record players; others are designed to connect to computers for converting music to digital files.
Hmm...
In any case...
At a glance, the far corner of the main floor of J&R Music looks familiar to anybody old enough to have scratched a record by accident.
I will not buy thees myoosic store. Eet is skrratshed.
My car also runs on steam again... (Score:2)
... with the oil prices going up again as soon as this crisis is over...
Random fluctuation (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this supposed to be surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every few months the media spits out a story or five about vinyl being more popular than ever. And they conveniently forget about it so they can do it again in another few months!
CDs are naturally dying, because broadband is ubiquitous and digital files are good enough to make the format an annoyance.
If you want to listen to music and have the physical media experience to go along with it, vinyl's a lot better than CDs IMO (and apparently in the opinions of quite a few others, too). Bigger art, more to play with, sounds better, etc.
That's not even taking dance music culture into account. I just didn't like CDJs' and Traktor's downsides, audio quality, and quirks enough to trade the convenience they gain over vinyl turntables. Also, Technics are cooler, and they haven't made a little wind-up truck that plays CDs yet.
No surprises.. (Score:2)
No surprises. Vinyl sounds better.
Audiophiles (Score:3, Interesting)
Before the anti-audiophile crowd comes in screaming about how digital is a more accurate reproduction vinyls are typically mastered for their audience so they often are not compressed to maximum loudness that you hear in modern CDs so you actually have some dynamic range.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy DVD-A and SACD then (Score:5, Informative)
The compression on CDs is not manditory, and indeed you find some CDs without it. However if high quality sound is your goal, well then DVD-A and SACD are the places to look. Like records, they are not produced for everything, but they tend to be extremely well mastered for what they are done with. Nice wide dynamic range. They also have the advantage of being all digital, and extremely high resolution: 96-192kHz 24-bit for DVD-A, 2.8MHz 1-bit for SACD (equivalent to about 20-bit 100kHz). You are also usually going to spend less on hardware (a cheap SACD/DVD-A player can be had for less than $200) and your recordings don't degrade every time they are played.
That's the problem I have with the audiophile record crowd: There ARE digital technologies better than CD, much better, and measurably so. Thus, if your goal is highest fidelity sound, then that is probalby what you should be getting. Goes double since most recordings these days are produced digitally, so you are getting "digital sound" like it or not.
I'm fine with people who like records for nostalgic reasons, but I don't get the "Oh records sound so much better crowd." No, not so much really. Sure, compare a $5000 turntable to a $10 CD player where the CD is limited all to hell, the record player sounds better (unless the record is scratched). However compares that same record player to a $200 DVD-A player and the DVD-A will be better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PlayStation 3 is a SACD player ... And many DVD players are DVD-A players.
And most big music releases are available on one of the two formats. Why anyone still buys CDs, I'm unable to fathom.
PS3 WAS an SACD player. After the 2nd gen models, they dropped SACD playback, and the slim does not have it either.
As for DVD players, all of them are DVD-A players in the sense they will play back the low rez compressed surround mix, but very few of them will play back the hi resolution MLP versions of the music that are actually better than redbook CD.
It's been growing for a while... (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I prefer to buy my music on vinyl, I like the huge cover art and the tactile interaction of playing a record. The nature of vinyl also doesn't lend itself to the Loudness War [wikipedia.org]. The only things I don't like about vinyl is it weighs a ton when you're trying to get to a gig and when listening at home you gotta get up and flip the record.
I kinda think digital DJing has been gaining a lot of ground lately... there are so many Serato [scratchlive.net] copycats) out there now (some are purely digital while Serto allows the use of timecoded vinyl for control. I've been a hardcore vinyl head and I'm finally considering going the digital route because of the convenience of weight saving and you can make your own remixes. Though it still pisses me off that I spent so much time and money collecting rare tracks when these days laptop DJs can just download them off the net. It's made it a lot harder to have an exclusive track.
Wait a second.... (Score:5, Funny)
What did you expect would happen, people would start buying vinyl records, but just look at them instead of playing them? Is there some iPhone vinyl add-on I'm not aware of?
Tomorrow on Slashdot: A sudden increase in the sale of left shoes curiously correlates to a parallel increase in the sale of right shoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some iPhone vinyl add-on I'm not aware of?
hmm, interesting... *rubs chin*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What did you expect would happen, people would start buying vinyl records, but just look at them instead of playing them?
Considering the pretentiousness of the people who buy vinyl, that is a possibility.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the news is that people are buying turntables to go along with their records. The news is that so many people are buying records that stores are beginning to stock record players again. And that IS surprising!
People are rediscovering quality. They are rediscovering the "old way" where dynamic range matters, where music isn't all dynamically depressed so that everything "plays loud". Really, it's sad, because a CD has the dynamic range to go from a barely audible whisper to something rivaling a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even more bizarrely, Linn, makers of very high end audio recently announced they are ceasing manufacture of CD players as sales have died compared to their multi-room, streaming audio systems.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Funny)
Correlation does not imply causation....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you, you left out the minorities...
People with only a left foot
People with only a right foot
People with 2 left feet
People named Jake with three legs
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, if your that Jake, then you are over 40 years old ;)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Funny)
What did you expect would happen, people would start buying vinyl records, but just look at them instead of playing them?
But if you play them you might scratch them, or get dust on them !
Any serious audiophile knows you must never get a disc out of its sleeve. It must remain in timeless perfection to be admired by like minded individuals (wearing gloves), possibly drooling a bit, while extolling the virtues of gold plated power cables.
Re: (Score:2)
Real men don’t wear shoes, you insensitive clod!
They were spores. But no shoes! [google.com] ^^
Re: (Score:2)
And as we all know, since correlation != causation, these two events can't possibly have anything to do with one another.
Did scanner sales increase? (Score:3, Informative)
No, I'd expect people would buy vinyl records and scan them [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be a fucking blast at parties.
...says NoPantsJim... :-D
Vinyl... (Score:5, Funny)
for people who think it's not high-quality unless you can hear the artifacts of how low-quality the recording is.
Re:Vinyl... (Score:4, Funny)
back when I was young (early 2k's) I used to listen to a lot of dance music and go to the occasional rave. When I first started going to these gigs, I asked one of my friends why the DJ's used vinyl instead of CD's. She told me that, because the records are analog, you get much better quality sound. I asked a few other people and they all seemed to agree.
I was always a bit skeptical. How can you create electronic music, digitally, on computers etc and then claim that putting them on vinyl somehow magically improves the quality?
I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots.
Re:Vinyl... (Score:5, Informative)
back when I was young (early 2k's) I used to listen to a lot of dance music and go to the occasional rave. When I first started going to these gigs, I asked one of my friends why the DJ's used vinyl instead of CD's.
Many years ago I worked at a radio station with mostly records and "carts" (like 8-track tapes); digital music was just becoming available. One thing I noticed was that it was much easier to mix songs and get the beats to mix using the record players. Being able to touch the media as it turned and subtly slow or speed up the records made it really easy to sync the beats. It was really fun to watch the DJs who were particularly good at it.
And there was no good digital interface (Score:5, Interesting)
At least for a long while. There now is in the form of Final Scratch. What it does is encode a timecode signal on a record, which you then feed to a soundcard. Final Scratch then interprets that timecode to tell what you are doing with the player and can control the speed and seeking of the digital files associated with it. Works great, I've seen it in action a number of times.
Another factor was the processing power for good resampling. These days that is trivial but it wasn't when digital first came about. If you are going to stretch the sound a lot by slowing it down, you need to properly resample the data to make it sound smooth. You'll get nasty artifacts otherwise.
Net result is non-degraded digital sound, with turntable controls. You can reuse the same timecode record quite a few times before ti becomes damaged to the point of having to get a new one.
These days, however, if you aren't scratching and such, software can beat match way better than you can. Songs can be tagged with BPM (or measured) and you can visually set cut points. Not as much fun though.
Re:And there was no good digital interface (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I question your ability to look at a record and determine what's what in a club with lights flashing and all that. I would imagine that looking at a computer screen, where you can have the audio displayed in any way you like (waterfall, peaks, whatever) would be much easier for telling what part of a song is interesting.
Perhaps DJs have extremely keen eyes and a sense for records I don't, but I can tell you a lot looking at a spectral display, not so much looking at a record.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
At the time, yes but now you can buy 'DJ CD Players' which allow scratching (shudder> and can have the speed adjusted just as you could with vinyl.
TBH, most DJ's I know just carry a laptop with all their stuff on it and mixing software and use a combination of pre-programmed sets and the software to blend tracks/adjust bpm etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They're both wrong and right simultaneously.
From a pure "how close does this sound to the original" perspective, vinyl isn't that good because the fidelity isn't fantastic compared with CD.
From a "how nice does this sound to my ears" perspective (which is what most people mean when they discuss sound quality) - sound quality on vinyl tends to degrade much more gracefully to the human ear.
What would be particularly interesting would be to compare the soundwave that comes out of the speakers when playing a vi
Re: (Score:2)
sound quality on vinyl tends to degrade much more gracefully to the human ear.
Not really - it's very much a cultural preference. If you grow up listening to audio that's distorted the way vinyl/tubes make it, then you think that it sounds better than the undistorted audio (or audio that is distorted differently.) It's becoming apparent that younger people are preferring the lossy sound of lower-bitrate MP3's (which are *definitely* not 'better') over vinyl or uncompressed audio, simply because they're alway
Re:Vinyl... (Score:5, Informative)
I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots.
DJs buy vinyl because it's a better user interface for mixing. "Scratching" on a CD player is just not the same. Also, many rare tracks come out on vinyl that don't come out on CD (well, this used to be the case).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
rave + sound quality concerns.. several things seem wrong with that
Re: (Score:2)
Well, its all in the sample size/dynamic range.
If you have a cd that has been edited so badly that it only uses at best a quater of its sample size, and compare that to a high quallity analog recording, well I know what will sound better.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an old fart, I thought dance DJ's used vinyl so they could put their finger on the record and make it go wuka-wuka-wuka.
Re: (Score:2)
Because usually, wuka-wuka-wuka sounds a hell of a lot better than the track left to its own devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I was always a bit skeptical. How can you create electronic music, digitally, on computers etc and then claim that putting them on vinyl somehow magically improves the quality?
I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots.
Vinyl tends to be mastered better, where 95% of "better" simply means that it is not digitally manipulated to be louder.
You would need a good sound system, a good ear, and some specific songs/soundbytes to be able to get any statistical significance of perceived quality in a double blind vinyl vs 128 kbps AAC test, and 99% of what doesn't sound the same could probably be fixed by upping that number to 160-192 kbps (LAME and the like are overkill for listening, might be appropriate for a digital backup, but
"electronic music, digitally, on computers" (Score:2)
Before the 2k's there was 90's dance music. PC's were barely capable of handling multiple audio streams and musicians had minimal computer skills. Dedicated hardware was quite common, samplers, effects, recorders. Even analog equipment was still around and highly sought after, such as the old Roland x0x series, TB-303, TR-909, TR-808. The late 90's generation of hardware was pretty much aimed at re-creating vintage analog sounds with companies such as Novation, Access, Waldorf, and Clavia. Vinyl w
My Reason - Loudness War (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. A lot of audiophiles use DVD-A (or whatever it is called) though as these are generally far better mastered than bog standard CDs. Certainly, most of the more vocal audiophiles I talk to all listen this way and often say much as they like vinyl, DVD-A sounds better.
Have seen it coming (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Side note: these bottles bring health and safety full circle. I remember when there was a health concern about the aluminum in soda cans leading to Alzheimers, so the industry started lining cans with plastic and 20oz bottles became popular. Now with the concern about BP-A, people are paying top dollar for aluminum bottles to drink their
Turntables are not reborn (Score:2)
People are just starting to realize that digital DJ equipment tends to suck compared to a set of real turntables and a mixer board with crossfader.
Fad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fad. (Score:5, Insightful)
You touched on the actual reason why vinyl has a market, and that reason is here to stay: Vinyl is complicated. You can't just waltz into a store and buy the perfect turntable. A turntable is never perfect. You can always one-up "the competition". Then you have to add all sorts of fancy dampening widgets to your setup and let's not forget the rituals that surround playing a vinyl record: What you consider an annoying hassle is an audiophile's fetish and an opportunity to distinguish himself from his lesser peers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"The wear has occurred assymmetrically, with that part of the stylus which bears against the right-hand wall of the groove (as seen looking towards the cartridge,with the centre of the record to the left) showing more wear than the side bearing against the left-hand wall."
Anti-skating, like everything else in any analog medium, matters a lot. Cheap turntables had/have no anti-skating and had/have stylus weight of up to 30 grams and will, in fact, ruin your records (and stylus). A good, well engineered turnt
it's a touch-screen of the music man (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not really becoming popular because it is better to hear music off one. The vinyl turntable is a performance instrument all of its own.
About a year back I ran into someone who had a vinyl turntable hooked into Ubuntu studio. He'd essentially use the turntable [flic.kr] hooked into the MIDI port(?) which lets him control any soundtrack with a touch of his finger.
The guy was explaining how the user interface of a turntable supersedes anything else out there for what he's doing. That in some sense, it's the touch screen of the music man.
physicality of vinyl (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I'm a vinyl junkie and am happy for its continued survival, if only because it means that I'll be able to get new parts for my turntable for a long time yet. I think that the biggest advantage of vinyl is the physicality of the product. This includes of course the artwork and liner notes, which will be much larger and usually more attractive than with a CD. But there's more than this. Purchasing records often involves flipping through large bins of vinyl, something you sort of get with CDs, but instead of the clack or platic bins you have a nice soft thwap of cardboard album sleeves. Playing vinyl is also a much more physical act than playing a CD. With a CD you open the tray, put the disc on, then press a couple of buttons. With vinyl you have to open the lid, put the record on the turntable, line up the needle and plop it down, then come back and flip it over in twenty minutes or so. Choosing a specific track involves some pretty careful aligning of the needle. It forces you to become more engaged with what you're doing and promotes a more active listening; you can't so easily slap something on and ignore it, and the 6-disc changer (and, god help us, the random button) don't exist. You have to interact with your music because there will be a little bit of physical labor involved in keeping it going for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Of course, playing 7" singles is even better for this, because you're hopping up every three minutes and constantly having to think, "What would sound good with this?" Vinyl is far better for an evening devoted to listening to music because it really encourages you to make the music the central part of the evening. Too much distraction and there's no more music. That contrasts with CDs, and is entirely different from mp3 listening. Banshee tells me that I can start playing my mp3 library and continue for 22.5 days. That sort of thing promotes an extremely passive kind of listening, music as just something that's there.
A final thing to consider: I have a few CDs that have become scratched and are now unplayable. I have a bunch of LPs that have become scratched and now have a little scratch on them when you play them. My LPs are going to outlast my CDs.
Digital is superior (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a "quality-phile" in that I have to have the highest quality of which I can afford.
A) I can tell you the difference between Pandora radio and my ipod.
B) I can tell you the difference between my 128kbps mp3s and my 224kbps AAC (itunes) files.
C) I can do all of this on rather low end speaker systems (stock speakers in my Elantra).
Digital audio is far superior to anything analog that can come before it. That said, of course, there's something to be said about live music in a concert hall.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
digital audio turns that smooth analog wave into a stair-step. again, it will never completely, truly and accurately reproduce the analog wave. we are stuck in a format with the CD that is 16-bit, 44.1KHz. higher bit-depths and sampling rates will create a stair-step that is a closer representation of the analog curve, but it will never be exactly there.
There is no such thing as a "smooth" analog wave, the "smoothness" of an analog wave is limited by the size of the molecules of the media the music is stored on. In the case of vinyl, if you look at the size of a vinyl molecule (nevermind the size of the stylus tip) and the height/width of a typical vinyl grove, the number of "steps" in a vinyl recorded is far far less than the number of steps in a 16bit/44.1kHz CD.
Of course referring to "steps" of a digital recording is misleading as well, those "steps" ar
Loudness factor? (Score:3, Interesting)
The things about vinyl that drove me crazy: (Score:5, Insightful)
- 22-26 minutes maximum playing time per side.
- Rumble. Especially when it came pressed into the record.
- Scratches. A click or pop was forever. Often with the very first playing.
- Warpage. This was especially a problem after 1969-1972, when records became thinner. (Thank you RCA, for that "Dynaflex" nonsense.)
- Playing a phonograph record was a fiddly business. Extracting the record from its jacket and inner bag without getting fingerprints all over it (which could lead to more clicks and rumble). Cleaning the record surface with a brush before playing. You took all those precautions because you didn't want to make things worse, but it was rather like pissing in the wind, as the saying goes. No matter how great your cartridge was or how light your tracking force, your records would inevitably wear, especially your favorites.
Obviously, I'm not in the demographic that wants vinyl today. I was never a DJ (not in the context of a dance club, anyway), and I have no nostalgia, false or otherwise, to bring me back to the medium.
But I can't help but wonder if the problems that plague CDs today parallel the problems that vinyl in its heyday had. Everything I mentioned above were the reasons I was so quick to embrace CDs. (And if you've ever heard Ry Cooder's "Bop 'Til You Drop" or Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms," you know exactly how wonderful CDs could sound.) But, it was a reaction, and I'm wondering if things like DRM and the "loudness wars" are the reaction people who are migrating to vinyl are having.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats surprising is how close this story follows the announcement by Technics that they're ceasing manufacture of their 1200 and 1210 turntables citing low global analog turntable sales. http://www.slashgear.com/technics-axe-1200-and-1210-turntables-2764581/ [slashgear.com]
No quite. That was a rumor, the truth is that they're only axing the 1210-MK5, their newest, most luxurious and expensive one, which failed to gain a market.
http://www.skratchworx.com/news3/comments.php?id=1374 [skratchworx.com]
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cue the... (Score:5, Funny)
Not until we have Vinyl ROMs.
You'll be able to get Linux distributions on them, of course. Side 1: Kernel. Side 2: Root file system. The system takes 45 minutes to boot, but the quality of the operating system and associated tools is much, much better than what you get on CD or via download. Don't ask me for evidence, because the improved quality is imperceptible unless your computer is connected up with gold Ethernet cables and your PSU is a vacuum-tube model.
Re:Cue the... (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Not until we have Vinyl ROMs..... The system takes 45 minutes to boot...
Not even close. My computer used to store programs like that (by sound) on cassettes. It would take about 5 minutes to load a 40 kilobyte program. Assuming that same speed holds true for data stored as audio on a record, it would take 12,500 minutes, or just over 8 days to boot a modern Linux OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)