Skip to main content

Topic: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over (Read 8554 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #50
So the data from 1983 is what we need.
We?

The information about sales by format goes back to 1973, which gives us a look at how music recordings were doing after the stereo revolution was pretty mature, and before all of the new pinko commie tech reared its ugly head ;-)  I've attached an annotated enlargment of it.

The first thing I can see is shown by the magenta (light blue) line.  Were it not for the new formats, a reasonable extrapolation shows sales of about 4 million units by 1994, when just the CD sales at that time were over twice that.  So we might credit digital with a doubling of the sales of music recordings over reasonable prior trends. 

Secondly, by Y2K, the CD format had utterly crushed all other music formats.

 

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #51
FWIW, and this is purely anecdotal...
Yes, like Botfaces claims. Too bad his "evidence" is under triple secret probation.
It's like that with folklore.

ie. big clicks and pops - is the ultimate example of poor sound quality.
Yeah, that's part of it, along with the dynamic range, FR issues, speed variations, sensitivity to vibrations, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, improving all those were just the "promises of better sound" CD allegedly offered.
In the bubble.

Luckily, after 3+ decades, it appears the "promise" of digital is finally upon us, all thanks to a audio jewelry TT peddler!
  • Last Edit: 28 July, 2017, 08:02:38 AM by ajinfla
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Atmasphere
  • [*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #52
Quote
ie. big clicks and pops - is the ultimate example of poor sound quality.

The ticks and pops might not have been the fault of the LP so much as the fault of the equalizer, which can be unstable (and was common the the 1970s and 1980s). If it is unstable, it can exacerbate ticks and pops, making them sound much louder than a stable equalizer might. I have seen a correlation between RFI sensitivity (with the RFI injected directly into the input of the phono equalizer). I've not confirmed this with any real in depth study, its anecdotal, but it is also very real; RFI sensitivity is not a good thing!

Generally speaking, LPs don't come from the store with ticks and pops unless poorly handled which certainly can happen. I am very used to not experiencing more than perhaps one tick on an entire LP side, usually I get none. I think modern LP producers have stepped up their game out of necessity.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #53
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #54
Generally speaking, LPs don't come from the store with ticks and pops unless poorly handled which certainly can happen. I am very used to not experiencing more than perhaps one tick on an entire LP side, usually I get none. I think modern LP producers have stepped up their game out of necessity.
Well, it's been nearly 30 years since I bought a brand new LP, so perhaps things have changed since then. Given the price they charge for LPs these days, I certainly hope so!

I can assure you that back in the 1980s (and 1970s, after the oil crisis), LPs were routinely accompanied by plenty of ticks and pops - fresh out of the sleeve, on first play. Before CDs came along, I guess we just accepted it as par for the course.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #55

  • botface
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #56
Sorry but I don't see anything that refutes my assertion that early adopters in the UK were largely classical enthusiasts. That shouldn't surprise anybody. They were deliberately targeted by the marketing. CD was a premium product (retail price at launch was £14.99). CD players were expensive. It was felt that the best chance of success was to target people with a relatively large disposable income. That tended to be middle aged men who were also more like to be classical music buyers. This article  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6950845.stm seems to agree when it says :

"The first CDs went on sale in November 1982 and were mainly classical recordings.

Classical music lovers were believed to be more affluent than pop and rock music fans, and Philips thought they would be more inclined to pay the price for the more expensive CDs and the very expensive CD-players,"


Nor do I see anything that supports the view that increasing CD sales in the early years were due to sound quality improvements rather than record companies pulling the plug on vinyl production

  • 4season
  • [*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #57
Easiest way to achieve quiet playback with vinyl is to roll off the high frequencies! And one of the more frustrating aspects of shopping for a phono cartridge is the dearth of useful performance data or how to achieve the flattest frequency response.

  • 4season
  • [*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #58
Nor do I see anything that supports the view that increasing CD sales in the early years were due to sound quality improvements rather than record companies pulling the plug on vinyl production

Just some anecdotal stuff based on memories from half a lifetime ago, but seems to me that portability was always king, and cassette tape, not LP was the real medium of choice for most people. And a popular approach was to buy an LP and immediately dub it to cassette tape for listening in the car or while on the move.  But once CD portables and car units became relatively affordable, it was pretty much game-over for both cassettes and LPs despite the fact that CD was much pricier than LP, maybe $15 vs $8.

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #59
Sorry but I don't see anything that refutes my assertion that early adopters in the UK were largely classical enthusiasts. That shouldn't surprise anybody. They were deliberately targeted by the marketing. CD was a premium product (retail price at launch was £14.99). CD players were expensive. It was felt that the best chance of success was to target people with a relatively large disposable income. That tended to be middle aged men who were also more like to be classical music buyers. This article  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6950845.stm seems to agree when it says :

"The first CDs went on sale in November 1982 and were mainly classical recordings.

Might be true for the UK, but it was not true for the US.

The first times I went into record stores and started seriously looking at CDs (because I had a CD player), I would estimate that about 20%-25% of the titles were Classical.  That pretty well held up for a long time. Given that there were only about 16-18 titles at first, and only 1 or two copies of each it was pretty easy to monitor the inventory and get a feeling for what was selling. On a really good day the Classical titles were selling as fast per title, as the popular, rock and other titles. As soon as current releases started showing up on CDs, that parity melted away and CDs ruled even more thoroughly than the number of titles in inventory might suggest.  Maybe the better part of a year passed for that to start happening.

This was pretty consistent in the parts of the US I visited at the time including Detroit where I lived, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and New York City. I found one of the largest libraries of CDs for sale in Bismark North Dakota. The store owner said that farmers were big early adopters because of the superior sound quality. With no cable or satellite at the time, and TV being limited to one or two dicy channels or less, CDs looked pretty good to them!

How many time do I need to point out that the UK is about the size of just one of the U.S's larger states in terms of population, land area, and wealth. In case your geography and world history are foggy, there is the slight matter of our other 49 states, and the 50 or more countries in Europe.  That still ignores some absolutely huge countries in terms of population, wealth, and/or land area like China, India, and Russia.

UK stopped being the sole or even in many cases an important determiner of just about anything after the Second World War.

Quote
Nor do I see anything that supports the view that increasing CD sales in the early years were due to sound quality improvements rather than record companies pulling the plug on vinyl production

Given all that was written in the day about the superior sound quality of CDs and how everybody needed to run right out and buy CDs and the equipment to play them, one has to ask about your choice of reading material.

I guess that your understanding of capitalism is as poor as your understanding of geography. People stopped making LPs because of over 99% of the people first in US, Europe, and Japan stopped buying them. When people stop buying something, it doesn't take too long for capitalists to figure out that it is time to stop making them. This was in spite of the fact that CD's retailed for 3-5 times as much.

The statistics I've posted tell me that cassette had taken over about half the market by the time that the CD was introduced. IME that is a good measure of the impact of an audio media product that offered only greater convenience, with just a different set of audible compromises to sound quality.  Therefore, the CD blew both LPs and Cassettes out of the market in record time based on something other than convenience, since it is arguable that compared to LPs tapes are only a little less convenient than CDs.

That leaves sound quality as the primary reason why CDs came to dominate the market for audio recordings so quickly and so completely.

  • Last Edit: 29 July, 2017, 02:51:09 PM by Arnold B. Krueger

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #60
Nor do I see anything that supports the view that increasing CD sales in the early years were due to sound quality improvements
Your hands are liable to fall off any time now.
Too bad about that alleged secret survey "proof", that might have done it. Ah well.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • botface
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #61
Sorry but I don't see anything that refutes my assertion that early adopters in the UK were largely classical enthusiasts. That shouldn't surprise anybody. They were deliberately targeted by the marketing. CD was a premium product (retail price at launch was £14.99). CD players were expensive. It was felt that the best chance of success was to target people with a relatively large disposable income. That tended to be middle aged men who were also more like to be classical music buyers. This article  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6950845.stm seems to agree when it says :

"The first CDs went on sale in November 1982 and were mainly classical recordings.

Might be true for the UK, but it was not true for the US.

The first times I went into record stores and started seriously looking at CDs (because I had a CD player), I would estimate that about 20%-25% of the titles were Classical.  That pretty well held up for a long time. Given that there were only about 16-18 titles at first, and only 1 or two copies of each it was pretty easy to monitor the inventory and get a feeling for what was selling. On a really good day the Classical titles were selling as fast per title, as the popular, rock and other titles. As soon as current releases started showing up on CDs, that parity melted away and CDs ruled even more thoroughly than the number of titles in inventory might suggest.  Maybe the better part of a year passed for that to start happening.

This was pretty consistent in the parts of the US I visited at the time including Detroit where I lived, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston and New York City. I found one of the largest libraries of CDs for sale in Bismark North Dakota. The store owner said that farmers were big early adopters because of the superior sound quality. With no cable or satellite at the time, and TV being limited to one or two dicy channels or less, CDs looked pretty good to them!

How many time do I need to point out that the UK is about the size of just one of the U.S's larger states in terms of population, land area, and wealth. In case your geography and world history are foggy, there is the slight matter of our other 49 states, and the 50 or more countries in Europe.  That still ignores some absolutely huge countries in terms of population, wealth, and/or land area like China, India, and Russia.

UK stopped being the sole or even in many cases an important determiner of just about anything after the Second World War.

Quote
Nor do I see anything that supports the view that increasing CD sales in the early years were due to sound quality improvements rather than record companies pulling the plug on vinyl production

Given all that was written in the day about the superior sound quality of CDs and how everybody needed to run right out and buy CDs and the equipment to play them, one has to ask about your choice of reading material.

I guess that your understanding of capitalism is as poor as your understanding of geography. People stopped making LPs because of over 99% of the people first in US, Europe, and Japan stopped buying them. When people stop buying something, it doesn't take too long for capitalists to figure out that it is time to stop making them. This was in spite of the fact that CD's retailed for 3-5 times as much.

The statistics I've posted tell me that cassette had taken over about half the market by the time that the CD was introduced. IME that is a good measure of the impact of an audio media product that offered only greater convenience, with just a different set of audible compromises to sound quality.  Therefore, the CD blew both LPs and Cassettes out of the market in record time based on something other than convenience, since it is arguable that compared to LPs tapes are only a little less convenient than CDs.

That leaves sound quality as the primary reason why CDs came to dominate the market for audio recordings so quickly and so completely.



Why do you have to start throwing insults around whenever anyone disagrees with you?

Basically what your saying is your recollection of events is different to mine.  That's not surprising. I worked in the industry at the time and was involved in getting the CD format to market and getting it established so it's to be expected that I have a different view from the average consumer.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #62
your recollection of events is different to mine.  That's not surprising. I worked in the industry at the time and was involved in getting the CD format to market and getting it established so it's to be expected that I have a different view from the average consumer.
Right and I'm Batman. It's that easy.

Of course, to prop/embellish your tale, you go further by claiming to have objective evidence/data to support your now "recollection" that classical fans were not drawn by SQ over snack crackle pop, limited dynamic range, bass, sensitivity to deep bass vibrations, etc, etc, but by convenience.
But of course this evidence is top secret, hidden.
Behind you I suppose.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #63

Why do you have to start throwing insults around whenever anyone disagrees with you?

What insults?

I get it. You seem to think you are entitled to use the "Royal We". News Flash:  The  UK is not the center of the earth.  Just because you granted yourselves the Prime Meridian doesn't mean that the world rotates around your axis.

Quote
Basically what your saying is your recollection of events is different to mine.

Thanks for verifying my observations. I said nothing about CD sales in the UK because I have no clue and little interest.

My recollection is not of the same events as yours. Your recollections sound to me like a mix of UK-centric provincial thinking and , anti business rehtoric, complete with a common placebophile conspiracy theory about why LP production dropped so fast.

In the US LP production stopped because LP sales stopped. LPs were eventually sold off as distressed goods.

The production resources for LPs and CDs  did not overlap and there was no contention among them. . The CD production facilities were new builds in new spaces with new equipment and new staff. I was fairly close to this because the chief engineer of the first non-Sony, non-Philips CD production facility was someone who was and is a close friend. Other friends staffed some of the new facilities.

If you had actually read what I wrote, you'd realize that what I said is that your comments don't apply to the whole earth. I never said that what you observed didn't happen in the UK.  I just said that it wasn't what happened in the US and much of the rest of the world.

Quote
That's not surprising. I worked in the industry at the time and was involved in getting the CD format to market and getting it established so it's to be expected that I have a different view from the average consumer.

OK, you worked in a small segment of the industry at the time.

What does that mean about the rest of the world?

I could cite lots of numbers and articles supporting my claims I already did. . But, based on your comments, I have no reason to believe that you would bother to read them and grant them any credibility.

You do know that there is such a place as the  rest of the world, right? ;-)

Please come back with hard facts about the rest of the world, and make things interesting.
  • Last Edit: 30 July, 2017, 09:45:54 AM by Arnold B. Krueger

  • botface
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #64
OK so in spite of knowing nothing of my background, experience or role you feel qualified to denigrate it.  Feel free to continue to do so.

In case anybody else is still reading the thread also feel free to provide any information you have that refutes what I said. HINT : what you've provided so far doesn't address this at all

  • botface
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #65
your recollection of events is different to mine.  That's not surprising. I worked in the industry at the time and was involved in getting the CD format to market and getting it established so it's to be expected that I have a different view from the average consumer.
Right and I'm Batman. It's that easy.

Of course, to prop/embellish your tale, you go further by claiming to have objective evidence/data to support your now "recollection" that classical fans were not drawn by SQ over snack crackle pop, limited dynamic range, bass, sensitivity to deep bass vibrations, etc, etc, but by convenience.
But of course this evidence is top secret, hidden.
Behind you I suppose.

Look it's not difficult to understand. Record companies and labels commissioned market research leading up to and post launch.  I don't have the reports in my possession and even if I did I would not be at liberty to divulge them. But as I said to Arnold B. Krueger feel free to continue to denigrate me I'm really not bothered

  • Wombat
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #66
Somehow i don't remember the immense talk about the big advantage of not having to flip the media.
I remember how impressive even some early CDs sounded back in 1985/86 when CD-players became affordable. Back then i already had active woofers and my fellow neighbour speakers of the caibre of a Visaton Atlas. We really enjoyed CDs with our Philips players and NAD amps.
The ones still crying after turntables often were these strange behaving freaks listening some even more strangely voiced bookshelf speakers.
Much beer back then, so i just may have forgotten about the no more flippping revolution...
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #67
And it's true that classical music lovers were the most enthusiastic early adopters but the main reasons mentioned at the time were a lower noise floor and the ability to play a complete work without having to turn over rather than sound quality itself

Based on market research undertaken in the first year after launch.
The research is owned by the company that commissioned it so sorry, but it's not mine to show.

free to provide any information you have that refutes what I said. HINT : what you've provided so far doesn't address this at all
HINT : what you've provided so far: flap flap flap



Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #68
I don't have the reports in my possession
That's too bad.
But you can always keep clutching your vinyl in the bubble, with belief that CD didn't wipe the floor with it due to sound quality.
Because you said so.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #69
OK so in spite of knowing nothing of my background, experience or role you feel qualified to denigrate it.  Feel free to continue to do so.

You keep ignoring the fact that your information appears to be peculiar to to a certain locality.

Please discuss your experiences in the largest CD market in the world, if you know where it is.


  • 4season
  • [*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #70
Please discuss your experiences in the largest CD market in the world, if you know where it is.

Japan?

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

  • botface
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #71
I don't have the reports in my possession
That's too bad.
But you can always keep clutching your vinyl in the bubble, with belief that CD didn't wipe the floor with it due to sound quality.
Because you said so.


Batman, sorry I do find your posts difficult to understand at times. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm clutching some vinyl bubble whatever that means.

It says here you're a manufacturer of speaker systems. I suppose that means you run your own business. I expect that means you need legal advice now and then. Next time you speak to your legal adviser ask him to explain to you why it's not OK to make public information that is not already in the public domain - unless you're the owner of the data . Then you can stop banging on about it

  • botface
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #72
OK so in spite of knowing nothing of my background, experience or role you feel qualified to denigrate it.  Feel free to continue to do so.


You keep ignoring the fact that your information appears to be peculiar to to a certain locality.

Please discuss your experiences in the largest CD market in the world, if you know where it is.


No, I did say at the outset I was referring to the UK. - though I'm sure it was applicable to most of Europe. I never suggested that my experience was universally applicable

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #73
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm clutching some vinyl bubble whatever that means.
From you, the vinyl clutcher. In the bubble, where you exist/chat with the other clutchers, who share your beliefs about vinyl, top secret surveys, the "promise" of digital etc, etc.
It's all good...and very funny  ;)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: WSJ asks Why Vinyls Boom Is Over
Reply #74
OK so in spite of knowing nothing of my background, experience or role you feel qualified to denigrate it.  Feel free to continue to do so.


You keep ignoring the fact that your information appears to be peculiar to to a certain locality.

Please discuss your experiences in the largest CD market in the world, if you know where it is.


No, I did say at the outset I was referring to the UK. -

I checked the thread. It appears that your first post to this thread was post #20 and it seems to say nothing about locality. Even after I brought up the issue of locality, you kept ignoring it. Finally you say something about it directly here, for what appares to be the first time.

Quote
though I'm sure it was applicable to most of Europe. I never suggested that my experience was universally applicable

You "being sure" of anything seems to be a dubious proposition.  Sure you aren't just trolling? ;-)