Time for the Vinyl Revival to GET REAL

Thanks, Bill. I have snagged several good boxed sets, including a set of DG Bohm Beethoven symphonies, at Book People on South Lamar. Great deals (none over $10 and most around $3) unplayed or close to it.

 

One local shop near me gets stuck with tons of RSD stuff. There are no returns on any of it and they have to order it to get the hotter releases that sell quickly. The do mark it down but it still just sits there. If you go on Discogs and eBay there are many store accounts also selling the same stuff. This is YEARS after the original RSD release date.

Most local shops make most of their money off used records. They buy collections in bulk for pennies on the dollar and the profit margin is much higher on each record sold. The profit off a new record at a competitive retail price is only between $2-4 per record in most cases.

My friend runs a small independent online store and it's the same deal there. His customer base dried up after a few years of international postage increases. At one point, up to 50% of his customers were overseas. That's pretty much done now. Also, a lot of the indie label stuff and certain reissues he stocked that used to sell well don't sell well anymore now that Amazon has increased their vinyl stock and is selling more of those. The only things he can move quickly anymore are limited film soundtracks, and those are going to come to a halt at some point because of licensing issues/major label clampdown.

The truth is, the glut is already there, but people have no idea this is going on because they don't see things behind the scenes and are only looking at Soundscan figures for top 40 pop crap or hear about sales at NYC/LA/Chicago stores.

Smaller, specialized labels aren't having an easy time either. If it's not Pitchfork/Fantano poptimist stuff, it's not going to sell all that well for the most part, even with a decently done vinyl release. I already see certain indie labels slowing way down on newer releases and focusing more on anniversary/colored/gimmick vinyl reissues of perennial best selling back catalog titles.

 

That’s what I feared...

 

I don’t think I have any of those...

 

Yeah, the SQ on the vinyl is decent. Only have the HD tracks 24 bit version to compare it to. The vinyl holds up well.

 

Yes, it will cost more, but finding analog era pressings at a fraction of the price is very dependent on the title in question. IME, the collectable stuff is often at least the price of a new AAA/audiophile-quality copy if you want M- or even VG+. You may find better deals if you have a good local source, though I think that’s become less and less the case as everyone can easily look up typical values for what they are selling. However, things that seem to be not as high-demand can be found super cheap in very enjoyable (but not M-) condition.

 

GZ is one of the largest plants in the world, if not the largest. You probably have some of their pressings and don't know it. Their deadwax signature is fairly easy to spot once you know it.

 

My motives are not nostalgic, either (that’s not to say there’s no nostalgia in the process, but it’s a secondary benefit, at most). I agree it is a chore (and expensive) to acquire, store, and clean, but I don’t find playing it inconvenient at all because I enjoy that part of it. Handling a jacket, seeing the artwork, and cueing up a record feels more like I’m actually experiencing something than does the much less tangible act of clicking a mouse or tapping a screen. I think some people mistake that for nostalgia, but it’s not. It’s just a more tactile, visceral experience.

Primarily it’s about sound quality, though, of course!

 

This is especially true of RSD stuff that are very gimmicky and unnecessary (a Jimmy Fallon LP or the fifty bajillion crappy live recordings, really?) to begin with. And that's not even considering how RSD releases constantly clog up pressing plants worldwide, which is another discussion altogather.

It's also very unfortunate that some online shops and labels suffer due to circumstances that are beyond their control with respect to shipping costs and many of them don't have the economies of scale to take advantage of discounted pricings from their country's postal company or international shipping companies like DHL. I found myself not spending very much on records from the US as it costs practically twice the cost of a single record with shipping included.

Specialized labels generally depend on marketing and exclusivity in getting their goods move rapidly. What I noticed is that they also rely on dropshipping and Amazon fulfillment warehouses, which these labels do not reap as much profits (Amazon fees go between 10-15%) versus selling via their own online stores. It's also a serious concern from an ethical standpoint due to Amazon's workplace conditions, employee exploitation, monopolization, etc.

 

Might you perhaps be conflating units with titles? I would expect that the total volume (units) manufactured and sold at a time when vinyl was the dominant format would be higher than today, but my impression is that virtually every release today is available - at least in modest quantities - on vinyl as well. Without the facts to back it up, I would suggest that we currently have a high diversity titles released in modest runs vs a historical situation where everything that came out came out on vinyl. Conversations about the 'vinyl revival' notwithstanding, much content today is streamed with reduced demand for physical formats.
My experiences as a vinyl buyer could be summarized in two related observations:
1) Even in a small market in Canada, the record stores around me have more new releases on vinyl than I could ever keep with (it seems to me that almost everything that is released physically is available on vinyl), and
2) Almost every single album I have ever looked to buy is available new either as a contemporary pressing or as a re-release.

I know there are exceptions, but just as an excercize, search on amazon for whatever title you like and see if it's available as an LP. If it's not, do a quick search on Google and see if a pressing is even available elsewhere. I doubt you'll come up empty too many times unless you really try to find very niche/esoteric stuff (that in all fairness would not have been widely available in 1977 either).

As a final point, I doubt anyone could debate that it is certainly easier today for any one individual to find and purchase a wider selection of titles than in 1977. The ease and access of on-line sales makes it so that I could (theoretically) create a collection that would take years to amass in 1977 within 5-7 business days today.

 

And new (or at least new to you) and different music. (for me, anyway).

 

The Internet has been a huge boon for me. 95% of what I buy isn't in record stores, or at least stores I can readily go to. I have access through the Internet to anything that's for sale anywhere in the world. I don't rely exclusively on E-Bay or Discogs-- there are also private dealer websites. I do go to record shows, but not traveling the way I used to--still, for older, or more obscure releases, it's pretty much the only way- most of this stuff isn't in record stores, or if it is, it's scattered all over the world- and one dealer may only have one record I'm interested in; I've been pretty lucky overall on grading issues despite the obvious questions relating to condition and correct pressing (mischaracterized often online). I usually have a dialog with an online seller or in some cases, a phone call, before I buy.

 

Those people generally mean, "no new music that sounds exactly like all the other s**t I already own."

 

I think the umbrage was taken because of you saying "...our interest in vinyl is in nostalgia". And as was correctly pointed out, that is pretty much just your interest. I seriously doubt that many vinyl enthusiasts here are interested in fake juke boxes that play mp3s.

 

Nowadays the Holy Grail stuff is obscene, agreed. Thankfully many of these do have newer versions that, while not a LZII RL, sound quite nice. The Beatles Mono LPs were priced affordably when they came out. The Cisco Aja was $45 (versus $150 now for a sealed copy) when it came out. You gotta shop with a good knowledge base for both new and used today to net your best collection.

 

You're probably right but it's just a few people isn't it?

 

I really disagree with this. From my experience at the stores specializing in new and used vinyl............they are full of young people and an amazing number of young women.

 

Boomers...

You know, everything really isn't all about you and because of you. Vast numbers of people do like things that you absolutely hate. Go figure.

Did you spend your days gushing over Glen Miller and Al Jolsen when you were a kid? I didn't think so. The one thing this place ALWAYS lacks is old people with perspective. In their minds, the universe revolves around them forevermore.

 

Back in the halcyon days of CD, over 99% of the CDs people bought got played.

With the new vinyl renaissance, I'd wager about 1 in 3 records ever see a turntable.

 

First there were 78s
Then 45s and LPs
Then CDs

Pretty much everyone moved with the times. But many of us hung on to our albums. I replaced a lot of my fifties and sixties jazz albums which in the eighties became made of "unobtainium" ..de-listed.... when they were re-issued as CDs. Many of my vinyl versions having been played to not quite extinction over a few decades.
Much of the resurgence in vinyl is entirely due to "fashion," an obsession with younger generations. If you bought yourself one of the many new cheap "crapaphones" you can be "into vinyl." But it's a craze which won't last, why? because for the "youf" it's inconvenient, so the novelty will eventually wear off.
There will always be vinyl enthusiasts, but they are in a minority, most of 'em probably post on here.
I do play some of my vinyls occasionally, but I wouldn't go out and buy any. (Except another S/H 45 for one of my jukeboxes).
I would think a high proportion of those who listen to music use their phones, an iPod (they're going out of fashion) or a stick in the side of the TV, regardless of out from where the sound eventially comes.

It amuses me that the teenage kids of friends and relatives, few of whom have ever seen a 45 are fascinated by my vinyl jukeboxes, as they've never seen one before. I tell them they are my three hundredweight i-Pods. They can understand that.

 

This is such a goofy, prejudicial remark. For one thing, you can bet most everyone here who buys LPs plays them. For another thing, your assertion that only one in three LPs gets played cannot be substantiated, so it's meaningless. Lastly, even if it WERE true, who cares? If there's a buncha hipsters out there who buy records just to throw away money and never play them, and that keeps the vinyl LPs coming for those of us who do, then yippee, we're all happy. If you think it somehow means that people who buy CDs are somehow "more into the music", just remember you're in a forum with hundreds of regular posters who buy LPs to listen to them. If it doesn't apply to us, why should we care?

 

With the resurgence in demand for vinyl records, many things have been happening. First, new record pressing facilities have been popping up all over the place. Most have been starting up with decades-old used worn-out equipment and have claimed to have refurbished an updated them. Problem is, they lack the precision they once had. Then, with the rush to pressing records, most don't have the experience to properly make the records. Some facilities have employed old-timers who were supposed to know how to press good records, but most are past their prime and maybe they weren't so good in the past either. Plus, with the greater demand for new records, many pressing plants are sloppy in their quality control.
There are multiple formulas for vinyl and which mix of vinyl that is used is dependent on what the customer ordered. In the U.S., I feel that we have a better quality of vinyl than say, Europe. I have noticed that European pressings tend to have more surface noise than U.S. pressings, even when they are using their most premium vinyl formulas. Their have been quite a few albums which were pressed on both sides of the pond, using the same masters. Albums by The Beatles have both types of pressings.
Speaking of The Beatles, going back to the stereo and mono vinyl boxed sets, the stereo version was pressed both in the U.S. by Rainbo and Germany by Optimal. I have found that the Optimal pressing have more surface noise than those by Rainbo. With The Beatles' anniversary editions, which have come out over the last several years, the U.S. versions were pressed by QRP and the European versions were pressed by Optimal. Again, the U.S. versions had less surface noise than the European versions. Now, again, here is the problem. QRP seems to have trouble properly centering the records and many of the records are slightly warped. Because of these problems with QRP pressings, this makes the Optimal pressings the premium ones to have.
Before Acoustic Sounds/Analogue Productions went into the record pressing business opening QRP, they had RTI do all their pressing work, just like Mobile Fidelity still does. Given this, there are he same records which were originally pressed by RTI and then re-pressed later by QRP. Taking the Creedence Clearwater Revival "Absolute Originals" series, originally pressed by RTI, QRP re-pressed them a few years later, using the same metal masters that RTI created. To me, the difference in quality is like night and day, with the RTI original pressings being much better.
This leads me to another concern. With the resurgence in demand for vinyl records, there has also been an increase in demand for turntables to play them on. Everybody and their dogs think they can make turntables. Again, due to a lack of experience, the new kids on the block are ignoring decades of technology. Some of these 'frankenstein' designs remind me of 1950's technology. When you compare these to the turntables re-introduced by long established companies, like Technics and Pioneer, what did they do? When they returned to the turntable business, they may have made some upgrades, but they basically re-introduced the same turntables that they were making in the 1970's. These were proven designs near the peak of analog technology.
When all the original recorded source materials have been sorted out, the next and maybe most critical step is cutting the master lacquer discs. Some of the premium record mastering companies, like Bernie Grundman, use all tube analog equipment to cut the masters. The source recordings that they are given may have been re-mastered digitally. I have seen notations made in the notes which come with the records whether they were digitally or analog re-mastered.
Finally, many of the record pressing plants are inconsistent in their quality. In North America, if it was pressed by RTI, it's probably going to be a winner. In Germany, if it was pressed by Pallas, likewise, it will probably be a winner.

 

You can't begin to compare music from the 60's to modern music so you fall back on... stupid personal attack.

Stay classy.

 

Records. I’m in the habit of keeping them for a minimum of seven years.

M. M.

 

I think us old guys already built up our classic rock collections years ago.

Btw, you forgot to mention Aja.

Noticed the same, at least for pop / rock / alt-indie titles. It's pretty rare now that I don't see a vinyl release for a new album, in those areas.