I think Beato is good value for the most part. But you're right about this.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
The Vinyl Comeback Is Stalling?
- Thread starter brianrost
- Start date
I think Beato is good value for the most part. But you're right about this.
There is something about analog recordings that is special, i just dont have the room to store the records anymore, for nostalgia, purposes it's just a now overpriced fad sadly. Plus i'd have to buy a record player. THo i have seen some cool ones, with bluetooth, mp3 players and am/fm radios all -in-one, which might of got more ppl interested. Sold most my lp's on ebay.
The Apollo Masters fire set back the industry temporarily.
But pick any major city. Presses like VMP and Gold Rush, many more.
Bottom line is a bank won’t give you a commercial loan to make oxcarts. But they will fund a vinyl record startup.
Read 3-4 articles by Ted Gloria and you’ll notice a pattern.
But pick any major city. Presses like VMP and Gold Rush, many more.
Bottom line is a bank won’t give you a commercial loan to make oxcarts. But they will fund a vinyl record startup.
Read 3-4 articles by Ted Gloria and you’ll notice a pattern.
It had to stall at some point. The pricing of vinyl is cost prohibitive for a lot of people. Saturation has occurred and things are leveling off.
I hope this helps CDs comeback a bit and drives cost down. Still my preferred medium.
I hope this helps CDs comeback a bit and drives cost down. Still my preferred medium.
I’m just imagining such set-ups paired with our roads here in Montreal.
I bought a special edition new release of All Them Witches a couple years ago on vinyl. Horrible result. Pops, scratches and weak audio right from the first listen. That was my one and only experiment with the vinyl comeback. Never again.
Fashion is always changing. And, music buyers drop out of the market in the mid-20s. So, you have to recruit a new generation to any style or format, every few years.
I've had vinyl since 1975. Have a descent turntable (1980's Pioneer) and stereo system and I enjoy seeking clean early pressings of my favorite albums. I enjoy flipping through the used record store bins and scoring a gem. I've purchased a few newer LP releases but it's getting harder to find true analog pressings. Also have lot's of CD's I've been collecting since 1986. Got tired of chasing the latest remasters and now also have Amazon Music HD for streaming HD+ quality of all my favorites through another nice analog stereo system with a bluetooth DAC.
Today I learned that a Cassette Tape market actually exists in 2023
Well that just mean's the vinyl market didn't grow as much. I'm sure it's still there.
A friend does estate sales picking up vintage LP record collections for resale.
I think the pursuit discovery of dusty old vintage out of print treasures is a large part of the market, probably more so than newly minted things. Does the OP data cover that , I wonder?
Well that just mean's the vinyl market didn't grow as much. I'm sure it's still there.
A friend does estate sales picking up vintage LP record collections for resale.
I think the pursuit discovery of dusty old vintage out of print treasures is a large part of the market, probably more so than newly minted things. Does the OP data cover that , I wonder?
4% growth isn’t actually too bad, especially now that people aren’t stuck at home.
I just got into vinyl this year and it is one of the best experiences I’ve had. Everything from going to the awesome record store and browsing like I did for cd’s growing up, to switching on the equipment and starting the record to reading the cover and the finally sitting and just listening. No smart devices, just an audio experience. I still love the ability to discover new music through streaming but it doesn’t feel the same.
I just got into vinyl this year and it is one of the best experiences I’ve had. Everything from going to the awesome record store and browsing like I did for cd’s growing up, to switching on the equipment and starting the record to reading the cover and the finally sitting and just listening. No smart devices, just an audio experience. I still love the ability to discover new music through streaming but it doesn’t feel the same.
You have to be careful with numbers taken out of context. What the Variety article said is:
"U.S. recorded-music revenue climbed 9%, streaming revenues are up 10% and vinyl sales soared a whopping 22% in the first half of 2022"
As Variety noted due to the pandemic record stores were closed. So does it mean that in the first six months of 2020 vinyl sold X, so in 2021 vinyl sold 1.97X and in 2022 vinyl sold 2.19X?? How were sales in 2018 and 2019...was 2022 better or worse than those years?
Here's a chart from the RIAA up to 2021.
Vinyl sales were pretty flat from 2016 to 2020, then doubled in 2021 (pandemic at-home spending). Total revenue in 2021 is just over the previous peak in 1999, where CDs accounted for about 90% of revenue.
What's really gone through the roof is paid subscriptions (i.e. streaming) and even ad-supported (i.e. free) streaming has gone up about the same amount. The revenue generated by free streaming does not show many hours of streaming it took to generate that revenue vs. hours streamed by subscribers.
Vinyl brought in slightly less revenue in 2021 than in 1973. In 1973, the list price of an LP was $5.98. So one LP today earns as much revenue (not inflation adjusted) as 6.5 LPs in 1973. So vinyl has a long way to go to reach the peak unit sales of 1978 (when cassettes started taking over). In 1984 when the first CDs shipped, cassettes represented double the revenue of LPs (which were now $8.98 list) and cassette revenue actually increased for the next decade, even as CDs were overtaking them.
The total revenue in 2020 was still less than CDs at their peak. In 2021 total revenue finally beat 1999 when CDs peaked. About half of the increase was vinyl and half streaming subscriptions. If a year of streaming is $120 (12 x $10) while CDs are $15 apiece, then each streaming subscription brings as much money as 8 CDs. If an LP costs $30, a year of streaming costs the same as 4 LPs. Guess why streaming is bringing in all the money. The money spent by consumers may be reaching a new peak but it's all money from streaming, not a resurgence in vinyl.
Vinyl will always be a niche market at this point. I have a record player. I love vinyl. That said, I buy records that are significant to me for some reason vinyl. The Beatles, Miles Davis, whomever it might be. The vast majority of music I purchase though will still be done digitally
I’m writing this as my 9 year old is in the other room listening to a Laney Jones album on his new mid-level turntable he asked for and received at Christmas. Sounds really good to him and me. This is an extremely pleasant experience for me, contrasted with what he was doing previously: “alexa play (whatever random song he’s into).”
The vinyl album comeback has never been about audio quality, it’s about connection and experience. Taking away the listener’s ability to easily skip tracks and forcing them to appreciate the album as a whole, artwork included. Bringing back the album as a cohesive work of art, limiting filler and holding attention. As an artist I prefer to create and sell a product that I know the listener will experience in the manner it was intended (well more likely than via streaming).
My son is learning to give songs a chance, to take care of his records and equipment, and treat music listening as a sort of ceremony that gives it mire heft and meaning than the ubiquitous streaming over headphones experience most of us music lovers lament. I think vinyl should be mandatory for all music listeners so that they can properly appreciate what technology has done for convenience and fidelity.
The vinyl album comeback has never been about audio quality, it’s about connection and experience. Taking away the listener’s ability to easily skip tracks and forcing them to appreciate the album as a whole, artwork included. Bringing back the album as a cohesive work of art, limiting filler and holding attention. As an artist I prefer to create and sell a product that I know the listener will experience in the manner it was intended (well more likely than via streaming).
My son is learning to give songs a chance, to take care of his records and equipment, and treat music listening as a sort of ceremony that gives it mire heft and meaning than the ubiquitous streaming over headphones experience most of us music lovers lament. I think vinyl should be mandatory for all music listeners so that they can properly appreciate what technology has done for convenience and fidelity.
I believe what really is missing an exciting new medium to listen music on. The vinyl/CD/cassette resurgence shows there is a need for something like it, however as many of you mention, nostalgia factor wears off eventually.
I listened to Beato's interview with Gioia, and amidst all the tired boomer arguments there was one I think struck home: technological advancements, and lack thereof in audio world.
Gioia mentioned that both movie and video game development welcomed new toys, and new toys meant you can always sell new stuff as exciting and required to enjoy your favourite entertainment. And I must say he is right; probably none of use would go back to CRT 20 inch TVs with 60+ inches today, or would choose a Street Fighter arcade from the 90's, when you can have near realistic graphics of modern games. Thing is he did not provide the answer.
But I think I found that answer. Well, for so many years now we're being sold hi-fi as stereo with 2 speakers right? Obviously, 2 speakers should be enough because we have 2 ears, same principle for headphones, so how do you advance technology in audio then?
I have been watching Dave Rat's, former RHCP sound engineer, videos regarding monitoring systems. He is a proponent of 'no sound in nature comes from two separate sources in identical manner', and while I can't I have experience in what he says, his proposed wedge monitoring systems are composed of 2-3 speakers that separate what each delivers, for example central wedge for instruments, left and right for vocals. (Look up manuals for MicroWedge from EAW for more examples.) Anyway, the idea is that separating the sources creates more clarity of each instrument, because at some point trying to push everything through one speaker turns to mud. But what live audio stage monitoring has got to do hi-fi?
Well, then I was recommended by Youtube videos from studio producers about Dolby Atmos, how it is amazing, and the eloquent setups of dozen speakers around the room allowed different elements to come from each side and so on. Sounds like a gimmick in a sense, but then I realized.... if you would have a similar set up at home, you could maybe create a recording technique that would give a sense of a band being right there with you, more immersive audio experience..... and that was the advancement in audio listening that music industry missed the boat on. And I think I know when that happened, and partially why.
I don't remember where I read it now, but CD's supposedly were meant to be cheaper than vinyl when they started to be mass produced. That did not happen, they cost as much as the old medium while costing less to make. At the same time, more and more musicians were coming out with a message that they're getting peanuts from those CD sales. Someone must have taken that money; however if CD's did not bring a financial benefit to consumers or musicians, then all of it must have went only to the labels, who were amassing the fortune without sharing it. And without what I'd call 'bribing' their first line of agents called 'musicians', when Napster showed up to disrupt the whole machine, the music industry had no defenders, except for a wacko like Lars Ulrich. It is kind of obvious, if the company I feel stuck in does not at least pay me enough, and sharks come in to eat the bosses, am I going to feel an incentive to defend them? Not really.
At the same time, digital disc format was developing... sort of, because it only continued reflecting that greed. There was Super Audio CD, that was meant to be higher quality. But... it required buying brand new expensive players. That did not happen. Then DVDs started showing up, and same thing with DVD-Audio: there was a new medium that could have been sold as 'higher quality' medium, but instead of allowing it to be used on every DVD player sold for movies, they too required a separate gadget. Again, that did not happen, DVD-Audio flopped. I checked with Wikipedia, and those higher end disc formats came out the same year Napster provided free access to music; with having ingrained a message that a new disc meant you need a new expensive player no surprise no one bothered with this either on the consumer side, whereas free music of nearly CD quality was rather difficult to walk past. With Blu-ray Audio almost a decade later finally someone must have come to their senses and noticed that both SACD and DVD Audio requiring separate players did not create enough buzz, so they finally allowed this new medium to work with any player available. Too little, too late perhaps?
And in my opinion the time of creating SACD and DVD Audio is when the chance to advance audio listening habits disappeared; had those been more accessible, which had enough room on the disc for 5.1 mixes (that was the lure at the time), who knows, maybe today your typical hi-fi would not consist of 2 speakers, but 5+a sub, and most importantly, big studios would mix in 5.1 from the start. And with an argument towards consumers that music sounds inferior unless you have 5.1 set up, listening to ear buds today would have been an equivalent of buying cassette tapes when CDs were already around. And I really think that if there was enough music in 5.1 by the time Napster showed up, free stereo MP3s would have been less of a lure, or at least they'd be a parallel medium, not a complete replacement like it was for CDs. And even if 5.1 MP3s were around, they'd be too large of a file size for dial-up internet and tiny memory stick players at the time to handle. Heck, with today's broadband speeds streaming DVD/Blu-ray audio sized files would have been difficult too.
This would also lead to sales in the hi-fi equipment too. I mean, going back to TVs and video games: the new product usually promises something new. Meanwhile, how many times can you sell a set of two speakers before it gets tiring?? Whereas, if 2 speakers were replaced with 5.1, THAT would have been a new exciting thing in audio. And had that happened those 15-20 years ago, a wild set up of Dolby Atmos with a dozen speakers around and half a dozen above would have been less abstract today for a regular consumer.
So my take out is this: music industry could have kept the physical medium-based sales if 1. they shared the profit that came with mass making of CDs with musicians and/or consumers 2. they allowed new disc formats to be compatible with already sold players so that buying a new expensive player was an option, not a necessity. That did not happen, and if you ask me, free MP3s and streaming is a RESULT of lack of these steps, and not that downloading/streaming cut the income for musicians; that was disappearing already before.
Anyway, here are my worthless 2 million $ of opinion.
I listened to Beato's interview with Gioia, and amidst all the tired boomer arguments there was one I think struck home: technological advancements, and lack thereof in audio world.
Gioia mentioned that both movie and video game development welcomed new toys, and new toys meant you can always sell new stuff as exciting and required to enjoy your favourite entertainment. And I must say he is right; probably none of use would go back to CRT 20 inch TVs with 60+ inches today, or would choose a Street Fighter arcade from the 90's, when you can have near realistic graphics of modern games. Thing is he did not provide the answer.
But I think I found that answer. Well, for so many years now we're being sold hi-fi as stereo with 2 speakers right? Obviously, 2 speakers should be enough because we have 2 ears, same principle for headphones, so how do you advance technology in audio then?
I have been watching Dave Rat's, former RHCP sound engineer, videos regarding monitoring systems. He is a proponent of 'no sound in nature comes from two separate sources in identical manner', and while I can't I have experience in what he says, his proposed wedge monitoring systems are composed of 2-3 speakers that separate what each delivers, for example central wedge for instruments, left and right for vocals. (Look up manuals for MicroWedge from EAW for more examples.) Anyway, the idea is that separating the sources creates more clarity of each instrument, because at some point trying to push everything through one speaker turns to mud. But what live audio stage monitoring has got to do hi-fi?
Well, then I was recommended by Youtube videos from studio producers about Dolby Atmos, how it is amazing, and the eloquent setups of dozen speakers around the room allowed different elements to come from each side and so on. Sounds like a gimmick in a sense, but then I realized.... if you would have a similar set up at home, you could maybe create a recording technique that would give a sense of a band being right there with you, more immersive audio experience..... and that was the advancement in audio listening that music industry missed the boat on. And I think I know when that happened, and partially why.
I don't remember where I read it now, but CD's supposedly were meant to be cheaper than vinyl when they started to be mass produced. That did not happen, they cost as much as the old medium while costing less to make. At the same time, more and more musicians were coming out with a message that they're getting peanuts from those CD sales. Someone must have taken that money; however if CD's did not bring a financial benefit to consumers or musicians, then all of it must have went only to the labels, who were amassing the fortune without sharing it. And without what I'd call 'bribing' their first line of agents called 'musicians', when Napster showed up to disrupt the whole machine, the music industry had no defenders, except for a wacko like Lars Ulrich. It is kind of obvious, if the company I feel stuck in does not at least pay me enough, and sharks come in to eat the bosses, am I going to feel an incentive to defend them? Not really.
At the same time, digital disc format was developing... sort of, because it only continued reflecting that greed. There was Super Audio CD, that was meant to be higher quality. But... it required buying brand new expensive players. That did not happen. Then DVDs started showing up, and same thing with DVD-Audio: there was a new medium that could have been sold as 'higher quality' medium, but instead of allowing it to be used on every DVD player sold for movies, they too required a separate gadget. Again, that did not happen, DVD-Audio flopped. I checked with Wikipedia, and those higher end disc formats came out the same year Napster provided free access to music; with having ingrained a message that a new disc meant you need a new expensive player no surprise no one bothered with this either on the consumer side, whereas free music of nearly CD quality was rather difficult to walk past. With Blu-ray Audio almost a decade later finally someone must have come to their senses and noticed that both SACD and DVD Audio requiring separate players did not create enough buzz, so they finally allowed this new medium to work with any player available. Too little, too late perhaps?
And in my opinion the time of creating SACD and DVD Audio is when the chance to advance audio listening habits disappeared; had those been more accessible, which had enough room on the disc for 5.1 mixes (that was the lure at the time), who knows, maybe today your typical hi-fi would not consist of 2 speakers, but 5+a sub, and most importantly, big studios would mix in 5.1 from the start. And with an argument towards consumers that music sounds inferior unless you have 5.1 set up, listening to ear buds today would have been an equivalent of buying cassette tapes when CDs were already around. And I really think that if there was enough music in 5.1 by the time Napster showed up, free stereo MP3s would have been less of a lure, or at least they'd be a parallel medium, not a complete replacement like it was for CDs. And even if 5.1 MP3s were around, they'd be too large of a file size for dial-up internet and tiny memory stick players at the time to handle. Heck, with today's broadband speeds streaming DVD/Blu-ray audio sized files would have been difficult too.
This would also lead to sales in the hi-fi equipment too. I mean, going back to TVs and video games: the new product usually promises something new. Meanwhile, how many times can you sell a set of two speakers before it gets tiring?? Whereas, if 2 speakers were replaced with 5.1, THAT would have been a new exciting thing in audio. And had that happened those 15-20 years ago, a wild set up of Dolby Atmos with a dozen speakers around and half a dozen above would have been less abstract today for a regular consumer.
So my take out is this: music industry could have kept the physical medium-based sales if 1. they shared the profit that came with mass making of CDs with musicians and/or consumers 2. they allowed new disc formats to be compatible with already sold players so that buying a new expensive player was an option, not a necessity. That did not happen, and if you ask me, free MP3s and streaming is a RESULT of lack of these steps, and not that downloading/streaming cut the income for musicians; that was disappearing already before.
Anyway, here are my worthless 2 million $ of opinion.
Funny you should say that; I will still buy CD's, but they are getting harder and harder to find.
But I did buy my first record on vinyl since, forever! I think I had three way back when, but cassette tapes were already taking over. I don't have a turntable, but always wanted this particular record to put on display and had never seen it until now.
We listen to music from a number of sources, with the turntable being the centerpiece of the system. We also listen to FM radio and Apple music. Our records are in good-to-great shape (I don't keep the ones that are worn or damaged) and the sound quality of the system is superb.
I would buy more records if there was more good music being released. Right now I only have about 250 albums but in the past it was up to ~400.
Long Live Vinyl
I would buy more records if there was more good music being released. Right now I only have about 250 albums but in the past it was up to ~400.
Long Live Vinyl
I always bought the vinyl “comeback” was a reaction to digital music. Sure, it’s nice to have access to millions of songs on my phone, but it’s not actually mine. A vinyl record is the physical manifestation of the music, so for albums I have a deep connection to, it’s nice to have the physical music itself. There’s a certain charm to playing it as well- it’s more on an event, I’m listening to the music, not just playing it. The pendulum might be swinging back (not that it ever really left) towards digital as folks either don’t have a player or the space to store them, but I feel like there’s probably still a decent number of “casual” listeners that’ll sustain vinyl records at a decent level.
