Tweet
Couldn't provide a link as it's a pay article (must be subscribed).
You're gonna love this!
You're gonna love this!
Vinyl revival? Come on, change the record
James Campbell, Sunday Herald Sun
January 28, 2017 7:00am
Subscriber only
THE news that Australia is to get a “state-of-the-art” record-pressing plant is yet another signpost alerting us that we are surely approaching our destination of peak silliness.
But, while daft, the need for such a factory is hardly surprising.
At the moment every street in my bit of the inner city seems to have a record shop staffed by whey-faced young men and full of whey-faced young customers.
The supply of records from the pre-CD era obviously being finite, the need for a modern record press was inevitable.
Inevitable that is as long as there are still fools ready to be parted from their money — in this case about $40 for recordings they could in almost every case get better digital versions of at a better price.
Because despite the garbage being talked about “vinyl”, it doesn’t sound better. It just doesn’t.
For several reasons, starting with the fact that the sound of a record deteriorates from the beginning to the end of a side as the speed of the needle slows down as it moves into the centre. Then there’s surface noise — the pops and clicks that come from build-ups of dust and static as well as the hiss that is, well, just endemic to records.
A few years ago I got my old turntable fixed up and started playing my old discs. After 25 years of listening to CDs, the noise was deafening — to my ears anyway, even after I’d taken the advice of the bloke I’d bought the stylus off and cleaned them with that water you buy at Coles to put in the iron. It turned out that surface noise can’t be eliminated even on a brand new record.
People pick up remastered albums by The Beatles at a London store.
Which brings us to another problem with records — they wear out. Record fans will reply that with proper care and a good turntable set up correctly records should last for years.
To which I would reply, a) I doubt the youthful record-buying public of today have the necessary kit, and, b) it doesn’t matter how well you look after them records still wear out.
The most important way CDs are superior to 33 1/3 records is that they have more sound on them. To avoid vibrations from deep bass sounds causing the stylus to jump, they have to be removed. That’s why when you listen to the remastered Beatles CDs released a few years ago Paul McCartney’s bass and Ringo Starr’s drums sounded so much better than they did on record.
For the first time, the technology allowed the tapes to be heard properly.
When you point this out to record fans they will start talking dreamily about “the analog” experience and how “sounds are lost when music is put through a computer”. Which is true.
But most of the records being pressed now were actually originally recorded digitally.
Yes, the whole record revival thing is a sign, like $25 smashed avocado on toast, that young people have too much money.
James Campbell is a Sunday Herald Sun columnist
[email protected]
@J_C_Campbell
James Campbell, Sunday Herald Sun
January 28, 2017 7:00am
Subscriber only
THE news that Australia is to get a “state-of-the-art” record-pressing plant is yet another signpost alerting us that we are surely approaching our destination of peak silliness.
But, while daft, the need for such a factory is hardly surprising.
At the moment every street in my bit of the inner city seems to have a record shop staffed by whey-faced young men and full of whey-faced young customers.
The supply of records from the pre-CD era obviously being finite, the need for a modern record press was inevitable.
Inevitable that is as long as there are still fools ready to be parted from their money — in this case about $40 for recordings they could in almost every case get better digital versions of at a better price.
Because despite the garbage being talked about “vinyl”, it doesn’t sound better. It just doesn’t.
For several reasons, starting with the fact that the sound of a record deteriorates from the beginning to the end of a side as the speed of the needle slows down as it moves into the centre. Then there’s surface noise — the pops and clicks that come from build-ups of dust and static as well as the hiss that is, well, just endemic to records.
A few years ago I got my old turntable fixed up and started playing my old discs. After 25 years of listening to CDs, the noise was deafening — to my ears anyway, even after I’d taken the advice of the bloke I’d bought the stylus off and cleaned them with that water you buy at Coles to put in the iron. It turned out that surface noise can’t be eliminated even on a brand new record.
People pick up remastered albums by The Beatles at a London store.
Which brings us to another problem with records — they wear out. Record fans will reply that with proper care and a good turntable set up correctly records should last for years.
To which I would reply, a) I doubt the youthful record-buying public of today have the necessary kit, and, b) it doesn’t matter how well you look after them records still wear out.
The most important way CDs are superior to 33 1/3 records is that they have more sound on them. To avoid vibrations from deep bass sounds causing the stylus to jump, they have to be removed. That’s why when you listen to the remastered Beatles CDs released a few years ago Paul McCartney’s bass and Ringo Starr’s drums sounded so much better than they did on record.
For the first time, the technology allowed the tapes to be heard properly.
When you point this out to record fans they will start talking dreamily about “the analog” experience and how “sounds are lost when music is put through a computer”. Which is true.
But most of the records being pressed now were actually originally recorded digitally.
Yes, the whole record revival thing is a sign, like $25 smashed avocado on toast, that young people have too much money.
James Campbell is a Sunday Herald Sun columnist
[email protected]
@J_C_Campbell
Comment