Amazon "Vinyl of the Month" subscription (1 Viewer)

[BobO'Link]

Just got this in an email and don't know why - I *never* purchase vinyl any more. The last vinyl I purchased was around 1985 or so.

Just when you thought they were all dead and gone... Amazon introduces a new "Record of the Month" club:

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

GET AN ESSENTIAL ALBUM, EVERY MONTH - Join the club and receive one must-own record from the Golden Era of Vinyl (1960s-1970s) each month, handpicked by the experts at Amazon Music.

For the "low price" of $24.99/month.

I shake my head in disbelief! I don't get why anyone would want vinyl but it's selling like hotcakes these days... I lived through the "Golden Era of Vinyl" years and don't ever want to go back to vinyl.

 

[TravisR]

For the "low price" of $24.99/month.

$25 is a really good price for a record today.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't get why anyone would want vinyl but it's selling like hotcakes these days...

I wouldn’t go that far. Vinyl is still a niche within a niche.

Nowadays, by far, the majority of music listeners do so through subscription services where they pay one low monthly fee to basically listen to every album ever put out.

A minority of people still purchase music a la carte as individual songs or albums, and the bulk of those sales are digital.

A minority of that minority still buys CDs.

An even smaller group than that buys vinyl.

The artists make almost nothing from the subscription services. The margins are so tight on CDs that retailers make almost nothing from selling them. The people who like vinyl are willing to pay more for that niche so there’s a greater margin for everyone involved. I don’t think it’s insanely popular but there isn’t a race to the bottom on vinyl pricing like there is for subscriptions, digital sales and CDs so it’s stabilized as a market.

Long term, that’s probably the best case scenario for movies on disc too. Either collectors will accept that their hobby has gone from mainstream to niche and will accept higher prices to stabilize the market and make it financially viable to continue indefinitely as a niche, or there will be race to the bottom pricing until one day they just stop coming.

 

[compson]

Just got this in an email and don't know why - I *never* purchase vinyl any more. The last vinyl I purchased was around 1985 or so.

Just when you thought they were all dead and gone... Amazon introduces a new "Record of the Month" club:

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

For the "low price" of $24.99/month.

I shake my head in disbelief! I don't get why anyone would want vinyl but it's selling like hotcakes these days... I lived through the "Golden Era of Vinyl" years and don't ever want to go back to vinyl.

People want vinyl because they prefer its distinctive, warmer, sound, or they think it’s more accurate than the alternatives. If CDs sounded better than vinyl in your setup in 1985, you needed a better turntable.

 

[Bryan^H]

I have been contemplating getting into vinyl because there is a ton of "exclusive" music on that format not found elsewhere. It is a problem, as I really can't contemplate another collection at this point in my life.

 

[BobO'Link]

People want vinyl because they prefer its distinctive, warmer, sound, or they think it’s more accurate than the alternatives. If CDs sounded better than vinyl in your setup in 1985, you needed a better turntable.

I *have* a "better" turntable - a BIC 980 w/AT100e cartridge (purchased ~1974). The motor froze up ~20 years ago (common issue with these turtables) and I've just not bothered repairing it as it saw only minimal use in the 90s.

What I don't like about vinyl is the inherent surface noise (my 980 is dead quiet so I never heard motor/platter noise) and pops/clicks that come in no matter what (and I also have a SAE 5000A Impulse Noise Reduction System which can, somewhat, mitigate those. I also used the Discwasher system (cleaning and anti-static gun/mat) religiously.

 

[BobO'Link]

I stumbled upon this article today:

The insane resurgence of vinyl records

Vinyl has reclaimed its throne as the most-popular physical music format. But can the industry meet the demand?

thehustle.co

The numbers are very interesting.

 

[ChristopherG]

I am very much still into vinyl…

Mostly buy used but also new. Just ordered Montrose first album new pressing from popmarket. They are pricey but I still love the whole experience.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm actually beginning to write a think-piece on why I prefer vinyl. It's nothing about it being "warmer" or "analog is more like music than digital" or any of that crap. I'm of the belief that all things being equal, taken from the exact same high quality master, I would take high-res audio over any analog or CD format (SACD, DVD-A, 24/96 PCM). Vinyl just objectively measures worse than its digital counterparts in every way, less headroom, less theoretical dynamic range (this is ironic, more on this later), higher noise floor, not to mention all the variables that can harm the listening experience (hiss, pops, the variables of your cartridge, stylus, phono preamp, etc.).

However as you may know, most CDs and streaming files suffer greatly from The Loudness Wars. So most modern CDs and files given to streaming (yes even lossless, and sadly, even some high-res files) suffer from this crushing of dynamic range. It's an unfortunate last step before music gets pressed to CDs and/or files sent to the streaming services.

Meanwhile, if you try to do that same type of mastering for vinyl, the needle will literally jump the groove. So the irony is that, because of this physical limitation of vinyl, the masters used for vinyl are often much closer to what the band, engineer, mixer and producer agreed upon at the time of creation, before the dynamic range is crushed to hell. Despite having less theoretical dynamic range possible on vinyl, due to The Loudness Wars, often the resulting vinyl release has more dynamic range not because vinyl is a better medium, but because the dynamic range is intentionally crushed on CD/digital because of the aural phenomenon of "louder=better".

So, those of us who love vinyl do so because we want the best quality recording taken from the best master, and sadly that is often on vinyl. Not because of vinyl superiority, but because of The Loudness Wars phenomenon.

If you want to go down the deep dark rabbit hole of how compressed the various releases are for your favorite albums, go here: The Loudness Wars Database

Here's a sample set of results for Jimi Hendrix Experience Axis: Bold As Love - note how the release with the best dynamic range is...the original vinyl pressing from 1967. The SACD fares well.

The best, most ideal format, would be a high resolution digital playback of some kind, but with the dynamic range left intact. Sadly, outside of some well mastered SACDs, DVD-A, and hi-res releases (and again, some of these do also suffer from crushed dynamic range) that really doesn't exist. And so for those of us for whom dynamic range matters, vinyl is the most viable alternative.

And yes, despite growing up in the 80s, where we transitioned to CDs, I do love the feel of an album and being able to hold it in my hands, read the liner notes, and enjoy the album art.

Here's another stark set of examples of Pearl Jam's Ten

 

[Lord Dalek]

New vinyl is so damn over priced right now. I'm honestly surprised its having a "comeback", especially since modern records sourced from digital masters aren't really mastered with it in mind.

 

[Carlo_M]

That's an oversimplification. Nothing is "mastered with vinyl in mind". Or, rather, everything is mastered with vinyl in mind. And it's mastered for every other medium as well. And while I would prefer, especially for older albums recorded on analog tapes a full-direct analog transfer, if they take care to do a high res digital transfer of that file without the overcompression, and then cut vinyl off of that, that's the next best thing.

Overcompression is a final step, often out of the artists' hands, that happens before a CD is pressed or a file is given to a streaming service. It's to make everything "sound almost at the same loudness" to the listener, because of the psychoacoustic phenomenon of "louder is better". Also to avoid people who shuffle songs from different artists from playing the "rush to turn the volume up/down" game. My understanding now is, in addition to the overcompression that's applied, many streaming services also have a "normalization" step, which is another manipulation of the music that takes it yet another step away from what the artist, engineers and producer initially released. Since this is a Home Theater Forum, it's akin (not exactly, but an adjacent neighbor) to the manipulation that Night Mode does to movie soundtracks when you want your receiver or TV to lessen the dynamic range when you watch shows late at night.

Mastering for vinyl simply omits those steps (or at the very least, doesn't do it to the level that CD/streaming does).

Vinyl isn't having a comeback, it's had one for quite some time but only for those buying physical media, and who care about the quality of the music. The overwhelming majority of people put on Spotify/Apple Music and call it a day. With most of the streaming services now offering lossless (full disclosure I'm an Apple Music subscriber) there is nearly zero incentive for me to ever buy a CD again, and I own thousands. Not when I can get that same overcompressed end result on streaming lossless. But if I want the more dynamic version, and if the artist decided to release it on vinyl, I know which physical media I'm going to get.

There's nearly 350 million people in the US alone. If you can get even half of 1% of them to care about music quality, that's a 1.75 million market that is waiting to be tapped.

I know it's dangerous to make sweeping generalizations based on anecdotal experience, but I am fortunate enough to live near an Amoeba Records, and several smaller-but-still-busy indie record stores. I see people from all walks of life there, every age group (including children accompanying parents and selecting their own albums for purchases), every ethnicity. In fact, the population tends to skew surprisingly young, given you'd think only geezers eager to relive their youth would be a big demographic. I see a lot of college aged people, recent graduates, and parents with children. Very few are walking out with a brand new release from a current-year artist/album. Usually when I look at what people have in their hands, albums released within the last 5-10 years are by far in the minority.

With regards to them vinyl overpriced, I looked up what records cost in the 1960s. I am going to quote just one response, but there seems to be some general consensus to this:

In the 60’s LP’s cost $1.99 to $2.69 for mono, and 2.99 to $3.69 for stereo, at Korvette’s or at a record store, from what I remember.

So let's just round it to $3 on average. And let's choose the year 1965 because it's right down the middle. And remember, in the 1960s records were still mostly mono, and even with stereo gaining traction, the more luxuriant double albums didn't start really gaining steam until the 1970s.

According to the CPI calculator, $3 in 1965 is equal to $27.53 in 2022.

I just bought Pearl Jam's Vs. (a single album on one platter) for...$24.98. I bought the 50th anniversary double album, half-speed mastered from the original tapes, Jesus Christ Superstar (original concept album, not the movie soundtrack) for $34.98.

Would I love to have paid half that much? Sure. But when you do the math and adjust for inflation, I paid pretty much in line with what someone in the 1960s paid for a record. If CDs go for $15, I think it's a reasonable price given the tooling and manufacturing that goes into pressing a record, as well as the added materials cost for the album cover, sleeves and any extras the artist may throw in there (there's a full size 12 page booklet that comes with the JCS album I just bought).

I am not trying to convert you, far from it, I'm having a hard enough time finding all the vinyl I want. I wish some people would exit the market so I can have an easier time getting pressings I'm after . Just offering a counterpoint to explain that while I'd love for this hobby to be cheaper, it's really not out of line historically in terms of pricing.

 

[TravisR]

I just bought Pearl Jam's Vs. (a single album on one platter) for...$24.98. I bought the 50th anniversary double album, half-speed mastered from the original tapes, Jesus Christ Superstar (original concept album, not the movie soundtrack) for $34.98.

I buy alot of soundtracks from boutique labels and a $25 price tag is an impossible dream to me (even $35 is pretty decent). To be fair, those small labels have to license the album, come up with new art, etc. so there's more costs for them but when I pick up a Bad Religion record for $20, it feels like I'm getting an all time deal because I'm used to paying $40 or $45 (which ends up as $50 or $55 when you factor in shipping) per album.