Why do we use vinyl for records?
May 26, 2006 at 4:57 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 89
trains are bad

trains are bad

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Posts
2,221
Likes
12
Typically when a material is used for any application, it's for a combination of reasons including how cheap it is, how available it is, how easy it is to use with existing manufacturing equipment, and market acceptance.

Using vinyl for records was thought up decades ago. Is there no better material now, here in 2006 when we have TFT computer displays and DAPs with more computing power than probably everything NASA had when it went to the moon?

Are vinyl records just plain 100% vinyl+coloring agent, or is there like an 'alloying' process that gives a suitable material?

Vinyl might be the most practical material, but is it the absolute best?
 
May 26, 2006 at 6:25 PM Post #2 of 89
Not much R&D goes into Vinyl because, plain and simple, it's inferior. I don't CARE if the first time you play it it's a little bit better than a CD. The fact that over time it degrades is enough to make it inferior to optical media. There's no cost-effective medium you could make records out of that could be inexpensively produced and yet not degrade over time, so no money goes into Vinyl R&D.
 
May 26, 2006 at 10:58 PM Post #4 of 89
And which also makes the whole exclusively analogue feel that vinyl has reduntant. May as well use a CD.
 
May 27, 2006 at 2:29 AM Post #5 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad
Typically when a material is used for any application, it's for a combination of reasons including how cheap it is, how available it is, how easy it is to use with existing manufacturing equipment, and market acceptance.

Using vinyl for records was thought up decades ago. Is there no better material now, here in 2006 when we have TFT computer displays and DAPs with more computing power than probably everything NASA had when it went to the moon?

Are vinyl records just plain 100% vinyl+coloring agent, or is there like an 'alloying' process that gives a suitable material?

Vinyl might be the most practical material, but is it the absolute best?


Vinyl is still the very best given the cost and quality of the process.
 
May 27, 2006 at 3:08 AM Post #6 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach
Not much R&D goes into Vinyl because, plain and simple, it's inferior. I don't CARE if the first time you play it it's a little bit better than a CD. The fact that over time it degrades is enough to make it inferior to optical media. There's no cost-effective medium you could make records out of that could be inexpensively produced and yet not degrade over time, so no money goes into Vinyl R&D.


have you ever bought used vinyl?? Funny that new vinyl outsells SACD and DVDA combined wonder why
evil_smiley.gif
could it be that even with a non degrading memdium it's still inferior

I have bought 40 year old vinyl that smokes SACD and redbook
 
May 27, 2006 at 3:11 AM Post #7 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by ssportclay
Vinyl is still the very best given the cost and quality of the process.


That seems to be the gist of this article from 1993 that I found via Google:

http://www.plastiquarian.com/styr3n3/pqs/pq11.htm

which states:

"The formulation of vinyl record material is straightforward; 97% polymer with additives comprising carbon black, heat stabilisers and very small amounts of lubricants and flow promoter."

The article notes that acrylic polymers also made good records, but I interpret another comment on that page to mean that vinyl chloride-vinyl acetate copolymer had much better flow properties in the molding process.

That article contains an graph that shows worldwide vinyl record sales from 1955 until 1991.......one look at that will convince you that no large companies would devote any effort or expense to polymer research for LP's!
icon10.gif


Some research done in the early 1980's, if I recall correctly, found that if a laser was used to "accurately" read the grooves of an LP, the result was a distinctly distorted sound compared to that from a good cartridge. The researchers noted that pressures at the contact point between the stylus and groove wall are in reality very high (there's not much tracking force, but remember, that's distributed over an extremely small area)!

They went on to note that deformation of the groove wall certainly occurs during "normal" playback, and that phenomenom must somehow be compensated in the stlyus/cantilever/cartridge during playback. Again, not having the article in front of me, the researchers seemed to be a bit baffled by the whole thing.

I guess when one thinks about it, the way a cutting head forms the groove in the master lacquer isn't the same mechanism by which the stylus/cantilever assembly tracks the groove during playback, so maybe it's surprising that LP's ever worked as well as they did (at least in my case, it's "did" rather than "do"!)
 
May 27, 2006 at 4:14 AM Post #8 of 89
First off I'm not into SACD or DVD-A but I really do not believe that new vinyl outsells them. Sorry I don't buy that (pun intended). I don't remember what vinyl even sounds like but I did know of the thousands or so records I collected in the 60/70's, almost all of them were scratched up fairly easily. I also like the fact that I can play a CD & skip the tracks I don't ant to hear & not get up as opposed to lifting up the arm for vinyl & scratching them more.
 
May 27, 2006 at 4:28 AM Post #9 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000
First off I'm not into SACD or DVD-A but I really do not believe that new vinyl outsells them. Sorry I don't buy that (pun intended). I don't remember what vinyl even sounds like but I did know of the thousands or so records I collected in the 60/70's, almost all of them were scratched up fairly easily. I also like the fact that I can play a CD & skip the tracks I don't ant to hear & not get up as opposed to lifting up the arm for vinyl & scratching them more.


beleive it or not it's true just google it and you will find a few articles that validate this. Ease of play is an entirely different conversation than sound quality.
Beleive it or not the 33/45 rpm is from a high end SQ standpoint still king
 
May 27, 2006 at 5:48 AM Post #10 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000
First off I'm not into SACD or DVD-A but I really do not believe that new vinyl outsells them. Sorry I don't buy that (pun intended). I don't remember what vinyl even sounds like but I did know of the thousands or so records I collected in the 60/70's, almost all of them were scratched up fairly easily. I also like the fact that I can play a CD & skip the tracks I don't ant to hear & not get up as opposed to lifting up the arm for vinyl & scratching them more.


Really this audiophile here (points to self) buys more new vinyl then new SACDs and DVD-As despite having a multiplayer. On the topic of handling, if a record is handled by the edges, the stylus is carefully lowered it'll outlive a CD, which breaks down in Australia's humidity. I've had to toss a few already new and burnt CDs in the last few years. That said CDs are just as easily scratched as vinyl.

Also the ability to skip tracks is often a curse rather then a grace. The album was always made to be played in it's entirety. The ability to randomly skip songs is what's leading the pop industry's poor excuse for records these days. Albums are no longer about a logical journey or a story that sucks the listener in. Especailly on my vinyl I'll listen from start to end not skipping anything.
 
May 27, 2006 at 7:18 AM Post #11 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000
First off I'm not into SACD or DVD-A but I really do not believe that new vinyl outsells them. Sorry I don't buy that (pun intended). I don't remember what vinyl even sounds like but I did know of the thousands or so records I collected in the 60/70's, almost all of them were scratched up fairly easily. I also like the fact that I can play a CD & skip the tracks I don't ant to hear & not get up as opposed to lifting up the arm for vinyl & scratching them more.


There are also incentives not to get DVD-A or SACD. I have a feeling anyone into high-end electronics, especially digital, is aware of explicit copy protection that screws with fair use implemented on these formats. Whether it directly affects your use or not, it is a moral concern for supporting these formats.

While I can understand many, if not most, will not worry about it, I'd be willing to bet there is a fair share that would jump in glee at DVD-A or SACD, if it also offered the freedom of a CD--whether they'd use it or not. OTOH, the simple matter of not being able to, or it being very difficult to, back up these discs, is also a concern, with the physical media (DVD+R DL) being fairly cheap, and hard drives also being cheap.

In the case of vinyl, this problem is not due to any malevolence on anyone's part, but merely a limitation of technology at the time (and in which tapes were often used for regular listening, to keep the record in good shape). In the case of SACD and DVD-A, it is directly tied to businesses wanting to gain more control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbs
Also the ability to skip tracks is often a curse rather then a grace. The album was always made to be played in it's entirety. The ability to randomly skip songs is what's leading the pop industry's poor excuse for records these days. Albums are no longer about a logical journey or a story that sucks the listener in. Especailly on my vinyl I'll listen from start to end not skipping anything.


I grew up with CDs, but preach on. Even with lossy, digital, portable audio, whole albums are the way to go. Don't forget extreme clipping and compression, either!
wink.gif
 
May 27, 2006 at 7:29 AM Post #12 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hershon2000
First off I'm not into SACD or DVD-A but I really do not believe that new vinyl outsells them. Sorry I don't buy that (pun intended). I don't remember what vinyl even sounds like but I did know of the thousands or so records I collected in the 60/70's, almost all of them were scratched up fairly easily. I also like the fact that I can play a CD & skip the tracks I don't ant to hear & not get up as opposed to lifting up the arm for vinyl & scratching them more.


believe it. I can't even FIND DVD-As of 90% of the music I listen to; Vinyl, at least a third of the artists I like use. SACD is a better than DVD-A in terms of adoption, but not nearly as popular as vinyl. most SACD and DVD-A pieces I've found are classical, "audiophile" recordings, or EXTREMELY popular recordings.
 
May 27, 2006 at 9:44 AM Post #14 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz
And which also makes the whole exclusively analogue feel that vinyl has reduntant. May as well use a CD.


A laser pickup doesn't imply digital representation of the recovered groove information. The laser output can be kept in the analogue domain, so you retain that analogue quality. Maybe, the laser pickup is more like a 'DSD bitstream' with wave phase transitions instead of single bits. Ideally, with a laser wavelength near the molecule size of vinyl, you'd be approaching the medium's resolution limit.
 
May 27, 2006 at 9:59 AM Post #15 of 89
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top