# Kellys Records in Central Market, Cardiff



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

Worth a little photo feature, I reckon, and good to hear that business seems to be going well.







http://www.urban75.org/blog/a-celebration-of-kellys-records-in-cardiff-central-market-south-wales/


----------



## ddraig (Jan 3, 2014)

great!
don't visit enough really 

you've missed an 'M' off 'Mon' on bottom of page in opening hours


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

Fixed. I wish I'd had time for a proper browse but I'll try and buy some vinyl off them the next time I'm in town.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 3, 2014)

This is a crackin record shop.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 3, 2014)

I have noticed a sudden recent upsurge in the price of vinyl. This I suppose could keep the market up. Already got three copies of that shit Big Audio Dynamite album they have on display there. What was I thinking back then.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 3, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25570039
demand is 'soaring'

going to make effort to go to Kelly's when i got a bit of cash


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 3, 2014)

The same news report has been running since the late 90s. 
I have been asked to make the 'vinyl is making a comeback' / 'vinyl is not dead' VT / News report five time myself, god knows how many other people all over the world have done it. The sales figures of 2% seem to stay about the same too.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

Other than some DJs, who buys vinyl these days apart from hipsters?


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Other than some DJs, who buys vinyl these days apart from hipsters?


Fans of bands. People who prefer the sound/feel of vinyl. People with an emotional attachment to some records. People who appreciate the form factor of vinyl etc etc etc.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Other than some DJs, who buys vinyl these days apart from hipsters?


I've started buying them in the past year or so. I suppose it is a bit hipsterish, but they feel like they're something in and of themselves, an object rather than simply a medium for transferring data like CDs or mp3s. There's also this certain notion that the technology behind them is more 'real' and accessible, that there's proper physics going on rather than some slightly mysterious digital thing. It's just that romantic affection for analogue over digital - doesn't perhaps make any pragmatic sense, but there's a place for romance as well as pragmatism in this world 

e2a: I'm still too scared to go to record shops though  I just buy at gigs and from artist/label websites.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Other than some DJs, who buys vinyl these days apart from hipsters?


Why would anyone buy a painting when you can look at pictures on your computer? 
Why buy a vintage guitar / car you like the look of when you can have a cheaper model that is easier to play and better built? 

I was very late getting into CDs but did switch eventually. I still visited record shops and bought old vinyl but I could not see the point in buying new stuff. 
Then the quality in the CD product began to fall. The printing on the CD and on the inserts was joyless in most releases. Those horrible cases began to annoy me. 
The last straw was buying a CD only to unload it onto your computer into MP3 form, making the product seem almost useless. 
I lament in that CD period not spending £2 extra on all the releases I bought to have them on Vinyl. Most are now worth between 50p to a £1, whereas the vinyls (that I didn't buy) are between £30 and £60 (and now I really do want them goddamnit).
I'm not sure exactly why but putting on a CD feels like a pain in the arse, but sticking on a record is a joy. No, it doesn't sound better, and yes, I know that saying it just has a 'feeling' is a bit wanky. Basically, I just like it and I like the big sleeves. A record does not feel like a real release unless it is on vinyl. Bootlegs even used to feel real, but a non legit MP3 download means nothing. I listen to MP3s I have been sent by bands on shuffle while having a fag or riding a train, and they mean nothing to me and I have no attachment to them. I know the record cover, the label, and most of the sleeve notes / lyrics to every vinyl record I bought from 13 - 25.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

Thank you all for taking the time to reply.



editor said:


> Fans of bands. People who prefer the sound/feel of vinyl. People with an emotional attachment to some records. People who appreciate the form factor of vinyl etc etc etc.


Do you mean fans who have record decks, or just fans who like to buy anything that a band might sell, regardless of an ability to listen to it?

As for the sound of vinyl - why would someone want to listen to an inferior product? I mean, poor signal to noise ratio, surface noise, crackles, jumping or stuck styluses?
Vinyl is a pain in the arse (ears). I want to listen to music, and any emotional attachment or enjoyment I have is to the music, not all the stuff that gets in the way of that.

Re: the form factor - the only benefit I can understand is the ability to read the sleeve notes on 12" records as opposed to the microscopic text that _may_ be included on CD sleeves.



Lord Camomile said:


> I've started buying them in the past year or so. I suppose it is a bit hipsterish, but they feel like they're something in and of themselves, an object rather than simply a medium for transferring data like CDs or mp3s. There's also this certain notion that the technology behind them is more 'real' and accessible, that there's proper physics going on rather than some slightly mysterious digital thing. It's just that romantic affection for analogue over digital - doesn't perhaps make any pragmatic sense, but there's a place for romance as well as pragmatism in this world
> 
> e2a: I'm still too scared to go to record shops though  I just buy at gigs and from artist/label websites.


I respect your choice of buying vinyl but I don't understand your beliefs. There is nothing mysterious about digital recordings as opposed to analogue ones, and almost all records that you buy of contemporary music will have been recorded digitally before being mastered for vinyl.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Why would anyone buy a painting when you can look at pictures on your computer?


A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Why buy a vintage guitar / car you like the look of when you can have a cheaper model that is easier to play and better built?


I have no idea. The only "vintage" stuff I possess was new when I bought it, or if it was second hand, then that's what I could afford at the time.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I was very late getting into CDs but did switch eventually.


Me too. When my record deck died in the mid 80s I started buying cassettes, as I had a cassette player but could not afford a CD player. It wasn't until the late 90s that I was able to play CDs, when I bought a CD drive for my computer.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I still visited record shops and bought old vinyl but I could not see the point in buying new stuff.


Do you mean you were buying CDs of new stuff but older music on vinyl? If so, then I can understand that.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Then the quality in the CD product began to fall. The printing on the CD and on the inserts was joyless in most releases. Those horrible cases began to annoy me.


I certainly agree with you about the horrible design of the CD case - awful, flimsy things.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The last straw was buying a CD only to unload it onto your computer into MP3 form, making the product seem almost useless.


Now to me, this was a liberating experience. Freeing the music from its physical format. I'm not going to extol the virtues of MP3 per se, as I have most of my music in FLAC format.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I lament in that CD period not spending £2 extra on all the releases I bought to have them on Vinyl. Most are now worth between 50p to a £1, whereas the vinyls (that I didn't buy) are between £30 and £60 (and now I really do want them goddamnit).


I find it sad that you are placing such importance on the monetary value of the _medium_ that your music comes in. Surely you as a musician can see that it is the music itself that is important, else why bother to play live?



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I'm not sure exactly why but putting on a CD feels like a pain in the arse, but sticking on a record is a joy. No, it doesn't sound better, and yes, I know that saying it just has a 'feeling' is a bit wanky. Basically, I just like it and I like the big sleeves. A record does not feel like a real release unless it is on vinyl. Bootlegs even used to feel real, but a non legit MP3 download means nothing. I listen to MP3s I have been sent by bands on shuffle while having a fag or riding a train, and they mean nothing to me and I have no attachment to them. I know the record cover, the label, and most of the sleeve notes / lyrics to every vinyl record I bought from 13 - 25.


Again I am finding this rather sad. It seems that the _ritual_ of playing a record, or reading the sleeve notes is more important to you that the music itself


----------



## ddraig (Jan 3, 2014)

it just complements music you love better


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Do you mean fans who have record decks, or just fans who like to buy anything that a band might sell, regardless of an ability to listen to it?


Fans who want to own something a bit more substantial than an invisible assembly of bits and bytes that make up a digital tune.


fishfinger said:


> As for the sound of vinyl - why would someone want to listen to an inferior product? I mean, poor signal to noise ratio, surface noise, crackles, jumping or stuck styluses?


Seeing as most people listen to crappy MP3 files played via cheap headphones on their phones, vinyl played through a decent system can almost certainly be a superior experience.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

editor said:


> Fans who want to own something a bit more substantial than an invisible assembly of bits and bytes that make up a digital tune.


I can understand the need for something physical but a circular piece of plastic with a wiggly spiral groove is still a fairly abstract construct.



editor said:


> Seeing as most people listen to crappy MP3 files played via cheap headphones on their phones, vinyl played through a decent system can almost certainly be a superior experience.


I would imagine most people listen to (pretty good quality these days) MP3s via (admittedly cheap) headphones because that is what is convenient/available/affordable to them. A _good quality_ record deck is quite an expensive outlay, much more so than a CD player.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 3, 2014)

well if there are not _that _many dj's or _that _many hipsters, what do you think the reason is for increasing vinyl sales?


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I would imagine most people listen to (pretty good quality these days) MP3s via (admittedly cheap) headphones because that is what is convenient/available/affordable to them. A _good quality_ record deck is quite an expensive outlay, much more so than a CD player.


Not really. You can buy a record deck that will produce a better sound than your average MP3 recording for under £100 these days.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 3, 2014)

I'd imagine part of it also comes from the fact that vinyl is what brought music into the home, and was the dominant format when 'modern' music really came into its own. Obviously I'm speaking from a position of some ignorance, but of course that was the only way you could listen to a lot of artists and I believe people had a very personal relationship with their music collection.

Another thing that is often mentioned is that while the massive abundance of choice is a good thing, it can also mean that sometimes people are less connected to that music. Things that are easy to come by are easier to throw away, and with so many acts competing for your attention you often don't spend as much time with one record. It's also much harder to skip an analogue track than it is with a digital track - it almost forces you to pay attention.

I know the "mysterious" thing about mp3s is a little odd, just me being inarticulate, but records just feel more tangible, more of this world.

And I say all the above as someone who is often in danger of becoming obsessive about downloading tracks. Both have their merits, and I have different relationships with both.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

ddraig said:


> well if there are not _that _many dj's or _that _many hipsters, what do you think the reason is for increasing vinyl sales?


Vinyl sales last year represented 0.7% of all albums sold http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24551472



editor said:


> Not really. You can buy a record deck that will produce a better sound than your average MP3 recording for under £100 these days.


I respectfully disagree there. Most commercially available MP3s these days are at least 192k VBR, in many cases 320k CBR, and in double-blind tests are indistinguishable from CDs. The days of horribly crunchy sounding 128k (or worse) quality MP3s are long over.


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I respectfully disagree there. Most commercially available MP3s these days are at least 192k VBR, in many cases 320k CBR, and in double-blind tests are indistinguishable from CDs. The days of horribly crunchy sounding 128k (or worse) quality MP3s are long over.


Go find some teenagers (the biggest consumers of music) and have a listen to what's on their phone. You may be unpleasantly surprised. Even some of the tunes on my phone are 128kps.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

editor said:


> Go find some teenagers (the biggest consumers of music) and have a listen to what's on their phone. You may be unpleasantly surprised. Even some of the tunes on my phone are 128kps.


I did say _commercially_ available MP3s. Not ones badly encoded by teenagers


----------



## editor (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I did say _commercially_ available MP3s. Not ones badly encoded by teenagers


So then you might understand why they'd be happy to shell out for vinyl, for both the (probable) improved sound quality and the (definite) increased sense of 'owning' something tangible related to their favourite band?


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Other than some DJs, who buys vinyl these days apart from hipsters?





fishfinger said:


> I can understand the need for something physical but a circular piece of plastic with a wiggly spiral groove is still a fairly abstract construct.
> 
> 
> I would imagine most people listen to (pretty good quality these days) MP3s via (admittedly cheap) headphones because that is what is convenient/available/affordable to them. A _good quality_ record deck is quite an expensive outlay, much more so than a CD player.


I think certain genre's of music sound better on vinyl. I play a lot of reggae and it sounds crisp and real on vinyl format, if i play the same tune via cd it sounds condensed and flat. Also i think you might be surprised at the amount of teenagers and people in there twenties that buy vinyl now,I do a record shop once a week and ive noticed a steady increase of younger vinyl hunters which in my opinion is refreshing to see.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

editor said:


> So then you might understand why they'd be happy to shell out for vinyl, for both the (probable) improved sound quality and the (definite) increased sense of 'owning' something tangible related to their favourite band?


Not really when, as I mentioned in the reply to ddraig vinyl sales only represented 0.7% of album sales. 

It's a dying format (albeit with minor surges) with an inferior sound quality.

If you like it, fair enough, keep buying it while you can. To the vast majority of music listeners It is an irrelevance.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Vinyl sales last year represented 0.7% of all albums sold http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24551472
> I presume this is for new record sales the second hand record market is massive.
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree there. Most commercially available MP3s these days are at least 192k VBR, in many cases 320k CBR, and in double-blind tests are indistinguishable from CDs. The days of horribly crunchy sounding 128k (or worse) quality MP3s are long over.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> I presume this is for new record sales the second hand record market is massive.


Have you got any figures for this? I feel you may be experiencing confirmation bias (I'm happy to be proved wrong though).


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Have you got any figures for this? I feel you may be experiencing confirmation bias (I'm happy to be proved wrong though).


Sadly i dont (i should have mentioned that in my post) its a shame that these figures will go unknown im pretty sure the second hand market isnt counted. I am stating from what i witness when i go record buying, its been visually noticable to me that the clientele in the various shops i use has been and is changing to younger people who want vinyl.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> Sadly i dont (i should have mentioned that in my post) its a shame that these figures will go unknown im pretty sure the second hand market isnt counted. I am stating from what i witness when i go record buying, its been visually noticable to me that the clientele in the various shops i use has been and is changing to younger people who want vinyl.


That's fair enough. Do you know whether most of the youngsters are DJs or just regular music fans? Do they seem to be buying rare tunes, or is it more mainstream/popular music?


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> If you like it, fair enough, keep buying it while you can. To the vast majority of music listeners It is an irrelevance.


Well they're an irrelevance to me!


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 3, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> That's fair enough. Do you know whether most of the youngsters are DJs or just regular music fans? Do they seem to be buying rare tunes, or is it more mainstream/popular music?


Some of the young uns that i talk to are dj's some are not.Again some are buying older reggae originals and some are buying new release and popular stuff ie. dubstep, r&b ,dancehall. There is a lot of old reggae that is being repressed onto vinyl so you can get an old favourite from£3.50 and upwards.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 3, 2014)

Lord Camomile said:


> Well they're an irrelevance to me!


 Good answer!



SarfLondoner said:


> Some of the young uns that i talk to are dj's some are not.Again some are buying older reggae originals and some are buying new release and popular stuff ie. dubstep, r&b ,dancehall. There is a lot of old reggae that is being repressed onto vinyl so you can get an old favourite from£3.50 and upwards.


£3.50 is pretty good, a lot better than some of the silly prices being asked.


----------



## SarfLondoner (Jan 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Good answer!
> 
> 
> £3.50 is pretty good, a lot better than some of the silly prices being asked.


This is what gets me, a record dealer would be looking for at least £40 for an original press which is likely to be 20 years old and of poor sound quality due to its usage/plays. Yet if that same record is out on a repress you may pay £9 or £10 tops. It can be a heart wrenching experience if you finally find a yearned after record only to find out it's " 45 quid bruv" (pulling on your heartstrings) or its inaudible.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 4, 2014)

SarfLondoner said:


> This is what gets me, a record dealer would be looking for at least £40 for an original press which is likely to be 20 years old and of poor sound quality due to its usage/plays. Yet if that same record is out on a repress you may pay £9 or £10 tops. It can be a heart wrenching experience if you finally find a yearned after record only to find out it's " 45 quid bruv" (pulling on your heartstrings) or its inaudible.


That's pretty bad. To me, being able to listen to the music is what I want. Having an original that is unlistenable is just crazy.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> It's a dying format (albeit with minor surges) with an inferior sound quality.


It's categorically not an 'inferior sound quality' in many instances, and I'm not sure how you can declare something a "dying format," when it's currently enjoying sales at the highest level for more than a decade.


----------



## rhod (Jan 4, 2014)

I was talking to a lad on a supermarket till last week. He must have been about 18 or 19. 

He was very proud to tell me all about his complete collection of Black Sabbath albums on vinyl. 

There is hope for the next generation!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I respect your choice of buying vinyl but I don't understand your beliefs. There is nothing mysterious about digital recordings as opposed to analogue ones, and almost all records that you buy of contemporary music will have been recorded digitally before being mastered for vinyl.



I don't think that's the point, but if you really do want to go into detail then technically records and even tape can be far superior to MP3s and CDs. CDs run at 44.1k and MP3s are generally far far worse. Most recording studios run at much much higher rates that actually would make a difference when mastered. 
Personally I don't care. This is not an argument that means a lot to me. I work in music and film and TV sound all almost 100% digitally these days and I believe it has caught up with analogue quite nicely. . .  as I said though, on a technical basis, not so with CDs and MP3s. 



fishfinger said:


> A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music.



Never heard of prints? I wasn't talking about a one off painting, I was talking about displaying or enjoying an image. 
You obviously don't understand the appeal when you say "Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music." - which is fair enough because it just means buying records is not for you. 
Vinyl records are certainly not all 'mass produced', many come in very short limited runs (my own band has a release that exists as only 30 copies). I even have some records that do come with one off sleeves. 
This is perhaps beside the point. I enjoy records as a physical product that is a joy to own, I feel the same about my guitars, even when I am not playing them. Some people buy trainers and feel the same way about them. 



fishfinger said:


> Now to me, this was a liberating experience. Freeing the music from its physical format. I'm not going to extol the virtues of MP3 per se, as I have most of my music in FLAC format.


I understand that, and I am not saying that MP3s are a bad thing at all, what I am saying is that I completely lost the connection I had with the music that I had when I was buying vinyl. 
MP3s are very useful.



fishfinger said:


> I find it sad that you are placing such importance on the monetary value of the _medium_ that your music comes in. Surely you as a musician can see that it is the music itself that is important, else why bother to play live?


I was not placing any importance on the monetary value of the records, I was lamenting not buying them when I could afford them. They are too expensive now. 
Playing live is a completely different thing. In the same way that a record (for me) is about the whole package, playing live is a performance and not about recreating the record not for note (far from it). 




fishfinger said:


> Again I am finding this rather sad. It seems that the _ritual_ of playing a record, or reading the sleeve notes is more important to you that the music itself



I do not go through any 'rituals'. I flip through records sleeves instead of computers, I look at the sleeves, I see some of the recent records I have played beside the record player and I like that. I don't light a candle and say a prayer before each record and then sit there cross legged staring at the sleeve until the record is over. 
. . . and no, it is not more important to me than the music. I mint LTD vintage record containing music I don't like is worthless to me,  but a favorite album (musically) can be something I 'want' to treasure.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 4, 2014)

editor said:


> "dying format," when it's currently enjoying sales at the highest level for more than a decade.



0.7%


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 4, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I don't think that's the point, but if you really do want to go into detail then technically records and even tape can be far superior to MP3s and CDs. CDs run at 44.1k and MP3s are generally far far worse. Most recording studios run at much much higher rates that actually would make a difference when mastered.
> Personally I don't care. This is not an argument that means a lot to me. I work in music and film and TV sound all almost 100% digitally these days and I believe it has caught up with analogue quite nicely. . .  as I said though, on a technical basis, not so with CDs and MP3s.


I know you work in music and TV. That does not make you _any_ kind of authority. To my knowledge, _no-one _has been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1khz and higher bit depth/sample rates in a double-blind test. The reasons for using higher bit depths when _recording/mixing/mastering_ are to avoid rounding errors in the digital signal. Tape may give you the sound that you want (i.e. tape saturation or other distortions that tape can give) but it is never _better_ than a properly produced digital signal. 



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Never heard of prints? I wasn't talking about a one off painting, I was talking about displaying or enjoying an image.


Yes, and if you would read my previous reply, you will see I answered already acknowledged, and answered that.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> You obviously don't understand the appeal when you say "Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music." - which is fair enough because it just means buying records is not for you.
> Vinyl records are certainly not all 'mass produced', many come in very short limited runs (my own band has a release that exists as only 30 copies). I even have some records that do come with one off sleeves.


Just because you _choose_ to produce short run pressings, does not mean they are not a "mass-produced" product. You are simply creating an artificial scarcity, which is just a form of marketing, whereas a painter, for example, produces genuinely unique works. If you are making unique _sleeves_ for individual records, then I can understand the appeal (Even I have had some records with hand-made sleeves).



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> This is perhaps beside the point. I enjoy records as a physical product that is a joy to own, I feel the same about my guitars, even when I am not playing them. Some people buy trainers and feel the same way about them.


I'm certainly _aware_ that people do this. However, (possibly due to my learning difficulties) I just don't _understand_ how people gain enjoyment simply by _owning_ something.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I understand that, and I am not saying that MP3s are a bad thing at all, what I am saying is that I completely lost the connection I had with the music that I had when I was buying vinyl.
> MP3s are very useful.


Thanks for that, although I don't understand the "I completely lost the connection I had with the music" part.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I was not placing any importance on the monetary value of the records, I was lamenting not buying them when I could afford them.


You certainly _did_ place importance on the monetary value "Most are now _worth_ between 50p to a £1," (my italics) If you had bought them years ago, on vinyl, and enjoyed playing them on a regular basis, then they would probably be worn-out by now. So, at least you have been able to enjoy the music, without it deteriorating.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> They are too expensive now.


Only because people are prepared to pay silly amounts of money.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Playing live is a completely different thing. In the same way that a record (for me) is about the whole package, playing live is a performance and not about recreating the record not for note (far from it).


Of course playing live is different. Otherwise, we'd just have bands miming to pre-recorded music.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I do not go through any 'rituals'. I flip through records sleeves instead of computers, I look at the sleeves, I see some of the recent records I have played beside the record player and I like that. I don't light a candle and say a prayer before each record and then sit there cross legged staring at the sleeve until the record is over.
> . . . and no, it is not more important to me than the music. I mint LTD vintage record containing music I don't like is worthless to me,  but a favorite album (musically) can be something I 'want' to treasure.


You seem to have a very limited idea of what ritual entails. Earlier, you were lamenting about losing connection with the music. It seems that the very act of playing vinyl gives you that connection.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> I know you work in music and TV. That does not make you _any_ kind of authority. To my knowledge, _no-one _has been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1khz and higher bit depth/sample rates in a double-blind test. The reasons for using higher bit depths when _recording/mixing/mastering_ are to avoid rounding errors in the digital signal. Tape may give you the sound that you want (i.e. tape saturation or other distortions that tape can give) but it is never _better_ than a properly produced digital signal.


I work with sound as a sound engineer, I've got a degree in sound and music technology, I think that does actually make me a bit more of an authority than most. 
Yes people have been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1k for a long time in double blind tests for a very long time. The CD was always considered quite flawed and even needs a cut off at -20 20, to clean it up. It doesn't sound like a big deal because we can't hear outside that range, however harmonic frequencies beyond that range do have an effect on other frequencies within it. Granted, this problems with the format are mostly due to errors, and as I recall was not satisfactory sorted for some people until it got up to 98k or something. 
As I mentioned before, this is not something that actually bothers me, I am more than happy to use digital and think that it is madness that people still bother to use tape. just for tape saturation properties now that digital recording and manipulating has caught up. 
Sorry though, but technically tape really can be better than digital as there are no steps. You can raise the sample rate, you can speed up and widen the tape. Digital will always be stepped though. Nobody will ever hear it.

Anyway, like I said twice already - I don't care if it is digital or not. I listen to MP3s all the time. 




fishfinger said:


> Yes, and if you would read my previous reply, you will see I answered already acknowledged, and answered that.


You said nothing of the sort 
"A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, *or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc* in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music."





fishfinger said:


> Just because you _choose_ to produce short run pressings, does not mean they are not a "mass-produced" product. You are simply creating an artificial scarcity, which is just a form of marketing, whereas a painter, for example, produces genuinely unique works. If you are making unique _sleeves_ for individual records, then I can understand the appeal (Even I have had some records with hand-made sleeves).


Short run pressings are obviously not mass produced. They are like a LTD print or a run of hand made sleeves (which for some reason is ok for you). How are LTD sleeves not the same as LTD records? There are still only 30 sleeves for those 30 records (and all that hand numbered crap). Hardly a great marketing plan. 
Personally I don't care for ltd runs. It was just an example. 







fishfinger said:


> I'm certainly _aware_ that people do this. However, (possibly due to my learning difficulties) I just don't _understand_ how people gain enjoyment simply by _owning_ something.


I like having my books, guitars, records. I like wearing the clothes I like. I like the look of some things and like to own them. If that makes me a shallow person - hey ho. 



fishfinger said:


> Thanks for that, although I don't understand the "I completely lost the connection I had with the music" part.


Well it is quite clear that this is not a problem and that owning a physical copy of a record you love is not a priority for you so you don't need to understand. If you did, you might do it. 



fishfinger said:


> You certainly _did_ place importance on the monetary value "Most are now _worth_ between 50p to a £1," (my italics) If you had bought them years ago, on vinyl, and enjoyed playing them on a regular basis, then they would probably be worn-out by now. So, at least you have been able to enjoy the music, without it deteriorating.


No. I said that when I bought those records I was in a CD buying phase when buying new stuff. Now I want to buy the vinyl of the great CDs I bought at the time. The Vinyl is too expensive for me. If I had done it the other way around and bought the vinyl at the time but still wanted a CD I could easily afford 50p and still have both. 
I don't care that some of my records are worth a lot because I won't sell them. I am only ever concerned about the prices when a record is too expensive for me to buy. 
Also records don't 'wear out' in that way at all. I have a records that I have played over and over and over again since my teens. None of my records are scratched or have 'worn out'. I was actually afraid that some of my favorites would, and as a teen bought two copies of a few of them. I have never ever ever gotten onto the second copy of any record as of yet. 



fishfinger said:


> You seem to have a very limited idea of what ritual entails. Earlier, you were lamenting about losing connection with the music. It seems that the very act of playing vinyl gives you that connection.



If you are going to start suggesting that switching a PC on, booting up Itunes and hitting shuffle is a 'ritual' as well, then ok. I turn a record player on, then get a record out and put it on. Maybe look at it spinning a bit, check the sleeve. Do some housework. 

The connection is to the product as a whole, picking up the record and seeing the sleeve. I'm not bloody caressing it. 



You seem to be very upset that people might like records. I don't mind getting the bus, but some people like to drive their own car, a car they like the look of. I don't, but I can see why someone might. 
Records are not for you, it's not something you care about. I mean jesus, you make it sound like someone who buys vinyl makes it his /her whole life. It's not 'freaky'. I just like records.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 4, 2014)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I work with sound as a sound engineer, I've got a degree in sound and music technology, I think that does actually make me a bit more of an authority than most.
> Yes people have been able to distinguish between 16 bit 44.1k for a long time in double blind tests for a very long time. The CD was always considered quite flawed and even needs a cut off at -20 20, to clean it up. It doesn't sound like a big deal because we can't hear outside that range, however harmonic frequencies beyond that range do have an effect on other frequencies within it. Granted, this problems with the format are mostly due to errors, and as I recall was not satisfactory sorted for some people until it got up to 98k or something.
> As I mentioned before, this is not something that actually bothers me, I am more than happy to use digital and think that it is madness that people still bother to use tape. just for tape saturation properties now that digital recording and manipulating has caught up.
> Sorry though, but technically tape really can be better than digital as there are no steps. You can raise the sample rate, you can speed up and widen the tape. Digital will always be stepped though. Nobody will ever hear it.
> ...



Unfortunately you seem to believe in several audio myths. If you really want to improve your knowledge, you might try looking at somewhere like http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ where a number of audio scientists, researchers, and engineers post. Your misconception about "steps" in digital audio is addressed quite well by video episode 2 from Xiph http://www.xiph.org/video/



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> You said nothing of the sort
> "A painting is a unique work of art. Very few of us can afford to buy paintings and so would need to go to a gallery, *or look at photos of paintings in books, or on our computers etc* in order to enjoy them. Records/CDs/MP3s etc are mass produced consumer items, and, in themselves only a vehicle to provide us with music."


Which was in reply to your question:
"Why would anyone buy a painting when you can look at pictures on your computer?"



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Short run pressings are obviously not mass produced.
> 
> They are like a LTD print or a run of hand made sleeves (which for some reason is ok for you). How are LTD sleeves not the same as LTD records? There are still only 30 sleeves for those 30 records (and all that hand numbered crap). Hardly a great marketing plan.
> Personally I don't care for ltd runs. It was just an example.


YES THEY ARE IDENTICAL!  Just because you artificially create a limited run does not make them unique works of art, they are still identical, whether you press 30, or 30,000  - admittedly, by producing individual hand-made sleeves you are creating unique items - the music will still be identical. It's an artificial scarcity, unlike a painting which is unique.



ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I like having my books, guitars, records. I like wearing the clothes I like. I like the look of some things and like to own them. If that makes me a shallow person - hey ho.
> 
> Well it is quite clear that this is not a problem and that owning a physical copy of a record you love is not a priority for you so you don't need to understand. If you did, you might do it.
> 
> ...



I managed to have a sensible, and uncontentious discussion about this with SarfLondoner . However, it seems _you_ are quite fond of misinterpreting, me, and putting words in my mouth . 

I am in no way _upset_ at anyone buying records. I am simply seeking _clarification_, as to why?  I don't care whether people listen to music on vinyl, tape, CD, MP3 etc. I have already mentioned, that I understand that DJs, and those seeking music not available in other formats might want to buy vinyl. It is the apparent fetishisation of vinyl that I find odd. After all, music has existed for 1,000s of years and given pleasure to billions of people - long before any kind of recording methods were available. The vinyl record has been popular for a few decades but now only represents a tiny fraction of the music we hear.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> YES THEY ARE IDENTICAL!  Just because you artificially create a limited run does not make them unique works of art, they are still identical, whether you press 30, or 30,000  - admittedly, by producing individual hand-made sleeves you are creating unique items - the music will still be identical. It's an artificial scarcity, unlike a painting which is unique.


That's a really daft argument, you know. The scarcity is not manufactured or artificially created to foster a false sense of uniqueness: it's a direct consequence of the band's status (i.e. a niche, indie DIY appeal). 

It's like arguing that railway travel posters from the 30s (which now command large fees) aren't objects of worth in their own right because so few were printed. They could have printed millions, you might argue. But they didn't, hence their value as works of art.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 4, 2014)

editor said:


> That's a really daft argument, you know. The scarcity is not manufactured or artificially created to foster a false sense of uniqueness: it's a direct consequence of the band's status (i.e. a niche, indie DIY appeal).


I beg to differ but it seems we would only be arguing semantics.


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2014)

The limited run was NOT "artificially created" as you claim. It was a direct consequence of the art form.


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 4, 2014)

editor said:


> The limited run was NOT "artificially created" as you claim. It was a direct consequence of the art form.


Like I said semantics. We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I really cannot be bothered to discuss this any further.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 5, 2014)

fishfinger said:


> Unfortunately you seem to believe in several audio myths. If you really want to improve your knowledge, you might try looking at somewhere like http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/ where a number of audio scientists, researchers, and engineers post. Your misconception about "steps" in digital audio is addressed quite well by video episode 2 from Xiph http://www.xiph.org/video/



Oh dear, it seems that you don't quite understand. I assume you watched that video right? It does indeed explain everything very clearly and correctly and does not contradict anything that I have said.
Steps are not breaks in the signal they are snapshots of constant sound. As I said before you can't hear anything at higher sampling rates and the effects are quite inconsequential at lower sample rates like 44.1k and 48k. . . . but they are there, as the chap in that video explains (very nicely I might add).
He even goes onto explain the anti aliasing 20 20 bandlimiting for anti aliasing (used in CDs etc) I mentioned before.
I have said several times already that I can't see any problem with digital sound, and you can never ever hear the difference at the higher sample rates.

He even starts the video saying "24bit 194 music downloads don't make sense. The results are *almost* impassive".
I said that tests up to 98k have proved far far far more than enough. I never argued that digital was not good enough, but *technically *the analogue sound (let's say of something actually happening) is never going to be as good, whatever the sampling rate, even if it is _*almost*_ impassive.



fishfinger said:


> I really cannot be bothered to discuss this any further.



Thank god for that.


----------



## Chemical needs (Jan 5, 2014)

I don't understand why the anti-aliasing filter in digital systems has been mentioned as a limiting factor? I mean I do, but it's like talking about the upper bound of the dynamic range as a limiting factor when the total range is more important? And what's so bad about digitally sampling a signal if it's done at a suitably high bit depth and sampling rate such that, to all intents and purposes, it is indistinguishable from the original signal?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 5, 2014)

Chemical needs said:


> I don't understand why the anti-aliasing filter in digital systems has been mentioned as a limiting factor? I mean I do, but it's like talking about the upper bound of the dynamic range as a limiting factor when the total range is more important?



It's not that important, but harmonics outside the spectrum of human hearing can affect those within. From a purely technical point of view it isn't an accurate reproduction. 
Not something that bothers me in the slightest. 




Chemical needs said:


> And what's so bad about digitally sampling a signal if it's done at a suitably high bit depth and sampling rate such that, to all intents and purposes, it is indistinguishable from the original signal?


Nothing. There is nothing wrong with it at all.


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jan 5, 2014)

my GF's teenagers absolutely love her old vinyl stuff. It just has something about it....perhaps a link back to a perceived golden age. And frankly, she has a terrible record collection.

God, I love Central Market.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2014)

Gavin Bl said:


> God, I love Central Market.


Me too!

I've got a little photo feature coming up soon...


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2014)

Here's some photos from around the market:

















http://www.urban75.org/blog/photos-...an-indoor-market-in-the-castle-quarter-wales/


----------



## shygirl (Jan 19, 2014)

I bought my first Taj Mahal album there in about 1978.  I do love it, but always found his prices a bit steep.  I've been using Musicstack for years, as it offers far more competitive prices.  Still, hope that Kelly's stays there forever!  Haven't his sons taken over now, seem to remember his saying he was gonna retire?


----------

