Vinyl: The Reports of My Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Vinyl was never really dead, neither in the hearts of music lovers nor commercially. It may have been in critical condition and near comatose commercially for a few years, as new music was rarely pressed into vinyl; but vinyl was never truly dead.

There is a difference between the "vinyl revival" and it's commercial resurgence. Revival is defined as an instance of something becoming popular, active, or important again. Vinyl remained popular, active and important the for a large portion of the U.S. And more importantly, vinyl remained available in the marketplace the whole time between 1973 and 2017 via small, locally owned record stores.

While the RIAA tracks new record sales, what had never been tracked by the RIAA is the sale of used vinyl, or vinyl checkouts at local libraries, or sales at flea markets, swap meets, garage sales... which remained relatively strong throughout the "dead" period. Funnier still, new vinyl sales never went away entirely. Vinyl still had a pulse, but was being declared dead. What we would call that in the real world (the world outside the music industry)?

Malpractice.

Some may call it marketing, but I would definitely call it malpractice.

New Vinyl Sales as Reported by Nielsen.

Look at the chart on the left. Sometime between 1990 and 1993 vinyl as a music delivery format was officially declared dead in the media via an RIAA release. But the fact remains, new vinyl sales continued, and even saw growth above 1.5 million units between 1993 and 2003. That is not dead, but rather a sign that new vinyl sales were holding strong and continued to hold strong even as a second generation digital format, MP3, was taking hold.

If you look closely at the dip in vinyl sales between 2001 and 2007 (the height of digital sales), and compare it with CD sales during the same period; the sales for new vinyl sales are nearly flat, at around one million units while CD sales dropped from nearly four million units to one million units in the same period. MP3 didn't do a lot to hurt vinyl, but it wrecked havoc to the CD industry.

Last year marked the 33 1/3 anniversary of my local record store. Vinyl was a source of income that helped keep this shop open, especially as other retailers jumped the vinyl ship. Yes, CD sales were tops between 1988 and 2005, but vinyl, mostly used, and a relatively small amount of new vinyl was still being carried and sold.

While sales thinned out, even for CDs, during the dark years following the iPod release, my local record store is still in business and thriving today partially because of fact that they stuck it out.

While big stores like Camelot (now f.y.e.), Sam Goody (Bankruptcy 2006, now f.y.e.) and even the mega-store Tower Records (liquidated in 2006) all folded under or were bought out by Trans World Entertainment and  this was reported collapse brought on by the digital revolution.Now at f.y.e you find that less a quarter of the store is music or music related, while the rest of the store is dedicated to toys, clothes and knickknacks.

Even the big box and department stores, like Walmart, Costco, Kroger/Fred Meyer have dismal selections on music and a majority of it is CDs.

But the independently owned  record stores, they adapted as the "trend" shifted. They remained true to music, stores like Ranch Records, didn't abandon vinyl because they were told to. They didn't cave to the pressures of the times, although nobody would have blamed them if they did. It wasn't always easy, just ask one of the owners of your local record shop. During the dark days of digital, it was pretty dark, but they worked through the struggles and as a result deserve our utmost love and admiration for these are the people helped keep vinyl in it's rightful place. It is these people, the independent owners of local music stores that refused to allow vinyl to die in the market place.

2016 brought about a change. I am not here to argue whether vinyl is superior to digital, or vice versa, but I am here to point at a fact and to ask a question. Fact: For the first time, 2016 saw new vinyl out sell digital downloads. Question: If digital was truly a superior format like so many claim, would simple nostalgia or hipster-hype for vinyl allowed an inferior format to outsell a superior format in it's prime?

The music industry, through technology, tried it's damnedest to eradicate vinyl from the face of the earth, but the technology was never a match for the multi-layered experience vinyl brought to the music listening experience. The artwork, the liner notes, the feel of holding an album, opening a gate fold, the smell of new and old vinyl; the overall ritual of the vinyl experience is something that technology failed to replicate with its push button access to millions of songs.

We are creatures of multiple sensory capabilities. We experience the world with our eyes, our nose, our mouth, our skin and our ears and our brains. The more of these capabilities we use during an experience the more we "experience" it. The digital experience is one that we experience with only our ears.

Vinyl on the other hand is something we experience with most of our sensory capabilities; we smell the album and cover; we see the artwork and grooves in the record; we read the liner notes; we feel the album as a tangible object; we hear the music we think about the experience. We experience a vinyl album in a way that digital cannot deliver. We live the ritual that is vinyl.

Sure technology brought us real portability and ease of access across platforms, but at it's best, technology brought us a cold and callous listening experience that forced music into the background of lives; played while we were busy with other things. Digital was no different than radio, something we listed to while we were busy driving.

In the end, technology couldn't match the truly human experience of music, the ritual that vinyl brings to the listening experience.

Now, with all that said, there is definitely a resurgence in interest for vinyl. This resurgence has been arguably attributed to the hipsters' "Everything Old Is Cool Again" movement. And in reality, the hipsters can't even be given that much credit. Most hipsters likely got their love of vinyl from their parents and grandparents or friends who got their love it from their parents and grandparents; those parents and grandparents who held on to their own collections long enough for their kids/grand-kids to discover vinyl through their collections and fall in love with them.

But, this resurgence is nothing more than a commercial resurgence, meaning the industries involved feel that they can make money off of it so they declare it a resurgence. The commercial resurgence isn't a bad thing. It provides an opportunity for us to experience new music on vinyl that might not have been available in that format before. Lady Gaga, Jason Isabel, Amy Winehouse... all artists who launched their careers when vinyl was reportedly "dead" all have music available on vinyl and it is because of this resurgence.

Not everyone who pursues vinyl today is a hipster; hell, at nearly 50 years old, I am way to old to be considered a hipster. I don't drink iced tea from mason jars. I still find it funny that BCGs are a fad (big, black framed eyeglasses known as Birth Control Glasses, BCG, because you weren't going to be laid wearing a pair of them back in my day). I especially don't think a sushi-burrito should be a thing. Hell... I'm still suspect of Fish Tacos. Vinyl isn't a hipster thing. Vinyl isn't an old fart's thing. Vinyl isn't collector's thing. Vinyl is all these things, plus a whole lot more.

Vinyl lives on today because the love of the medium remains intact. Vinyl lives on because vinyl is a complete music experience. Vinyl is felt, it is smelled, it is held, it is heard. Vinyl is experienced. Vinyl delivers a unique listening experience that can't the replicated by an LCD screen and headphones; it the exposure to all your senses that makes the music experience special. And this experience has been passed down from one generation to another because, really, what's not to love about the vinyl experience? A few pops and clicks... oh no. 

  

For so many of us, this is not a revival of a format or the resurrection of a musical savior; this is just business as usual. And for those of us who know this about vinyl, vinyl will always be a part of our own personal listening ritual. 

Is it Worth It?

Is it worth it?

Regardless of what "IT" is, this is the question retailers and consumers should be asking every day. The question "Is it worth it?" is something we have to ask every time, it's just that sometimes we end up asking the question after the fact; "Was it worth it?" If we are asking "Was it worth it?", chances are the answer is already "No" because we are likely suffering from buyers remorse which is why we are asking the question.

Is it worth it?

Retailers need to ask the question, "Is it worth it to stock vinyl in my shop?"

Consumers need to ask the question, "Is this album worth x-dollars of my money?"

Now I have my haunts that I go digging in. A few second hand and antique shops, a local record shop and a specialty vintage shop. I go to these places because I can get great music that I love at a great price and I can discover great new music without breaking the bank. Add to this the fact that many people are just giving this stuff away, literally, and, from my view of the world, a consumer doesn't have to spend a fortune to build a large collection. This is how I have amassed a collection of over 800 LPs and only spent an average of $2.35 per record.

When I go into shops like F.Y.E., Guitar Center, Best Buy, or even a regional department/grocery store and see them selling reissues of albums for $20, $30 or even as high as $60 an album, I just shake my head as I know I either already have that album in my collection or can get it into my collection, and in both cases far cheaper than what they are asking.

Recently at Guitar Center I saw a re-issue of Black Sabbath's first album on their shelf for $26.99. I purchased an 80s reissue of the same album from that specialty vintage shop I mentioned earlier for $10.

I was at my regional department/grocery browsing the electronics section and saw a Bob Marley reissue for sale for $29.99, the same album, but an 80s release, I was able to pick up from my local record shop for $8.00.

Another issue with dealing with retailers; I go to my barber to get my hair cut. And no matter how fantastic a haircut might be, I would never go to my barber for a vasectomy. Most of the employees at retailers can't answer basic questions about the products, like the difference between 180g pressings and 200g pressings. "Uh, like the weight?"

The selections at these retailers are typically limited to only the most popular albums from the most popular artists to ensure sales, but it is still very limited audience, because those of us who aren't in the New Collector category of consumer, won't pay that much for a reissue; typically. Sure, the retailers likely move the reissued albums, but likely to the New Collector segment of consumers, those that, for the most part, don't know any better. And it should be noted that in the case of the Bob Marley example from above, the department store started carrying these albums in November in preparation for turntable sales during the Christmas holiday season. But come February, the retailer still had a handful of albums available that were steeply discounted, as in $13 each, or half off, so yeah, they weren't flying off the shelves.

One issue many retailers have in the used vinyl segment of their store, which is typically a secondary or tertiary segment (meaning it is not the primary or secondary focus of their store's sales), is that they don't know the true meaning of value when it comes to used vinyl. They see what stuff is listed for on Discogs or Ebay, then try and evaluate the condition of the vinyl based on their own "judgement" and they price accordingly. Many retailers don't get that the highest price listed is not the true value of the record, especially in the eye of the consumer.

As a result, many of the retailers, including some local record shops (like one in my hometown), have their prices on used vinyl typically set way too high. In the case of the one local record shop, I don't do business with, won't have a price on the album. Instead the owner will look each album up on Discog at the time of checkout. This particular behavior makes for a long checkout process and makes it difficult for the consumer to know what they can get when they're working within a budget.

This type of retailer pricing behavior is likely because, they don't truly understand the real market and the players in the market.

It's not like most of these retailers are carrying hard to find, exclusive releases. I have found some hard to find vinyl, in surprisingly great condition at my local second hand and thrift shops for uber-cheap, $3 or less. Stuff like a still sealed Foreigner 4 album or a copy of The Beatles white album for free from a service like Listia.

I have scored some great finds on a regular basis.

Alan Parson's Project, The Best of the Alan Parsons Project - Free - A Gift
Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin II - $1.00 - Garage Sale
Pink Floyd, Darkside of the Moon Original Pressing - $0.00 - A Gift
Rolling Stones, Sticky Fingers (Zipper Cover) - Free - Traded for a gifted Zeppelin 4 album that was a duplicate
Alice Cooper, Flush With Passion - $0.30 - Craigs List Lot
Bob Dylan, Highway 61 Revisted Original Pressing - Free - Storage Unit Giveaway
Stevie Wonder, Talking Book Original Pressing - $5.00 - Comic Con
Boston, Third Stage - $2.00 - Second Hand Store
Toto, Toto IV - $2.99 - Antique Shop
Tracy Chapman, Crossroads - $8.00 - Vintage Specialty Shop
Daft Punk, Discovery - $13.75 - Local Record Shop

The music is everywhere and it isn't typically expensive. I can buy a Led Zeppelin II re-issue album on amazon for about $20, but I was actually able to find it for $1 at a garage sale. As a consumer, why would I pay $20, unless I was a part of the New Collector segment of the collector's market. The answer to the question "Is it worth it?", in this case, is a resounding now.

This is what the my local market looks like on a regular basis and if a retailer doesn't know this market, it is hard to answer the question, "Is it worth it?" And if you don't understand your target consumer, the answer to "Is it worth it" become exponentially harder to answer.

If a retailer is going to carry vinyl, they really need to know how to answer, "Is it worth it?"

Is it worth the coveted sales floor space for a few sales a week?

Is it worth the effort of lugging, organizing, straightening, reorganizing all that heavy cumbersome vinyl in the hopes of selling a record or two a day. Let's face it, vinyl consumers will put an album back where ever they see fit if they change their minds.

Can I make my prices competitive enough to compete in the market for the targeted consumers?

In the end, vinyl, even just a few milk crates of it, takes a lot of coveted space and in the retail world; a world where space equals money. If a product can't sell enough to pay for the overhead of the space it is consuming, the retailer will lose in the end.

If the vinyl is too affordable for the consumer, it may sell a lot, but there isn't enough profit margin to cover the cost. If it's too expensive, nobody buys it and again there isn't enough profit margin to cover the cost. There is a fine line for a retailer to walk to ensure they are capable of generating enough money to pay the overhead. A retailer can't expect to sell an album, let's say Carole King's Tapestry as an example, for $40 (the price listed on Discog's website) when I have found three of them at one of my three local Goodwill stores for $2.99, in the last two months, two of which I purchased (one for myself and another for gift for a friend).

For the most part, people don't go to a fabric store to buy a gaming system the same way they don't typically go to grocery stores to by vinyl. Most consumers go to comic con to buy comics, art and action figures... not vinyl. If it's there, you may sell some, but that isn't your target audience.

As a retailer your decision to carry vinyl may seem to make logical business sense when you simply look at just how hot vinyl sales are right now; and they are hot. But, the retailer will find out soon enough that the profit margins on vinyl's aren't as lucrative as they may seem on the surface.

I will, on rare occasion, drive sixty miles to dig for vinyl at a record store because there is a "huge" volume vinyl for me to dig through. Conversely, I won't drive ten or even twenty miles just to dig through a couple of bins at a random shop. I am sure I am not alone in that. If I happen to be at the shop, sure I will take a look, but I likely won't make it a point to add it to my usual digging routine, especially if Boz Scaggs is the best album in the bin.

Sorry... Boz is a fine musical artist, but I had to use someone as an example. And Boz is a great example. He is everywhere. In every garage sale, every flea market, swap meet, second hand bin across the planet you will find Boz. So as a retailer you need to make sure you are stocking not only the music people want, but the music that people don't have such ready access to purchase.

There was the time that I came across six bins of vinyl in a little boutique shop in the downtown mall. My wife dragged me in there and I found Houses of the Holy for $5. We purchased like six albums that day and nothing else. Would this shop become a regular stop me on my digging adventures? Likely not, as I score the six best albums they had and they aren't likely refreshing their stock anytime soon, because they are a boutique shop, not a record store.

This just goes to show that from a consumer perspective, "Is it worth it" is a lot more complex to answer.

Depending on the type, or combination of types, of collector(s) you may be, the question, "Is it worth it?" may have a different answer for numerous reasons. For a Music Collector, a limited edition pressing of an album that is $60 may not be worth it, but for the Economist Collector, it may be.

And the answer to "Is it worth it?" may change depending on when it is asked. For example; the day after payday when disposable cash flow may be in abundance, the consumer might be more willing to answer yes to an album that is $30, where the answer may be no the very next day when you find out your roof needs replaced.

Hell, there are times when my own answer to "Is it worth it?" is no for a $2 album.

There are many reason for a purchase to be worth it or not for a consumer and this adds to the complexity of the answer for the retailer to answer their own question; "Is it worth it to carry vinyl".

Did you scroll to the bottom of this posting to see how long it is? Did you do so to determine if you had time to read the whole thing? Or maybe to see if it was worth it? Or did you just starting reading to end up asking yourself, "Was it worth it?"

Well, was it?

Collector Types

There are as many types of the collectors in the world as there are items to collect. We as human beings like a classify, quantify, organize and catalog things as a way of providing structure and making sense. Hell your own vinyl collection may be organized by genre, alphabetically or by release year or even, to quote the movie High Fidelity, Autobiographically.

But sometimes, the labels we use can be hurtful; race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc., etc., etc. In the vinyl world there are vast lists out there that try and catalog the types of vinyl collectors, many in sardonic attempt at a humorous list of classifications other time, the names used are just plain derogatory. And some of the labels used in these lists are derogatory enough to definitely show that the author of the list has a bias for and against many of the "types" in his or her list.

I am not here to throw stones as I live in a glass house and throwing stones is not worth it.

This is not meant to be derogatory? I am just using as a reference that I can point back to as I continue having discussions.

With that said, let me present my list of different types of collectors; no one type of collector is better or worse than the other, it is really just a classification based on my view of the differences in priorities from one collector to another. There are five basic types of collectors; The New Collector, The Music Collector, The DJ Collector, The Rarities Collector, The Economist Collector.

If I were to classify myself, I would say that I am a combination of a Music Collector and Rarities Collector, because sometimes I fall in love with the cover art or the unique colors of vinyl used in a pressing. But I definitely lean more towards the Music Collector.

Many of us are a mix of the five basic types, but we can all identify primarily with one of the five. Let me define what I mean by these five classifications of collectors so we can work from the same definition.

The New Collector is a person who is just now discovering/rediscovering vinyl. Since they may have only an entry level sound system, they can be torn between spending their money on music or better tech for playing their music. They are also typically focused on picking up the greatest hits from their life; music they know and love.

The Music Collector is a person that focuses on the acquisition of music. The Music Collector doesn't care if it's colored vinyl, bootleg, imports or limited pressings' hell even damaged albums and covers are attractive to the Music Collector because most of the tracks play fine even if the cover is damaged simply because they love music and typically love discovering new music. The music collector loves music.

The DJ Collector is typically looking for specific music to add to the rotation for events. Techno, Hip-Hop, 80's Dance... just about anything that can be considered party music. You won't find many DJ's looking for Nina Simone or Carole King.

The Rarities Collector is the person looking for unique albums; first pressings, bootlegs, obscure bands, colored vinyl, imports and limited editions. The typically take pride in the uniqueness of each piece in their collection. This can easily be confused with the Economist Collector, but there is a distinct difference between the two.

The Economist Collector is a person looking to fund some portion of their future life with their vinyl collection; kid's college, retirement, etc. The buy low, sell high type. Many retailers could be considered Economist Collectors, they just have shorter window for the flip. This type of collector will look for MINT only, typically sealed pressings, that can be sold in the future.

Even though there is nothing wrong with any reason you have for collecting I would warn you against the path of the Economist Collector. The past has shown that this type of collecting rarely pays off... Baseball Cards, Comic Books, Pokemon Cards, Action Figures, etc.

So that is the list. It is simple and complete from my perspective.

Adding Pure Bass Power To Your System On A Budget

Sometimes you just want more bass. It may be that Daft Punk needs a little more thump or Metallica needs a little more thunderous roar or Nina Simone needs a little more soul. Regardless of why, there comes a point where a little more bass makes the music just a little more.

There is a way to not only get this deep, rich sound in your system, but do it on a budget and do it without splitting your power by splicing speakers together and without purchasing a $500 powered subwoofer.

I am here to show you how.

Here is what you need... (click on the images to see a larger version)

RCA Splitter (Male to Two Females)

RCA Cable (Male to Male)

Your Main Amp with a Passive Subwoofer RCA Output
Passive Output means you use a powered Subwoofer

A second amp.
My amp of choice is a Fisher CA870, purchased second hand for $9.99

A dedicated pair of Subwoofers

Speaker wire

Now that we have all of the needed gear, lets play.

Let's start by talking a little bit about my existing set up, before this experiment.

I already own the main amp (Technics SA-DX950) which powers speakers with 100 watts of power for each of the four channels) and I paid only $10 for the amp at a garage sale. I call it my main amp for two reasons; first, it powers my main speakers, four of them, and second, it is the destination that my other components connect; turntable, television and cassette deck. I already owned the Subwoofers (Sharp CP G20000 Subwoofers which came as a larger set of four speakers; two subwoofers and two mid/tweet speakers) for $20. You can read about my entire existing setup here.

Before this project I ran all six of my speakers from my Technics amp by splicing my subs from my Technics speakers inputs. Yeah, it split the power and doubled the resistance, but it didn't sound bad in any way, shape or form. But, it also didn't sound as great as it could have. Even though there were deep tones my system didn't roar, thump or have soul.

I wanted something more... so I tried this experiment.

In theory, all I needed to add was a second amplifier, some RCA cables and additional speaker wire. Again, in theory when completed I would have 200 watts of stereo subwoofer sound added to my already 400 watt system.

Here is what I did.

I purchased a new amp, a Fisher CA-870 from a second hand store for $9.99.

I already had all the cables I needed (RCA splitter, RCA and speaker cables).

I plugged the male end of the RCA splitter (first photo above) into the single Subwoofer output on the back of my main (Technics) amp (which you can see in the third photo above).

I ran the RCA cables from the female ends of the RCA splitter into the tuner input of my newly purchased Fisher CA-870 amp (four channels @ 100 watts per channel). This delivers a pure bass signal to the Fisher amp... so any speaker plugged into the Fisher amp other than a subwoofer would likely not fair well.

I disconnected my Sharp subwoofers from my Technics speakers and wired them to the A Channel speaker output of my Fisher amp.

I powered everything up and put on Nina Simone.

Suddenly I had soul.

I put on Daft Punk.

Suddenly I had thump.

I put on Metallica.

Suddenly I had roar.

The experiment worked. I had to tweek some of the speaker positions (something I call, sound profiling my room), some volume settings with both the subwoofer output on my Technics amp and the volume setting of my Fisher amp. After about 10 minutes I found the balance I needed for the system and I sat in my chair and enjoyed.

The cool thing about this, is even though the subwoofer output of my Technics amp is passive, meaning it needs an amplified subwoofer, the main volume control of my Technics amp still controls the subwoofer volume, so I don't have to have a separate volume control for my subwoofer volume... it is all controlled from one source. My Fisher amp just allows me to how much bass is mixed in.... once I find that sweet blend of bass to my mids and highs, I don't have to touch the volume control on my Fisher amp again.

Now there are a few warnings I glossed over here in my steps that need to be specifically called out.

In no way, shape or form should you connect any speaker that is not a subwoofer into your second amp (in my case, the Fisher amp). Doing so will likely destroy the speaker's cone.

If you have spliced speakers, like I spliced my subwoofers at the inputs for my Technic speakers, make sure to disconnect the second set of speakers at the splice, rather than just unplugging the speaker. In other words, before you turn on anything, make sure you don't have any speaker wires plugged into your amp that aren't plugged into a speaker. If those two bare wires touch, it can short out your main amp. While most amps have circuitry that won't allow your amp to be damaged if this were to happen, not all do.

DO NOT max out the volume of the second amp (the bass amp, in my case the Fisher amp) at the start of the first test. There is a lot of power happening, so start with the volume all the way down and then slowly turn the volume up. See what your subwoofers can handle, and find what you need, but test it in little increments, definitely not all at once.

But most of all... make sure you have fun.

Which are you? Audiophile vs. Audiophool

I just read the best Facebook comment ever.

I know that this sounds like something a poor person would say about a rich person, like, "Good luck affording the gas for that Ferrari." But I get the true meaning behind this. An Audiophile's first love is music. An Audiophool's first loves is the technology.
And the sonic unicorn comment... well, that had my sides splitting with laughter, not just because it's funny, but it is so very true.
Here are a few examples of how to tell when you are talking to an Audiophile versus an Audiophool:
Audiophile: "Listen the deep rich tones of the bass line in Stevie Wonder's Superstition."
Audiophool: "Listen to the deep rich tones of my sub-woofer as I play this song."
Audiophile: "Listen to the screech of the string as Santana moves his hand up and down the neck of the guitar."
Audiophool: "Can you believe how my titanium cone tweeters sounded as Santana wailed on that solo."

For the Audiophile, the focus is on the music. For the Audiophool, the focus on the conversation only casually refers to the actual music and only as it relates to the technology.
Another sign of an Audiophool is that they begin explaining their sound system in dollar amounts, especially without first being asked how much things cost: "Yeah, these speakers only cost five thousand dollars, each."
This Audiophool concept isn't something new. I knew Audiophools back in the 70s and 80s. They have been around forever, but this name is a new way to describe them.
As an Audiophile, I have a hard time connecting with an Audiophool. I, as an Audiophile, want to talk about music; albums, bands, songs. And an Audiophool wants to talk about technology; amps, speakers, pre-amps, cables, etc..

Everyone has their passions, and I respect that, completely. Some people are into the high-end audio scene and I support their journey. But many times it seems to be more about the equipment than the actual music and in more times than I care to admit, it is perceived as "My toys are better than your toys."
I don't play the "My Toys Are Better..." game. If someone wants to talk music, as an Audiophile, I can totally connect with that. If someone wants to talk about how much better their system is; well I will just walk away because honestly... I am quite satisfied with the size of my penis and I don't need to measure it or anything else of mine against someone else's to make me feel better about myself.

My daughter's new boyfriend came over, for the first time, for dinner one night. He has a bunch of expensive DJ equipment (turntables, mixers, amps, speakers, etc.). When he came over he inquired about my system. He wanted to have a listen. While he is a very polite young man, he is still young and that means he is dumb and full of cum. So I lay a vinly on my turntable, Daft Punk's Discovery, aligned the needle to drop at the beginning of Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger, cranked the volume to -35db, sat him in my listening chair and dropped the needle.
About halfway through the song, I asked him to get up and walked him around the room to hear the difference of sound throughout the room; where the bass dropped off, where it overpowered, etc. After the song was over, I explained the importance of sound profiling a room (speaker placement, angling, prime listening location, etc.)
He was, to quote him, "Blown away". First thing he said was that I couldn't have picked a better song as he loved that song. Then he moved on to comment on the fact that he was surprised at the power and quality of sound and said it blew his own DJ setup away in both categories. He then inquired in depth about this concept of sound profiling. He wasn't as dumb as I thought I he was, he was asking important questions.
He then asked how much it was. When I told him, he was stunned.
A month later my daughter texted me saying that the two of them would like my help putting together a system for their home. That is a parenting win in my book.

So yes, I will freely share that I only spent $90 putting my whole system together to those that ask, but my explanation of price only comes after someone inquires about it, like my daughter's boyfriend did. Furthermore I share it only to inform them that a great sounding system does not have to cost a whole lot of money. In sharing, I also share how and where I bought my components and my negotiation techniques to get the sellers down from their asking price, so they can take that knowledge with them to begin their own journey.
When I talk about my sound system or my vinyl collection, it is because I like to let people know that you don't have to sell your car to raise money a single speaker. You don't have to spend a entire tax return on a turntable and a couple of vinyl albums. I share so they know if they have patience, and persistence, they can build a sound system that sounds great and plays the music they love. If they take the time to dig they can acquire all their favorite music on whatever medium they choose for very little money. I have, over the last eight years, spent roughly $17 a month, on average, to build my sound system and my vinyl collection.
Again, it is just a matter of patience and persistence.

If you are into "High-End Audio", that's great. It doesn't make you an Audiophool. I absolutely encourage you to continue pursuing that passion, but I will also encourage you to never forget it begins with and ends with music you love.
If you aren't into the "High-End Audio" scene, for whatever reason, but want a quality system, I want you to know that there is hope.

101 Albums I Would Definitely Replace In Case of Emergency

Yes... this is another list of albums that claims to be the best, but not in the traditional sense of a "best of list".

Instead of assuming that you and I share the same musical tastes and push a specific agenda upon you, I am going to share with you my list of the first 101 vinyl records I would replace in the case of an emergency.

So what type of emergency? The water damage or a raging house fire type of emergency? I am talking about a catastrophic calamity that destroys my entire collection of over 800 albums (as of this writing).

These are the albums, in descending order of importance to me (so the first album listed is the last one I would purchase), These are the albums I would purchase before I purchased any of the others in my collection of of over 800. These 101 Albums are of such importance to me that they literally would be my first acquisition right after a new bed, clothes, refrigerator and new stereo.

So even if somethings appears early in the list (in the 90-101 range), it doesn't mean it is a priority. It takes priority over the other 700+ albums that didn't even make this list.

So without further hesitation... here is my list of 101 Albums I Would Definitely Replace In Case of Emergency.

1. Pixies: Come on Pilgrim
2. Scorpions: Blackout
3. Stevie Wonder: Songs in the Key of Life
4. Van Halen: 1984
5. The Doors: Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mine
6. The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
7. Big Star: Complete Columbia: Live At University Of Missouri 4/25/93
8. Bruce Springsteen: Live/1975-85
9. Sountrack: Popeye
10. David Lee Roth: Crazy From The Heat
11. Phil Collins: No Jacket Required
12. Sammy Hagar: VOA
13. Soundtrack: FM
14. Steppenwolf: Gold (Their Greatest Hits)
15. Thin Lizzy: Jailbreak
16. Van Halen: Diver Down
17. Sarah Vaughn: After Hours
18. Van Halen: Women and Children First
19. Simon and Garfunkle: Greatest Hits
20. The Rolling Stones: Out of Our Heads
21. The Beach Boys: Endless Summer
22. Jimi Hendrix: Are You Experienced
23. ZZ Top: Tres Hombres
24. Soundtrack: The Blues Brothers
25. Black Oak Arkansas: Raunch 'N' Roll Live
26. Elton John: Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
27. Johnny Cash: Johnny Cash At San Quentin
28. Led Zeppelin: Untilted (known commonly as IV)
29. Joan Jett and Black Hearts: I Love Rock & Roll
30. INXS: Kick
31. George Thoroughgood and the Destroyers: George Thoroughgood and the Destroyers
32. Mötley Crüe: Shout At The Devil
33. Neil Young: After the Gold Rush
34. Otis Redding: The History of Otis Redding
35. Van Morrsion: Moondance
36. Dinah Washington: Unforgetable
37. Blind Faith: Blind Faith
38. Bette Midler: The Rose
39. Big Star: Complete Third - Vol. 1: Demos To Sessions To Roughs
40. The Ozark Mountain Daredevils: The Ozark Mountain Daredevils
41. Rob Rombie: The Electric Warlock Acid Witch Satanic Orgy Celebration Dispenser
42. Tracy Chapman: Tracy Chapman
43. Blue Cheer: Vincebus Eruptum
44. Foreigner: 4
45. The Honey Drippers: Volume One
46. Soundtrack: Natural Born Killers
47. Van Halen: II
48. Twisted Sister: Come out and Play
49. Twisted Sister: Stay Hungry
50. Soundtrack: It Follows
51. Sex Pistols: Nevermind the Bullocks Here's the Sex Pistols
52. Bob Dylan: Blonde on Blonde
53. The Rolling Stones: Story of the Stones
54. Toto: Toto IV
55. Quiet Riot: Metal Health
56. Santana: Abraxas
57. Red Hot Chili Peppers: Mother's Milk
58. Eric Clapton: The History of Eric Clapton
59. Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms
60. Prince: 1999
61. Nina Simone: Black Gold
62. John Cougar Mellencamp: Uh-Huh
63. Guns n' Roses: Appetite For Destruction
64. Black Sabbath: Black Sabbath
65. The Beach Boys: Animal Sounds
66. AC/DC: Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
67. The Alan Parson's Project: Eye in the Sky
68. Nirvana: Nevermind
69. Steve Vai: Passion And Warfare
70. Soundtrack: Big Lebowski Soundtrack
71. The Police: Every Breath You Take: The Singles
72. Tears for Fears: Songs from the Big Chair
73. Paul Simon: Greatest Hits, Etc.
74. Lynyrd Skynyrd: Gold and Platinum
75. James Cotton Blues Band: Pure Cotton
76. Soundtrack: Fast Time at Ridgemont High
77. Stevie Wonder: Talking Book
78. Soundtrack: High Fidelity
79. Daft Punk: Discovery
80. Bob Dylan: Highway 61 Revisited
81. Billy Joel: Glass Houses
82. Steve Miller Band: Anthology
83. Soundtrack: Clerks
84. The Rolling Stones: Aftermath (Mono)
85. Ramones: Ramones Mania
86. The Rolling Stones: Sticky Fingers
87. Interpol: Interpol
88. The Rolling Stones: Aftermath (Mono)
89. Stevie Ray Vaughan: Couldn't Stand The Weather
90. Led Zeppelin: Led Zeppelin
91. Pink Floyd: The Wall
92. The Beatles: The Beatles (White Album)
93. Van Halen: Van Halen
94. The Who: Who's Next
95. Bob Marley: Legend (The Best of Bob Marley and the Whalers)
96. Red Hot Chili Peppers: Blood , Sex, Sugar, Magic
97. White Zombie: La Sexorcisto: Devil Music Vol. 1
98. Boston: Third Stage
99. Metallica: Death Magnetic
100. Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon
101. Carol King: Tapestry

So that's the list, like it or not. These would be albums I would replace before any others. And while I love all my albums, these would definitely be first to get my cash again. 

What are yours?