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. 

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.