This blog and others have asked the format question before: In what format do you prefer to listen to and collect your music? It’s a question that will be asked for a long time too, now that music is available in four formats.
I prefer digital music because it is cheap, easily backed up, easily transferred, and easily stored. More than half of my listening is done via iPod. When I must buy music in a physical format, I prefer compact discs because of the ease of creating mp3s from them.
I’d like to start collecting records, but the cost of buying records is the only hurdle. To illustrate how expensive records are, I went on to Amazon to check prices for random recordings in various formats.
Here’s a sampling of what I found:
Enslaved, Vertabrae: CD, $14; mp3, $8; LP, $44
Death, Leprosy: CD, $9; mp3, $8; LP, $38
Christian Mistress, Possession: CD, $14; mp3, $8; LP, $19
Yob, Atma: CD, $13; mp3, $10; LP, $20
Revocation, Chaos of Forms: CD, $10; mp3, $9; LP, $27
Buying on vinyl assumes that a recording is available on vinyl at all. Vinyl albums are far more likely to be released in limited print runs, which further drives up the cost per copy. Per Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) statistics, in 2009 just 4 million vinyl records were sold. Per those same RIAA statistics, 83.1 million mp3 albums were downloaded and 225.8 million CD albums were sold. From the recording industry’s perspective, vinyl records are an affectation.
Fortunately, there’s a technology which exists now that could drastically lower the manufacturing cost of vinyl records. The technology in question is called 3-D printing. A 3-D printer is similar to an inkjet printer. Instead of making what is essentially 2-D text on a piece of paper, a 3-D printer can create a replica of an object using digital specifications. The concept behind a 3-D printer is simple: make sure the machine’s got the right precursor chemicals and is physically large enough for the end product, load the spec, and press Start. The machine will extrude the chemicals in layers until it achieves the desired result. There are other forms of 3-D printing, but I believe chemical extrusion is the method for printing a vinyl record.
3-D printing is a not a new concept, but it is slowly entering the public conscience. A cursory look around the internet shows that companies are using 3D printing for manufacturing prototypes, design work, and low volume but high quality manufacturing runs. As an example of how accurate and cost effective 3-D printing can be, Renault’s Formula 1 team uses 3-D printers to manufacture components.
“Low volume but high quality” describes a metal label’s vinyl record manufacturing needs. When a label pays for a printing run of hundreds or thousands of vinyl albums, it’s taking a financial risk. I googled a vinyl record pressing service and checked the pricing of the first company that came up, which was Rainbo Records. Rainbo will print 1,000 vinyl albums for $2,500, with each subsequent pressing of 1,000 copies costing $1,700. Pressing 100 vinyl albums at a time will cost $879.
What happens if a label orders and sells 1,000 vinyl records but determines that there is additional demand? Ordering another 1,000 copies could result in hundreds of unsold copies occupying label and vendor shelves for years. For that matter, how does the label even know it will sell the original print run? What if the label could spend a few hundred dollars on a 3-D printer and chemicals, and then print 10 to 15 copies at a time? At that point, a label could essentially print to order: If three people order vinyl in a week, the label could quickly print three copies and mail them off. It’s also conceivable that a traditional record manufacturer like Rainbo would buy the 3-D printers in order to reap the benefits of lowered production costs.
If the concept of a label printing its own vinyl albums a few at a time seems ridiculous, consider that you can already buy 3-D printers for home use. The MakerBot costs about $1,800, plus $90 for a spool of PVA wire (polyvinyl alcohol plastic) for manufacturing objects. If MakerBot or a similar system could print records, within just a few years, we might see the cost of vinyl records plummet. To be clear, MakerBot is the trilobite of home 3-D printing. Within a few years, the cost will drop and the technology will improve. It’s even conceivable that you and I could print records at home.
I see three major technological and financial hurdles to the scenario I’ve described. The first is the cost of the actual chemical vinyl. I haven’t been able to determine the cost per ton of vinyl, but if Rainbo can manufacture records as cheaply as $1.70 per copy, which includes costs besides the chemicals, vinyl itself cannot be that expensive.
The second issue is that somebody has to figure out how to translate a master into digital instructions that a 3-D printer could use. Right now, printing instructions are programmed by a human as dimensions and parameters, and I don’t see how that would work with recreating a record. A traditional record master is a piece of metal with ridges on it; the ridges are pressed into vinyl to create the actual records. Creating a set of instructions that a 3-D printer could understand takes one of two avenues.
First, the label could pay for a single traditional master plate and then pay for a service to use lasers to scan the plate, essentially creating a digital relief of the master. The relief would include the grooves and the information in the grooves, just like an actual vinyl record. The relief itself would then be the digital specifications for recreating the vinyl record. Alternatively, during the process of creating digital masters of a recording for manufacturing CDs or creating mp3s, the recording could be translated into a set of instructions that the 3-D printer could use. Honestly, I have no idea how much those two scenarios would cost. The second method may not be technologically possible at all.
The third issue with using 3-D printers to make vinyl records is accuracy. For instance, MakerBot features accuracy of 2.5 microns on the Z-axis and 11 microns on the X and Y axis (a micron is 1 millionth of a meter). Since the grooves in a record are 2.5 to 3.5 millimeters (one thousandth of a meter) wide, MakerBot can make a record. The problem is getting MakerBot to reproduce the information etched in the grooves of the original record. The printer can’t just make the grooves; it has to extrude chemicals in such a way that when the needle moves across the plastic, it reproduces the music. If the printer doesn’t possess enough accuracy, the result would be a vinyl record that sounded like a low-quality mp3. Information would be lost, and so sound frequencies would disappear, instrument volumes in the mix could change, sound quality would degrade, and so on. I haven’t been able to determine how fine the etchings in a vinyl record’s grooves are. For comparison purposes, human hairs can be as thin as 1 micron across, so existing 3-D printers already possess remarkable accuracy.
Clearly there are technological and financial barriers in the way of using a 3-D printer to make a record. Even so, I can’t help but be excited at the prospect of ordering a vinyl for $8, or buying a set of printing instructions for $5 and printing a record at home. Vinyl records are supposed to sound warmer than CDs or mp3s because there’s no digital involvement in reproducing the sound. Would a record printed from digital instructions still sound warm and lifelike? Would printing your own records destroy the collecting experience? I have no idea, but I’d love to find out.
So what do you guys think? Will it ever be possible to use a 3-D printer to make records? Would you use one?
. . .
. . .
Here’s a MakerBot printing out Darth Vader’s head:
Thing-O-Matic at work on Darth Vader
. . .
Here’s a professional grade 3-D metal printer that is used to make very intricate and detailed pieces of work:
How It’s Made – 3-D Metal Printing
. . .
A final note: A quick YouTube search reveals at least one video purporting to depict a 3-D printer making a vinyl record. However, the “record” is visibly warped and “plays” a Rick Astley song. My point stands though: if audio information can be translated into a set of three-dimensional specifications that a printer can use, vinyl records could be printed.
Sources:
RIAA statistics
Rainbo Records vinyl pricing information
Current 3-D printer performance comparison
wow, i was interested in the first part because yes, vinyl records are quite pricey as opposed to cd’s and downloads. vinyl collectors definitely pay a hefty surcharge for their passion which might not always be totally justified. costs should come down a bit i agree. but man, you totally lost me with the printer stuff, my head was spinning. maybe i’ll try reading it again later.
not to be pedantic, but i’m pretty sure the plural of vinyl is vinyl.
i would certainly print my own records if there were no reduction in sound quality.
http://thepluralofvinyl.com/images/thepluralofvinyl.jpg
I am the black wizards!
“Per those same RIAA statistics, 83.1 million mp3 albums were downloaded and 225.8 million CD albums were sold.”
Wild. I would have thought MP3 albums had surpassed CD albums by now . . . but maybe the MP3 is winning because of single-song downloads.
“slowly entering the public conscience”
I think you mean “consciousness.”
OK, on to what I really have to say about this article.
In his Foundation series (released in the 50’s I believe) Isaac Asimov posited that a transmission could be beamed across space, and a computer would then print it onto a piece of paper. He missed the quite obvious (to us) possibility that the message could just be printed on a monitor. I can’t help but think that your home vinyl printing idea is doing the same thing. If the computer can make the record that perfectly, then why make the record at all? At that point, it should be able to reproduce a vinyl sound without transferring it to a physical medium.
Have you ever delved into the analog vs. digital, LP vs. CD/FLAC arguments? Analog purists claim that no matter how accurate the digital sound reproduction is, it’s not the same as listening to a high-quality vinyl record. In other words, they’d tell you that having the PC make the sound is always inferior.
So what I’m getting at is if the record is printed from digital specifications, could it fool an analog purist?
i’ll take a stab at that and say “maybe”. ears are a tricky thing, but a blind a x b test between a flac recording and vinyl (presuming a clean copy, cut correctly, and a good turntable to minimize crackle) would fool/”fool” most people. not everyone, but most.
I feel like I’ve read about a study which is precisely like that, and the result was that almost nobody could tell the difference, and preference based on sound quality was pretty random. I can’t find the article. I think it was in some audiophile magazine.
I guess my question is, assuming a computer could create vinyl in this manner, then why would it actually need to? If it can reproduce an authentically analog vinyl record (or authentic enough to fool human ears) then why can’t it just play the exact same sound, without transferring it to a physical medium?
Well, why would you need to buy vinyl records at all? People like vinyl for (insert reason). Again, the analog purists will tell you that the digitally reproduced sound isn’t the same, and that records are the only way. Also, GoingDeaf’s answer below about mastering techniques. You can’t master a vinyl record as you would a CD.
I’m stepping outside my bounds of comfortable understanding with this, but I think that digitally reproduced sound is shaped differently than analog sound. Analog sound is wavy, and moves smoothly up and down. Digital sound is very square looking. This difference in sound shape is attributed to listener fatigue and the perceived coldness of digital sound, no matter how accurate a CD or mp3 might be. This is also why some people prefer tube amps to solid state (digital).
Again, maybe what I’m saying about the shape of sound is total bullshit. Hopefully people will chime in.
The computer reproducing the record isn’t the same as playing an mp3. When I said they might use a laser to scan the mother master, that would create a map of sorts. ‘Playing’ that map would require some sort of software that would recognize that those bumps correspond to sound frequences. You’re asking the software to interpret a 3D map with microscopic etchings in a valley and then predict how the needle will vibrate as it passes over the etchings. It would basically be simulating a record player at that point.
That seems insanely complex to me. It’s a far cry from asking a computer to arrange some plastic molecules in the right order and height, which is what the 3-D printers do. Once the molecules are in the right order, the needle vibrates properly, sound happens.
here we go: http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/audio1.html
if the info is correct, you can see where the sampling rate affects how the sound is reproduced. There are 32 bit masters/remasters coming out on the market which are supposedly the best digital reproductions EVAR. Who really knows.
playback systems and materials matter. how much they matter, however, is an issue of taste. (i.e. a lot of people love the cassette tape rebirth; i’m not a fan personally.)
Digital audio being “stepped” while analog “smooth” is somewhat of a misunderstanding in a practical sense. At 44.1kHz sample rate, all frequencies that can be heard by humans (20-20000Hz) are 100% represented…that was the basis for choosing that sample rate. Also, when you hear sound coming from a speaker, it is a continuous, analog wave just like what exists on vinyl. You are not hearing a harsh, jagged waveform…. speakers wouldn’t be able to reproduce such a waveform.
Digital audio is only harsh to the degree that it is abused through excessive limiting, compression, and clipping. Vinyl simply has physical limitations that prevent these abuses, as well as other characteristics, such as surface noise, that have been shown to have positive psychological affects to the listener’s experience.
It has been said already, so I simply chime in with “me too!”.
1. I started collecting vinyl, because I like collecting. I enjoy having the product, as a fan, as a musician. I feel as though it gives me a tangible connection with the band and with the zeitgeist of the music’s original context. Flipping an old Sabbath album (reprint or original) just feels awesome. Maybe I’m just buying into some one else’s nostalgia, but when I drop the needle on side two of Master of Reality, I feel connected to a different age, a different time.
2. Analog vs digital sound. There are no clear victors here, due to the subjective nature of determining what is good about a musical experience. As I said above, I love vinyl, but if I cannot buy something on record, my world is not destroyed and I do not beleive that the resulting sound quality is inferior. I’ve studied sound for way too long to know better. Anyway, some further thoughts on that.
2a Analog vs Digital reproduction. If all the frequencies are reproduced then there is essentially no difference. Vinyl crackle, pops etc can easily be produced via algorithms. If analog sound was so difficult to reproduce digitally, then how do we explain the glut of analog simulation amp software on the market. To me, there is more emotion involved in this issue than actual science. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
2b Wave shapes. If anyone out there can actually see the square/stepped nature of even a 16 bit (let alone 24 or 32 bit) sample, you have good eyes or better drugs. 44.1k samples /sec. That is 44100 snapshots of music PER SECOND. Try magnifying 1 sec of audio in some audio software to the point that 40k + samples are visibly stepped. Now try 24 bit/96k+. Just how “wavy” does a digital wave need to be before we say it is not square anymore?
2c Reproduction. Speakers, room acoustics, dampening/reflecting surfaces, humidity as well as listener and speaker positions have as much influence on the “quality” of sound reproduced as bitrate or medium. The only thing I tend to allow here is that the playback method in analog vs digital may have some qualitative effect (but even then, I’m sure even that can be controlled for with a correctly configured all digital set up). What I am talking about is mechanical vs electronic reproduction of sound. At heart, I am an analog lover. My gut prefers it for the mostly emotional and nostalgic reasons above. But I would be remiss for denying the science behind audio, whether digital or analog. Finally, the vinyl purity of sound debate needs to be laid to rest. This is a myth perpetuated by a certain demographic and has no scientific basis. I’m not saying this position is invalid, only that it is subjective and needs to be respected thus.
Regarding today’s vinyl, chances are decent a lot of it was recorded digitally to begin with. So does putting it on vinyl make it sound “more analog” than if it’s heard on CD or mp3? I’m a vinyl fan, so I’m curious about this. Most of the records I listen to are of older, non-digitally-recorded stuff.
You are correct in that most recordings are done through pro tools or a like digital recording interface. Even if recorded and mixed to tape, what is the master supplied on? probably a digital format like a CD. How does the plant receive it? Via a digital format and so on. There are some guys in Brooklyn doing totally analog cutting so it is possible to keep the analog chain pure, but very difficult.
For me it’s a case of loving the format and the ritual of playing records. The tangibility of it all.
I’ve been buying vinyl records for a while and i honestly can’t remember the last time i spent over 15 dollars on a new LP. I’ve never bought anything from relapse (or larger metal labels in general) on vinyl, but it seems to me that they print more CD’s and LP’s are usually just a “special edition” kind of thing, which could explain the higher cost. Labels that rely more on vinyl for their overall output generally charge less.
I’m surprised that you’re finding it so cheaply. I pay attention to the record prices when I shop metal distros, and I can’t recall seeing an LP for less than $15. I’ve seen an unsealed copy of Fabulous Disaster for $12.99 at an FYE, and that’s the cheapest I’ve ever seen a vinyl record sold for at normal retail cost.
I got Chinese Democracy on double LP for $1.99!
I think you got ripped off!
I got a good deal on physical materials, but the music takes it to an overall loss. It’s more of a conversation piece at this point.
@Wash, you couldn’t pay me to take that record.
This is my first year of buying vinyl and the most I’ve paid for one LP was 35 dollars on an original print of Agalloch’s The Mantle. Most of the time I’m finding stuff for under $20. So personally I think its worth it. As for the home printing idea I’m not too sure if I would go for that. Something about coming home to packages from all over and seeing those new additions to your collection is just too good to pass up.
Where in the living hell did you find The Mantle for $35? Your realize it goes for hundreds on Ebay when someone decides to part with a copy. Not sure what Profound Lore’s print number was on that one, but it wasn’t very many.
From Metal Archives:
“Vinyl released in 2005 as Double Gatefold LP limited to 500 copies. Carried out as a collaboration of Profound Lore Records, Infinite Vinyl (The End Records) and Grau Records, presented in grey wax with exclusive artwork.”
I like what Steed McCreed said there, and I’d also mention that buying the vinyl in a record store as opposed to online is always cheaper if only because you aren’t paying for often expensive shipping costs (this is especially the case when ordering something from the US to here in Canada where the shipping cost is often close to or as much as the cost of the record). That’s assuming access to record stores that carry metal vinyl. I’d never buy vinyl through Amazon.
The most I paid for a record was $100 for a test pressing of Patti Smith’s Horses which I think was an extremely good deal.
Cool Jean Luc ref.
(Wow. I’m sleepy. This got kind of blow-hardly. Sorry guys. Hope I at least some of this is interesting.)
Why vinyl? Archiving.
The predominance of the “mp3 > physical” “convenience > quality” argument is stunning. Did all you guys REALLY hate listening to vinyl all those years? Is your life of flipping between digital tracks on a (often absurdly tiny) screen with little speakers in your ears really better for it?
Why choose one when you can have both? (Support albums with drop cards and instant downloads! Next time you are about to buy an mp3 album for 9 bucks, why not check to see if the $13 LP version has a free mp3 download?)
It’s also important to remember the artist’s perspective: if they can get the copies made, then they can sell them directly to fans at a good price, without some mp3 hosting corporate middleman. Why do you want Apple and Amazon to profit every time an artist wants to share their music with you? I don’t! If they are selling it physically they can do their own drop cards and host the files themselves if they want.
(I understand the argument ‘for:’ less waste, less manufacturing, less shipping, more convenience, more music:price, more portability. I get it. I listen to mp3s all the time.)
What’s interesting beyond the argument is that we live in a world of ‘bothness.’ Bothness is what I love: I listen to the vinyl when I’m at home, and the mp3 when I’m about, and If my harddrive crashes, my investment remains on the shelf. Bothness is what makes blogs like cosmic hearse and blog the jerk so damn great! If all those records hadn’t come out in physical format, who knows if they’d still be around?
Bothness. Good Monday to ya.
Also: what Steed said, same experience different pile of flesh.
-WK
On the topic of vinyls, its a format I’d like to get into and support, but finding a decent to good system is kind of hard to get into. I’m a bit of a cheap ass, but I’d think that this is somewhere I should skimp. I see those USB powered jobs, but it really doesn’t seem as though they’d carry that warm analog sound and cut the mustard. Anyone have any suggestions?
Honestly, if you live in a place with good, cheap thrift stores or garage sales, you can probably pick up a solid old system for less than fifty bucks. You can find a decent record player for under a hundred, and together I think that’s pretty affordable.
Look for a used system. Goodwill, eBay, yard sales. I’m not joking about the yard sales, either. My mother picked up a very nice Sony record player, dual tape deck, CD player, pre-amp, amp, and 2 100W speakers for $40 at a yard sales. She was really on buying for the player, but it was still a fantastic deal. All of the gear works, except nobody’s bothered to test the tape decks, because nobody in the family cares about them!
Very thoughtful article. I agree that 3D printing at least ’seems’ poised to change the way we manufacture, on a global level, over the next 10-20 years. This is particularly encouraging to folks in the US, when considering where all the jobs and the money went (China). If small scale production and business could get a lift from technology, and put work back in the hands of Americans instead of outsourcing everything, and may ultimately balance things out over the long term (if it actually becomes cheaper to manufactur at home than outsource to another country).
Not an extreme flag waver, just calling it like it is. Also, Southern Lord makes and sells vinyl relatively cheaply, as do other indy labels. The bigger labels seem to be the culprits in charging mucho $$$ for vinyl. Finally, probably 60-70 percent of all the vinyl I own I bought used from Salvation Army, Goodwill, flea markets, garage sales, etc, usually for less than a dollar a pop.
Keep in mind that in the 60-70s, recordings were meant for vinyl and mixed specifically for it. Many older recordings were never transferred well to CD or the masters were lost (one example would be Leslie West’s Mountain). From a sound or audiophile purpose, that makes and keeps the vinyl media valid. These days, it’s less common artists record specifically for vinyl, so the media type is generally less important.
Regards,
David
Even though artist don’t specifically record for vinyl, they still must have it mastered differently than their CD/Digital release. The lathe can’t cut the hyper-compressed/limited waveforms of modern digital, so even if you don’t buy into the analog/digital audiophile debate, the record is going to have a much more open sound due to the mastering process for the medium.
I’ve been buying vinyl a lot more lately, and it’s a really great investment. I usually buy vinyl from the bands and/or distros (ie; Planet Metal, Hells Headbangers, Shaman Records, etc.) at shows because it’s usually a lot less expensive minus the middle man, or I could go to my local record stores like Reckless and Permanent Records who sell LP’s at reasonable prices.
http://www.reckless.com/
http://www.permanentrecordschicago.com/news.php
Unless you got really special shit or a bank account in the Cayman’s, you lose money on something, that, as an object, rarely gets used, serves no useful purpose other than one function and takes up space. I have 500 or so pieces that just sit there for the most part, and then get manhandled when you throw a party by noobs or drunks(not to mention breaking a stylus every year). Then you have to clean them, keep them out of the humidity, dirt, dust, etc. And then you have to haul them every time you move. AND THEN when you try to sell them when you’re broke, you get lowballed, haggled with and exasperated and you never get what you pay for. I can buy cheap hard drives with terrabytes for all that shit. It’s no investment but rather a deep pit into which you throw hard earned money. Sorry, bands.
It’s something you don’t really need, honestly. That way you got more $$$ for travel, which you can’t own anyway.
Wow. You make life’s simple pleasures seem really unpleasurable, somehow.
You must be a riot at those parties you keep throwing for ‘noobs and drunks.’
I got some slightly used vinyls to sell you then.
I inherited my stereo from my ‘rents when they switched to a hyper-fancy bose thingamabob. I got my turntable for less than 100 used. I now have both of their collections (First pressing of The Who’s Tommy!!!) and love listening to Vinyl as well as Mp3. My college grad gift was the complete opeth vinyl discography.
Do I think it sounds better? fuck no. that’s not the point. The point is there was nothing more fun my senior year than cracking open some Bell’s brews, laying around my room and listening to metal vinyl on a warm sunday afternoon. the Mp3 player BEGS for interference. ‘lemme show you this sick track!’ ‘lemme plug mine in!’
No. We’re sticking with this whole LP side and acting like civilized people, not tech-crazed hyenas. We’re going to sit, smoke cigarettes, and just relax. It went over GREAT with even my non-metal companions.
I only buy vinyl that i know i already like, unless it’s used. My hometown has an incredible record store with an extensive vinyl collection specializing in metal and classic rock. That said, It’s a great way to re-discover an old record b because it forces you to sit and bear with the whole side of the vinyl.
I hear this objection posed to mp3s all the time, and I don’t entirely buy it.
Yes, digital files facilitate this type of listening, but it’s reflective of the listener, not the format. If you’re not a tech-crazy hyena, then you can let the entire album play from your digital music library just as easily as you can from a physical record. Not to imply that you are, but the point remains.
Oh, unless I’m exercising I tend to listen to whole albums. The issue starts when you’re attempting to group listen with a hoard of ADHD rapscallions IE: my friends.
Friends are the problem. They tend to be unreliable, flighty, and prone to making you listen to some mainstream garbage that they insist is “actually really good” even though a year later they will admit it’s not.
You don’t need them.
MP3’s, on the other hand, are not a problem in and of themselves.
Oh, and also: excellent post, RSJ.
I only buy vinyls for my absolute all time favorite records, and then I almost never actually open or play them. All my early Amorphis albums look great framed and on the wall:)
A family member of mine goes through the following process with vinyl, somewhat related to what you’re saying: Buy 2 copies of record. Frame one for collector status. Pre 2009 – Open the other copy, record it to tape, make a tape copy of the original tape. Listen to the 2nd tape copy. Reseal and store the open record as best as possible. post 2009 – make mp3 copy of the opened record, store.
1) Overkill, and 2)IMO, defeats the purpose of the record anyway.
That’s crazy. Can I borrow a few hundred dollars from this guy for a gallon of gas? Come on!
In a perfect world I could own a sealed vinyl copy of every record put out by every band that I think is pretty good. But you’re right, that defeats the purpose. And think of all those crazy rich people who have millions of dollars invested in their private art collections, or car collections, or whatever. What did those things ever do for those people? It starts to get a little materialistic after awhile. Eventually all of this music will be forgotten. You can’t fight entropy. Just enjoy the music NOW
In a perfect world, format debates would cease to exist.
A little more research for inquisitive minds: http://thepluralofvinyl.com/
As for the 3D printers… I do believe they will make drastic changes to how we manufacture and obtain goods. I don’t think they hold much appeal in printing out my own records, save for archival purposes as mentioned earlier.
Personally, I collect both digital files (though moving more towards Spotify lately) and vinyl. If nothing else, it makes shopping for music fun again. Of course, it helps that I’m in San Francisco, with a giant Amoeba records just a short trip away. Vinyl just is fun to collect in a way that CD’s never were for me. Nothing like finding some classics in the bin of some thrift store for $1.00 each.
3d printing technology is already fairly cheap. If in the coming years it continues to decline in price, it wouldn’t be unthinkable that 3d printers would be common home accessories. If that were the case, record labels could skip the manufacturing process altogether and simply ship the master to consumers via the internet so individuals could “print” their own copies. That way, labels save on both distribution and shipping costs (as the web is free), and they don’t have to worry about purchasing the raw material to produce vinyl. Of course, if this was the case, we usher in a whole new era of piracy in which blueprints and masters circulate through illegal channels which allows individuals to acquire goods for the cost of material.
You’re 100% right about the potential for piracy. One of my early drafts was called, “One day you’ll be able to pirate vinyl records…”
Piracy of real, tangible items will be the next big debate. For years now, the pirates have argued that digital files aren’t the same as tangible objects. When I can print out tools and even complex working devices at home from the digital file I found on the internet, it will change everything.
As far as pirating the vinyl . . . so what? How is that different from burning a CD with pirated music? Sound quality has no bearing on it, legally speaking (well, perhaps a little, but I’m not going to get into a fair use argument that would be so specific and stupid that it’s not possible anyway).
Legally speaking, it’s only a concern for patented or copyrighted materials (I’m speaking hypothetically here–person of the year 2025 who’s reading this, be aware that this is not legal advice). There would have to be some kind of decision, at a court or legislative level, to describe what kind of thing can be protected. Any useful item CANNOT be copyrighted, and only clever new things (to paraphrase) can be patented. But the schematic could possibly be copyrighted in the case that there is some creativity involved in it. If it’s simply a three-dimensional representation of an object, and no creativity is involved beyond making it useful, then I don’t think you can copyright the schematic either.
I don’t think it changes anything, though, because manufacturers will still be able to obtain materials and put things together more cheaply than you can, for most purposes. There are likely a limited number of materials these 3D printers can work with, too.
I’m going to make an even stronger statement here. I thought about it a second more, and that really is absolute, that a useful item can’t be copyrighted. Even clothing designs can’t be copyrighted in the US. I don’t think the patterns can be, either (I would have to research that to be sure) so I think if you’re making a hammer–no matter how stylized it is–then you’re not stepping on anyone’s toes.
I realize I need to clarify what I mean by “patterns” above. I’m referring to the patterns used to guide the creation of clothing, not the pattern of the textile itself (the latter can be copyrighted).
44 bux for an Enslaved record is just ridonkulous. You should have your head examined thoroughly.
CDs are the perfect happy medium for me. I love having something real and physical onto which I can attach my love for the music. It’s not too expensive, but I still have the satisfaction of giving back to the artist.
Nice piece. A few thoughts:
First, the price quote listed above from Raibo records, a company I’ve dealt with before, is misleading. It doesn’t take into account artwork costs and shipping, which, even on a small run of 500-1000 records can be huge. I usually have to spend in excess of $3000-$4000 for a small run.
Second, I LOVE buying vinyl, but I am hardly an audiophile. For me, and I would hope others, that playing records is more about the process. It sure makes me more likely to fully digest and enjoy an album when I have to go through the simple act of pulling it out if it’s sleeve, placing it on the turntable, and playing that sucker through. For me, it’s just more satisfying than clicking though a library of songs that are instantly at my fingertips. The experience is much more personal and gratifying.
up the irons.
I work with a lot of parts made from different rapid prototyping methods, and that shit is messy. Lots of nubs and sprues and uneven levels. Usually takes a good deal of sanding and finishing to make something genuinely clean and smooth. I don’t think the technology is anywhere close to being able to make records, but it’s a pretty rad idea.
I think the biggest advantage to Vinyls is having the large album art, I really only buy physical release of albums that have some kind of merit that really stands out in the art. With vinyls not only do you have a more permanent copy of the work, but a large copy of the artwork as well.
You know what I’d like? Just a copy of album art on a record sleeve. So I can look at it in all it’s glory.
Inside there would be a slip of paper with a download code on it. Plus all the liner notes and such. I don’t need the vinyl itself.
Sell it for seven or eight bucks, I’d buy those all day long.
Will it ever be possible to use a 3-D printer to make records? Would you use one?
Probably.
(As Drang says, the sort of 3D printers that a small label could even conceive of using for this in the next decade or so are absolutely unsuitable, so it’s not a near timeframe thing – and vinyl dies more every year.
Mike’s vision of “make your own vinyl at home” is not technically impossible, but I’m not holding my breath for it in the next 20 years.)
And no, in that order.
Vinyl is (today) bullshit for fetishists. Sorry. Move on.
What this thread really reveals is that labels should sell big art prints of cover art.
Vinyl’s actually not dying. Sales of vinyl are growing. 2008 – 2.8M. 2010 – 4M. And that’s just the RIAA numbers. I don’t think that labels like Profound Lore, Southern Lord and the Flenser are part of the Recording Industry Antichrist Association.
The interesting thing about vinyl manufacturing is that the majority of the equipment is hopelessly old. Newer vinyl pressing plants have to track down old vinyl presses from decommissioned vinyl factories since there are no current manufacturers of vinyl making equipment.
It’s kind of like vacuum tubes for guitar amps, where there are only three manufacturers left in the world (Russia, China, and Eastern Europe, if I remember correctly). The technology and manufacturing standards they use these days are far worse than what the old American companies were using 40 years ago.
Growing compared to… a recent low.
That will pass.
Again, fetishist material and faddism.
(Also, Southern Lord is part of RIAA. RIAA has a membership list you can check.
And the sum total of all vinyl shipped by those three labels in a year is…?
Trivial.)
I repeat, “Vinyl dies more every year” is still true – and can continue to be true even if sales increase, because the sum of sales is increasing even more.
Vinyl is an irrelevancy and has been for well over a decade – 1.2% of the market?
(Steve Albini was unsurprisingly wrong – the future never belonged to the analog loyalist.)
THE FORMULA. Mp3 downloads when you’re broke. CDs when vinyl’s OOP and you find said CD for cheap. LPs on payday, like there’s no tomorrow. -Nothing beats 12″’s glory. Nothing-
If you buy records from the bands at their shows it’s usually pretty cheap. Also buy used records. Sorting through used record bins is a big part of the fun of buying vinyl.
I think most of the cost of vinyl is in cutting the lacquer and making the metal stampers because these are things that are done with specialized equipment and require specialized knowledge. Once you have the stampers the records cost like 50 cents each. I would imagine that modernizing the process with new materials would be a more effective way of making records cheaper. in other words cut to something other than lacquer and maybe you don’t need an expensive cutting stylus and cutter head. Maybe you don’t need metal plates, maybe some kind of plastic would work. But then again the whole process is what makes vinyl what it is.
I work at United Record Pressing in Nashville, TN. Based on production numbers from the past 20 years, vinyl never really took a dive. The 12″ single format was booming during the 90’s (thanks to hip-hop and dance/techno) and the 7″ never went anywhere (thanks to punk, grunge and alternative). Based on steadily rising numbers in the past 10 years, the “resurgence” may possibly be a fad, but when/if that fad ends, vinyl will still not go anywhere. It never left, and it’s here to stay.
Also, Soundscan and RIAA numbers are skewed. Vinyl is actually doing far better than they report. Most independent stores selling vinyl don’t report to those organizations (in Nashville none of the stores I know do, so for an LP sale to count it’d have to be at Best Buy or FYE). Even if they do, those stats are weighted. A sale at a small record store in, say, Oxford, MS will count for one sale. A sale at a larger store in NYC may be weighted as 10 sales. The issue here is that most “big boxes” don’t sell much vinyl because it’s always been the indies’ game, and very few indie stores report to Soundscan or even the RIAA.
I should note that I’m merely an hourly-paid office worker. I have no vested interest in claiming this.
Call it fetishism if you like, I’ll call it romance. (My guess is that the leather-and-chains crowd would say the same thing so you may have a point, albeit one which is still incredibly subjective.)
The argument about how the original music is recorded (the master being a cd) is somewhat beside the point. I assume an artist has created their music to the exact specifications they want, regardless how it was recorded. Now that they have that, they want the best playback medium. I believe this is vinyl. Harmonic distortion is a trick of the ear which causes many to psychologically prefer vinyl as well – I’m aware of this and will freely admit it.
It all goes back to subjectivity. Vinyl is the format for me. Whether it’s scientific or not (I believe it is to a fault), I think it sounds best. I also enjoy the experience of searching for it, buying it, and listening and enjoying it in one physical space with relative focus.
I also have a stack of CD’s in my car, a ton more on my bookshelf, a few random cassettes laying around, and a hard drive full of mp3’s. The guy earlier speaking of “bothness” nailed it I think. I prefer physical formats. Period. I think this has a lot to do with my outlook, worldview and personality. If you don’t care about physical formats, more power to you. I do, though, and feel that physical formats create a stronger connection between the listener and the music. And at the end of the day, my LP’s are my favorite.
(Oh, and the 3-D technology is neat, but it will be years before it could create a passable LP, in my opinion and based on my knowledge of the subject. I’m doubtful it ever could.)
And once more, let me point out http://www.thepluralofvinyl.com.
I consider myself a vinyl collector, I don’t own that much but over the last 7 years (my legal adult life) its practically the only format i’ve bought. I listen to more music on my ipod and youtube for convenience, but almost every time a band comes through with vinyl I buy it from them (and if they dont have that, i’ll buy their cds or tapes – but i prefer vinyl). it is primarily for the large cover art and insert, but also just because I just like it for all the reasons (whether justified or not (sound quality = practically unnoticable, especially since I tend to listen on shitty record players). With that said, METAL records particularly tend to piss me off. Punk bands regularly sell their records for $12 bucks or less. we sold ours for $10 – they cost roughly $3.50 each to make, we cut a lot of corners doing a lot of work making all the packaging ourselves (and i think it turned out awesome), but I couldn’t have imagined it costing more than 8$ per record to make, much less than if we made a bigger run. I won’t spend over $20 on records, and for that reason most of my collection is of the punk/crust/grindcore variety while my ipod is filled with black metal. Making vinyl is expensive, but the more major metal labels (and major labels in general) intentionally scam the vinyl fiends and I dont think thats right. False came through town twice selling their records for something between 10-$15 and it came with lyrics, a patch, cool artwork, everything I’d hope for – and they seemed happy and well nourished. When I see emperor records at the store for $40 I feel ashamed to be a metal head, ashamed to be a vinyl collector, and even worse to be both at once.