That’s only true if your hearing is able to detect the difference. I’m lucky, I guess, I can listen to music using $1.99 headphones and it sounds fine.
Fats Domino and Billy Stewart, for starters. And they could really sing.
I get that. But for me it doesn’t work so well. For example I might be listening to a disk and think; that sounds similar to, whatever. So I’ll dig out another disk to check the names. Cross reference if you will. This is just me. Most aren’t so anal about it.
I did this just the other day, except I used my iPad to look on Allmusic.
Lucky, or unlucky. Depending how you look at it. As I also pointed out; “Many people don’t care about this. They just aren’t into music to that extent—they just want sound into their ears”.
If you are the least bit interested, I’d urge you to visit a shop where high end systems are sold. You could be in for an awakening.
On the other hand, it could turn out to be a very expensive trip 
Never mind “high end systems”; I’m no audiophile, but I can tell that I’m not hearing much bass from $1.99 headphones even compared to a relatively cheap set of speakers.
I was too polite to suggest that. Thank you. heh,heh.
You’re entitled to define a term differently from everybody else in the world. Good luck getting anybody to agree with it.
Nothing personal. I see this so many times on the Dope that I should make a macro for writing it out. It’s always puzzled me. If you use a term in a way that nobody else does how do you expect to have a coherent conversation?
That’s not to say that everybody agrees on every word’s meaning and limits. Where to draw the line on obsolete is an example. Is it more like a synonym for superseded or must it be an extreme that indicates complete disuse? Typewriters are obsolete in a way that’s not like the way that cuneiform is obsolete. My observation is that superseded is far more common a connotation.
Language doesn’t like extremes. Purists scream that unique means one of a kind, without shading. Nothing can be very unique or most unique. Yet those shading adjectives are ubiquitous. Which makes sense when one considers how hard it is to prove absolute uniqueness. Better to back off and make it mean very rare.
Obsolete has become weakened in the same way, probably with the similar logic. Everything seems to be preserved somewhere for some reason. Why add a string of qualifiers to the word when you can include them in the connotation?
Excellent post.
I’m thinking most people would accept the fact that the typewriter is obsolete, yet both our school and district offices have them for envelope addressing purposes. Yes, they could get the printers to do it, but it’s quicker to just type them out than fiddle with printer settings.
Is “obsolete” a one-way street? Is it possible for something that once was obsolete to become un-obsolete? Because, to me, it looks like that is what has happened with (vinyl) LPs.
In the 90s, I would have agreed with anyone who claimed that the format was obsolete. You could walk into a “record store” and not be surprised to find no vinyl for sale. But nowadays, enough new LPs are being made and sold and played (not to mention the nontrivial market for used LPs) that I don’t think it’s really fair to call it “obsolete” any longer.
Surely there must be other once-obsolete things that have come back from the dead like this, but I can’t think of any good examples.
The technology is still obsolete. The comeback is a retro/nostalgia driven one.
I think this is the heart of the issue. Is the value in the information itself, or is it also the way that the information is presented? For instance, the album cover and the liner notes?
I can see both sides of it. I have a Kindle and hundreds of digital books, and see no need to have physical copies of any of them. But I’m also a book collector and have hundreds of old books, some of them valuable first editions, and greatly value them and enjoy reading them. So the answer is that it depends on the specifics of the art form and the circumstances.
Beyond that, another aspect of vinyl records beyond the packaging and the physical aesthetics is the sound. We’ve had a number of threads on the subject and I’m not going to rehash it again here, except to say that if the sound is more pleasing to the ear than a CD, then showing someone a waveform on an oscilloscope is not going to change their minds.
Is a deaf person “lucky” because he doesn’t need headphones at all?
On the topic of “obsolete”, I think the reason it raises some hackles with regard to vinyl is the dismissive implication that it’s been so completely superseded by superior technology that it’s objectively useless. It’s not that the word is entirely inappropriate, it’s that it would be more reasonable to say “many regard it as obsolete” rather than stating it as an objective fact.
I understand that the kind of hipsters that groove for vinyl are also bringing back typewriters.
And cassette tapes are becoming the new vinyl.
The vinyl I see purchased the most is merch at concerts. I doubt many of the buyers even listen to vinyl. They interact with the music through streaming. They buy vinyl to individually support music they like. I haven’t seen a band selling CD’s at a concert in years.
Right, and this is why I asked, early on:
If “obsolete” means no longer used (or made or bought and sold) in significant numbers, LPs are not obsolete (although we could still argue over what “significant numbers” are).
If “obsolete” means superseded, well… the fact that there’s a market for vinyl indicates that some people are getting, or think they’re getting, something from vinyl that they can’t get from other formats, at least not as well. I am not personally a vinyl aficionado, and I’m not qualified to judge whether these people are correct.
Let me ask this: are manual transmissions obsolete?
Isn’t that the way it’s been for a long time? The cost of the record or tape or CD is a very small fraction of the price, and you’re paying principally for a license to access the music?
Asking in a question format because that’s what I’ve understood for probably 30 years.
Well, yes, but I think the point is that, with a traditional “purchase” of a music recording (a vinyl album, a compact disc, or even an MP3 file), you actually and literally come into possession of that recording, on some manner of media (even if it’s only a digital file).
With streaming, you never actually “own” a recording, and for some music fans – particularly those of us who came of age when the norm was to go to the record store and buy an album – it may not feel like paying for a streaming service is “buying music,” in the same way.
Here’s a site that shows both sales in dollar amount and units:
Doesn’t show 2021, but in 2020, LPs had more revenue but fewer sales than CDs. And is only a small fraction of digital sales before including streaming.
Right. And comparing album sales (in whatever format) with streaming seems too apples-and-oranges to me, in at least some respects. Sales of an album, whether on vinyl or cassette or CD or MP3, mean that x number of people paid a one-time charge for a copy of that particular album that they could then listen to for as long and as often as they like. People paying for streaming services are paying for something different.
And this way you can cross reference music you don’t own. As a matter of fact. if you don’t recall what disk this reminds you of, you can still figure it out at a site like Allmusic. Seem far easier than searching your own albums.