Vinyl records are now outselling CDs
twitter.com
twitter.com
With a more convenient option such as streaming, all the benefits that CD provided over vinyl became meaningless, as streaming/file storage beat it in every aspect. But vinyl still stayed, as it provides something that neither CDs nor streaming/digital file storage can provide. So as CDs got wiped as a medium, vinyl rose back.
I have observed a similar situation in a completely different industry too. More specifically, with book stores. Before big bookstore chains, we had a lot of independent small book stores (following my earlier analogy, the vinyl). Big chain book stores started appearing and dominating, such as Barnes&Noble (the CD), squeezing out smaller independent book stores. Then came Amazon (the streaming/digital file storage, still following my earlier analogy with music), wiped the floor with the in-betweener medium (Barnes&Noble), and the number of small independent book stores (vinyl) has increased over that entire time period as the in-betweener got wiped. For specific numbers, the number of small independent book stores in the US has increased by about 50% over the past decade (from around 1,600 to 2,500)[0].
Unlike with the in-betweener formats, the original ones will always have something to provide that the future iteration of a "more advanced format" (CD=>streaming) won't be able to provide. And with this in mind, I am happy, as it indicates that physical books and vinyls will be here to stay (albeit not for mainstream usage, but as personal preference pieces for enthusiasts). This isn't some hard rule that is guaranteed to be the case forever, but the current numbers and observations seem to support the idea that this trend will likely last for quite a long time, beyond lifetimes of people currently alive. That's just a pure guess based on the gut feeling.
0. https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2020/02/12/how-indi...
0. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/annual-recorded-music-sales-b...
It's just that a lot of people had cheap tape decks and even cheaper tapes, hence the bad reputation nowadays.
In the end I think portability had more to do with both the reputation and the success of cassettes. Doesn't matter how good the tape is, a walkman in the 80s was never going to sound as good as a hifi, but that's what people wanted.
If good sound quality is also within reach then (the various Dolby NR systems helped with that), cassettes made a lot of sense overall.
https://i.redd.it/vcp3nr7ibje21.jpg
This is an abomination.
Between the art and the tactile experience vinyl requires, I like it for active vs passive listening.
But if you have a record collection, they can browse and pick something they know you already enjoy, because you own it.
https://www.edmstudio.com/news/faux-vinyl-experience-spotify...
If I implement it, I'll probably take the Linux route and use MPD/MPC on my desktop. Or maybe control Clementine through QDBus (since I use this media player on KDE anyway).
Note the video is no longer working.
If I was to do this again I’d do away with the Mac mini and use a raspberry pi plus a Spotify daemon. I still have all the cards I made but no time to figure out the physical stuff anymore.
Here's a refinement of that idea for vinyl nuts: blank rfid-enabled vinyls that you must physically lower the needle into, which triggers a hard disk recorder to play its saved FLACs. How's that for a "tactile experience"?
(I suspect that a true vinyl nut would hate this idea but not be able to articulate why)
The sound quality of CDs is superior to any stream. But alas, "worse is better".
I buy vinyl because I like having a large version of the album artwork. Most vinyl albums come with a digital copy of the music, which is what I use to actually listen to the album (if not on a streaming platform). I rarely listen to the actual vinyl version.
There's not really a reason for me to buy a CD. I can just buy the digital version and store it on my Plex server if I want just the music. If I want the physical copy, I want it to look really nice so I go with vinyl.
Instead of just getting a digital download, we provide a full size copy of the album art minus the actual record, and we give you a slightly lower quality version of the digital download with some random crackles and pops added in with advanced AI to simulate the vinyl listening experience.
For an additional 20 dollars, we cut down a tree and set it on fire for you.
I don't expect the world to forget how to decode mp3s, or even loose the ability to generate electric to power my computers/storage to retrieve it. But, in the event all technology collapsing I've got a vibration trapped in a piece of vinyl, and I can play back by scraping a nail over it. There's something quite beautifully "pure" or simple about this. As much as analogue audio tape is doing similar, vinyl is a physical waveform.
Sure, in any world where this could happen there's going to be far more important things to worry about than playing back Paul Simon, but it seems easier to believe I could build a gramophone from first principals than a CD player. Comforting.
Both cassettes and CDs go out of human scale and into technology.
Some countries like India of the Philippines kept using gramophones into the late 60s. You can get shellac records of the Beatles made in India like this one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/362971169801?hash=item5482c48409:g:...
No idea if the price they're asking is realistic or not.
Or even, a 30×30cm print on thick canvas, with a download code on the back.
I want CDs in Jewel Cases, and Vinyl in sleeves.
I have to rummage through my collection, pull the record out of its cover (and maybe read it). Then I have to turn it over half way through. Also when people are over I make them do the same. It sparks conversation.
I concede I could do all of those things with digital copies but I don’t. If I’m not working, I largely listen to vinyl only now.
Been a while. What does that mean? They put a download URL or cheap SD Card in the package?
Most come with a URL and a download code.
Bandcamo automatically gives you the digital if you buy a record through the service.
Amazon used to have "auto rip" where you could download the digital from Amazon music if you bought some records from them. I haven't seen that in a while though
I like the form factor of vinyls a lot but... What kind of turntable do you need for not being able to tell the difference? I take it you need both a pricey vinyl turntable and recent vinyls? To me playing vinyl is linked to my young self playing vinyl and they definitely had a "vinyl sound": hisses and noises and whatnots.
> There's not really a reason for me to buy a CD. I can just buy the digital version and store it on my Plex server if I want just the music.
I do still buy CDs and rip to FLAC.
I put an album on and I know I could try to find my favourite song. Instead the record plays and only needs my help when I am dine with side a.
Tbh this is vinyl's killer feature, lack of choice.
[0] https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/mastering-for-vinyl-tips-fo...
Fresh virgin vinyl has an SNR of 70 dB, which reduces each time it is played.
Even 16-bit audio (96.33 dB) exceeds the SNR of vinyl recording.
Still, I agree that vinyl is nowhere close to ideal in terms of sound quality. I enjoy it in spite of that.
The typical home will have enough background noise (HVAC, traffic, wind, etc) that the noise floor isn't especially relevant, but things like a rich midrange and good dynamics certainly will be.
Also, "degrades on each play" is a real overbid these days. Maybe 50 years ago when people used crappy stylii with non-counterwighted tonearms, that was a problem... but a decent turntable with a good cartridge is quite safe. It would take hundreds of plays for noticeable degredation to occur. I might draw a parallel to home users worrying about SSD write cycles - it's much more of a theoretical issue than a practical one.
Digital SLRs (even APS-frame-size ones) surpassed the best 35mm film money could buy (retail or even "professional") in the mid 2000's in terms of resolution at a given ISO, dynamic range, and even focus (a digital sensor can be flatter than a piece of film ever could be, thus ensuring consistent focus across the entire film plane.) I'm sure the boys at the CIA and whatnot had much fancier film for their cameras, but even they went digital a long, long time ago.
Even back in the mid 2000's retail-available sensors were starting to approach theoretical quantum limits in efficiency of turning photons into a state change on the sensor well they strike. These days some cameras are just stunning with what they can do with the tiniest amount of available light.
Digital is cheaper past a fairly low number of photos, has no per-shot expenditure, you can store tens of thousands of photos on something the size of a thumbnail, you get instant review of things like exposure and "did anyone blink", you can instantly back up the photo to multiple sources (most mid to high level digital SLRs have provisions for mirroring photos to a second card), you can do focus stacking and HDR and panoramas so easily many cameras can do it internally, you can instantly transmit the photos around the world as many cameras have wifi built-in and apps for smartphones that work with it, film and print development is slow, cumbersome, very difficult to do consistently and usually involves pretty toxic chemicals and fair amount of dedicated space.
And yet there are still assholes, fifteen years after film was eclipsed, who will stroke their goatee and tell you why their Pentax K1000 with insert film you've never heard of is "better." I can make the stuff coming out of my digital camera look just like the shit coming out of their camera, only in a fraction of the time, for less cost.
I enjoy shooting 4x5 black and white film because of the limitations of the format, not in spite of them. I use a DSLR for paid work. I like to think the time with the 4x5 makes me better at making photos with the DSLR. It doesn't matter if this is true or not.
Seriously. Film is a medium. Technical race is over. Digital coupled with algorithms for "ultimate" technical exposure is the winner. So what?
Film has a natural grain, grain emulation made digitally is obvious for a trained eye. Film has a chemically based development, you can alter exposure in different ways and produce different results. Shooting film makes you a better photographer. Why? Because to produce a decent photo you must know the exposure triangle and focus.
Focus, because there is no computer to help you and make you think that you are "the best" ever, and if you are not - you can always fix it in post. Learning to do all in camera is giving you advantage in expression.
Expression. This is the key word here. The world of humans has become so narrow, so predictable and binary, that we are fighting with our natural human psychology. Under the command of the technocratic elites moving us forward to the ultimate vision of AI overlords and never-ending cycle of unnecessary software and hardware updates. Don't let me start on security. Try to hack my Leica M3 - remotely.
Film is made for print. Printing has a value in itself. And the process requires more skill and knowledge than applying some LUTs or predefined filters.
1000 megapixel cameras with AI will not make you an artist. Connecting to a real human world and caring will make you one. Yes, you can express this with a smartphone camera without a doubt, but the choice of film is similar to the choice of oil painting as a medium.
Or should I be asshole again for not using digital painting as a medium of choice. You know, painting digitally is so technically superior. You have undo and redo. Layers and masks.
Why live in the past and not embrace the future? Why learn to play an instrument? The computers are so much better.
P.S.
I responded to your "emotionally" charged opinion with an equal reflection. The main point is that everything has a value as an experience, process and end result. To dismiss someone choices over "technical" logic is a false positive. Technically educated people can buy a vinyl record. For different reasons, aesthetically or experience based ones. Putting all the eggs in one basket is not a balanced approach at all.
With film you have to think about your pictures a little more because you can shoot 400 shots per role. Trivial to use a tiny memory card.
With film, you can put your negatives in a box and never lose them, compared to the hell of always managing digital storage. Surely you can get slides made from digital files.
With film, each type has its own characteristics, all of which are copyable in software.
Listen, I get techno Fetishism. If you say that shooting with film camera feels better for you, brilliant. If you claim you prefer vinyl, awesome.
It's when we start making claims of objective superiority that I lose respect and attention.
If the end result is for photo to be viewed on monitor, phone, TV, photo album, or say 11x19 poster, I don't know if there's effective difference by the end between a 45MP FX digital, or a medium/large frame film.
The process though is largely different, including the approach and the sensation and the sense of handling. I fully recognize the important of joy of process.
(It's just that, if I swung that way, I'd go all the way and use the twin reflex film camera for a truly different experience :-D. )
That said, my Sony rivals a medium format in resolution.
If we take joy out of the equation, say we’re doing this as part of a business process, digital is better in all but a handful of cases.
Yes, that’s a real product.
"Unlike conventional power cables, which have propagation speeds that are less than 50% the speed of light, the Valhalla 2 Reference Power Cord has a speed of 91% the speed of light."
Its the mastering not the medium.
I seek out early 80's - early 90's CD (with sprinklings in pop to the early 00's).
Answer: The CD. It is very hard for them to make money from streaming.
Something like that might be happening in other musical genres that I'm not as familiar with. If people are buying vinyl but digital music is effectively free, then of course vinyl will have more sales than digital.
> Answer: The CD. It is very hard for them to make money from streaming.
For what it's worth, and I am not a musician and maybe every deal is different, the people I know who earn a living from playing music have told me that buying the physical CD or buying a digital download from an online store like iTunes or HDTracks nets them within a dollar or two of the same payout.
There's a substantial, as we all know, earnings difference between buying a CD and streaming the artist on a platform like Spotify or Apple Music. But the difference between buying the CD and buying a set of MP3s or FLACs or the like is, supposedly, far smaller.
(If your preferred artist is on BandCamp, I've been told it's even smaller or almost to the point that the CD makes them less money than the download.)
They do put a lot of emphasis on their vinyl records, though. I don't know whether that's because it's also the most popular (you get the big physical disk with artwork and everything and a download code included), or whether that nets them more. I can ask.
I've been on vinyl albums... I don't think they are great for a lot of reasons. They do encourage folks to give you money, though. And they certainly show a commitment to artistry that CDs never quite had.
If you just want the music, streaming is better on almost every front. If you collect them and need to move, they get to be super heavy. They are bad for the environment. Your acoustics are probably the limiting factor in your listening environment, so on and so forth.
It's an interesting moment to mark, to me, not because vinyl is selling more, but because the industry is doing so poorly in general that the relatively niche format has overtaken what was the dominant physical medium for decades.
That is to say, this is the point where we might understand physical recording distribution to have finally died.
Then, between CDs, vinyl, and tapes, vinyls win out for the reasons you say and more, which generally summarize to ~better artistry/sound.
You don't "have" the music if you're streaming it. You're renting it for $10.99/mo from Spotify, and routinely certain song access will drop from complete records on a streaming service for unknown reasons.
Vinyl is a small but important way to properly incentive property ownership, and and I think that's why it's so popular at its root. Digital access is not digital ownership.
The power can be out, no batteries around, no computer in sight, and I can still handcrank my music on a portable set. And I own it, DRM-free.
And, as mentioned above, most records now come with a code for a digital copy of the album. Best of both worlds.
The chances of society deteriorating to the point where an mp3 player running off a rechargeable AA battery isn't achievable are slim to none, and even if they do get to that point, I think you're going to be far more concerned about the basic business of staying alive.
However, in response to that: This past winter my apartment went without power for over 3 days, thanks to frost damage taking out major parts of our grid. UPC ran out of power in a couple hours, phones near the end of the day, any rechargables near mid-second-day. It was really nice to have the hand-crank player with built-in speaker while huddled up under a heavy blanket and reading. The same experience even more recently while staying at a fairly remote cabin, without streaming, signal, or convenient power. Had board games, a handful of records, and a nice lantern. Good times.
I found my big CD wallet in my attic full of all my old CDs. It was all dusty and a bit moldy. Decided to re-rip a bunch of the CDs to AAC as I'd originally done so to mp3 at 160kbit way back in the 2000's.
No issues reading any of them.
Vinyl only wins if you're filthy rich because you make money just by having money (yay capital gains cuts!) and you need something to pump money into to impress yourself or your friends.
I imagine it is a lot easier to jack off while looking at a $10,000, thirty pound marble platter turntable hooked up to a $5,000 tube amplifier, than it is the high-end twenty year old CD player you bought off craigslist for $40
I, also, have no friends.
I just love music, love ritual, love big artwork that takes up a space in my life.
I have a modest turntable hooked to a modest receiver.
You sound overly aggressive
You doing OK?
On one level, I don't agree with you. The ritual of playing records is a real thing. And folks should enjoy what they like.
On another level: yeah.
A record collection is an art collection.
That's okay, though.
I've had both. I prefer my art collection cause it weighs less. Neither are worth anywhere near what I put into them (my musical instrument collection is nice cause at least it keep in line with inflation).
Where I really agree with you: sterophile audio equipment ain't really much. That's different that a record collection though. Most of my record friends have old deep cuts and are playing on $300 players.
If it helps, there was a time around the first decade of this century when you find really, really cool stuff for, like $2/album. It used to be hella cheap to be a record collector.
Now though, especially if you factor in the audiophillic tendencies you point to, it very much has little to do with the medium and much to do with the milieu.
You still can, especially if you keep an open mind and are cool with spending $2 for a record just because it looks interesting but you have no idea what's on it and/or who the artist is. I've found so many fantastic records in the dollar/discount bins in recent years.
Seriously, though, I have rips of stuff.
My second wife had 300 records. I like listening to them. The ritual thing is real.
Moving them sucked, and they wear out.
CDs, due to their nature, can't be made as gimmicky, so vinyls are a better conversation item and a better collector value, among other things.
Having moved a 300-record collection.... holy cow it weighs so much.
(No, I don't have that one anymore. Great record, though.)
To me that’s one of the ironies of the whole thing. Producing vinyl records is way harder for a starting up musician.
I don’t know how hard is to get listed on Spotify/Apple Music, but I would be curious about if starting has become easier or harder in net terms.
I don't really like vinyl that much either, but I love music and simply can't help but respect the few people dedicated to such an arduous process.
Sucks to try and make a living at music worse than any time in the 20th century. Technology killed that gig.
But learning? Better than ever.
I'll take 1000 slightly interested folks over 5 dudes who think they are SRV because they can play variations over everything Hendrix ever wrote.
I think that if anything has changed, it's gotten better.
Like, the Beatles on Sullivan was a turning point for most of the 70-year-olds I play with. They all quit their music lessons, got into a garage band, and started playing shitty 3-chord rock.
That might setup a situation where "grit and passion" become, uh, marginally more important than the actual music. But making the posturing of the musician more important than the music isn't a big win for the general state of the art.
https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Mid-Year-202...
No worries about neither battery levels nor data caps nor corporate surveillance.
I will also buy from Mobile Fidelity (mofi.com), who sell audiophile heavyweight virgin vinyl and hybrid SACDs.
Ideal scenario is a remaster from original master tapes without compression onto CD.
The same goes for cassettes. There’s been a (small) resurgence of cassettes, mostly from heavier types of music. There’s something about the harshness and hiss to tapes that fits really well with metal and punk.
As to the collection thing - a buddy has a growing vinyl collection and a decent, mid-range stereo that he pieces together. It’s a system much like my dad put together when I was growing up. Listening to music on a real sound system that you’ve tweaked to a particular room is a far more rewarding experience than ear buds or even the best headphones.
I find headphones to be isolating and uncomfortable after a short time. And playing music from a phone speaker is dreadful.
But I get your point, the way a vinyl record and its player make the sound "worse" can potentially enhance the listening experience, even if a sound engineer could have applied the same effect on the audio that got put on the CD.
Like a CRT screen with old video games.
Right. Agreed on this. Mastering for the particular medium is a big part of the final outcome.
And between headphones, phone speakers, audiophile sound systems, and live music, I choose all of them.
So it’s a lot like taking photos with Instagram filters. You are distorting the signal but you think it looks/sounds better.
Otherwise, you can just fill a hard drive with FLACs and make backups. CDs are in the "uncanny valley" of digital, but impermanent.
* I like the physical interaction with my music (choosing the CD, putting it in the player, pressing play and getting 40-60 minutes of music)
* I like the artwork and liner notes (although the larger format of records wins there)
* I like the record store experience
I prefer CDs to vinyl because they sound better IMHO, are more durable, can be backed up and re-burned as needed, and are (slightly) smaller.
You could also have a smart turntable with a camera on it, that automatically cues the digital version of any known record.
People who want a physical way of interacting with their digital collection have done things like print tiny record sleeves that contain an NFC chip. Hold the sleeve up to your reader (like your phone) and that triggers the the songs on that record to play.
It's only true by value, because records cost a lot more than CDs do.
By unit sales, CDs are still outselling records, and both are irrelevant when compared to streaming revenue.
I’m not sure if I got in before the greater vinyl revival, but I wonder if it will prove to have just been a bubble, or if there are really enough audiophiles, DJs, etc to keep it going once the hipster chic wears off (if it hasn’t already)
Streaming leaves music fans with money left over to spend and they buy vinyl to have something nice looking to put on the shelf (and play occasionally).
1. higher dynamic range needed for classical music
2. don't have to clean the disk every time I play it
3. doesn't skip
4. no snap crackle pop that happens even on the first play
5. vinyl takes up too much space
6. the needle doesn't turn into a furball after a few plays
7. the needle doesn't need to be replaced after 300 plays
8. the speakers don't cause feedback with the needle
9. you don't need to tread softly lest the needle picks that up
mp3s, however, trump CDs.
-you can't hear the previous groove play through into th current one
> mp3s, however, trump CDs.
What? If CD's have better dynamic range than vinyl then how does mp3 trump CDs?
With AAC and other modern codecs it's probably closer to 128.
For me the biggest annoyance is that some bluetooth audio codecs are pretty trash (thankfully most everything supports the ones that are decent), you can't configure any of it or even tell what codec has been negotiated between your phone and stereo, and I don't think any car company publishes what codecs their radios support.
I collect/archive music in FLAC but convert down to mp3 when syncing to devices.
I find myself feeling that audio quality mid track has worsened and look at the screen to have it confirmed that it isn't lossless any more. Of course I don't know what the compressed bitrate is - so it could be quite low in these scenarios - but subjectively the quality isn't awful, just a bit worse.
But who is still buying CDs?
I do agree that vinyls do look better though.
I still own well over 1500 vinyl albums from the 1960s to 1980s. (From a tape mastering service that closed down in the 1990s, so pristine vinyl, radio stations would play the tapes made from the records.) Sentimental value…never played now.
Own lots of music digitally purchased or copied from owned CDs. Over the years most of the transferred-from-CD music has been replaced by purchased digital for the convenience of using iTunes. My iTunes library is very large. I can listen to my library for half a year without ever repeating a track.
I own 1000+ CDs. And I regularly purchase more. Often after having purchased one or more tracks from the album online.
If I find an entire album I really like, I don’t mind the expense of purchasing a CD and online content. But it has to be really good and an artist I want to support.
1. I don’t need an Internet connection to play my CD. A $30 CD player will suffice.
2. My CD will still be making its music freely available for 50-100 years.
3. There is no recurring per-use/per-month fee for playing my CD.
4. No company can arbitrarily make my CD music unavailable.
5. My CD tracks are good enough sound quality for me, except perhaps loudness war legacy tracks. Skip-free, scratch-free, high fidelity, great dynamic range. On a $30 CD player.
6. My CD isn’t part of any playlist market manipulation. My CD isn’t trying to sell me anything other than itself. It’s all about the music, man.
7. I can resell my CD if I so choose to someone else who shares my interest in my CD. After deleting any backup digital copy I may have made of my CD.
8. My CD is part of a simple musical ecosystem. I can take my CD from my home stereo to my portable player to my car player without Internet glitches or firmware updates or software incompatibilities or rights management nightmares.
9. My new CD costs $15-20, as little as $2-3 in boxed sets or used. One time, upfront. Every use for the next 50 years or more costs nothing…it doesn’t degrade with wear.
10. With CD changers, a set of my CDs can provide much of the same functions as online or streaming playlists. For a one-time $150 cost. No Internet. No hassles.
11. My CDs reflect and physically document my (hopefully) evolved taste in music. I do trust other music enthusiasts’ recommendations on what I might eventually purchase, but wouldn’t trust your average SV algorithm for immediate shut-up-and-listen playlists.
I like my CDs. I selectively want to add to my collection. And the relative difficulty in getting used CDs that are out-of-print nowadays suggests that others share my predilection. My CD collection might be worth today more than its original purchase price, or may be in the future if streaming doesn’t clean up its act.
Edit: grammar.
I doubt a lot of people buy CDs because they like CDs. Vinyl is something else, though, especially if you consider electronic music and DJ culture. And then there's people who insist Vinyl just sounds better, which may or may not be a placebo effect. And I remember when CDs became popular, some people complained that Vinyl was just more aesthetically pleasing because of the cover art and picture discs.
So yeah, it makes sense. I guess Vinyl is going to stay around much longer than CDs.
However, as someone else pointed out, the peak (heh) of the "loudness war" has been over for a while now.
That doesn't mean there aren't new albums (be it on vinyl or CD, or lossless digital) that are still terribly mixed and mastered.
After all, it's easier than ever to get your music to be published these days.
Disclaimer: I no longer own any physical media music; mine was lost years ago, and acquiring more stuff doesn’t play nice with raising young kids.
I bought 100 boxes for shipping records, and listed my collection on Discogs. Now I've used up all the boxes.
For me, I digitized the ones I wanted, and now they're on a microSD card in my phone. That works for me, since I can play it in the car, but I'm happy that someone who really wanted the vinyl now has it. I know I never played them.
A brand new vinyl record? I doubt it's worth it, but hey, if that's what you like, go for it.
Of course, this year sales of just about everything are supply-limited...
Tell them I ain't comin back.
Burn the land and boil the sea,
You can't take CDs from me.
~~ (My 35yo CD still sounds like it did the first time.)
I buy records because I like physical objects and reading the liner notes. I've been listening to music, sitting in the midst of a pile of records, since the 70s.
But I buy CDs too -- mostly used -- because it's a great, inexpensive way to get high bitrate music.
So let's say CD usage is going towards ZERO. Vinyl is more of a fad/hobby/experience/collection thingie? So their sale is going up i.e above ZERO?
But especially in comparison with vinyl records, which was the context here, CDs seemed almost indestructible. It was one of their selling points: Even visibly fine vinyl records still skip sometimes, while a CD that picked up tons of scratches sitting on someone's desk would still play fine.
Not a big surprise given that CDs have their data with lots of redundance below a protective coat, while on a vinyl record the surface is the data...
Interesting anyway.