Seen this yet ? Laser turntable...

[JBLnsince1959]

Indeed, it's been around a while. See the history link on the website....

Well, you have to understand that I'm in Kansas and it takes while for new things to show up. In fact it's was only a few years ago we learned about this new "High Fidelity Stereo Sound". Boy, was it great getting away from just mono, but damn, I had to buy another speaker!

and to top it off.....a few days ago I learned that my C-35's aren't the newest thing. Boy, technology just doesn't stand still... what's next? a Dick Tracy type telephone that you can carry with you? I'll bet that's not to far off in the future

[Titanium Dome]

what's next? a Dick Tracy type telephone that you can carry with you? I'll bet that's not to far off in the future

OMG, a telephone that traces what?

[JBLnsince1959]

OMG, a telephone that traces what?

[morbo!]

ive seen 1 on ebay but still well over $10,000 aud
id buy the largest amp i could for that kind of cash and put up with a cd

[Fred Sanford]

A friend of mine is a TV/Movie producer, and when he was working on a project for the History Channel we had some interesting conversations about the archival of audio recordings. First, there's a number of folks that are primarily interested in preserving the "object", the disc or cylinder or tape reel that was used to make the recording. Playing these "objects", even to hear them and re-record them and thus preserve & share the performance that was recorded, degrades them to some degree (sometimes to the point of destroying them) and should therefore be avoided or not allowed. Others feel that the audio recording is what should be preserved, and being able to share it and archive it is worth the potential degradation. From there, the arguments lead to archival format (digital/analog, bitrate, file format, etc.) in regards to expense, format & playback machinery longevity & popularity, archival storage expense and longevity, blah blah blah. Then you get into debates on noise redution, eq'ing, hiss & pop removal, bridging blanks (some of these records look like jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing) and so on.

In the record album realm, we talked about these laser players, and another conceivably more expensive but non-destructive recording method- topographical photography. There's got to be a way to "record" the topography of the disc & interpret that, no? Seemed possible to me, but a huge allocation of resources at this point.

Fun stuff, some cool conversations. The show ended up interesting enough, but not nearly long enough to delve into much of it:

http://tinyurl.com/a5nay

je

[morbo!]

A friend of mine is a TV/Movie producer, and when he was working on a project for the History Channel we had some interesting conversations about the archival of audio recordings. First, there's a number of folks that are primarily interested in preserving the "object", the disc or cylinder or tape reel that was used to make the recording. Playing these "objects", even to hear them and re-record them and thus preserve & share the performance that was recorded, degrades them to some degree (sometimes to the point of destroying them) and should therefore be avoided or not allowed. Others feel that the audio recording is what should be preserved, and being able to share it and archive it is worth the potential degradation. From there, the arguments lead to archival format (digital/analog, bitrate, file format, etc.) in regards to expense, format & playback machinery longevity & popularity, archival storage expense and longevity, blah blah blah. Then you get into debates on noise redution, eq'ing, hiss & pop removal, bridging blanks (some of these records look like jigsaw puzzles with pieces missing) and so on.

In the record album realm, we talked about these laser players, and another conceivably more expensive but non-destructive recording method- topographical photography. There's got to be a way to "record" the topography of the disc & interpret that, no? Seemed possible to me, but a huge allocation of resources at this point.

Fun stuff, some cool conversations. The show ended up interesting enough, but not nearly long enough to delve into much of it:

http://tinyurl.com/a5nay

je

Records were always crap. Do you think they used records in a studio?
no most stuff at least in the last 50 years till the advent of digital was recorded on a real to real.
Go look at the specs on one of these baby`s and you might be really suprised.
Records like the standard tape deck was just for the mass public a trade off between true quality and affordability.
So unless you talking the "orignial" source which would never be a record
any better way of reading it would always be welcome in my eyes and i suspect many others here

thank god 4 digital (but only to a point) van morrison lives
from memory
tape deck 4 track
the 8 track 8 track
the real to real 16 track

morbo!

[Fred Sanford]

Records were always crap.

Not true.

Do you think they used records in a studio?

Sure they did, it was all they had for quite a long time, and the best they had until tape-based recording evolved for a while.

no most stuff at least in the last 50 years till the advent of digital was recorded on a real to real.

Recording on these cylinders started in the late 1800's, I was discussing much more than the last 50 years. Reel-to-reel tapes also need to be archived, multi-track masters and mixed masters. Same or similar debates for them, playing them degrades them to some degree, and the playback machines differ in format, so machines need to be located and maintained & that costs $$$. Older tapes also often need to be processed or heat-treated in order to have them play at all.

Go look at the specs on one of these baby`s and you might be really suprised.

I've owned at least a dozen reel-to-reel machines, and used many others. Quite familiar with them.

Records like the standard tape deck was just for the mass public a trade off between true quality and affordability.

Check your history, tapes came later than discs (1930s or later, I think). I'd have to say portability was a large factor in the development of popular tape formats as well, cassettes & 8-tracks were less fragile than open reels and obviously appealed to the masses & the industry in that way as well.

So unless you talking the "orignial" source which would never be a record

(not true)

any better way of reading it would always be welcome in my eyes and i suspect many others here

...but, if it isn't a record disc, what alternate methods are you thinking of?

thank god 4 digital (but only to a point) van morrison lives
from memory
tape deck 4 track
the 8 track 8 track
the real to real 16 track

morbo!

je

Some quick searches found these if you're curious:


http://www.tinfoil.com/

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html

[jblnut]

Records were always crap. morbo!

My, my...nothing like putting your foot into your mouth and swallowing your whole leg too...

You've obviously never heard a good vinyl setup.

Your loss....

jblnut

[sdaniel]

Until it can play a stack of LP's, or at least until it will play side two without my having to get up.

S

[Rolf]

Really guys...

I am the first to admit that the CD is not the perfect medium. But really...it does sound better than a vinyl record on a record player! I am not talking about most of todays CD's with "artists" who make som "mumbo jumbo" computer made sounds (some of them can be quite fun to listen to thow) but good recordings from artists and studios who really care for what they do. Unfortunately, there is not many who does today.

It does not really matters if the recording is analog or digital. You might be able to hear some tape noise on older (< 70's) good analog recordings converted to digital, but compared to the noise from a needle digging on a vinyl record it is almost nothing.

Unless you are playing some really heavy rock, you will always hear the "hiss, plop and scratching" using a vinyl disc on a record player, no matter how good the player is.

To make a comment on what is the subject of this thread, the Laser Turntable, I do not know. Never heard it, or any other laser reading vinyl machine. Just one question: Why? We got the digital medium, and the only reason to buy such a player must be to take care of your old vinyl recordings for sentimental reasons. My advise is to buy new cd's with your old recordings. You can buy a lot of cd's for $15-$18000.

I could go on a long time with this vinyl/cd stuff, but I stop with this little story:

First we had live musik. Then we got "Mary had a little lamb" -- and people get mad, saying: "crap crap". After a while we got a speaker: "crap crap". Suddenly we got stereo: "Oh no!" Mono is the best! .. "crap crap". Then we got the digital: "NO, NO, NO" ... "Analog is the best" "crap, crap".... I wonder what is the next making us say: "Digital is the best" ... "crap crap".

.... Why are we so afraid of all new tecnology? ...

A big smile to you all from

Rolf