Laser Turntable

[PanzerKnight]

Never knew you could get these, they seem so sweet! No needle, just a laser reading the grooves.

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...achapter55.htm

http://www.smartdev.com/LT/laserturntable.html

shame it costs about $10000

[ACiD303]

Ive seen this before - how do you get lasers to work with a non-reflective to not-so-reflective black surface? The 5 laser system doesnt sound to be a great tracker either . . .

I wouldnt go for it without other manufacturers jumping on this bandwagon first. . . even then . . .

[unrealrocks]

Wow - that is interesting, althogh for $10k I would expect great play, that thing wouldn't even play clear or special edition disks.

I think the new high resolution scanning digitiser software seems much more in the right direction.

[TomWilko]

How could you mix with something like that?

[unrealrocks]

Originally Posted by TomWilko

How could you mix with something like that?

I think its for purist listening rather than scratching

[Knoxville]

audiophiles rejoice

i dunno about the compatability with clear or coloured discs but the cash would be better spent on a better speaker set up and top of the line standard turn table

[Crazy Cricket]

Can I just point out here that a 'standard top of the line turntable' can cost over thirty thousand pounds

[Knoxville]

what?

is it made of baby panda's or something?

[unrealrocks]

For £30k I could take my entire record collection, and have it burned in DVDA by a professional digital mastering studio

Whats the point in spending that much.

[5lab]

its supposed to sound better. rich people have got to spend thier money on something

now this system surprises me. it digitizes the vynal, which is possably pointless as the main reason for useing vynal is that it ISNT digital and thus IS lossless (unlike cd/dvda etc).. doubt there will be many purchasers tbh.

[turkster]

Originally Posted by 5lab

it digitizes the vynal, which is possably pointless as the main reason for useing vynal is that it ISNT digital and thus IS lossless

Exactly! Anyone who buys a high end turntable knows (should know) that it is analogue non digital process hence good sound quality. Digitising a vinyl misses the point. Saying that using a laser would not necessarily have to be digital process.

It is amazing how difficult it is to persuade people that vinyl have potentially better sound quality than CDs. Even when you start explaining things like sampling rate and bit depth versus analogue.

[unrealrocks]

Thats the point, IT DOESNT DIGITIZE THE LP. Why do you think it still needs a photostage

Its simply using lasers as the pickup system - its not reading on and off like CDs, its reading a variation in the track.

Well pressed Vinal can sometimes be better than CD although no after 200 plays even with Laser rot taken into account. Also you still get grind and a little wow & flutter even after a few plays.

[streetster]

vinyl isnt it?

still seems a helluvalot of money when i'm sure the money would be better spent on an amp/cd player/ speakers etc.. still its got a laser beam so it cant be all bad

[Rave]

Originally Posted by turkster

Exactly! Anyone who buys a high end turntable knows (should know) that it is analogue non digital process hence good sound quality. Digitising a vinyl misses the point. Saying that using a laser would not necessarily have to be digital process.

It is amazing how difficult it is to persuade people that vinyl have potentially better sound quality than CDs. Even when you start explaining things like sampling rate and bit depth versus analogue.

Wrong, Incorrectamundo, etc. Don't get me wrong here, I'm a vinyl junkie and I own a Linn LP12 (broken ATM ), but vinyl cannot hope to compare to CD for fidelity of output. If you were to compare an original master tape signal to the output from a £10,000 turntable and a £100 CD player, the CD player would win hands down for fidelity. Would it sound better? Almost certainly not.

The only reason LPs sound as good as they do is because of the RIAA equalisation used. This rolls off the bass and boosts the treble when the master disc is cut; the phono stage puts the reverse equalisation on at playback time. If you plug the output into a normal input on your amp, it's not only quiet but also very bright and harsh sounding. That wouldn't be necessary if vinyl was capable of reproducing the sound exactly as recorded, would it? In theory analogue reproduction can be higher fidelity than digital, but in practice you need 15 or 30 inch per second tape to match up to 96KHz/24bit digital. The outer tracks of a 33.33 rpm record do pass the stylus at approx. 20ips, but the inner tracks sure as hell don't, and we're talking a tiny groove a fraction of a millimetre thick rather than a half inch wide bit of tape.

Despite all this, I do agree that vinyl sounds better. All that proves is that absolute fidelity to the original recording is not the be all and end all of good sound.

As for the laser turntable, it's been around for a very long time, like 10-15 years. I'd like one, but it'll be a very long time before I could justify spending ten grand on one. In the meantime I'll just make a 96/24 copy onto DVD-A of any discs I'm worried about wearing out and not being able to replace.

Rich :¬)

[Butuz]

Good going Rave.

I would suggest as a possibility, the reason many people think vinyl sounds better than cd, is not because of the format itself, but because for any given £value a turntable will be actually better at reproducing music than the equivalant priced cd player IMHO.

I know that my £180 marantz cd player is no match for my £120 Goldring turntable (priced down Rega P2).

I have both CD and turntables, but i prefer the ease of use of CD which coupled with the inflated price of new vinyl (£15-20 for an record thats £9.99 on cd in tescos), makes me want to buy a cd rather than a record.

I still listen to both though, and for me vinyl is more musical.

Butuz

[Rave]

Originally Posted by Butuz

I would suggest as a possibility, the reason many people think vinyl sounds better than cd, is not because of the format itself, but because for any given £value a turntable will be actually better at reproducing music than the equivalant priced cd player IMHO.

Well, it depends how you define 'better' really. If you define it as 'a truer reproduction of the oiginal master recording' then CD wins. If you define it as 'more pleasing to the ear' then vinyl wins. Vinyl sounds better because it introduces harmonic distortions into the sound and adjusts the tonal balance slightly. Using a sophisticated graphic equaliser, you can introduce the same distortions into a CD signal and hey presto, you get a pretty vinyl-ish sound. The same is true of valve amplifiers vs. transistors. The valves introduce more distortion, but it's (apparently) odd order distortion, which is pleasing to the ear, as opposed to the even order distortion produced by transistors, which is not.

I know that my £180 marantz cd player is no match for my £120 Goldring turntable (priced down Rega P2).

I haven't the time or money to sod about trying to find a suitable replacement cartidge for my LP12, so for the time being I'm using one of those £50 Bush MTT1 mini turntables from Argos. The stylus is a big, nasty one, so it tracks very poorly on the inner grooves (making for distorted treble) and the 45rpm setting runs noticeably fast, but it still sounds better than my £100 Technics CD player. Comparing the 12" single and CD recordings of 'This time I know it's for real' by Donna Summer*, The CD has more detail, but the record is just so much sweeter and more cohesive. It's music, compared to a collection of sounds.

I have both CD and turntables, but i prefer the ease of use of CD which coupled with the inflated price of new vinyl (£15-20 for an record thats £9.99 on cd in tescos), makes me want to buy a cd rather than a record.

I very rarely buy new vinyl (in fact I rarely buy new music at all); I only buy singles, I've never bought a new vinyl album. I'm a boot fair and charity shop junkie, so the vast majority of the vinyl in my collection cost me £1 or less, some were as little as 20p. One guy at a boot fair offered me his collection of 30+ LPs and 50+ singles for £5, he said he couldn't be bothered to take it back home with him. I think he was losing patience by that point, the guy ahead of me got a complete Amiga 1200 kit (loads of software too) for a tenner or so. I also got a Deutshe Gramophone box set of every Mozart symphony for £2.50 in a charity shop, that was 20odd discs.

Rich :¬)

*I know, I know, I'm beyond help, but Donna Summer + Stock, Aitken and Waterman = pop/disco genius