the vinyl strikes back - laser turntable

[Pingu]

The EIP Laser Turntable plays records without touching them - Decoded Magazine

*looks at large vinyl collection*

 

[Maharani]

Wow

 

[Fez909]

This was a thing years ago and the consensus was that it was a nice gimmick, but it wouldn't be as good as a real turntable stylus because a needle cleans the record as well as playing it.

I haven't read the article so don't know if this one differs in any way to the previous incarnation.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I can't help but think "what's the point".

 

[killer b]

It's been available for ages, but no-one is interested. It provides a solution to a problem no-one is really that bothered about, and misunderstands it's target market completely - why would an audiophile be interested in a machine which converts an analogue signal to digital, then back to analogue again?

 

[Fez909]

It's been available for ages, but no-one is interested. It provides a solution to a problem no-one is really that bothered about, and misunderstands it's target market completely - why would an audiophile be interested in a machine which converts an analogue signal to digital, then back to analogue again?

I've read the article now and this bit is good

This virgin audio information is then reproduced without digitization maintaining true analog sound as close as possible to when the master tape was recorded.

 

[blairsh]

Should've called it a 'Laser Susan'.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Still there's this persistent myth that digitising a signal loses information or is somehow an approximation of the original.

 

[killer b]

Myth or otherwise, if you're a vinyl audiophile its because you want the 'pure' analogue signal, with as few stages as possible between you and the music. There's no market for this machine.

 

[Fez909]

Still there's this persistent myth that digitising a signal loses information or is somehow an approximation of the original.

Surely it's fact that information is 'lost'. The myth is that it makes a difference to the listener.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Surely it's fact that information is 'lost'. The myth is that it makes a difference to the listener.

No. As long as you sample at a rate more than twice that of the highest frequency you wish to capture then you can recreate the original signal perfectly. No information is lost at all.

 

[stuff_it]

Surely it's fact that information is 'lost'. The myth is that it makes a difference to the listener.

According to physics information can't be created or destroyed. There are probably already odd noises appearing somewhere on the other side of the universe thanks to the evils of digital audio compression.

 

[existentialist]

No. As long as you sample at a rate more than twice that of the highest frequency you wish to capture then you can recreate the original signal perfectly. No information is lost at all.

Presumably, the only "information" you will lose will be the extraneous stuff provided by defects in the vinyl and caused by the mechanical interaction of the needle and the vinyl? Which is all completely irrelevant (except in the loss of quality it results in) to the actual audio.

 

[existentialist]

According to physics information can't be created or destroyed. There are probably already odd noises appearing somewhere on the other side of the universe thanks to the evils of digital audio compression.

 

[Athos]

Still there's this persistent myth that digitising a signal loses information or is somehow an approximation of the original.

That's probably becasue most people's experience of digital music is 320kbit/s MP3 (or worse), which are 'lossy', and noticably (at least on a half decent system) significantly worse than a decent analogue sound. But,with the advent of high-resolution digital audio, it's less and less easy to tell the difference between digital and analogue inputs.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I remember seeing one on tomorrow's world in the 80s. Not exactly a new idea. Bit pointless considering we already have record players, and CDs are built to do the laser thing.

 

[Fez909]

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...play-your-vinyls-with-no-wear-and-tear.99705/

2006 and my comment from then was identical to todays

 

[Athos]

I remember seeing one on tomorrow's world in the 80s. Not exactly a new idea. Bit pointless considering we already have record players, and CDs are built to do the laser thing.

I think the USP is that is that it's analogue processing without the damage to vinly that is unavoidable with a conventional record player.

Though I'd tend to agree with you. Especially at that price!

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I think the USP is that is that it's analogue processing without the damage to vinly that is unavoidable with a conventional record player.

Though I'd tend to agree with you. Especially at that price!

Then buy the record, get the mp3 down load and never play the vinyl. Daft buggers.

 

[abe11825]

Myth or otherwise, if you're a vinyl audiophile its because you want the 'pure' analogue signal, with as few stages as possible between you and the music. There's no market for this machine.

That's why it's a bit heavy in its price.

But damn... #don'twant.

Although it would be interesting to play with, once, it's not something I can see wanting in my collection. I have a CD player, hell I have several. All I need is my Technics and Panasonic turntables, and I'm good. I want to change the sound on the Bobby Rydell album, I will use the iON USB deck and throw it into Audacity.

Thanks for sharing the link, though! Interesting new concept!

 

[Athos]

Then buy the record, get the mp3 down load and never play the vinyl. Daft buggers.

You joke, but there are people who buy records and refuse to play them!

 

[laptop]

I remember seeing one on tomorrow's world

Explains why it's a fail

 

[chemn]

You joke, but there are people who buy records and refuse to play them!

This is not surprising.

 

[Sprocket.]

This is not surprising.

Especially true of that vinyl recording of silence!

 

[ska invita]

Still there's this persistent myth that digitising a signal loses information or is somehow an approximation of the original.

i know what you mean but it does lose information to different degrees, depending on the level - especially sampling/bit depth rate - at which it is digitised. Wether it is audible or not is up to debate