Conference cookie::notes$archive:cd_v1

    How could scratched records sound good or even dirty records
    for that matter.  
    
    Hum..........
    
    Maybe the micro processor has anti-dust over-scratching filters.
    
    Sounds like a bargin for 2.5k.
    
    Geezo, what'll they think of next... Where can I buy stocks in
    
    this company.
    
    ekim

    What about cuing up a song on an lp? At least with a needle you
    could place the tone arm to a particular location on the record
    and back spin to the desired start point.

Re: .-1

For $2500  I  assume  they  can  build  in  the technology to find the shiny
grooves  between bands. I have a tape deck that can do that (find silence on
the  tape over a certain length, about 2 seconds) at almost FF speed. Should
be quicker on an LP, since the laser doesn't have to go far. Then, you could
"program"  the  order  of  selections  on  one side of a vinyl disk that you
wanted to hear, just like a CD.

    re: .-1,-2
    
    B & O introduced track-seeking lasers on their turntables, gosh,
    I guess about 10 years ago.  Some of the Technics linear tracking
    jobs have them, and, yes, I believe some are programmable.  Hmm,
    maybe they'll sell retrofit kits (i.e. headshell and decoder) to
    upgrade existing turntables.  Yes, where is that stock?
    
    Richard

    Retrofits of existing cartridge TT's using laser lateral tracking
    would likely unwieldy because the new system will require vertical
    servo (motors on the vertical motion axis) to keep the pickup laser
    focused on the disc.  I suppose a Shure V15 T4 like system could
    be used instead (with the brush preloaded) if the laser focus is
    not critical, but I suspect it is.
    
    Dirt and scratches might be less of a problem to a laser if it is
    'reading' the whole side of a groove because most dirt occupies
    only a piece of a groove wall and the laser might be able to 
    average it into the return thus reducing its effect.  New records
    would be easier to keep tick free because there would be no contact
    point to drive the dirt into the groove wall.  Also, vinyl quality
    might be less important to sound quality because the laser only
    sees the surface whereas a typical stylus feels, to a depth of about
    50 angstroms, the groove vinyl (according to Mitch Cotter) and thus
    you hear vinyl defects you cannot see with a microscope.
    
    This sounds like it might be borrowing heavily from LV technology
    and has my curosity peaked!
    
    Walt

    Cripes!
    
    I go and convert my collection habits to digital and LOOK what 
    happens!
    	
    Has anybody seen or heard one of these jobs?

Yawn.

Vinyl analog records are still vinyl analog records.  So what if you read them
with a laser?  They are still narrower in dynamic range, more noisy, more
easily damaged, harder to keep clean, more subject to warping, and generally
of poorer recording quality than CDs.  The dinosaurs also managed a few
evolutionary innovations just before they went extinct.

--PSW

    I basically agree with .7

    The real problem with vinyl records is that you lose a whopping 20 dB
    dynamic range going thru the master/mother/stamper process.
    LP's would be pretty good if you could get the sound of the master, but...

    Also, the idea has been kicked around long before.

    - Jim

    Another agreement with .7, the problem with vinyl is the R.I.A.A.
    curve, compress and decompress, not the pick-up. CD is here to stay,
    long live the CD.
    
    
    dick

     Interesting. I saw an article,oh, ten, eleven years ago about an
    inventor that had made a turntable that read records with a laser.
    I wonder if this is the same guy. The article quoted the inventor
    as saying that the turntable could read ANY disk without much problem.
    As an example he took a record, broke it, then taped it together
    and played it! Seem the laser would offtrack or something over
    scratches and other noise so that a rather clean output was obtained.
     I always wondered if that idea would see the light of day.
    Interestingly the inventor expected the early models (if he could
    get a company interested in marketing his idea) would be around
    $2k.

    Re: .7 .8 .9
                          DITTO....................
    
    The dinosaur comment hits it on the nose.
                                                   
    ekiM

    Ah, yes the dinosaur is gone...would have been fun to have seen
    a live one though!  I've taken the liberty to post the base note
    in the Records Conference to see what kind of response it would
    draw.  There are many people out there that are firm believers in
    the vinyl disc...I for one believe they'll be around for a looooong
    time.  Many of the great recordings (dinosaurs) that are around
    will probably never make it into cd form with the lack of cd
    manufacturers around...and then there is still the price (when will
    they ever drop?)!!
    
    I do believe that cds offer the superior sound, dynamic range, playing
    time, etc., over the vinyl. Oh how far we've come in the past 100
    or so years!
    
    _stew-

    I have been impressed, overall, with the sound of the CD but am
    not pleased that the price is nearly twice that of vinyl.  And
    even though I plan on buying a CD player around Christmas I have
    no intention of replacing my 2500 + vinyl recordings with CDs.
    I think it is a great idea to come up with the laser turntable
    to help preserve the vinyl I do have.  Who knows, in twenty years
    that vinyl could have me laughing all the way to the bank.
    
    =ken

    In twenty years they'll probably be storing music on a chip!!
    
    The vinyl disc will be about as popular as eight tracks.
    

    
    DITTO with .7, .8, .9 and others of the same thinking.
    
    I too am not about to replace all my current LPs with CDs, but I
    have replaced a couple that I really listen to and have been recorded
    Digitally.  For example Steven Reich's Harmonium and John Adam's
    Shaker Loops.  Lots of very very quiet passages on this Digital
    recording which first showed itself on Phillips LP.  Trouble was,
    even new you couldn't hear the music over the vinyl noise.  Got
    the CD the week Phillips released it, and the difference both in
    dynamics and presense was awsome.
    
    So I'll continue to preserve my LPs, but I'll be darned if I'd be
    be silly enough to fork out $2500 for a laser turntable.  Currently
    I immediately onto tape. By this time next year, I may be able to
    buy a DAC system, and that would justify that expenditure.  But
    when you consider that the *best* currently available in the CD
    players costs well under $1000; $2500 for a laser turntable is a
    bit pricey.

    No flames here just trying to give some impressions.
    
    Yeah, the price of $2500 is pretty steep.  I'm not going to rush
    out and get one, but maybe the price will come down.  My concern
    is mostly around the fact the CDs have not been around long enough
    that there are any worth $$$$s.  However, vinyl has.  Some records
    in my collection are worth money and given the wear that ordinary
    analog systems are prone to, I don't play them very much or else
    I convert them to tape.  Even though the CD people have been re-
    releasing stuff that has been out of (vinyl) print for some years
    there is some stuff they may never get around to.  And how about
    all those 78s that still exist?  The sonic quality certainly will
    never compare to a CD but there is an intrinsic value invloved.
    Not only that, but in many cases master tapes do not exist for this
    stuff so dubs to CD would have to be done directly from the disc.
    Somehow this doen't seem to be the reason that CDs were invented.
    
    Don't get me wrong, CDs are the wave of the future and someday
    some CDs will collect the money that some vinyl gets now.  And, as
    I said a CD player is on my Christmas list but I've got to weigh
    the facts, do I spend $35K replacing records with CDs or do I shell
    out $2500 or less (hopefully) for a system to help protect the
    investment I made starting over twenty years ago.  Gosh, I should
    have known then (late '50s) this was going to happen.  I would have
    never bought all that vinyl.  8^)
    
    =ken