Laser Turntable

[ozone_stink]

Well, this is news to me...hope I'm not posting what's been posted to death already:

Laser Turntable

For the low low introductory price of 15K, meh that's CHEAP for hi-fi turntables, no?

 

[sreten]

Hi,

that turntable has been around since 1987 - started as Finial.

/sreten.

 

[EC8010]

It's interesting to see the specifications, though. They're not very good, are they? The W&F can easily be bettered, and the S/N ratio is alarming. Still, I suppose for only $15k, you can't really expect it to better a Rega.

 

[phn]

EC8010, agree with you there. 55 db! That's about 45 db less than what you can expect from a good pressing!!

Who buys this?

 

[Havoc]

55 db! That's about 45 db less than what you can expect from a good pressing!!

So you expect 100dB S/N from an LP? rather preposterous I would say.

 

[phn]

No, 85-90 REAL-WORLD db. It's all because of the superior noise-floor. I believe Audioholics did a test.

I NOW see my error 55+45. So stupid. Sorry.

 

[Havoc]

I guess 50dB from an LP is about the most you can get.

 

[phn]

50 db? A poor pressing and worn-out cartridge, perhaps.

"LPs consistently have higher relative dynamics over digital formats."

Audioholics

 

[dnsey]

There's another thread knocking around somewhere about this...

 

[Jezz-the-Fezz]

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67567

dnsey's right. I did see one of these on ebay (rather these being sold..) for about half the $15K mark. Funny, I don't feel compelled to ring for a loan

 

[davidsrsb]

Lasers are very noisy devices ( look up speckle noise )

 

[dnsey]

I'd gladly hire one for a few hours:
I've just obtained some unique direct-cut recordings by famous 'swing era' musicians. These comprise a ?celluloid film carrying the groove laminated to a glass carrier disc. Some are becoming delaminated, and could not be played conventionally without serious risk of destruction.
I suspect that a laser turntable would find serious application in conservation work like this.

 

[CBS240]

Isn't this the reason digital audio CD's were invented?

 

[phn]

It can no doubt be useful for archivists and the likes. I knew about the deck, but had never looked at the specs. And this, at least as I see it, shows that analogue and digital don't mix. A master, regardless if it's from 1966 or 2006, has a s/n ratio of about 65 db. Still you can get up to 90 real-world db from vinyl! You will never get 90 db from the CD. Even the DVD-A might not touch vinyl, again in the REAL world. And that's at least where I live. "Digital" and "hi-rez" are the creations of the marketing departments. They have nothing to do with the world as we know it.

 

[EC8010]

Isn't this the reason digital audio CD's were invented?

No, CD was invented so that the record companies could boost their profits by selling everybody their record collection all over again.

 

[uglydavegray]

if they have been out for ages why still the 15k price? what is going on here, cant we just use a supermarket laser scanner hooked into the computer onto an old turntable and manually scan ourselves? this system is so much cheaper.

 

[audio-kraut]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html

@phn - I do not know where you get your values for the LP from.
I have a decent playback system for analogue, but the audible s/n of the lp does not reach the level of the cd.
I do not know what you mean by real world, but definitely your experiences do not match mine.
Read the above for reasons - very clearly explained - why vinyl is definitely worse in s/n than digital - in real world terms.

 

[Dumbass]

I've sometimes wondered how a purely analog, optical audio format (think laserdisc, but 2-channel audio only) would work. Would it be better than Redbook CD? (I'd have to think so.) Better than LP? (Possibly, perhaps signal-to-noise would be better.)

I suspect you could even get higher signal-to-noise by putting less music on a side (much like you can do with LPs).

Any thoughts on this matter? (I realize it's an economic impossibility . . . )

 

[phn]

audio-kraut, I linked to my source in a previous post.

The redbook CD has theoretically 16 bits. Most CDs have less than 14 bits. Digital formats are constant underachievers. Vinyl, in contrast, seems to be an overachiever. The Audioholic measurements are just that, real world measurements. Check it out.

 

[EC8010]

Digital formats as used by the record industry are underachievers, but used by European broadcasters (the only ones I know about), they're good. What's the difference? Decent metering. The music industry traditionally used VU meters whereas the broadcasters used PPMs. As a result, a number of CDs I've played recently had peaks of only -10dFS - throwing away 10dB of dynamic range. By contrast, broadcasters have always peaked to within 2dB of 0dBFS because their meters allowed them to do so safely.

And don't even get me started on how easy it is to do digits badly...