The article is a little hazy, but that's not uncommon. I thought it might be a press release, but don't see it anywhere else in English.
That said, it's a least an interesting idea. Master the disk using computer modeling and optimize it there.
In theory, the problems associated with the lathe, the cutting head, the head amp and other parts of the chain would not even be part of process. Certainly the laser etching isn't flawless, but maybe it's easier to get right than actual cutting. And perhaps the cut could be optimized for radial tonearms instead of linear ones.
That said, it's a least an interesting idea. Master the disk using computer modeling and optimize it there.
In theory, the problems associated with the lathe, the cutting head, the head amp and other parts of the chain would not even be part of process. Certainly the laser etching isn't flawless, but maybe it's easier to get right than actual cutting. And perhaps the cut could be optimized for radial tonearms instead of linear ones.
Interesting notion, but presumably it can do nothing about cartridge non-linearity, crosstalk, etc.
Nor indeed wow-n-flutter induced by warps & cart/arm resonance. There seems to be nothing in the article about the final vinyl being super-flat.
In view of that, I don't think HD is the right word.
I don't think this idea is going to fly.
Nor indeed wow-n-flutter induced by warps & cart/arm resonance. There seems to be nothing in the article about the final vinyl being super-flat.
In view of that, I don't think HD is the right word.
I don't think this idea is going to fly.
Last edited:
people don't appreciate the numbers involved in easily handled near visible Laser wavelengths, f-number/spot size limits
and the poor comparison of that "high tech" to the actual degree of surface smoothness, resolution achieved (and needed) in conventional vinyl mastering with a diamond cutter head and all the intermediate steps up to stamping out records
and the poor comparison of that "high tech" to the actual degree of surface smoothness, resolution achieved (and needed) in conventional vinyl mastering with a diamond cutter head and all the intermediate steps up to stamping out records
Last edited:
It's all uphill for DHD, unless you intend to only recycle Christmas tunes forever.
Digital recording is probably the most accurate system for making disks. Its the "playback" that has problems.
Going in we had a continuum, which we broke down to a finite number. Coming out, we have this very large number of bits (or one bit going superfast and straining every module it goes thru for clock/sync with at least one other pulse) and always worrying about needing more. 16 bits too small, go to 24 bits. Still no good, go to...? Two-channel was bad enough, but we left that behind long ago.
The entire last century was spent making analog sound "right". Now we have to do it all over again for digital. With all the variations in people, genres, mikes, speakers, opamps, etc, etc, we have to do it again.
One answer might be to bring back tone controls, good ones. And one for "audience noise", a few for multi-channel variants (use the most advanced circuits), more-efficient amplifiers (see Peter Blomley patents and the Hans Harsuiker letter follow-ups in Wireless World), and so forth. Once again, let the user try all the variations but supply only the refigurable recording with an included high-tech settings board.
And punch that center hole better.
Andy
Digital recording is probably the most accurate system for making disks. Its the "playback" that has problems.
Going in we had a continuum, which we broke down to a finite number. Coming out, we have this very large number of bits (or one bit going superfast and straining every module it goes thru for clock/sync with at least one other pulse) and always worrying about needing more. 16 bits too small, go to 24 bits. Still no good, go to...? Two-channel was bad enough, but we left that behind long ago.
The entire last century was spent making analog sound "right". Now we have to do it all over again for digital. With all the variations in people, genres, mikes, speakers, opamps, etc, etc, we have to do it again.
One answer might be to bring back tone controls, good ones. And one for "audience noise", a few for multi-channel variants (use the most advanced circuits), more-efficient amplifiers (see Peter Blomley patents and the Hans Harsuiker letter follow-ups in Wireless World), and so forth. Once again, let the user try all the variations but supply only the refigurable recording with an included high-tech settings board.
And punch that center hole better.
Andy
Last edited:
That's what I thought, but I googled it and they are real, and used in eye surgery. A Femtosecond (FS) laser has a pulse duration in the femtosecond range (10E-15 second).
Some info:
http://eyewiki.aao.org/Femtosecond_lasers_and_laser_assisted_in_situ_keratomileusis_%28LASIK%29
Femto-second lasers (pulses actually) are real and are used for some very interesting things which I don't understand like breaking bonds before they "know it's happening". I have a friend who understands this stuff from his DARPA spook days. This doesn't mean the guy didn't just pull buzz you have not seen out of the aether.
Yeah, if you're going to be using pulsed lasers, why on earth would you be doing it on something with a huge CTE (Cu) versus something a lot more stable (most glasses, esp fused silica)?
And this vs the tracking/etc mechanical systems in playback. A top-flite NC mill can do better, methinks. I might see using pulsed laser sintering to coat a master for longer life, but this?
Gotta shrug about some of these "innovations".
And this vs the tracking/etc mechanical systems in playback. A top-flite NC mill can do better, methinks. I might see using pulsed laser sintering to coat a master for longer life, but this?
Gotta shrug about some of these "innovations".
...
And perhaps the cut could be optimized for radial tonearms instead of linear ones.
Why stop the optimization there? The cut could be optimized for playback with inexpensive conical styli, a digital version of Dynagroove, and make playback immune to SRA errors that you can encounter with fine line contact styli. The cut could also be digitally pre-distorted with an inverse Crosley function, so people with cheap equipment could finally enjoy full spectrum high quality audio reproduction. The cut could also be optimized by laying down the digital information directly into the groove as ones and zeros, and then played back with one of those laser optical turntables to be reconstituted back into analog and….
Eureka! I just thought of an idea…
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.