[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] ELP turntable/original recordings
I had the opportunity atteend a workshop in Palo Alto several years ago to evaluate the ELP lazer turntable.
Each of the participants brought different material for evaluation.
The first observation is that the medium had to be black, bright and shiney, grayed 78s would not track. Like wise red and brown shellac could not be read.
Acetate discs could be read but were not reliable because the focal length of the laZer could not adjust for the different thickness of the disc.
With the best of vinyl the ELP sounded very good... certainly not the answer to non contact playing of recorded sound.
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 4:14 PM
> Hi George:
> I was totally unimpressed with the demo CD that ELP
> provided for the laser turntable. It was of LPs
> and was mostly distorted and scratchy-sounding. If they
> were trying to demonstrate that their
> machine could play a damaged or poorly-made LP just as ugly
> as a regular turntable, they succeeded.
> If they were trying to demonstrate something else, no dice.
> I also made some inquiries and found out
> they did not have permission to use those copyrighted LP
> segments. Their demo CD had no 78 snippets
> that I recall.
> That said, the concept seems very promising for
> good-condition grooved media. It is also good that
> mint-condition or fragile-condition grooved disks can be
> played without a tiny hard stone riding in
> the grooves.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Brock-Nannestad"
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original
> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
> > just a snippet from Clark Johnsen's comment to
> elaborate on:
> >> Respectfully beg to differ about 78rpm
> reproduction. It's advanced
> >> considerably. But you won't hear that on any
> commercially available LP or
> >> CD, so the case is difficult for me to prove.
> > ----- yes, but not due to anybody sitting down with
> the requirements of the
> > 78 rpm linear velocity and groove dimensions (and
> vertical tracking angles)
> > and specify a system. It is mere coincidence that e.g.
> an MC pickup is
> > sufficiently linear to accept a large excursion.
> Ortofon a few years back
> > took up again the manufacture of their 1948 design of
> the so-called C-head -
> > a mono pickup with a vertical moving coil and a leaf
> spring for vertical
> > compliance. However, they are using the old design and
> have not re-designed
> > on the basis of e.g. new magnetic materials. Still, it
> is the best mono
> > pickup around for mono records. And it is hideously -
> rightfully so -
> > expensive and so ought to appeal to the $1000 crowd.
> > As to the optical playback of 78 rpm grooves: it is
> clear that all the
> > present designers are floundering - they simply do not
> know how to apply this
> > extremely versatile tool.
> > David Williams and myself assisted Chiba Sanju in
> March, 2001 at the Boston
> > Audio Society demonstration of the ELP Laser
> Turntable. It was supported by
> > the best equipment and Magneplanar speakers. The sound
> of both a vinyl
> > pressing of a 1936 cello and piano recording and a
> shellac pressing of the
> > same were both astounding. The graininess of the
> shellac disappeared into the
> > slightest haze (distributed in space, whereas the
> musicians were fairly
> > centered and with an acoustic surrounding them) and
> the vinyl was simply
> > incredible. There are some grooves and surfaces that
> work wonderfully with
> > this simple (1980s) optical playback. And again here,
> we have equipment that
> > ought to appeal to the $1000 crowd. If only they knew
> how to use it.
> > Kind regards,
> > George
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around