Talk:Laser turntable

Untitled
This entire article is editorialized; the history section in particular needs attention. For example, an exclamation mark should not terminate the paragraph. From the style guide: "The exclamation mark is used with restraint: it is an expression of surprise or emotion that is generally unsuited to a scholarly or encyclopedic register." The technical details could be conveyed better as prose instead of bullet format for the same reasons trivia sections are avoided. Mbrowne 05:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"This has the advantage of not physically wearing the disc in playback." But this doesn't mean the disc is going to last forever, Laserdiscs and CDs are read by lasers and they still deterorate with time, don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.87.113 (talk • contribs • WHOIS )

CDs and Laser Discs are digital recordings using a much less robust material than Vinyl records. The Laser Turntable plays traditional vinyl records without dragging a sharp diamond through the soft vinyl. There is no deterioration of the vinyl as a result of playing it. Vinyl Discs have been around for 100 Years and are still playable. The Vinyl used from 1950s onwards is more robust than the earlier material, so should last "forever". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.52.162 (talk • contribs • WHOIS )

I've never heard of a LaserDisc deteriorating from age. There is laser rot, but that's only on poorly made discs. Properly made releases last for an unknown period of time, possibly beyond a century, as far as I have heard.

Criticism
There appears to've been quite a bit of criticism of this system, both in terms of technical limitations (it needing absolutely *spotlessly* clean records) and in terms of the business practices of the company itself (since there's currently only one company who can make it given the patents)...This seems to me like relevant information to add, so I'll likely try do it myself in a few days if there's no reasonable objections to it. Xmoogle 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll need good cites, but it'd be relevant. The latter may possibly more relevant to ELPJ - David Gerard 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?
The article suggests 'they are favoured by record libraries and radio stations (for archival use and transcription to digital media) and audiophiles with extensive personal collections (and funds).' While this makes sense, it also later says 'In ten years approximately 1,200 units have been sold, primarily in Japan.' Neither of these claims are sourced Presuming say 800 were sold in Japan, this would leave 400 for 'record libaries and radio stations and audiophiles with extensive personal collections and funds. It would seem to me that the number of record libaries and radio stations which actually use this is probably slim Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also this article makes no mention of this device nor for that matter do either of the sites which appear to be analysing the archival issue  & . They appear to concentrate on direct image capture methods (probably because of the greater versatility and less handling of the valuable discs) but most academic discussions would usually at least mention any existing commercial products that are widely used. All these suggest that while the laser turntable is probably used by some people involved in archival they are by no means the predominant tech and the unqualified statement is probably misleading Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a contradiction here. Simply because the laser turntable isn't widely used doesn't mean it isn't used by radio stations or enthusiasts.  If I said that "gold-plated, diamond-studded iPods are favoured by the super-rich, with 50 sold to date," that statement is not necessarily false.  No claim is made that all rich people own one or that it is very popular, only that those who do own it tend to be more wealthy.  It makes sense that the people who own laser turntables would be those most interested in preserving the record: radio stations who might play them many times and enthusiasts who want to make sure they last a long time.  Now, it would be nice to see those statements sourced, but there is no contradiction here.  As such, I'm removing the contradiction label.
 * JoelHowe (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. If something is favoured by radio stations and record libaries, we would expect a significant number of them to be using the device. But they aren't. It's the same with the iPod. It is highly misleading to claim a gold plated whatever iPod is favoured by the super rich if the vast majority of the super rich don't care to own one and have probably not even heard of one. No one is saying all radio stations but if something is favoured by someone then a significant percentage of them would be using it or at least consider using, but there's no evidence for that, indeed it seems not even a significant minority are (since there are less then 400 in the world outside Japan which isn't even enough for 1/10 of the radio stations in the US ) let alone the rest of the world). Also you didn't address at all the fact that the turntable is not mentioned at all in sites discussing using image processing for archival. Someone added a reference, but the reference only says that they (the authors) recommend it, not that is is commonly used, or 'favoured'. Indeed even the sentence itself "Production facilities specializing in high-quality transfer of vinyl to digital media should consider supplementing their conventional turntable with an ELP Laser Turntable" suggests they're only even recommending it for a minority of facilities. While this is complete OR, I suspect the vast majority of radio stations haven't even heard of it, and nowadays most of them may not even have any vinyl records so the chance of it being favoured by them is slim. Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There truly is no contradiction regarding being favored by radio stations and libraries. Just because something is favored does not make it widely used.  This is a matter of confusion of the facts and not contradiction.  The Laser Turntables are actually quite expensive, costing upwards of $14,000.000(US) according to: http://www.geekologie.com/2007/08/laser_record_player.php, though that was in 2007.  Some technologies advance rather slowly and it seems that digital media is quite in at the moment.  But that still does not take away from the possibility that while some people may prefer a thing, they may not be able to use a thing for one reason or another.  While radio stations may prefer the Laser Turntable, perhaps they haven't got enough LP's to actually warrant purchasing a turntable. The same could hold true for Libraries.  I personally belong to a very exclusive club which prefers much older cars to newer ones, though I don't currently own an older car. It's not a contradiction, it is instead a matter of where do I keep the car, which car do I buy, do I have the funds, do I have the time to restore it right now, do I have the tools to restore it, etc...?  All those things keep me from actually having an older car, but I still prefer them.
 * Perhaps the simple fix for the moment, is to remove that line or re-word it completely! There is no sourced information regarding the actual preference of radio stations and the such and the citation that IS included only speaks to the preference of one person as well as the costliness of the unit.  I have found no reliable statistical information other than from those trying to sell the Laser Turntables. So... I will try to rework the sentence, and if afterward it still seems unreliable, I will remove it as such: unreliable information which detracts from the article. I will also remove the contradiction tag.
 * If you still feel there is a contradiction in the article, please feel free to correct the contradiction. If you are not able to correct it, feel free to place a fresh contradiction tag on the article. Thanks so much! Kjnelan (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the Contradiction is a moot point. Orban's section on "Vinyl Disk" is heavily biased and wouldn't use it as a definitive source. As the citation is a suggestion that does not state the actual preference of libraries, radio stations, or audiophiles I would like to go for the "simple fix" as suggested and remove it. If I understand correctly preference here shouldn't refer to "I would if I could". Signal64 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hobson's choice
The following is from the article on Hobson's Choice:

"Hobson's choice is often misused not to mean a false illusion of choice,[citation needed] but simply a choice between two undesirable options. For example, if the horse in the stall nearest the door is in poor shape, the traditional usage of Hobson's choice becomes the more common use, since having an unhealthy horse and having no horse at all are both undesirable. Such a choice between two options of nearly equal value is more properly called a dilemma."

Isn't the term used in this article as "a choice between two undesirable options"? In that case, according to the above snippet, it should be replaced by dilemma.

I comment on this only because this was the first time I ever heard the phrase, and I find it interesting. I'm not a native English speaker so forgive me if I'm wrong. Yes, it's nitpicking, but nitpicking is OK on wikipedia. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.89.254 (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a native English speaker and I also find this to be incorrect usage of "Hobson's Choice". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up
Much of this article uses peacock and/or weasel and needs to be cleaned up. This article also needs additional citations. One simple example is the following line:
 * "Unfortunately for Finial, its laser turntable development coincided with the introduction of the Digital Compact Disc, which began flooding the market at prices comparable to LPs (with CD players in the $300 range). Vinyl record sales plummeted, and many turntable manufacturers failed as a result."

There was no citation for the comment and the fluff word of "Unfortunately" doesn't really do justice to wiki as it is more of an opinion word and not an encyclopedic article. Those entire two sentences should be completely re-written to follow Wiki guidelines. I think this article only really needs a couple of line re-writes and some additional citation to be a really good article. (imho of course.) Kjnelan (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

History
"The laser turntable was first conceived by Robert S. Reis" is incorrect. Perhaps the first commercial venture was conceived by Reis (can't find definitive proof of that either) but the thesis being cited was indicating "proof" that Reis was the first to actually think of using a laser to replace a stylus. I've added William K. Heine and his contribution prior to Reis. The information for Heine's paper at the AES E-Library link, the date of the patent, and the patent's content should be enough to correct the "was first conceived". I've also left the now broken link to the thesis in hidden form in the article however this never appeared to actually point to the thesis. Instead it looks like it pointed to Resis's Resumé which only has a mention of the thesis itself with no link (no date given either but assumed to be in the early 1980's). Source: http://replay.web.archive.org/20090609062318/http://senderogroup.com/text/reis.htm Signal64 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

IRENE not Laser Based
IRENE is clearly not a laser turntable. This section really doesn't belong here. I'm not sure where it belongs, unless someone wants to expand it into an article. Chime in with your opinion in the space provided below. Winston Spencer (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. PerryTrenton (talk)  23 August 2015  —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just an idea: by renaming the article to the general term of non-contact record players, it could broaden it's scope, and Irene could stay... Zoli79 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The second mention of the turntable in the article says "Or optical turntable" and the IRENE system, using photography to scan the grooves, is certainly optical. Let's not be pedantic and discount the IRENE system simply because it is of a different design than the marketed optical turntables.Rcarlberg (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * User User:Pancho507 on 12/30 added a very minor phrase to the IRENE section, saying it was totally separate "but similar" to a laser turntable. I would dispute this.  IRENE uses cameras to photograph the grooves -- not a laser to trace them -- and the way the digital data is handled afterward is totally different.  Okay, they both "read" records using optical means, but aside from that, they're not "similar."  This is such a minor point I won't bother reverting Pancho's edit, but I thought I might bring it up here. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As of 28 April User User:Skierpage has reconfigured the "optical record scanning" section to delineate it from the laser turntable section, and also add a third method I'd not heard of before. This very neatly solves all of the difficulties mentioned above, and I commend Skierpage for his wise edit. Rcarlberg (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laser turntable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901161522/http://visualaudio.project.eia-fr.ch/publications/040626_JTS.pdf to http://visualaudio.project.eia-fr.ch/publications/040626_JTS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Laser Pickup vs. Stylus
I just want to post a note here. Unlogged user 66.168.114.109 changed my text about reviewer Jonathan Valin's "total misunderstanding" how a laser turntable works, saying "there was no misunderstanding. He describe the process correctly." Valin wrote "Unlike a relatively massive diamond stylus, which plows through a record’s grooves like the prow of a ship, the ELP’s tiny laser-beam styli have next to no mass and cannot move dust particles out of their way." I'm sorry, but this *is* a total misunderstanding, as the laser is not a stylus, in fact does not contact the groove at all, and therefore cannot "push dust particles out of the way" -- not because of low mass but because there is zero contact with the record! I have edited the sentence again, this time not calling out Valin for his misunderstanding but inserting a "[sic]" after his error. Perhaps this is less accusatory?

Incidentally, Valin seems like he's a fair distance from qualified to write such a review. He states, right at the beginning, "Though the idea for using a laser beam to trace the data engraved in a phonograph record’s grooves dates back to the early 1980s [it's actually 1977], it still seems a bit sci-fi to put an LP in the drawer of what looks like an old-fashioned laserdisc player, press a “Play” button on a remote, and hear music come out of your loudspeakers." This shows a total ignorance of the turntable I use, the not-so-rare Sony PS-FL7, released in 1985, twelve years BEFORE the ELP-LT1. And yes, it operates exactly like a laserdisc player (though with a conventional diamond stylus). Oh well -- The Absolute Sound has always been a magazine full of myths, magical thinking and misinformation. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)