Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The $20,000 laser vinyl turntable
#1
Music 
It's like playing CD's, except that it's good old vinyls!

It's not new, and the price is still prohibitive. So don't expect the price to fall thanks to mass production. But it must be a great tool to digitalize your rare old LP's which are nowhere on torrent websites or on CD.

An interresting feature allows to regulate the laser according to the groove wear...

Wikipedia link

With Wood Siding (optional)
[Image: LT-Master-3.jpg]


laser-turntable-plays-records-without-touching-them

[Image: Goldlt-1200px2.jpg]
Reply
#2
Nice. Unfortunately, all of my vinyl collection is gone. I had over 400 albums, but that's a long story.

There are some audio programs that have special 'vinyl' settings which allow playing digital music, but with the vinyl smoothness. I have one of them, but haven't used it for so long I forgot its name. It works nicely, and it can be adjusted for 'single-ended' and 'double-ended' sound. Do you know what that is?

Incidentally, I have a stereo 'single-ended' tube amplifier, that pushes out somewhere between five and seven watts per channel. They are very inefficient, but so much better than the 'double-ended' ones I have. I bought it on E-Bay a few years ago, and was going to customize it with a nice wooden cabinet, but somehow never got around to it. I think Jack has a tube outfit, he was working on a few years back.

Here's a "EL34" single ended stereo amp that is custom made.

[Image: 41va5dk56SL._SX425_.jpg]

The price for this is quite reasonable. But I question the claimed "10 w/ch" output. The output iron is just not heavy duty enough to come out with that. Its probably going with the 4 ohm ratings, but almost nobody uses that. Its really 8 ohms that count.

But if you have a highly efficient set of speakers, which I do, you can take five or six watts and run everyone out of the house, they're that efficient.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#3
JL Wrote:'single-ended' and 'double-ended' sound. Do you know what that is?
No: I have no idea what it is. The only part which I understood was run everyone out of the house. S6
I thought that strong speakers were 100W or something... and you talk about 6W...?

So what are the advantage of your tube amplifier over this:
[Image: Black-In-Ear-Earbud-Earphone-Mobile-Phon...40x640.jpg]
(Or more seriousely the one I have in my studio)

And, what did you do with your nearly half a thousand vinyl collection? Usualy that something you never throw away... It's a religious duty to keep them, and love them even if you are 100% digital for 20 years. It's like keeping the Bible in paper format... I don't understand you. Were you a music atheist by any chance?
Reply
#4
(02-15-2016, 04:39 PM)Fredledingue Wrote:
JL Wrote:'single-ended' and 'double-ended' sound. Do you know what that is?
No: I have no idea what it is.

Fred, there are two basic types of valve amplifiers. One is the 'single-ended' and the other is 'double ended' or more commonly called 'Push-Pull' amps. Here's a good site that explains the difference between the two.

Note the two circuits. The 'push-pull' uses two tubes(valves) that are connected together and work between the two. Both tubes work in concert with each other, as they send a higher signal to the output transformer for each channel. On the 'single-ended' amplifier, there is only one tube(valve) which has to work harder to send the signal to the output transformer.

I know you are asking, "Well hell, the 'push-pull' is far better, because it can generate more output. And that's true. Commercial tube amplifiers of the 1950s, and 60s were almost exclusively 'push-pull'. My Bogen RPF 60, which is a 30w/30w receiver, and my favorite tube receiver, is 'push-pull' along with my two Fishers. Here is exactly what the Bogen looks like. Isn't she beautiful?

[Image: YnotZDT.jpg?t=1406634096]

The advantage of the 'single-ended' amp is that it has better sound than the 'push-pull' amp. It really is smoother, and real audiophiles swear by them. Seriously. If you had one, you would know what I mean. But dollar for dollar, the 'push-pull' gets far more output than the much less efficient 'single-ended' amp does. What the later lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality.

Quote:The only part which I understood was run everyone out of the house. S6
I thought that strong speakers were 100W or something... and you talk about 6W...?

So what are the advantage of your tube amplifier over this:
[img][/img]
(Or more seriousely the one I have in my studio)

You are talking two things here Fred. One is 'output', and the other is 'efficiency'. True output is measured by Wattage on a continuous level. Hence a true 6 watts is "6 Watts RMS continuous" power @ 8-ohms. The "RMS" means "Root Mean Square", and measured on an 8-ohm resistance speaker.

The 'efficiency' part pertains to the speaker's ability to handle output at its most efficient level, which is rated in "SPL" Sound Pressure Level. Speaker efficiency normally runs from the SPL range of the 80s to the 110+ levels. The higher the SPL, the less input power it takes to generate volume.

This site explains things pretty well. And pay close attention to this paragraph:

Quote:The importance of sensitivity ratings should not be overlooked. Here is how stark the difference can be. If a speaker is rated at 83 dB SPL, then to reach a peak of 104 dB SPL the speakers would need an amplifier capable of producing in excess of 125 watts per channel. But, if a speaker is rated at 98 dB SPL, to reach the same SPL of 104 dB would require only 4 watts.

These are my speakers, which are here in the bedroom. I got them from my Dad, who couldn't use them in their new home. They are Wharfedale Airedales, that Dad bought in 1964, along with his Fisher X202B and Sherwood FM tuner.

[Image: cb4c7c41a6af2b0b06a2322974f050c8.jpg]

I've looked for the exact SPL rating for this unit, but the only one I could find was for the ones that are being sold now. They are rated at 90 dB SPL, but the older ones would definitely be more efficient. My guess is that it would be at least 96 dB SPL, since high power solid state units were not being made then. Here is a Wharfedale flyer from 1962, which shows the different speakers they made back then.

Needless to say, each Airedale, which has a 15" woofer and 8" midrange, can literally drive anyone out of the house with 6 watts per channel. It can easily throw out over 100db of sound with that little amp. And with the Bogen, or Fisher, at 30w/ch they wouldn't even break into a sweat to accomplish that. S22


Quote:And, what did you do with your nearly half a thousand vinyl collection? Usualy that something you never throw away... It's a religious duty to keep them, and love them even if you are 100% digital for 20 years. It's like keeping the Bible in paper format... I don't understand you. Were you a music atheist by any chance?

That is a long, long story Fred, and it deals with a terrible divorce, and an ex who wanted to get even with me. I'll tell you some other time, ok?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#5
A little bit complicated for me, but moreless, I understand. I have two sets of speakers with indications on their back. One is rated 8 Ohms and the other 6 Ohms. But there is no indication on dB...
The only reference I understand is how much I have to turn the volume button on the amplifier. Thanks god I still have a turnable button, not these step by step digital ones. If I turn the button on 5 (the middle or vertical) it's enough loud for me and most poeple would run out of the house already (depends what music is being played thought).
Reply
#6
(02-18-2016, 03:00 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: A little bit complicated for me, but moreless, I understand. I have two sets of speakers with indications on their back. One is rated 8 Ohms and the other 6 Ohms. But there is no indication on dB...
The only reference I understand is how much I have to turn the volume button on the amplifier. Thanks god I still have a turnable button, not these step by step digital ones. If I turn the button on 5 (the middle or vertical) it's enough loud for me and most poeple would run out of the house already (depends what music is being played thought).

I understand Fred, its complicated, unless you have taken the time out to learn it.
But remember this. A speaker's SPL is really its efficiency. In other words, how much noise it can make at a given output.

Also remember this. The lower the frequency to be reproduced, the more power it requires than to reproduce a midrange, or high range. That's why knowing the SPL(efficiency) of the low end driver is so important. The object is to perfectly match the efficiency of all drivers in the system.

In a three way system, the midrange and tweeters, are wired to be adjustable. Usually a variable resistor(potentiometer) is placed in line with mids and highs, because they are always more efficient and almost always have to be have their volume cut back so as to be in line with the base speaker.

Here's something else, just to throw in. The more efficient the woofer, the less it may, I say May, be able to reach the lowest frequencies. That requires a whole lot of power. Consequently, a very high efficiency speaker will have trouble bringing out all the low bass sounds. If you listen to a lot of heavy metal, a high efficiency speaker will not work at its best.

However, there is always a 'best' solution to this. Have a separate 'subwoofer' that is dedicated to reproducing only those very low frequencies. Those low frequency waves don't have much to do with the quality of the sound, like the higher frequencies do. So, the best system is to have very nice high effieciency speakers, PLUS one or two sub-woofers to augment their low end.

PS: some speaker makers are almost exclusively dedicated to high SPL drivers. Eminence is the first to come to mind. Here, check out these drivers. If you go to one of the drivers sections, and look at the chart, you will see "Sensitivity", which is rated in decibels. For instance, if you look in the "Pro Series" and go down the line, you will find the DELTA PRO-15A, which has a sensitivity of 101.6 dB. Now, that is very, very efficient. That means that just one watt can produce 101.6 decibels of sound level. Imagine what you can do with a 6watt amp.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
It doesn't need a laser to be pricey

#1 Goldmund's Reference II Price: US $300,000

John,

I have a Dynaco SCA-35 that I'm planning to send off to a fellow in South Dakota for refurbishing. Same idea. I bought it on ebay and was going to DIY the rebuild ... that was over two years ago ... and it's still collecting dust. S4
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#8
(02-18-2016, 10:58 PM)mr_yak Wrote: It doesn't need a laser to be pricey

#1 Goldmund's Reference II Price: US $300,000

Interesting. The more expensive they get, the less they even resemble a turntable. S18

Quote:John,

I have a Dynaco SCA-35 that I'm planning to send off to a fellow in South Dakota for refurbishing. Same idea. I bought it on ebay and was going to DIY the rebuild ... that was over two years ago ... and it's still collecting dust. S4

I too have let things go. Must be old age, eh?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
(02-18-2016, 10:58 PM)mr_yak Wrote: It doesn't need a laser to be pricey

#1 Goldmund's Reference II Price: US $300,000
They look like some machine tools from some factory... It's amazing that there is still a market for that. Is it just snobyism or are the users realy able to hear a difference?
How does it compare to the relatively cheap laser ones?
To $100 CD player?

musicstack.com Wrote:The reason for the high price is being a 4-in-1 product as it includes a LP player, phonograph, gramophone, and a turntable.
Since it's lecture time, can somebody tell me the difference between these 4 different things?
Reply
#10
Fred, have you ever heard the term "snob appeal" before?

A good used Dual 1009 or a 1019 is every bit as good at reproducing accurate sound.

[Image: $_35.JPG?set_id=2]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
I think so. But this laser thing would be very interresting to listen to. Would it sounds like a CD, without these lovely cracks? All vinylophyles told me that they don't like the perfection from the digital, no-contact, supports. That only vinyls render the original idea of (rock) music. But you can't render this on a multi-thousands dollars machine which purpose is to imitate CD quality...
Reply
#12
Some poeple won't let up with vinyls:

First Vinyl Jukebox Launched In 20 Years

[Image: Rocket-Jukebox-pic-cropped.jpg]

Note that they have CD player versions too... but they don't want anything to do with hard disks with terabytes of music. There should be this disc changing ceremonial.
Reply
#13
Fred, there is a reason why digital discs are so repelling to audiophiles. The quality of music is very stark and almost totally without the mellow personality that comes along with the analog sound. But in truth, vinyl music is not the most important aspect here. The Big difference is in the delivery system, i.e. pre-amplification and output amplification. And that is where the use of "valves", also known as tubes, really comes in.

I know that there is a difference in sound quality, because I have a slight hearing impairment. Its a form of "bilateral high tone deafness", and tinnitus, which I accrued in the military. Too many explosions, and noise. Its also from being a range OIC, with all the high pitched M16 reports from each round shot down range. Anyone on the right side of the M16 is subjected to a much higher pitch than the shooter because he is not on the side of the rifle where the bolt chamber opens up and expels the spent round. That amplifies the DB rating.

But for some reason which I really can't explain, my imperfect hearing is such that I can every easily differentiate the difference between digital and analogue. To most, its not all that pronounced. To me, the high pitched response from digital is most acute, because I have trouble filling in with the higher mid-range frequencies. Its hard to explain, but there really is a difference with my hearing ability.

Another thing. I can tell a difference between a 'single-ended' and a 'push-pull' tube amplifier. The difference is there, because the 'single-ended' amp and pre-amp is not straining as much as the 'push-pull'. You get more output from the later, but the former is more relaxed. That's why a 'single-ended' amplifier is the hand's down winner of almost 100% of music audiophiles.

And with very efficient speakers, that is how anything over three watts RMS @ 8 ohms, can more than do the job for the purist. However, a good 6-8 watt RMS amplifier is icing on the cake. S22

And that Gem Tune 'single-ended' integrated amplifier in my above post is a very good buy. But don't take their rating at 10W/channel as the gospel. You can't get that kind of output from a single EL-34 per channel, unless you are driving a 4 ohm load, at best. I'd believe a six, or seven watt per channel more realistically.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#14
JL Wrote:But in truth, vinyl music is not the most important aspect here. The Big difference is in the delivery system, i.e. pre-amplification and output amplification.
I believe you.

And I would add the recording system. And that's where thinking of vinyls as the most accurate sound is non-sens because all records are based on magnetic tapes. To get the closest to what the guys in the recording studio heard, you would want a duplicate of the studio tapes. Possibly on cassettes. Do you think that original cassettes were made from the original studio tapes or from pre-recorded LP's? I would be curious to know...

There is also a huge difference between electricaly amplified and non-amplified instrument. Only the electric guitar is a purely amplified instrument (won't output anything meaningfull without amplification). All the other instruments are amplified as a music genre but which had to adapt in volume with the electric guitar and therefore had to be amplified through microphones, rather than adapt the volume of the electric guitar to the non-amplified instruments. That was a huge change in music and in audio technologies as well.

Jazz is still a genre made with non-amplified instrument usualy, but created at a time when voice was already amplified. Then here too, all the instruments had to adapt to the voice amplification, even when no voice were heard.

With rock, amplified voice and electric guitar had to fit each others in volume, and then all the non-amplified instruments be amplified to fit the first two.

But during recording they are amplified just as analog signals, which is very different from sound waves. Hence the difference between live and studio records.

All this influenced not only music creation but the whole process of production, storage and replication and their technologies.

We have rock and jazz (to a lesser extent) which is entirely created for the amplification technologies and amplifications technologies entirely created for rock music.
Then enter digitaly generated music, which again were made possible thanks to new technologies and which modified technologies subsequently. Digital music is obviousely made for digital support, but the amplification technology should be also very different for rock and jazz on one side and say, techno and pop songs on the other side.

That's why, I think, classic music is no fit for amplification systems, even the best ones. Because classic music has never been created with the idea of being recorded or amplified. Their instruments and orchestras are build to work without amplification, as well as the art of opera.
I love classic music live, but I can never listen to it at my house or I should hire my own musicians.

Classic music is playing too much with the contrast between extremely low and extremely high, sometimes suddenly violent, volumes whereas rock maintain an even volume along the part, with few exceptions.

It's amazing, and I'm delighted to have this conversation with someone who contents with 380 kbps mp3's... but talk amp tubes subtilities. How do your mp3's fare through you single ended amps and your 1962 woofers? S5
Reply
#15
(02-21-2016, 06:04 PM)Fredledingue Wrote: How does it compare to the relatively cheap laser ones?
To $100 CD player?

Dunno ... can't afford it but I married into an old school Technics direct drive from the '80s and it sounds pretty sweet. It's analog ... you get the entire content, not just discrete sampled portions of it. CDs eliminated pops, clicks and 'hum' but at a cost.

Now to completely contradict myself ... here's the toy I'm chasing on ebay these days. I really don't know what happened to HD Radio ... it's impossible to get that level of quality over regular FM. They quit making decent receivers for it. Sony's was rated the highest, but it's long out of production. S4 I'm kind of rediscovering how much I liked radio and I find I've missed it. I have a $6 HD dongle that connects to an IPOD and it sounds awesome with a strong signal ... much clearer than regular FM ... unfortunately, it's problematic to connect to an amp as the headphone jack wiring was designed to act as an antenna.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#16
Fred, my single-ended amp is in a box. I started rebuilding it in order to make it look more professional. It was made by someone else, but not finished very nicely. It worked well, but looked terrible. Its one of my 'to do' projects I never got around to finishing. I'm ashamed of myself on that one. But I do have several of my vintage tube units working wonderfully. That Bogen above is my favorite one, because it works so nicely.

But I also rotate my units. Right now, I am using a couple of vintage solid state units. One is my late Father's Sansui 2000X. The other one is a Dokorder 800X. They are first generation "discrete" solid state units, and sound almost exactly like the push-pull units that came right before them. These first generation units have no integrated circuits, and are my preferred solid state units.

The Dokorder is my absolute favorite unit. It is so rare. I originally purchased one in 1971, from PACEX(Pacific Exchange military) before leaving my assignment in Korea. Also, along with it a Dokorder 9020V R/R and a pair of Sansui SP-5000s. But like a fool, I sold them to a friend, and have regretted it ever since. So, around 2005 I started looking out for one on eBay, and went two years before one came up for sale. I had almost given up hope of ever finding one, but I picked up that one, and almost immediately, another one for parts. I sent them off to my repair technician, and he got the good one working like a charm. I'm looking at her right now, and she's a beaut.

I guess you can tell that I love Vintage Audio.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#17
(02-23-2016, 10:43 PM)John L Wrote: But I also rotate my units. Right now, I am using a couple of vintage solid state units. One is my late Father's Sansui 2000X. The other one is a Dokorder 800X. They are first generation "discrete" solid state units, and sound almost exactly like the push-pull units that came right before them. These first generation units have no integrated circuits, and are my preferred solid state units.

I thought you were talking about amps ... ??
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#18
(02-23-2016, 11:08 PM)mr_yak Wrote:
(02-23-2016, 10:43 PM)John L Wrote: But I also rotate my units. Right now, I am using a couple of vintage solid state units. One is my late Father's Sansui 2000X. The other one is a Dokorder 800X. They are first generation "discrete" solid state units, and sound almost exactly like the push-pull units that came right before them. These first generation units have no integrated circuits, and are my preferred solid state units.

I thought you were talking about amps ... ??

Well, a receiver has an amplifier in it as well. But I was mainly going on about the vintage sound. I really love those older units, including the older tube ones as well. I'll probably bring out the old Bogen unit, and crank it up soon.

The only thing I don't rotate are the speakers. I keep the Wharfedale Airedales in the bedroom, and the Cervin-Vega D7s in the living room. They going to need to be reconed. S4
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)