Talk:Laser turntable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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? —The preceding unsigned comment was 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". —The preceding unsigned comment was 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] makes no mention of this device nor for that matter do either of the sites which appear to be analysing the archival issue [2] & [3]. 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)

[edit] 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)