styluses and laserdiscs
December 30, 2009 10:28 AM Subscribe
I bought a record player in a charity shop for £5. turns out it's a vintage beogram 1500. as far as i can tell, the only thing wrong with it is the stylus has fallen off |as evidenced by this|. I've looked around but all i can find is a replacement cartridge for £80. do I need a stylus specific to that turntable or can I use any old stylus? (i'm not overly concerned with sound quality)
Also, it occurred to me that, under the same logic that records are better than cds, laserdiscs are better than dvds (you can get any film online so the only reason to buy a physical copy is for the packaging). How easy is it to get hold of cheap laserdiscs and laserdisc players?
Back in the days that I used a turntable, each turntable had a specific stylus that was required for that make and model.
As far as the "logic" that records are better than cd's, I think that is a bunch of baloney. Whether or not records have more "richness" than cd's or whatever, records always have ticks, pops and turntable rumble. They deteriorate with each playing. Also records are a pain in the ass. You have to clean them, move the tonearm if you want to skip a song, and turn over the record to listen to the other half of the album. Every time you move you have to deal with hundreds of pounds of vinyl. I think people who grew up in the age of cd's and mp3's and weren't forced to deal with records are suffering from some kind of crazy delusional nostalgia. Records suck. Album covers were definitely better though!
posted by Daddy-O at 11:28 AM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
As far as the "logic" that records are better than cd's, I think that is a bunch of baloney. Whether or not records have more "richness" than cd's or whatever, records always have ticks, pops and turntable rumble. They deteriorate with each playing. Also records are a pain in the ass. You have to clean them, move the tonearm if you want to skip a song, and turn over the record to listen to the other half of the album. Every time you move you have to deal with hundreds of pounds of vinyl. I think people who grew up in the age of cd's and mp3's and weren't forced to deal with records are suffering from some kind of crazy delusional nostalgia. Records suck. Album covers were definitely better though!
posted by Daddy-O at 11:28 AM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Records are not better than CD's. Records are DIFFERENT than CD's. If you want your music to sound clear, with as little noise and distortion as possible, records are a terrible option. It is saying something that the group of people who are saying records are better is the same group of people that grew up listening to poorly compressed mp3's. Compared to a low bitrate mp3, a record will sound better, but a CD played on a decent CD player (not some cheap 10 dollar POS from target) will be what most albums are mixed for.
Now, there is one exception to this: Records cannot be mastered as loudly, so a record will typically be more dynamic than a CD, if the CD was mastered to be very loud. If you have a record of a modern rock album (let's say Foo Fighters), the record will sound louder on the loud parts when the softer parts are the same volume. If dynamic range is your goal, a record will usually have more of it, although you get lots of noise during the quieter parts.
If you are buying a cheap record player, and not interested that much in sound quality, here is what you can do. Take your CD's or MP3's, put them through an EQ with a slight cut above 12kHz, and a slight bump at around 200Hz. That will sound more "like a record", and will almost certainly sound better than a cheap record player (or better yet, listen to them without and EQ through a decent set of speakers, and you will be hearing the album as the artist intended).
posted by markblasco at 11:39 AM on December 30, 2009
Now, there is one exception to this: Records cannot be mastered as loudly, so a record will typically be more dynamic than a CD, if the CD was mastered to be very loud. If you have a record of a modern rock album (let's say Foo Fighters), the record will sound louder on the loud parts when the softer parts are the same volume. If dynamic range is your goal, a record will usually have more of it, although you get lots of noise during the quieter parts.
If you are buying a cheap record player, and not interested that much in sound quality, here is what you can do. Take your CD's or MP3's, put them through an EQ with a slight cut above 12kHz, and a slight bump at around 200Hz. That will sound more "like a record", and will almost certainly sound better than a cheap record player (or better yet, listen to them without and EQ through a decent set of speakers, and you will be hearing the album as the artist intended).
posted by markblasco at 11:39 AM on December 30, 2009
Response by poster: i literally can't tell the difference between vinyl and cds in terms of sound quality (i basically only ever listen to mp3s anyway). My logic for preferring vinyl to cds is records have bigger covers (i'm a graphics student so i care about these things). I have some stuff on vinyl which isn't available online yet so it would be neat to be able to play all the records i have.
posted by Andy Harwood at 11:46 AM on December 30, 2009
posted by Andy Harwood at 11:46 AM on December 30, 2009
under the same logic that records are better than cds, laserdiscs are better than dvds.... records have bigger covers
While it is true that laserdiscs have bigger covers, both the video and sound quality of a laserdisc is worse than that of a DVD. Are you watching covers, or are you watching movies? Buy the DVD (or even the Blu-Ray), then buy a movie poster.
posted by box at 11:59 AM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
While it is true that laserdiscs have bigger covers, both the video and sound quality of a laserdisc is worse than that of a DVD. Are you watching covers, or are you watching movies? Buy the DVD (or even the Blu-Ray), then buy a movie poster.
posted by box at 11:59 AM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: I'm watching covers. I like cover design more than poster design. covers are easier to store too. Also, there's probably some stuff on laserdisc that hasn't made it online yet
posted by Andy Harwood at 12:03 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by Andy Harwood at 12:03 PM on December 30, 2009
The stylus is usually specific to the arm on the deck, you may find that the arm is standard. Most decent Hi-Fi shops can advise you on the stylus you need.
Vinyl is "better" to my ear because of the "warmth" to the sound an a better "less perfect" timing, but it all depends on your taste in music, your hearing (too many loud gigs? mp3 sounds perfect!) and the specific combination of equipment you own.
I'd encourage you to buy some well mastered LPs and embrace the hiss - there is a depth there that CDs cannot provide IMHO.
Oh, and who ever rolled a huge joint on a CD cover, come on, gatefold vinyl rules!
posted by hardcode at 12:42 PM on December 30, 2009
Vinyl is "better" to my ear because of the "warmth" to the sound an a better "less perfect" timing, but it all depends on your taste in music, your hearing (too many loud gigs? mp3 sounds perfect!) and the specific combination of equipment you own.
I'd encourage you to buy some well mastered LPs and embrace the hiss - there is a depth there that CDs cannot provide IMHO.
Oh, and who ever rolled a huge joint on a CD cover, come on, gatefold vinyl rules!
posted by hardcode at 12:42 PM on December 30, 2009
laserdiscs are selling for pretty cheap on ebay. you can occasionally find people giving them away on craigslist and freecycle and such.
players are a bit harder to come by.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:50 PM on December 30, 2009
players are a bit harder to come by.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:50 PM on December 30, 2009
The 26.2 household is the proud owner of 5 laser disc players (one for watching, 4 backups for parts). Mr. 26.2 has an amazing collection of films on laser disc. We have those for reasons of sound quality, a superior version of the movie than is available on DVD or the movie has never been released on DVD. There are a fair number of concerts available on laser disk that haven't made it to DVD yet. We've also tons of movies on HD, Blu-ray, other region DVD. Honestly, the audio quality on the laser disc is greatly superior to the other formats. I'm not really into this stuff, but Mr. 26.2 is. All the components are top of the line, so I don't think it's a lower end DVD component that skews my perception.
Getting laser discs is sort of a hit or miss thing. There are always some available, but good ones are hard to find and expensive. I lucked out and found some pretty special stuff at a second hand store recently.
posted by 26.2 at 1:02 PM on December 30, 2009
Getting laser discs is sort of a hit or miss thing. There are always some available, but good ones are hard to find and expensive. I lucked out and found some pretty special stuff at a second hand store recently.
posted by 26.2 at 1:02 PM on December 30, 2009
If you can't remove the cartridge/stylus from the tonearm, you're probably SOL for buying a "generic" replacement cartridge.
Of course, you could always upgrade the tonearm as well as the cartridge, but I'm guessing that option is out of your price range.
For laserdisks: the local used-bookstore chain (Half Price Books) always seems to have a bunch. For players, I think it's hit-or-miss unless you turn to something like eBay.
I also feel the need to address this:
If you want your music to sound clear, with as little noise and distortion as possible, records are a terrible option.
this is 100% backwards. I don't want to derail the thread, but if you're interested on why vinyl is almost always superior to CD, I'd start with the Loudness War. Then, if you're still interested, you can read about the Nyquist theorem.
posted by namewithoutwords at 1:14 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Of course, you could always upgrade the tonearm as well as the cartridge, but I'm guessing that option is out of your price range.
For laserdisks: the local used-bookstore chain (Half Price Books) always seems to have a bunch. For players, I think it's hit-or-miss unless you turn to something like eBay.
I also feel the need to address this:
If you want your music to sound clear, with as little noise and distortion as possible, records are a terrible option.
this is 100% backwards. I don't want to derail the thread, but if you're interested on why vinyl is almost always superior to CD, I'd start with the Loudness War. Then, if you're still interested, you can read about the Nyquist theorem.
posted by namewithoutwords at 1:14 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sorry, namewithoutwords, but as an ex math professor and current trumpet player I say that if you use the Nyquist Theorem to claim that LPs sound "clear, with as little noise and distortion as possible" compared to CDs, you are the one that's 100% backwards. You must believe that LPs have an infinite bandwidth to claim that Nyquist proves LPs are better. Analog does not mean infinite bandwidth or S/N ratio. (BTW the "Loudness War" has nothing to do with CD vs. LP.)
Listen to whatever sounds better to your ears, but you can't claim that LPs are, in any measurable way, clearer or have less distortion than CDs.
posted by phliar at 1:26 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Listen to whatever sounds better to your ears, but you can't claim that LPs are, in any measurable way, clearer or have less distortion than CDs.
posted by phliar at 1:26 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
CDs vs Vinyl is like Snails vs Oysters: a matter of taste.
Sometimes we used to drag out the old Victrola at parties, now that was something else. Extremely noisy, but indescribable.
posted by ovvl at 1:39 PM on December 30, 2009
Sometimes we used to drag out the old Victrola at parties, now that was something else. Extremely noisy, but indescribable.
posted by ovvl at 1:39 PM on December 30, 2009
Years back when I had a beogram it required its own special, expensive cartridge which included its own special, fragile stylus. You can possibly get one direct from Bang & Olufsen.
posted by anadem at 1:48 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by anadem at 1:48 PM on December 30, 2009
Response by poster: The only problem with the stylus is the needle fell off (is the stylus the cartridge or the needle? I've never been clear on that). Could I get a cheap stylus from a different player and jam it into the cartridge I have
posted by Andy Harwood at 2:19 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by Andy Harwood at 2:19 PM on December 30, 2009
Heh - you've opened up a can of worms with the "records are better than CDs" thing near the end. But I think you misunderstand the principle that makes "records better than CDs" - and it's easy to overestimate this.
markblasco: “Records are not better than CD's. Records are DIFFERENT than CD's. If you want your music to sound clear, with as little noise and distortion as possible, records are a terrible option. It is saying something that the group of people who are saying records are better is the same group of people that grew up listening to poorly compressed mp3's. Compared to a low bitrate mp3, a record will sound better, but a CD played on a decent CD player (not some cheap 10 dollar POS from target) will be what most albums are mixed for... Now, there is one exception to this: Records cannot be mastered as loudly, so a record will typically be more dynamic than a CD, if the CD was mastered to be very loud. If you have a record of a modern rock album (let's say Foo Fighters), the record will sound louder on the loud parts when the softer parts are the same volume. If dynamic range is your goal, a record will usually have more of it, although you get lots of noise during the quieter parts.”
This, too, slightly misses the difference between CD and LP-quality sound.
It is true, first of all, that records take a lot of work and certainly limit your selection. It's very difficult to limit surface noise with records, although it's obviously possible to eliminate it altogether if you're careful and all your records are kept pristine. Of course no one can do that all the time; and there are many more things available on CD than on record. Also, there are many ways in which recordings have become more and more compressed, which means that the signal from the microphone is exaggerated and flattened, giving it more 'pop impact' - sort of like boosting the contrast and brightness on an image to make it more stark - but this has nothing directly to do with the difference in quality between CDs and records.
Scientifically, however, there is a (barely noticeable) difference in quality objectively between CD audio and vinyl audio. This is a simple result of the fact that the .WAV format/physical CD standard, which after all was set down more than twenty years ago, doesn't really allow you to hold enough information on the standard CD to completely reproduce the information contained on a record. There's some confusion between this and the "pop impact" trend problem I mentioned above, because this, too, is a problem of compression. In this case, however, compression of the signal isn't an effect that a producer in the studio does to make the music sound starker; it's just what you have to do to make the information describing the soundwave fit on the CD. It's the same effect, generally, but it's much more subtle, such that only someone who's learned how can hear the difference, and only when they're listening very closely.
As someone who has a high-grade turntable and has actually tested this, however, I can assure you that there is a slight reduction in quality that comes when you compress a soundwave for CD. And I'm not saying this because I think analog is "just better" or "always superior" or some mystical nonsense - you'll meet audiophiles who say that stuff, but I agree with you that it's not true. In fact, there are digital formats which are equal in quality to vinyl records in every way that the human ear can detect. SACD does this, and some people have done some things with DVD audio that eliminate all the compression that anybody could ever notice. But, just as it doesn't make sense to try to claim that tube amplifiers or isolation chambers can make sound "just perfect" or give "that warmth you only get live," it also doesn't make sense to think that a twenty-year-old medium standardized in the days before the internet, the first digital medium to see widespread use, could possibly match the best analog media we could come up with before. It's been done now, but CDs are such an old standard that they clearly aren't the superior one today.
Almost nobody will hear any real difference between CDs and LPs unless they're listening very, very closely; it's not likely to be something that bothers most people. So do whatever's convenient. You might find that, if you're going to listen to something 'intensely' and pay very close attention to it, a DVD or SACD (or, of course, record) of it might be more fulfilling or complete, but it'll be very rare that the difference will mean anything to you.
posted by koeselitz at 2:38 PM on December 30, 2009
markblasco: “Records are not better than CD's. Records are DIFFERENT than CD's. If you want your music to sound clear, with as little noise and distortion as possible, records are a terrible option. It is saying something that the group of people who are saying records are better is the same group of people that grew up listening to poorly compressed mp3's. Compared to a low bitrate mp3, a record will sound better, but a CD played on a decent CD player (not some cheap 10 dollar POS from target) will be what most albums are mixed for... Now, there is one exception to this: Records cannot be mastered as loudly, so a record will typically be more dynamic than a CD, if the CD was mastered to be very loud. If you have a record of a modern rock album (let's say Foo Fighters), the record will sound louder on the loud parts when the softer parts are the same volume. If dynamic range is your goal, a record will usually have more of it, although you get lots of noise during the quieter parts.”
This, too, slightly misses the difference between CD and LP-quality sound.
It is true, first of all, that records take a lot of work and certainly limit your selection. It's very difficult to limit surface noise with records, although it's obviously possible to eliminate it altogether if you're careful and all your records are kept pristine. Of course no one can do that all the time; and there are many more things available on CD than on record. Also, there are many ways in which recordings have become more and more compressed, which means that the signal from the microphone is exaggerated and flattened, giving it more 'pop impact' - sort of like boosting the contrast and brightness on an image to make it more stark - but this has nothing directly to do with the difference in quality between CDs and records.
Scientifically, however, there is a (barely noticeable) difference in quality objectively between CD audio and vinyl audio. This is a simple result of the fact that the .WAV format/physical CD standard, which after all was set down more than twenty years ago, doesn't really allow you to hold enough information on the standard CD to completely reproduce the information contained on a record. There's some confusion between this and the "pop impact" trend problem I mentioned above, because this, too, is a problem of compression. In this case, however, compression of the signal isn't an effect that a producer in the studio does to make the music sound starker; it's just what you have to do to make the information describing the soundwave fit on the CD. It's the same effect, generally, but it's much more subtle, such that only someone who's learned how can hear the difference, and only when they're listening very closely.
As someone who has a high-grade turntable and has actually tested this, however, I can assure you that there is a slight reduction in quality that comes when you compress a soundwave for CD. And I'm not saying this because I think analog is "just better" or "always superior" or some mystical nonsense - you'll meet audiophiles who say that stuff, but I agree with you that it's not true. In fact, there are digital formats which are equal in quality to vinyl records in every way that the human ear can detect. SACD does this, and some people have done some things with DVD audio that eliminate all the compression that anybody could ever notice. But, just as it doesn't make sense to try to claim that tube amplifiers or isolation chambers can make sound "just perfect" or give "that warmth you only get live," it also doesn't make sense to think that a twenty-year-old medium standardized in the days before the internet, the first digital medium to see widespread use, could possibly match the best analog media we could come up with before. It's been done now, but CDs are such an old standard that they clearly aren't the superior one today.
Almost nobody will hear any real difference between CDs and LPs unless they're listening very, very closely; it's not likely to be something that bothers most people. So do whatever's convenient. You might find that, if you're going to listen to something 'intensely' and pay very close attention to it, a DVD or SACD (or, of course, record) of it might be more fulfilling or complete, but it'll be very rare that the difference will mean anything to you.
posted by koeselitz at 2:38 PM on December 30, 2009
Sorry I didn't answer the question: is it worth L80 more to invest in analog sound? If you have a problem with your cartridge, then you have a problem.
The answer is: your budget X your interest in old audio tech? If you can afford the fix without blowing your savings, and god tells you to do it, then do it. If money is tight, then don't.
Obsolete tech is a swell hobby if you like that sort of thing, and you get to hear music in ways that few other people do, that is: interesting. All you need is a bit of spare space in your studio to indulge this habit.
On a student budget? Be patient and pick up another cheap turntable from a charity shop, garage sale, or for FREE off of the curb on garbage collection day, some people still throw them out. Avoid junk-shops/pawn-shops, they usually want too much.
I am now regretting the good old days in the late 90's when I could stagger out of Goodwill with more vinyl than I could carry for the price of pocket change, even including some classic punk/new-wave titles.
posted by ovvl at 2:42 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
The answer is: your budget X your interest in old audio tech? If you can afford the fix without blowing your savings, and god tells you to do it, then do it. If money is tight, then don't.
Obsolete tech is a swell hobby if you like that sort of thing, and you get to hear music in ways that few other people do, that is: interesting. All you need is a bit of spare space in your studio to indulge this habit.
On a student budget? Be patient and pick up another cheap turntable from a charity shop, garage sale, or for FREE off of the curb on garbage collection day, some people still throw them out. Avoid junk-shops/pawn-shops, they usually want too much.
I am now regretting the good old days in the late 90's when I could stagger out of Goodwill with more vinyl than I could carry for the price of pocket change, even including some classic punk/new-wave titles.
posted by ovvl at 2:42 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
You may need to check whether your preamp can handle Moving Coil and Moving Magnet cartridges- this may influence the replacement cartridge choices you have.
Koeselitz:
posted by the duck by the oboe at 3:27 PM on December 30, 2009
Koeselitz:
Scientifically, however, there is a (barely noticeable) difference in quality objectively between CD audio and vinyl audio. This is a simple result of the fact that the .WAV format/physical CD standard, which after all was set down more than twenty years ago, doesn't really allow you to hold enough information on the standard CD to completely reproduce the information contained on a record...What are you referring to? 16 bit PCM has an effective dynamic range of a 100+ dB. Vinyl doesn't come close.
...In this case, however, compression of the signal isn't an effect that a producer in the studio does to make the music sound starker; it's just what you have to do to make the information describing the soundwave fit on the CD...
posted by the duck by the oboe at 3:27 PM on December 30, 2009
Response by poster: All this cd versus vinyl stuff is really interesting but it's kind of moot since i only buy records for the covers. I think i'll try and find another cheap turntable and keep the beogram as an ornament (i've actually had a great time trying to play records with pins and wire)).
One more question - how hard is it to find old criterion laserdiscs?
posted by Andy Harwood at 3:37 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
One more question - how hard is it to find old criterion laserdiscs?
posted by Andy Harwood at 3:37 PM on December 30, 2009 [1 favorite]
Some old Criterions are easy to find - we've got at least 3 of the Criterion of Blade Runner. Others are quite a challenge. I think we're still missing 3 of the Criterion laser discs.
posted by 26.2 at 3:48 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by 26.2 at 3:48 PM on December 30, 2009
I misspoke earlier, or oversimplified or something, about laserdisc sound quality. Like you say, though, Andy, it's kind of moot.
posted by box at 3:51 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by box at 3:51 PM on December 30, 2009
The only problem with the stylus is the needle fell off (is the stylus the cartridge or the needle? I've never been clear on that).
Strictly speaking, the stylus is the rock that rides the groove. It's generally bonded to a cantilever arm, and in cartridges that feature replaceable styli, the stylus and cantilever arm and a bit of housing form the replaceable part and this whole assembly is what's generally referred to as a stylus.
Could I get a cheap stylus from a different player and jam it into the cartridge I have
If that was you in the video playing a record with a pushpin: I'm sure you could. But I doubt whether you'd get any output from the cartridge afterwards. And no, you can't borrow any of my vinyl, ever.
B&O stuff is (often gratuitously) different from everything else on the market. It's designed to appeal to people who think that spending more money means they've bought better equipment, and is as incompatible with generic equipment as their engineers could possibly make it. It would not surprise me even slightly to find out that B&O would make their customers buy a whole new cartridge every time a stylus wears out or falls off.
Incidentally, once you do get a working record player, you can minimize the chances of stylus damage by not scraping it with your bare fingers.
posted by flabdablet at 3:54 PM on December 30, 2009
Strictly speaking, the stylus is the rock that rides the groove. It's generally bonded to a cantilever arm, and in cartridges that feature replaceable styli, the stylus and cantilever arm and a bit of housing form the replaceable part and this whole assembly is what's generally referred to as a stylus.
Could I get a cheap stylus from a different player and jam it into the cartridge I have
If that was you in the video playing a record with a pushpin: I'm sure you could. But I doubt whether you'd get any output from the cartridge afterwards. And no, you can't borrow any of my vinyl, ever.
B&O stuff is (often gratuitously) different from everything else on the market. It's designed to appeal to people who think that spending more money means they've bought better equipment, and is as incompatible with generic equipment as their engineers could possibly make it. It would not surprise me even slightly to find out that B&O would make their customers buy a whole new cartridge every time a stylus wears out or falls off.
Incidentally, once you do get a working record player, you can minimize the chances of stylus damage by not scraping it with your bare fingers.
posted by flabdablet at 3:54 PM on December 30, 2009
Response by poster: i'm going to annoy you some more with my amazing ideas - is it possible/feasable to put mp3s onto records? it must be possible to play an mp3 through a loudspeaker and record those vibrations onto vinyl right?
posted by Andy Harwood at 6:07 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by Andy Harwood at 6:07 PM on December 30, 2009
You might be able to find replacement stylus or phono cartridge at a place like Needle Doctor.
(Back in the day--meaning up until maybe 3-4 years ago--Radio Shack used to be able to order in about any stylus or cartridge. I don't know if their stores can still do that but their online site doesn't give any indication of it any more.)
posted by flug at 6:11 PM on December 30, 2009
(Back in the day--meaning up until maybe 3-4 years ago--Radio Shack used to be able to order in about any stylus or cartridge. I don't know if their stores can still do that but their online site doesn't give any indication of it any more.)
posted by flug at 6:11 PM on December 30, 2009
it must be possible to play an mp3 through a loudspeaker and record those vibrations onto vinyl right?
Commercial consumer-grade equipment for this purpose is now very rare and generally considered obsolete. But you can hack one.
posted by flabdablet at 6:27 PM on December 30, 2009
Commercial consumer-grade equipment for this purpose is now very rare and generally considered obsolete. But you can hack one.
posted by flabdablet at 6:27 PM on December 30, 2009
The only problem with the stylus is the needle fell off (is the stylus the cartridge or the needle? I've never been clear on that). Could I get a cheap stylus from a different player and jam it into the cartridge I have
No. B&O styli and cartridges are sold as an integrated unit, the interface between the stylus/cartridge and the tonearm is B&O proprietary, and as far as I know there are no aftermarket vendors of (non-B&O) B&O-compatible integrated styli/cartridges.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:28 PM on December 30, 2009
No. B&O styli and cartridges are sold as an integrated unit, the interface between the stylus/cartridge and the tonearm is B&O proprietary, and as far as I know there are no aftermarket vendors of (non-B&O) B&O-compatible integrated styli/cartridges.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:28 PM on December 30, 2009
Here's a demo of professional-grade record cutting equipment for comparison purposes.
posted by flabdablet at 6:57 PM on December 30, 2009
posted by flabdablet at 6:57 PM on December 30, 2009
it must be possible to play an mp3 through a loudspeaker and record those vibrations onto vinyl right?
Legend has it that some tracks from Portishead's second album were custom cut to vinyl, frisbee'd about, and then transcribed back to digital.
posted by ovvl at 12:05 AM on December 31, 2009
Legend has it that some tracks from Portishead's second album were custom cut to vinyl, frisbee'd about, and then transcribed back to digital.
posted by ovvl at 12:05 AM on December 31, 2009
Oh of course, mon ami gave me Portishead's second album on vinyl for my birthday last millennium: "don't worry about spilling beer on it, it already has scratches."
posted by ovvl at 12:23 AM on December 31, 2009
posted by ovvl at 12:23 AM on December 31, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:16 AM on December 30, 2009