Why nobody develops an analog medium with new technology ?

Eduardo AAVM · « **on:** 12 May 2003, 02:01 pm »

Hello maybe this is the silliest question here but anyway I wonder why nobody works in a new analog medium with modern technologies.

Does anybody of you know something it it exists ?

Will analog mediums always be LP, and tape in it's different mediums (reel, cassette, etc)

Why not using new materials, new control systems, etc.

Good bye...

Hantra · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 May 2003, 02:06 pm »

IMO, it's because analog, by definition, = inconvenient. The masses are interested in portability, ease of use, and convenience. Analog could be made portable, but it would be hard to make it convenient as far as changing tracks, etc. Also, we are obsessed with sqeezing more and more of everything into smaller spaces. Analog could really not get any smaller than it already is, and still be analog. We'll be lucky if there is even a viable format for high-end in the next few years. In the end, the masses win.

B

Eduardo AAVM · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 May 2003, 02:16 pm »

But don't you think using new technologies, materials and tracking systems a better medium could be done ?

I know it won't be for the masses but anyway nowadays there is much people still using analog so it could become a good niche product.

Hantra · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 May 2003, 02:32 pm »

Quote

But don't you think using new technologies, materials and tracking systems a better medium could be done ?

Absolutely it could be done. The amount of R&D it would take to develop would be impractical for a "niche" product. Regardless of how big your niche may be, it's still a niche.

And convincing people who will spend from 1K to 100K+ on a turntable to drop more money on some new hardware to play your new format, for which there will be virtually no software. . . Well, you get the picture. It's the same old story. No one will put out software until there is more hardware out there, and no one will buy hardware because of no software. . . blahblah. . .

B

JoshK · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 May 2003, 07:35 pm »

Why not just use an already existant hardware, the laserdisk to put, not video, but the analog audio tracks?

Hantra · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 May 2003, 07:48 pm »

Quote

Why not just use an already existant hardware, the laserdisk to put, not video, but the analog audio tracks?

That may be a physical impossibility with current technology. The lasers we use these days read on/off, and if you could get an "analog" laser to read variations in groove height, I would imagine it would be cost prohibitive. AND you'd still have to make new hardware b/c Laserdisk reads on/off.

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 May 2003, 09:39 pm »

I've been experimenting with recording ocean sounds using various conch shells. I will let you guys know how it turns out. Rest assured, when I get the format finalized you will all be able to buy "Dark Side Of The Moon" one more time in conch shell format!

I would love to have CDs in 12" laserdisc format. That way we can get back the large scale artwork and lyrics that aren't in 3pt type. Well yeah, I know album covers don't matter much in jazz or classical (just pictures of people's heads - boooring!) But metal albums just aren't the same at 5".

I've heard they can get 36GB on a DVD-sized disc with that blue ray stuff. Imagine what you could put on a 12" disc! Yeeowza! Hell, you could put a band's box set on one disc!

Mathew_M · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 May 2003, 05:16 am »

I had the same laserdisc style format idea a while back. I love the cover art and heft of the format(s) but hate the setup and maintainance of vinyl. Though the laserdisc format is suspectable to rot it wouldn't be as damageable as vinyl is.

With music as a digital format slowly evolving into the less tangible mp3 and AAC formats the old school music fans and audiophiles are being left to over priced vinyl and high rez. The problem with these formats (vinyl and high rez) is that they are both DOA as far as the average consumer is concerned. And if this is what the average consumer thinks then you can pretty much surmise what the studios think.

nathanm · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 May 2003, 03:02 pm »

Rots? Aren't they the same plastic\aluminum sandwich as CDs? Interesting...

Okay, then how about 12" sleeves but with the standard CD-sized holder in the center? Like a big Digipak thing perhaps. I am torn between my hatred of wasteful packaging and my love for big artwork. Then again, people usually don't throw away their recordings.

I must admit, the concept of having a single, massive-capacity storage medium is intriguing. Imagine if all your personal media could be kept on a small single disc. All your music, your computer files, financial records etc. Would probably want some hardcore encyption on that sucker of course. I suppose that takes the fun out of 'collecting' stuff then.

Sorry, I know this has nothing to do with new analog mediums. Oh yeah I almost forgot, the liner notes\lyrics on my conch shell records will come out in a little thin roll of paper, kind of like a fortune cookie. It's gonna rock.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #9 on:** 13 May 2003, 06:28 pm »

I hate to veer further off topic, but in reference to what Nathanm said, I really hate those crappy cardboard sleeves w/the plastic insert; worse yet, I really loathe the few CDs that go into cardboard sleeves with no insert, like mini LPs. Maybe the bunny-huggers like Sting thought it's better for the environment, but I suspect very little music is discarded into landfills. Certainly more plastic from milk jugs goes into the ground that from CDs!

AC/DC's new remasters are in cardstock & plastic sleeves; while this works okay I worry that they'll fall apart over time. Perhaps that too is part of Sony's plan to make you repurchase your music over and over.

On the topic of new analog, I've often wondered that myself. But I really don't see the point to a new analog medium. Tape works well to record on, while digital really does have a lot of advantages over analog, one of the foremost being the ability to manipulate it without inducing phase shifts and the ability to clone it easily.

Just who would buy a new LD sized analog product? The overwhelming trend in technology is to make stuff smaller, not bigger. I'd be more interested in data crystal technology and 360 nm blue lasers than finding a way to do analog sound commercially on LD.

One last interesting note: I recall reading about a turntable that reads regular LPs with a laser beam. It was outlandishly expensive, and I'm not sure it ever came to market commercially. But it supposedly sounded awesome. That would be ideal for vinyl lovers if it was affordable- no surface noise and no groove wear, so your records could be played thousands of times without damage.

Hantra · « **Reply #10 on:** 13 May 2003, 08:00 pm »

That would be really cool, but IMO, there would still be surface noise. . .

B

nathanm · « **Reply #11 on:** 13 May 2003, 09:00 pm »

Has anyone here ever heard the ELP player? I suspect that company has got the patents on the technology, otherwise I'd think we'd be seeing more laser turntables. Competition would surely drive the prices down. It's kind of an ugly thing, but it seems pretty interesting. (At 10 grand it better be MORE than interesting! HA!) I suppose the demo CD might be something to try but geez, you have to tell them you have no intention of buying one the first thing! What a guilt trip...

bubba966 · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 May 2003, 04:57 am »

Quote from: Hantra

Quote
Why not just use an already existant hardware, the laserdisk to put, not video, but the analog audio tracks?

That may be a physical impossibility with current technology. The lasers we use these days read on/off, and if you could get an "analog" laser to read variations in groove height, I would imagine it would be cost prohibitive. AND you'd still have to make new hardware b/c Laserdisk reads on/off.

LD's are analog. The video is analog, as are 2 of the 4 audio tracks. Hell, even Dolby Digital is stored in an analog method on LD's (and it sounds better than a DD track on DVD).

True, poorly pressed LD's are prone to rot, as Matthew mentions. But if pressed properly Laser Rot is almost non-existant. And that's with the LD standard IR lasers (780nm). Run LD's with red lasers (670nm) and it reads right past all but the worst case of rot. I've got a red laser LD player and it kicks ass. The point of red laser LD was for Analog High-Def LD's. But as an added bonus, the red laser reads normal LD's much better. Especially rotted ones.

Imagine if a blue laser (405nm) was used on LD's.

I forget specifics, but I seem to recall there being about 12GB of uncompressed space on an LD using an IR laser.

Hmmmm, all this talk of laser type makes me wonder what's in my LD-RW deck...

JoshK · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 May 2003, 02:29 pm »

That is what I thought, Brian. I was pretty sure LD was analog. I wonder why the audiophile labels didn't adopt LD as a medium with LD players readily available on the market. Seems it would target the audiophiles dead on without the fret competing formats.

Hantra · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 May 2003, 02:45 pm »

I did not know that! That puts a whole different paint job on things!

JoshK · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 May 2003, 02:52 pm »

Whoa, they make LD-RWs?

How much do those cost, and how much are the blanks? I am wondering if you could transfer your vinyl to LDs. Hmm....very interesting....

Mathew_M · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 May 2003, 03:28 pm »

Laser Disc from a manufacturing stand point is dead AFAIK. Japan was/is the last hold out. Since I never owned a player (though oddly enough I own a couple discs that I picked up cheap) I can't comment on the sound quality. However I'm sure there were a couple of concerts pressed to the format which might give some idea as to the potential. The big question is would it be comparable to vinyl. As we all know a good vinyl recording just blows away the digital counterpart in presence, tonality etc. Would the same recording pressed to LD sound the same or similar? Anybody out there with a LD-R want to try out...

JoshK · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 May 2003, 03:40 pm »

Exactly what I would like to know Matt!

bubba966 · « **Reply #18 on:** 15 May 2003, 03:48 am »

Quote from: JoshK

Whoa, they make LD-RWs? How much do those cost, and how much are the blanks? I am wondering if you could transfer your vinyl to LDs. Hmm....very interesting....

You really want to know huh?...

The Panasonic LD-RW deck I've got (from 1991) sold for about $40,000

. The blanks were around $700 for a single sided, $1,200 for a double sided.

I've got 2 double sided RW blanks (cartridge style) and 50 single sided LDR blanks. The problem is I don't know if I've got the right blanks for the model player I've got. I also don't even know if my LD-RW deck even works.

I don't care to break it as there are a few parts that are over a grand to replace, and one of them is almost $6,000!. So I'm kinda waiting until I find out for sure if the banks I have will or won't work.

Matthew is right about the LD pressing plants no longer being in operation.

Official consumer pressings ceased in September of 2001 in Japan. If you cared to know the last consumer LD pressed was Tokyo Raiders. Industrial/Custom pressing ceased in April of 2002. The plant was a US based plant (which was the lsat one in operation at the time), and the disc was a custom run (450 discs) of the Dragon's Lair arcade game.

Sorry I can't recall more facts off hand at the moment. But I'm running on 2 hours of sleep in the last 2 days do to watching The Matrix Reloaded last night.

bubba966 · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 May 2003, 03:51 am »

Quote from: JoshK

I am wondering if you could transfer your vinyl to LDs.

I don't have any vinyl. So no, I can't transfer MY vinyl to LD's...

I could do it with YOUR vinyl though.