He takes a brief look at other mediums toward the end of the video as well...
http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-fac...le-on-a-record/
http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-fac...le-on-a-record/
Vinyl LP under an electron microscope
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Thanks Quattro that was awesome! I actually learned something I never knew about phono cartridges. The most common cartridge is called a "moving magnet" cartridge. Those two small magnets at the base of the stylus "move" creating the electricity that's turned into the audio signal. Fascinating and seems so intricate,yet simple.
Yeah. What I learned was that there was an analog/vinyl video record at one point. I guess that's a precursor to a digital laser disc.
Also, plural of medium is media, not mediums. Sorry about the goof.
Also, plural of medium is media, not mediums. Sorry about the goof.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Yeah. What I learned was that there was an analog/vinyl video record at one point. I guess that's a precursor to a digital laser disc.
Also, plural of medium is media, not mediums. Sorry about the goof.
Yep,I remember those very well! They were around in the 70s,called a "Video Disc", I think (whereas the RCA's latter version was called a "Laser Disc"). I'm thinking Magnavox maybe was who made the players? But they were a huge analog "record" and from what I remember had a horrible picture and would skip all the time. A kid's parents across the street from us had one when we were growing up.
Yeah. What I learned was that there was an analog/vinyl video record at one point. I guess that's a precursor to a digital laser disc.
Also, plural of medium is media, not mediums. Sorry about the goof.
Yep,I remember those very well! They were around in the 70s,called a "Video Disc", I think (whereas the RCA's latter version was called a "Laser Disc"). I'm thinking Magnavox maybe was who made the players? But they were a huge analog "record" and from what I remember had a horrible picture and would skip all the time. A kid's parents across the street from us had one when we were growing up.
Great post QP! Fascinating to see that in such detail.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Yep,I remember those very well! They were around in the 70s,called a "Video Disc", I think (whereas the RCA's latter version was called a "Laser Disc").
The RCA stuff shown in the video was called CED...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc
Yep,I remember those very well! They were around in the 70s,called a "Video Disc", I think (whereas the RCA's latter version was called a "Laser Disc").
The RCA stuff shown in the video was called CED...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Yep,I remember those very well! They were around in the 70s,called a "Video Disc", I think (whereas the RCA's latter version was called a "Laser Disc").
The RCA stuff shown in the video was called CED...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc
Yeah I'm thinking Laser Disc must've been a brand name or trademark? Maybe it was a Pioneer player I remember from back then that had a "Laser Disc" logo emblem on the case and not an RCA. It's funny because we knew this other kid who's parents had one of those Pioneer Laser Disc players and he'd always go around bragging about it. We always called him "Laser Disc" haha!! Man that brings back some memories
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Yep,I remember those very well! They were around in the 70s,called a "Video Disc", I think (whereas the RCA's latter version was called a "Laser Disc").
The RCA stuff shown in the video was called CED...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitance_Electronic_Disc
Yeah I'm thinking Laser Disc must've been a brand name or trademark? Maybe it was a Pioneer player I remember from back then that had a "Laser Disc" logo emblem on the case and not an RCA. It's funny because we knew this other kid who's parents had one of those Pioneer Laser Disc players and he'd always go around bragging about it. We always called him "Laser Disc" haha!! Man that brings back some memories
Yes, laserdisc came later. It was a digital medium as opposed CED which was analog. It was developed by Philips (Magnavox) and Pioneer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaserDisc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaserDisc
Thank you Quattro Pete.
Good stuff.
Q.
Good stuff.
Q.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
they were a huge analog "record" and from what I remember had a horrible picture and would skip all the time.
And, even worse was what happened when you rented those vinyl-record "video discs".
The discs were not normally visible to the consumer, being hidden in a hard plastic sleeve and meant to be automatically pulled from the sleeve by the machine; in normal use the discs were never actually exposed visually the way audio records were. It was thus easy for unscrupulous renters to surreptitiously switch the original disc for some worthless garbage disc (often a kids' movie). If the store didn't check to make sure the original disc was still there on return, the next renter got a nasty surprise.
they were a huge analog "record" and from what I remember had a horrible picture and would skip all the time.
And, even worse was what happened when you rented those vinyl-record "video discs".
The discs were not normally visible to the consumer, being hidden in a hard plastic sleeve and meant to be automatically pulled from the sleeve by the machine; in normal use the discs were never actually exposed visually the way audio records were. It was thus easy for unscrupulous renters to surreptitiously switch the original disc for some worthless garbage disc (often a kids' movie). If the store didn't check to make sure the original disc was still there on return, the next renter got a nasty surprise.
I had to watch it without audio, I'll have to go back and see if he explained how stereo is encoded in vinyl. One "wall" of the groove is the left audio channel, and the other is the right. The diagonal movements of the stylus perpendicular to the groove walls generate the two audio channel signals, and the movement in the left-and-right direction (in the plane of the record)is just the vector sum of the two diagonal signals. Mono records only have left-and-right movement, which generates two nominally identical diagonal components, which is why old mono records play fine on a stereo turntable.
Cool as it is, its a godawful way to record sound and it always amazes me when people want to bring it back or (ridiculously, IMO) claim that the sound is better in any way, shape, form, or universe. I'll probably always keep my vinyl collection just for grins and amusement, but I sure don't seriously listen to it anymore!
I also have a 1918 Victrola and a small collection of 78 records, which is an equally fascinating (and more different than most people realize) method of recording from vinyl. A fact I learned about 78 records not all that long ago. The styli used are stainless steel points, and the expected life of each stylus was 1 record- you buy them by the hundreds and there's a little tub on the Victrola for new styli and a cup to dispose of the old ones. That's the part I always knew, but the REASON they only last 1 playing is deliberate and kinda clever: The records have abrasive material (various minerals- limestone or silica for example) embedded in the shellac resin so that the record wears the stylus and the stylus won't wear the record. Without the abrasive a steel stylus would last a long time, but the record would get torn up in a few playings. The price paid is that typical, scratchy 78 RPM "hiss" that everyone thinks of. And in fact, playing a 78 RPM record on a diamond-stylus modern turntable will wreck the diamond stylus in short order, too. Back in the heyday of the Victrola, there was a more expensive tungsten tipped stylus(the 'Tungstone' brand stylus) that claimed to be good for 100 records, but most people found that it would start skipping after 1/4 that many.
Cool as it is, its a godawful way to record sound and it always amazes me when people want to bring it back or (ridiculously, IMO) claim that the sound is better in any way, shape, form, or universe. I'll probably always keep my vinyl collection just for grins and amusement, but I sure don't seriously listen to it anymore!
I also have a 1918 Victrola and a small collection of 78 records, which is an equally fascinating (and more different than most people realize) method of recording from vinyl. A fact I learned about 78 records not all that long ago. The styli used are stainless steel points, and the expected life of each stylus was 1 record- you buy them by the hundreds and there's a little tub on the Victrola for new styli and a cup to dispose of the old ones. That's the part I always knew, but the REASON they only last 1 playing is deliberate and kinda clever: The records have abrasive material (various minerals- limestone or silica for example) embedded in the shellac resin so that the record wears the stylus and the stylus won't wear the record. Without the abrasive a steel stylus would last a long time, but the record would get torn up in a few playings. The price paid is that typical, scratchy 78 RPM "hiss" that everyone thinks of. And in fact, playing a 78 RPM record on a diamond-stylus modern turntable will wreck the diamond stylus in short order, too. Back in the heyday of the Victrola, there was a more expensive tungsten tipped stylus(the 'Tungstone' brand stylus) that claimed to be good for 100 records, but most people found that it would start skipping after 1/4 that many.
Thanks for posting! I don't make any claims about the alleged sonic superiority of vinyl, but I do have an AR XA turntable in my basement HTS. I've had fun setting it up and trying and get the best possible sound out of it. It is the ultimate in minimalism- it only has a two position on/off slide switch.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
they were a huge analog "record" and from what I remember had a horrible picture and would skip all the time.
And, even worse was what happened when you rented those vinyl-record "video discs".
The discs were not normally visible to the consumer, being hidden in a hard plastic sleeve and meant to be automatically pulled from the sleeve by the machine; in normal use the discs were never actually exposed visually the way audio records were. It was thus easy for unscrupulous renters to surreptitiously switch the original disc for some worthless garbage disc (often a kids' movie). If the store didn't check to make sure the original disc was still there on return, the next renter got a nasty surprise.
Haha that's hilarious!! Speaking of video rental,I remember when places would charge you if you brought back a tape unrewound,and you also had to put a really high deposit down on each tape you rented.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
they were a huge analog "record" and from what I remember had a horrible picture and would skip all the time.
And, even worse was what happened when you rented those vinyl-record "video discs".
The discs were not normally visible to the consumer, being hidden in a hard plastic sleeve and meant to be automatically pulled from the sleeve by the machine; in normal use the discs were never actually exposed visually the way audio records were. It was thus easy for unscrupulous renters to surreptitiously switch the original disc for some worthless garbage disc (often a kids' movie). If the store didn't check to make sure the original disc was still there on return, the next renter got a nasty surprise.
Haha that's hilarious!! Speaking of video rental,I remember when places would charge you if you brought back a tape unrewound,and you also had to put a really high deposit down on each tape you rented.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Cool as it is, its a godawful way to record sound and it always amazes me when people want to bring it back or (ridiculously, IMO) claim that the sound is better in any way, shape, form, or universe.
There are times when old (but in great shape) vinyl is better. As the original tapes have degraded and contain a lot of hiss.
However, it's stunningly clear that high quality digital audio is awesome!!!
Cool as it is, its a godawful way to record sound and it always amazes me when people want to bring it back or (ridiculously, IMO) claim that the sound is better in any way, shape, form, or universe.
There are times when old (but in great shape) vinyl is better. As the original tapes have degraded and contain a lot of hiss.
However, it's stunningly clear that high quality digital audio is awesome!!!
Last edited:
- Status
