Talk:Laser turntable

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm a native English speaker and I also find this to be incorrect usage of "Hobson's Choice".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hobson's choice 

message: Much of this article uses peacock and/or weasel and needs to be cleaned up.  This article also needs additional citations.  One simple example is the following line:
:"Unfortunately for Finial, its laser turntable development coincided with the introduction of the Digital Compact Disc, which began flooding the market at prices comparable to LPs (with CD players in the $300 range). Vinyl record sales plummeted, and many turntable manufacturers failed as a result."
There was no citation for the comment and the fluff word of "Unfortunately" doesn't really do justice to wiki as it is more of an opinion word and not an encyclopedic article.  Those entire two sentences should be completely re-written to follow Wiki guidelines.  I think this article only really needs a couple of line re-writes and some additional citation to be a really good article. (imho of course.) Kjnelan (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: "The laser turntable was first conceived by Robert S. Reis" is incorrect. Perhaps the first commercial venture was conceived by Reis (can't find definitive proof of that either) but the thesis being cited was indicating "proof" that Reis was the first to actually think of using a laser to replace a stylus. I've added William K. Heine and his contribution prior to Reis. The information for Heine's paper at the AES E-Library link, the date of the patent, and the patent's content should be enough to correct the "was first conceived". I've also left the now broken link to the thesis in hidden form in the article however this never appeared to actually point to the thesis. Instead it looks like it pointed to Resis's Resumé which only has a mention of the thesis itself with no link (no date given either but assumed to be in the early 1980's). Source: http://replay.web.archive.org/20090609062318/http://senderogroup.com/text/reis.htm  Signal64 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: IRENE is clearly not a laser turntable. This section really doesn't belong here. I'm not sure where it belongs, unless someone wants to expand it into an article. Chime in with your opinion in the space provided below. Winston Spencer (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  PerryTrenton (talk)  23 August 2015  —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just an idea: by renaming the article to the general term of non-contact record players, it could broaden it's scope, and Irene could stay... Zoli79 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The second mention of the turntable in the article says "Or optical turntable" and the IRENE system, using photography to scan the grooves, is certainly optical.  Let's not be pedantic and discount the IRENE system simply because it is of a different design than the marketed optical turntables.Rcarlberg (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User User:Pancho507 on 12/30 added a very minor phrase to the IRENE section, saying it was totally separate "but similar" to a laser turntable.  I would dispute this.  IRENE uses cameras to photograph the grooves -- not a laser to trace them -- and the way the digital data is handled afterward is totally different.  Okay, they both "read" records using optical means, but aside from that, they're not "similar."  This is such a minor point I won't bother reverting Pancho's edit, but I thought I might bring it up here. Rcarlberg (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

text: As of 28 April User User:Skierpage has reconfigured the "optical record scanning" section to delineate it from the laser turntable section, and also add a third method I'd not heard of before.  This very neatly solves all of the difficulties mentioned above, and I commend Skierpage for his wise edit. Rcarlberg (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRENE not Laser Based 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laser turntable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901161522/http://visualaudio.project.eia-fr.ch/publications/040626_JTS.pdf to http://visualaudio.project.eia-fr.ch/publications/040626_JTS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just want to post a note here.  Unlogged user 66.168.114.109 changed my text about reviewer Jonathan Valin's "total misunderstanding" how a laser turntable works, saying "there was no misunderstanding. He describe the process correctly."  Valin wrote "Unlike a relatively massive diamond stylus, which plows through a record’s grooves like the prow of a ship, the ELP’s tiny laser-beam styli have next to no mass and cannot move dust particles out of their way."  I'm sorry, but this *is* a total misunderstanding, as the laser is not a stylus, in fact does not contact the groove at all, and therefore cannot "push dust particles out of the way" -- not because of low mass but because there is zero contact with the record!  I have edited the sentence again, this time not calling out Valin for his misunderstanding but inserting a "[sic]" after his error.  Perhaps this is less accusatory? 
Incidentally, Valin seems like he's a fair distance from qualified to write such a review.  He states, right at the beginning, "Though the idea for using a laser beam to trace the data engraved in a phonograph record’s grooves dates back to the early 1980s [it's actually 1977], it still seems a bit sci-fi to put an LP in the drawer of what looks like an old-fashioned laserdisc player, press a “Play” button on a remote, and hear music come out of your loudspeakers."  This shows a total ignorance of the turntable I use, the not-so-rare Sony PS-FL7, released in 1985, twelve years BEFORE the ELP-LT1.  And yes, it operates exactly like a laserdisc player (though with a conventional diamond stylus). Oh well -- The Absolute Sound has always been a magazine full of myths, magical thinking and misinformation. Rcarlberg (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser Pickup vs. Stylus