Date:         Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:32:12 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: [MLA-L] Requesting feedback on laser turntables
Comments: To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <13f401c54aef$338cecc0$6601a8c0@thetick>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

  At 02:06 AM 4/27/2005, Eric Jacobs wrote an absolutely amazing review of
the ELP LT:
>Like many, we found it challenging to get concrete information on the
>Laser Turntable - whether it be third-party reviews or first-hand
>knowledge.
>
>So, we spent the past 6 months analyzing the Laser Turntable - everything
>from subjective listening tests to objective measurements, while throwing
>a wide range of LP and pre-LP material at the Laser Turntable (we will
>call it the "LT" for short).
>

Eric,

Thank you for the amazing review. One thing that wasn't discussed was how
the output of the LT integrates with automatic post processing. While one
wouldn't want to post-process the master archive copy, I would suspect that
at least from the transient perspective, the very sharp transients might
work better with automatic de-clicking algorithms.

I'm also wondering what noise removal sounds like on the LT's self noise.
Does Cedar, Algorithmix, Diamond Cut, etc., work well or poorly on the LT
background noise.

Both of these processes might be used as part of a reissue project as
opposed to an access project.

Thanks again for a great review.

Cheers,

Richard


Richard L. Hess                           email: [log in to unmask]
Vignettes
Media                           web:   http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
Aurora, Ontario, Canada             (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX