Like CD-ROM, right, but with vinyl LPs.
Totally impractical but also totally retro and weird which means the hard-core geeks will line up for blocks to get theirs. Boot up "Windows LP" by dropping the needle. Built-in fuzziness in the OS forgives clicks and pops so your data isn't corrupted by a speck of dust in the grooves. Doubles as a real turntable, useful for converting your collection of rare punk albums into MP3s.-- gonzola, Sep 08 2003 Vinyl Gramaphone http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~springer/This guy has built a method of reading data off a record with a scanner. [custardlove, Oct 17 2004] PC Vinyl Burner http://www.halfbake...PC_20Vinyl_20BurnerRelated idea [-alx, Oct 17 2004] MultiFormat CD http://www.halfbake...ea/MultiFormat_20CD"You can also have the printed/"top" surface etched like an old-fashioned vinyl record." [phoenix, Oct 17 2004] bones from cds machine http://www.halfbake...rom_20cds_20machine"How about turning them into 45s?" [phoenix, Oct 17 2004] RetroPod http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/RetroPodMore retro-tech, this time based on the 8-Track Tape instead of the LP [krelnik, Oct 17 2004] Accessoretro http://www.geek.com...e20030909021661.htmCassette player for yur PC [cloudface, Oct 17 2004] The 8-Bit Construction Set http://www.beigerec...artists/8bitcs.html"the first ever use of the vinyl recording medium for software distribution - the inside tracks are audio data which can be dubbed to cassette tape and booted in your...atari or commodore 8-bit computers" [stderr, Oct 17 2004] “Windows LP” must be a very small O/S.-- Shz, Sep 08 2003 Why, [Mr Burns]? The data rates are the same or higher on the typical 33.3 than the 78.-- bristolz, Sep 08 2003 Is this OS in stereo or mono?
//geeks will line up for blocks// I've been in line camping out, since 4am. +-- Amos Kito, Sep 08 2003 make it "writeable", and you can convert your mp3s into rare punk albums too...
The 78 rpm albums had a higher data rate, but a lower play time than the 33 1/3 albums. (equate it to the sound quality of an mp3 compressed at 64 kbps vs the same mp3 compressed at 192 kbps. For the same file size (data quantity), you can get more 64 kbps songs at lower quality (think 33 1/3 rpm album) or fewer songs at high quality (think 78 rpm singles).
I always preferred the singles, but then I grew up listening to a 600-watt audiophile-grade Macintosh tube system (not a transistor in sight) with a really high-end turtable (the platter weighs nearly 10 pounds!) I still prefer the sound of a new 45 rpm single to that of a CD when played on that system, especially if the master is analog.-- Freefall, Sep 08 2003 I'm holding out for the 8-track upgrade.-- oxen crossing, Sep 08 2003 78s were monaural with poor sound and very low data density when compared to the 33s which are stereo with far better sound. Ergo, the 33 is delivering the same or more data in the same time period. Am I missing something?
The videocassette analogy seems orthogonal to the argument as it's about data storage density and not the rate at which the data is delivered. The mp3 compression analogy also seems to be about density and not data rate.
Back to the idea for a moment: the idea summary about "storage for luddites" seems to be counter to the part of the idea saying that "hard core geeks" will be the big consumers of the product. Aren't those two groups philosophically pretty far apart on technology consumption?-- bristolz, Sep 08 2003 S/he's obviously going for the hard-core luddite techno-geek market. I think Windows is a wrong choice for this group, since 98% are Macintosh users. (dodges fishbones)-- Worldgineer, Sep 08 2003 Oh you mean the poseur geeks?-- bristolz, Sep 08 2003 Yes. Them and the poseur luddites.-- Worldgineer, Sep 08 2003 poseur pouches-- po, Sep 08 2003 A 12 inch vinyl disc has a lot more room for cover art and liner notes. They make much better frisbees than cds and are fun for taget practice. Otherwise they stink.-- LabRat, Sep 09 2003 Yes, but that is simply assuming that higher platter speed results in higher data rates. Not so with the 78 RPM records. They were much lower than a 33 because the density of their data was far sparser than a 33. Each peak and valley of the vibration pattern in the walls of the groove were much farther apart. Sonically, they were lower quality and, given that they were monaural, they had roughly half of the data traveling off of the disc per given time increment than a 33.
No?
Disk drives aren't a very good analogy either as they all have roughly the same data density per sq cm.
If you took a 33 and spun it at 78RPM, then I'd believe that the data rate was higher. Conversely, If you took a 78 master and spun it at 33 the data rate would be far lower than an 33 master at the same speed.
I'm betting that there's 7200 RPM drives on the market today whose sustained data transfer rate is far higher than a 10,000 RPM drive of 5 years ago. That is a similar analogy.-- bristolz, Sep 09 2003 Well, I didn't know you were discussing some new, heretofore unknown variant of 78 RPM vinyl technology. All I had to go on is what I know about existing 78 RPM technology.
Stated that way, it's fine. Why stop at 78, though?-- bristolz, Sep 09 2003 Brilliant. Oh, the possibilities. What about programs that load like old cassette tape games used to? I can't even remember what they used to sound like. Whenever I try and think back I just hear the sound of a modem connecting.-- DRstrathmore, Sep 09 2003 How can you meaningfully compare "data rates" of 78 and 33 rpm (musical) records, when they are both examples of *analog* storage mediums? Of course the peaks and valleys of the 78 had to be farther apart than 33--otherwise you'd have the wrong frequencies being played. But doesn't that also mean you could theoretically pack in far higher-frequency sounds onto the 78?
You could make the assumption that there is an inherent upper limit to the number of data samples you'd be able to squeeze into each linear inch or whatever, perhaps due to the mass of the cartridge/stylus limiting the sensitivity; if that was the case and all other factors were equal then the 78 RPM record would offer higher sequential transfer rates than the 33.-- stderr, Sep 10 2003 I'm... a huge nerd.-- stderr, Sep 10 2003 But it's not the case and you're right it's not a particularly meaningful comparison.-- bristolz, Sep 10 2003 Laserdisk.-- lawpoop, Oct 10 2003 The original 78RPM records were designed to play with a needle large enough to drive a diaphragm directly. This limits the allowable wiggle sizes and thus frequency response. By contrast, 33 1/3 RPM records were designed to be played with a much smaller needle and could thus obtain a higher spacial density which in turn meant better frequency response even at the slower rotation rate.-- supercat, Oct 10 2003 You mean something like this, http://incolor.inebraska.com/bill_r/interface%20age.htm, from nearly 30 years ago? Yes, it's possible, sort of. I have a copy of this issue of Interface Age around here somewhere, but I no longer have the "Floppy ROM". Pity.
This discussion reminds me of these CD-R disks that look like old 45-rpm records: http://www.inanycase.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=I&Product_Code=1020-VINYL&Product_Count=0&Category_Code=CDR
Pretty cool, huh?-- keithmo, Apr 18 2004 random, halfbakery