Minimizing functionality?!Aesthetic is sometimes seen as a product of function. A lean design produces a product that looks a certain way. This is entirely the aesthetic of B&O products, to cite an example, and it very much has to do with minimizing functionality. The idea is that if the product is 'simple' and easy to use, it will have a certain aesthetic.
Bang & Olufsen products are fully functional! Skillful hiding functions is not a lack of functions!Here is a quote directly from the B&O web site.
"Therefore Bang & Olufsen products are not only aesthetically pleasing but are also functional and easy to use. This has always been the case with the company, ever since its founding it has produced ranges of products that were striking to look at, easy to use and which were manufactured to the highest standards."
You got it all wrong. Occam's Razor is at home in philosophy and science. It's use in art should be in the context of something, otherwise it will be nonsensical.It is not difficult to find essays on the web which explore this subject. Your proposition that the application of Occam's Razor to art will produce a black painting is nonsensical. The application of Occam's razor to visual art means that the painting should reveal its meaning with a minimum of elements: only what is necessary, and nothing that is not necessary. This is not to say that a painting is not good, if the razor is not applied. But if one is partaking in this aesthetic, that is what one does.
Occam’s Razor: Art, Science, & Aesthetics
The proposition of a 'magnetic levitation' turntable is interesting, but I am highly doubtful. ...
So, such a turntable device should work, but would be ultra sensitive to weight and position. The difficulty I see is a) maintaining speed at 33 1/3 rpm given air friction, and b) if the magnetic field and platter weight were designed for that speed, how does the device get up to speed? I can see the platter flying off the turntable across the room at a 45 degree angle, the way my small top will do. That would be quite the party trick.
I've never understood how that MagLev turntable would ever work. Without a constraint, the platter would be extremely unstable, any levelling dependent on the weight of the record, and I would expect wow and flutter under dynamic conditions, i.e. variable stylus drag, to be very poor.
...
As I said in my post, there is a commercial product, with a few reviews.I've never understood how that MagLev turntable would ever work. Without a constraint, the platter would be extremely unstable, any levelling dependent on the weight of the record, and I would expect wow and flutter under dynamic conditions, i.e. variable stylus drag, to be very poor.
The only thing going for it is cool looks
MagLev, with two opposing magnets and a conventional central bearing can work, as all the magnets do is to remove the lad from the bearing, thus reducing rumble, but then it won't look any different to a turntable with a conventional bearing.
I'm reminded of the Laser turntable which whilst avoiding stylus and record wear, would play every spec of dust as modulation!
S.
The Slovenian Mag-Lev gets around the stability problems, which are unavoidable with fixed magnets, because of Earnshaw's Theorem, by using electromagnets which are cleverly controlled to both spin and balance the platter. It is like maglev trains, which use electromagnets for both suspension, guidance, and propulsion.As I said in my post, there is a commercial product, with a few reviews.
Not to mention coin-operating principle.
Have you seen the price? It is $4850, far above the OP limit of $900 (1200 CDN). That is one of the reasons why I didn't suggest them to the OP.
It is not a jukebox, nor a changer. It is a coin-operated gramophone for public use, not for the home.
When you try to intersect $900 and "cool turntable", choices are very limited, so finding only one object that satisfies both criteria is not surprising.I suppose that if you tack enough qualifiers onto "turntable" and "cool" then you can make sure the intersection contains just one object
Your definition is wrong. Where is this world going with everyone having his own definition on everything, including what is a good/clean/cool design? What do you think, what are they teaching the students at the art/design universities?My definitions are less context-dependent. For me, a "turntable" is a spinning platter supporting a record, which is played by some kind of tracking device. The device might be at the end of an arm pivoting from the end, or an arm moving linearly along a track, or something else I haven't thought of. The play can be by stylus, by laser, or by something else. I consider those all "turntables", regardless of whether the thing is at one's home or not, whether the record is placed on the platter by hand or by some kind of device, or whether the on/off switch is a lever, an app, or a coinbox. (For that matter, I accept just the spinning platter alone as a "turntable".) In particular, I don't believe that when I bought my Thorens from a recording studio it suddenly became a turntable (but was something else when it was being used commercially), nor do I believe that if I glued a coin-op switch to it it would cease to be a turntable.
Likewise, I consider "cool" a subjective term which, when one uses it, is shorthand for "cool in my opinion", and I think it would be weird to try to tell someone that their taste is objectively wrong.
In the context of this thread the OP is the ultimate arbiter of what "cool" means to him (though I think his taste is not a million miles off my own); and, while I do not know if his taste ran to jukeboxes, if he were to buy one and disable the coin operation (as many people do when they buy jukeboxes for home use) I think he would be allowed to say he bought a turntable without being corrected.
Professional turntables from recording studios, when transferred to homes, are still turntables (although bulky).
?
I just said that professional (or DJ) turntables are just that - turntables, whether in homes or not. Many of them are much better than "high-end hi-fi" overly priced junk.
My definition of "turntable" is literally the dictionary definition, seeYour definition is wrong.
You said in at least 2 posts upthread that something wasn't a turntable because it wasn't designed for home use.I don't understand what that Thorens episode is about. Professional turntables from recording studios, when transferred to homes, are still turntables (although bulky).
Quote from the link you provided:My definition of "turntable" is literally the dictionary definition, see
https://recordsoundpro.com/what-is-exactly-a-turntable-its-definition-use-and-history/
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/turntable
The definition doesn't care why the thing was designed, or where it was situated, only what it is supposed to do and how it does that.
If you have a different definition, then you ought to give it and explain how jukeboxes or coin-operated decks don't meet it
The idea that someone decide for himself what is "cool-looking" even he hasn't seen more than four or five different turntable designs in his whole life is just laughable. Even more bizarre is if someone thinks that designs prized by knowledgeable experts are not "cool-looking" enough (or just plain wrong).The idea that someone doesn't get to decide for himself what is "cool-looking" is just bizarre.
No, I didn't say that. I said that a unit specifically designed for a use significantly different from a home use, has a different name. See above definitions for jukeboxes and changers.You said in at least 2 posts upthread that something wasn't a turntable because it wasn't designed for home use.