ELP laser turntable - any comments?

I've lived with the Laser Turntable for nearly one year now, and tested it like crazy against my reference system (Simon Yorke S7, SME 309 with damping kit and Graham IC-70 phono cables, Lyra Helikon SL, Minus K vibration isolation platform).

First, just a quick clarification: the signal from the Laser Turntable is analog from laser beam to output. There are some digital components, but they are controlling the laser and carriage motion to track the grooves. Repeat: the Laser Turntable is ANALOG all the way.

Here's the bottom line: if you know the sound of live music - the timbre, harmonics, the transients - you cannot beat the Laser Turntable. My Yorke/SME/Lyra combination can't beat the Laser Turntable in that department. If you are in love with a dead silent background and listen to mostly recordings that were mixed from multi-track, you may not appreciate what the Laser Turntable can do. If you listen to acoustic works with simple mic'ing (Blumlein) - the Laser Turntable is pretty amazing in its ability to recreate the event.

The Laser Turntable does require CLEAN records. I use a Keith Monks RCM. But once you've cleaned a record on a good RCM, for subsequent plays a quick going over with a Hunt record brush or equivalent is all you need.

The Laser Turntable plays black records only. The more worn or damaged a record, the noiser the Laser Turntable is compared to a conventional stylus. On the other hand, really mint vinyl is quiet. The nice thing is that really mint vinyl does stay really mint with the Laser Turntable - "No Needle, No Wear" as ELP proclaims.

I think image stability and specificity is a little bit better with my Yorke/SME/Lyra combination. However, there are details that the Laser Turntable captures that the Yorke/SME/Lyra does not do as well. If you are looking for "bloom", the Laser Turntable doesn't really give you that (my RIAA preamp is the phono section of a Boulder 1010 preamp). The Laser Turntable might be a little less dynamic as well - but honestly I'd be splitting hairs on that call.

What I like most about the Laser Turntable:

1. convenience (random track access), and no wear
2. detail
3. no set-up (ie. VTF, VTA, SRA, antiskate, etc.)
4. no tracking error (it's basically a linear tracker)
5. convenience (drop the record in the drawer and hit play)

In a perfect cost-no-object world, I would have both a conventional turntable and the Laser Turntable. Each gives you a different perspective on the music. I like the dynamics and the silent background of the conventional turntable/stylus, and I really like the life-like detail of the Laser Turntable. The Laser Turntable just sounds right.

From what I can tell, the Laser Turntable is more popular among musicians than among audiophiles - probably because of the Laser Turntable's ability to re-produce such life-like detail.

Useridchallenged, what you depict is what I heard in several listens at CES 2004. It is good to hear from someone with no axe to grind.

I assume that you have had no problems with your unit, but are you concerned about the apparent lack of support from the factory?

Although you don't say, have you kept your other tt? Which do you use more?

I must express a dissenting opinion. While the ELP 'table is of significant value for playing rare records without wear and archival purposes, I do not find it exceptional sounding. It is competent, but I don't consider it to be up to the level of high end 'tables such as Simon Yorke, Walker, Rockport, and others. Demonstrations at CES have not been revealing due to the (in my opinion) lackluster associated equipment used. I heard the ELP demonstrated in a good system several years ago (Avalon Eidolons, etc.), and while the sound quality was very competent, I wouldn't consider it to be the equal of other 'tables in its price range.

And I'm very concerned about the longevity of the ELP itself - the design appears to be a dated, overly complex assembly that could be labor intensive to repair, and repair needs to be done in Japan.

I don't sell any turntables at this time, so please accept my remarks as ones by a longtime audiophile.

Essentialaudio, while I agree that the demo of the ELP was in a less than ideal system in CES 2004, I thought you could hear much of what was going on. I have no idea whether the ELP can reach the level of the best tables, such as the Loricraft 501, the Walker, or the Shindo Labs, but it certainly had a sound stage and detail that gave a realism to the recording that I found exceptional.

I also well remember the first prototype that I heard of the turntable probably 15 years ago. It had a magic about it but also had many breakdowns, and when it hit dust on the record, it tore your head off. I also am greatly concerned about the quality control and the manufacturer's indifference to customer service. The tale that Smart tells is very troublesome.

I apologize in advance - this is a long post...

I absolutely have kept the Yorke S7 - love it. I added a Clearaudio Syncro to it, which improved things. The Minus K vibration isolator is amazing - if you thought the Vibraplane was cool...

To answer your question Tbg, I'd say I listen 70% Yorke, 30% ELP. This is mostly driven by the nature of my record collection.

When doing critical listening, I will use both the ELP and Yorke. The Yorke/Lyra is quieter without a doubt, a bit more dynamic than the LT, and the soundstage is wider and imaging more stable with the Yorke/Lyra. But the timbre of the LT is so spot on, I just love it for acoustic / voice / piano (especially) / guitar and so on. And the LT can reveal more detail. It just sounds "right", and I just learn to live with the lighter dynamics and slight noise.

The LT is a different listening experience. I would not call it better or worse than a high-end TT, just different.

Rock, Pop - pretty much anything electrified or heavily mixed - I listen to on the Yorke. If I want dynamics and want to "rock", defintely the Yorke.

Anything acoustic I may listen to on either. If imaging is important to enjoying a particular piece, then it goes on the Yorke. If the "sound" of the instruments are important on a particular piece, it goes on the ELP. If I want detail, then ELP. Often you just have to try both to see which one you like better - sometimes which one I will prefer is surprising and unpredictable.

If the record is especially valuable and I want to listen to it several times in a row - it goes on the ELP. Knowing that there is absolutely no wear or damage to the grooves is worth something to me.

If I'm feeling lazy (ie. set-up of VTF, SRA, azimuth, etc.), the record may very well go onto the ELP. I have several cartridges in addition to the Lyra Helikon for coarse groove (78s), microgroove and monos - so sometimes swapping cartridges can be a pain and I just want immediate gratification.

People make a big deal about the noise of the ELP. If you have records in good condition, the difference in noise levels between the Yorke and ELP are negligible. If the record has seen some abuse or is dirty - yeah, the noise is more noticable. A good record cleaner will fix the dirt problem.

As for service, that has not been an issue. Last December I shipped my ELP to Japan for a motherboard upgrade. No problem, they turned it around in a week and I was only without the ELP for 2 weeks in total. The upgrade was also motivated by the development of an audible wow-and-flutter problem with the ELP. ELP rectified the wow-and-flutter at the same time at no charge. NOTE: My laser turntable is over 5 years old and has traveled cross country a few times as well.

The latest ELP mother board changed from socketed chips to soldered for the machine control, along with some better components in the audio section. I found that this improved the overall performance. To my mind, ELP is supporting their customers well - after all, I can get repairs and upgrades 5 years later.

I understand that the US distributor keeps an inventory of ELP Laser Turntables and offers US/Canada customers very good service. Although it still remains true that any service to the machine can only be performed in Japan.

The upgrade and wow-and-flutter repair with shipping to/from Japan cost me $1800. This has been my only expense in 5 years.

How much do you spend on cartridge and styli over a similar 5 year period? Cost of ownership of a Laser Turntable is actually relatively low once you factor in cartridges/styli, especially if you use your TT a lot or play modern and historical records.

As for the Smart tale, I think that there were some unrealistic expectations and some poor business judgment on both sides of the Pacific that led to the falling out. Smart may have expected the ELP Laser Turntable to be more like a high volume consumer product, and was surprised to find that it was really a low-volume build-on-demand service-in-Japan-only product. ELP may have falsely set that expectation - who really knows.

All I know, the ELP has done well by me. If I had to have one turntable, and one only, I'd keep the Yorke and lose the ELP. The only reason for such a decision is that the ELP is not good as a sole turntable because it cannot deal with colored vinyl and a conventional TT sounds better with more abused vinyl. But I really enjoy the luxury of having both!

FYI: for anyone considering a Yorke, you'll find that Simon Yorke is on an extended sabbatical from building turntables so that he can pursue his poetry and art. No advance notice, nothing. I think obsessing about the long-term health of ELP is no more a crap shoot than any other high-end audio product. I'm not saying that longevity is a non-issue with ELP, I'm just saying that you need to be realistic about these matters. Of course, the LT is much more difficult to service than a traditional TT, and the MTBF is lower.

In fact, I'm strongly considering upgrading from the LT-1XRC to the LT-2XRC so that I can play more of my odd-sized pre-RIAA records and shellacs.