Don't know why 3" records didn't exist back when instead of 45s for singles.
Only the speed would have to be 331/3 instead of 45 so 1 song would take up the same space as a track on an album. In fact a lot of space is wasted on a 45 and a 3" record would work at that speed.
Fantastic that records and turntables are not going anywhere. With all the talk of digital this digital that, how nice that some things stand the test of time and never grow old.
A three inch record will not deliver the same fidelity as a 45. The smaller the recorded area the less frequency response. This is also why there is "wasted" space at the end of a 45. You lose high frequencies the smaller the diameter of the record. I don't have time to type out all the technical information, but it's well established fact. in fact, in the early days of recording on 78's they had to change the EQ of the audio being fed to the cutter to increase the high end as the master lacquer record was cut to make up for losses as the groove got shorter the closer to the center. This, of course is still done today. The EQ from the first track of an LP to the last track on that side is dramatically different, as the audio in is adjusted for the change in frequency response. On a 3" record there's not much high end left at the center.
These are just another silly gimmick for RSD that will sell out and be available at inflated prices a couple hours later on eBay.
TIB
Thanks Tim. I never knew that and it makes perfect sense.
More Serious
That was fun introducing those little teensy record players. But now we get super serious with the top of the top!
No doubt we'll want some standard turntables for their retro look, but enter now the age of the laser analog record player!
No stylus required.
Records will not wear out with this. The price must be quite high though.
Real hi tech stuff; They have them on Ebay for close to 15 grand. Personally I'll stick with my RCA 70-D and technics SLP-1200.