In Reply to: Teac's VRDS transport - why aren't all modders using this? posted by hukkfinn on January 7, 2008 at 09:00:38:
There are three differences between the VRDS transport and conventional transport:
a) Normal transports have the spindle motor and the laser on the same side of the disc. This means that the "puck" that spins the disc must be small so that the laser has access to the data. In contrast, the VRDS puts the motor on the top side of the disc. The drive "puck" then is full size so that it damps the disc. (NB. With a conventional transport the top of the disc can be damped with a full-sized "puck" if a top-loading mechanism is used.)
Also please note that this is exactly the same situation as was used for the old Pioneer Stable Platter CD mechanism, except turned upside-down. In the Pioneer, the motor and full size "puck" were on the bottom and the laser was on the top. This required inserting the disc upside-down. So the VRDS is essentially an upside-down version of the old Pioneer Stable Platter drive.
b) Teac claims to have developed a method for the servos to move the laser while maintaining perpendicularity to the disc better than a conventional laser head. I have no idea of the validity of this claim, and if so, how much of an improvement there is.
c) The obviously massive overkill construction, leading to outstanding rigidity and damping.
Make no mistake, the VRDS is clearly the best optical drive made today. But it is massively expensive as well. It's not clear to me that the performance of the VRDS couldn't be equaled by using a good full size damping disc (necessitating a top-loader) on a massively built conventional transport.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- By the way... - Charles Hansen 09:50:51 01/07/08 (22)
- RE: By the way... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 13:36:29 01/07/08 (5)
- what about ... - TBone 15:39:22 01/07/08 (4)
- RE: what about ... - Charles Hansen 17:02:20 01/07/08 (3)
- RE: what about ... - TBone 18:33:52 01/07/08 (2)
- RE: what about ... - HighEndWire 15:54:53 01/08/08 (1)
- nope ... it's a unique proprietary transport ... - TBone 16:59:23 01/08/08 (0)
- Couldn't you also just improve jitter immunity? - Slider 10:16:08 01/07/08 (15)
- Not as far as the VRDS is concerned... - Sordidman 19:37:45 01/07/08 (13)
- How many data errors have you seen with a normal transport? - Slider 22:07:51 01/07/08 (12)
- Someone else can better explain if it's less wobble.. or.. - Sordidman 11:36:17 01/08/08 (11)
- Nobody knows why - Charles Hansen 12:10:22 01/08/08 (10)
- Apparently TEAC does :) - Slider 12:13:10 01/10/08 (1)
- RE: Apparently TEAC does :) - Charles Hansen 20:04:14 01/10/08 (0)
- RE: Nobody knows why - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 13:22:22 01/08/08 (7)
- RE: Nobody knows why - Charles Hansen 19:55:59 01/08/08 (6)
- RE: Nobody knows why - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:44:46 01/09/08 (5)
- RE: Nobody knows why - Charles Hansen 17:41:10 01/09/08 (3)
- RE: Nobody knows why - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:19:14 01/11/08 (2)
- RE: Nobody knows why - Charles Hansen 21:07:36 01/11/08 (1)
- RE: Nobody knows why - Alex Peychev 09:16:04 01/12/08 (0)
- RE: Nobody knows why - Ted Smith 13:04:48 01/09/08 (0)
- or extract all the data to RAM and play it from there? (nt) - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 13:37:02 01/07/08 (0)