Or: No, not really.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Get a USB turntable and reverse the polarity.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Get a USB turntable and reverse the polarity.
*snort*
Blayne, you'd need a recording needle, and they are neither inexpensive nor easy to come by these days.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Okay so best second thing, where could I go to get someone else to do it for me? Is there a company or something what keywords am I looking for?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Get a USB turntable and reverse the polarity.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Okay so best second thing, where could I go to get someone else to do it for me? Is there a company or something what keywords am I looking for?
This is why no one uses vinyl jukeboxes anymore.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It would be more cost effective to just rewire the jukebox to play input from a 1/8 inch jack and put a few dummy records into it for the visual effect.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course, that assumes the cost of the 1957 jukebox to be negligible.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Whenever I see the word "juke box", I hear it in Mr. Martini's voice.
"I busta the juka-box!"
Exactly!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you really want a jukebox that can only play 43 songs? (Or 86, if Blayne's jukebox can play both sides...)
...
Actually, now that I think about it, that might be a good number for a jukebox. So, yeah, Blayne: send that company Rivka linked $3000 and a bunch of MP3s, and they'll press your vinyl.