The History of the CD-ROM

Gammu writes "The inventor of the compact disc, the most popular medium in the world for playing back and storing music, is often disputed as one individual did not invent every part of the compact disc. The most attributed inventor is James Russell, who in 1965 was inspired with a revolutionary idea as he sketched on paper a more ideal music recording system to replace vinyl records; Russell envisioned a system which could record and replay sounds without any physical contact between parts."

Is the RIAA reading this?

[ZDRuX]

The same thing happened with vinyls that is now happening with CD's. Why do they not recognize their own history?!

With the advent of music downloads in the early 2000s and the introduction of the iTunes Music Store in 2003, the CD is decreasing in popularity yearly as music downloads experience rapid growth. The convenience of music downloads in combination with digital audio players like Apple's iPod leave little reason to keep CDs and a CD player.

No, they are writing it.

[twitter]

The RIAA want to move to more locked down formats and pay per play. Despite iTunes, most people prefer CDs because it's DRM free and an excellent archive format. The leading reasons for the decrease in CD sales are closed stores and reduced floor space in places like Walmart.

Re:

[cdrguru]

Most people I know (of those with broadband Internet connections) prefer free downloads. Buying a CD is about the last thing they would do. iTunes is way, way too difficult to mess with but I am sure if free dried up they would switch to iTunes or some other online store.

Free is very, very difficult to compete with.

Re:

[Tink2000]

iTunes is way, way too difficult to mess with

What? You fill out your name and address, plug in a credit card number, pick a password.

When you're ready to buy you click on one button and re-enter your password. You can even check a box so you never have to re-enter your password, and reduce that step.

How's that hard?

Re:

[Winckle]

That band may have been Interpol [interpolnyc.com]. I bought their Antics and Turn On The Bright Lights Vinyls, and they both came with free download coupons. However since they have signed to Capitol, the new vinyl won't have a coupon. Which means I won't buy it.

mini-discs

[jadin]

whatever-happened-to-mini-discs

Summary: mini-discs don't support mp3

Commentor's Cut: I hated hauling around a 50-100 cd carrier back in the day to hold all of my music. Ipods didn't exist yet, the only mp3 players (with a HDD) were horrible - fragile and with about 2 hours of battery life. So when I noticed the mini-disc played mp3s I was intrigued. I could hold all of my 50-100 CDs worth of music on (i was hoping) 10-15 mini discs. Even if they were 1:1, a mini-disc is much smaller than a CD. So I bought one.

Turns out it _didn't_ play mp3s. It "supported" mp3s by converting them to a proprietary Sony format. Which still could've been okay but the compression ratio wasn't very good for "better quality". I returned my space saving mini-disc player a day or two later, as soon as I realized it wasn't the answer I was looking for.

The mini-disc was cool in my eyes. Very compact and writable, it could reduce my carry-around music collection to something manageable. But it didn't support mp3s. This was back in the napster days. This single change could've made it a great format even today. I wouldn't be surprised to see a graph with the CD-R market booming, and the mini-disc market failing.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mini-disc _could_ have completely dominated back in say '98-99ish, but Sony held it too tightly. At the time mp3 was just starting to have an impact, but you couldn't get decent players for a few more years. Meanwhile CD-Rs hadn't really taken off yet and portable CD players were always too big.

I don't just mean for music either, at the time I was carrying a zip drive to uni and back to move my research around. $35AUD for a 100Mb disk. Meanwhile Minidiscs cost $5-10 and held 120Mb. Bring out a player that a

Original CD Players

[GizmoToy]

I remember my father bought one of the original Sony audio CD players. It was a CDP-102, the second version released in 1984. It looked quite a bit like the one in the article, but it was shorter and longer... the typical stereo component profile. That thing weighs a ton, and when you inserted the CD it had a clear window so you could watch the tray lower itself and the CD onto the motor. I thought that was the coolest thing.

Built like a tank, too. It was still in regular use until just recently, and still worked flawlessly without so much as a cleaning over 20 years later. They don't make them like that, anymore. Maybe it was better components, or simply nostalgia, but I thought it had a better sound quality that most CD players these days.

Re:Original CD Players

[PenguSven]

how was it both shorter AND longer at the same time?

Re:Original CD Players

[imboboage0]

He's only claiming it's longer. With the reality being shorter, it is both shorter and longer at the same time.

Are you new here?

Re:

[dangitman]

When was height mentioned in the original post?

Re:

[bdjacobson]

I remember my father bought one of the original Sony audio CD players. It was a CDP-102, the second version released in 1984. It looked quite a bit like the one in the article, but it was shorter and longer... the typical stereo component profile. That thing weighs a ton, and when you inserted the CD it had a clear window so you could watch the tray lower itself and the CD onto the motor. I thought that was the coolest thing.

Built like a tank, too. It was still in regular use until just recently, and still worked flawlessly without so much as a cleaning over 20 years later. They don't make them like that, anymore. Maybe it was better components, or simply nostalgia, but I thought it had a better sound quality that most CD players these days.

Actually, I think they _do_. I've had extensive experience with two Sony products that has changed my view from "evil corporation" to "misguided CEOs with a bunch of hardcore do-good engineers".

First is the Discman 2 CD player-- 15 hours on two batteries (10 years ago when I got it this was pretty respectable), rugged case/buttons/flip-up-top, etc; and my favorite part, the MegaBass boost that does what no equalizer I've come across can. It simply produces the richest, deepest, cleanest bass that I've eve

Re:

[poot_rootbeer]

Maybe it was better components, or simply nostalgia, but I thought it had a better sound quality that most CD players these days.

Not unreasonable. Those early CD decks had to sound great and work flawlessly, or nobody would adopt the format. And with the players retailing for hundreds and hundreds of dollars, they damn better well sound good!

CD players today are thrown together from $10 worth of commodity parts. If the hardware breaks or just sucks, you toss it and buy a new one. How else are you going

Re:a ton would be about right.

[Hal_Porter]

He's probably a audiophile. A single bit error in their music causes them to haywire and then explode. This is the same effect applied to text.

Sony CDP-101

[Trogre]

Bah, this must be just another proprietary Sony format that will never catch on, like the 3.5" floppy disk. When will they ever learn?

An interesting guy...

[yroJJory]

I had the honor of meeting Mr. Russell in NYC during the Audio Engineering Society's conference in 2003. He was an interesting person to speak with and was very understated. He sat next to my fiancee on the shuttle bus returning from the conference to Times Square and it was only after chatting with him for 10 minutes or so that he revealed (after much prodding) that he was at the conference as part of the AES Historical section and that he felt like it was a waste of effort to be present. He said that nobody was interested in meeting him.

At that, my fiancee turned to me and my other friends, sitting behind them, and introduced us.

We chatted for the remainder of the bus ride and he told us a little of what the invention process was like and how he hadn't even made a dime from something that we noted had changed the world. (He wasn't bitter, BTW.)

I got his autograph (as did several others) and a short line formed. I still have the CD I had him sign.

It's nice to see him getting some recognition.

My Discman D-50 STILL Running Strong!

[Blahbooboo3]

They just don't make it like they used to!! I was given a Discman D-50 (hand-me-down) around 1987 and it is still running GREAT today. Fact is I never had a need to upgrade. The newer units were made out of plastic (d-50 is METAL) and tended to have lower quality D->A as well as inferior processing. It is still hooked up to my stereo as I never used it as a "portable."

Chalk one up for Sony's quality during it's power years of the 1980s. I plan to keep using it for many more years!

Bill Gates advocated CD-ROM very early

[ynotds]

Bill was in Sydney on the day he became a billionaire* and was surprised to find a bunch of locals wanting to hear more of his recently published thoughts on the then still prospective new medium, but was happy enough to participate in a breakfast discussion quickly arranged by his then Australian representative Linda Graham.

CD-ROM was arguably his last time Bill was close enough to the leading edge that others who made a living at that edge sought his opinion.

*M$ had listed overnight Australian time.

Re:

[NeuroManson]

IIRC, he also released the first OS on CD-ROM as well. Apple's OS was STILL on floppies up until what, 1996-97? Same went for the last gasps of Amiga. If I'm in error, let me know.

Ahhh, remember the days when Windows 95 came out on disc AND on 20 floppies?

Re:

[jrumney]

Simtel and others were selling Linux and FreeBSD CDROMs before Windows 95 came out. Did NT 3.1 also come on CD?

Re:

[blackicye]

OS/2 Warp was available on CDs or a huge stack of 1.44 Floppys.

Re:

[jrumney]

OS/2 Warp was roughly contemporary with Windows 95. I was using OS/2 2.1 at the time, and there was fierce competition between Microsoft and IBM sales reps for our business at the time of release. But I do know we had a server running Slackware by that stage, which we got on CD (probably after the release of NT 3.1, which is why I asked). Prior to that we were running FreeBSD which would have predated the release of NT 3.1, but I'm not sure whether it also came on CD or floppy.

Re:

[vought]

IIRC, he also released the first OS on CD-ROM as well. Apple's OS was STILL on floppies up until what, 1996-97?

Absolutely not. Apple included the IIvx software on CD-ROM (and floppy - System 7.0.1 with IIvx enabler) in 1994. Later that year, the Quadra 630/650 System Software (again, 7.0.1 or 7.1 with an enabler) shipped on CD. Next up was System 7.1.1., shipped with the PowerSurge machines (first PCI power Macs - the 9500/7500) shipped on CD-ROM.

Apple was ahead in CD-ROM distribution; when I started work

Missing items

[MavEtJu]

Honestly, the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article gives a better background and has more information about related technologies (laserdisc for example).

Also, the famous Why has the compact disc 74 minutes of playtime is explained there:

According to a Sunday Tribune interview [1] the story is slightly more involved. At that time (1979) Philips owned Polygram, one of the world's largest distributors of music. Polygram had set up a large experimental CD plant in Hanover, Germany, which could produce huge amounts of CDs having, of course, a diameter of 115 mm. Sony did not yet have such a facility. If Sony had agreed on the 115 mm disc, Philips would have had a significant competitive edge in the market. Sony was aware of that, did not like it, and something had to be done. The long-playing time of Beethoven's Ninth imposed by Ohga was used to push Philips to accept 120 mm, so that Philips' Polygram lost its edge on disc fabrication.

Re:

[Frogbert]

That is very interesting and all but I don't see how that would stop them from producing working CD's that were just a bit smaller then the standard. I mean a 115mm CD would work just fine in a Cd drive these days without too much hastle.

Furthermore if the 115mm cd's were first to the market most CD players would have a 115mm depression to support them even better.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Re:

[TeknoHog]

Furthermore if the 115mm cd's were first to the market most CD players would have a 115mm depression to support them even better.

But no space for the 120 mm version. We'd be stuck with the maximum of 115 mm.

Re:

[Threni]

This is disputed, though, by some people:

http://www.snopes.com/music/media/cdlength.asp [snopes.com]

Size Change

[Kenshin]

FTFA: Many other decisions were made that year, such as the disc diameter (115m)...
The disc diameter was changed from 115m to 120mm to allow for 74 minutes of playback with the sampling rate and quality chosen.

Thank god. I'd hate to imagine the storage rack I'd need to keep those 115m discs.

I find this the most interesing

[qzulla]

Beethovens 9th is very popular in Japan on new years.

However, Sony vice-president Norio Ohga, who was responsible for the project, did not agree. "Let us take the music as the basis," he said. He hadn't studied at the Conservatory in Berlin for nothing. Ohga had fond memories of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony ('Alle Menschen werden Brüder'). That had to fit on the CD. There was room for those few extra minutes, the Philips engineers agreed. The performance by the Berlin Philharmonic, conducted by Herbert von Karajan, lasted for 66 minutes. Just to be quite sure, a check was made with Philips' subsidiary, PolyGram, to ascertain what other recordings there were. The longest known performance lasted 74 minutes. This was a mono recording made during the Bayreuther Festspiele in 1951 and conducted by Wilhelm Furtwängler. This therefore became the playing time of a CD. A diameter of 12 centimeters was required for this playing time.

In this way the specifications of the CD were determined by means of intensive contact between Philips and Sony.

http://www.research.philips.com/newscenter/dossier /optrec/beethoven.html [philips.com]

Just thought you'ld like to know

qz

A Dutchman improved the production process

[cheros]

If I recall correctly it was Ron Kok, a Dutch entrepreneur, who came up with a *MUCH* more efficient production method to make them cheaper. He put the separate components inline and improved the sequence, thus taking away a lot of the media handling which caused quality issues. Quality went up, volume went up, price came down.

Did the guy get rich off it? No, because in those days he was naive and thus had it stolen and copied from right underneath his nose. He's fared better since, but he's the guy that's responsible for CDs being so dirt cheap (AFAIK, been a while since I heard this).

Thanks for making me feel old

[syousef]

I still have my very first CD player. Oversized unit that was an addon component for a stereo I bought in the 80s. Last I checked it still works too.

Pity metadata never took off

[duinsel]

I always felt it was a missed opportunity that metadata never took off on the compact disk. With the (relative) gobs of storage it is trivial to add album and tracktitles to a CD, or even lyrics. There is CD-text, but somehow it was an afterthought that never took off. It it had been part of the CD spec (as in: add metadata in order to be spec compliant) manufacturers would have been more likely to implement it in their hardware, especially as displays became more advanced.

Re:

[Detritus]

I can think of two problems with your idea. One, the digital circuits needed to display the data would have been too expensive at that time. Two, the bit-error rate on plain audio CDs would be too high for it to work reliably. They had to add an additional layer of error correcting coding to the CD-ROM.

the CD-ROM standard and the surfing competition!!

[nawcom]

One of those odd stories that makes you wonder how any business ever gets done. Back in 1983, Sony and Philips were working on a joint standard for the CD audio disc that was about to take the world by storm. There was one last decision to be made: The sampling rate was going to be either 44.1 kHz or 36 kHz for the audio tracks. They had just determined that the disc needed to

hold 72 minutes of audio, because Beethoven's Ninth Symphony was that long. Philips proposed the 36-kHz standard, because it made a

Earlier light tech

[yusing]

CD was not the first technology to read discs without physical contact. RCA had a turntable capable of "reading" vinyl records with a light-beam in the late 1930s.

The RCA Magic Brain Victrola/Radio "was advertised as being able to play both sides of a record without turning it over and used a jewel-lite scanner that eliminated the needle and you could stack up to 15 records at a time."

Sometimes seen advertised on RCA 78rpm record labels of the period.
http://www.phonoland.com/archives/mboards/18100/ms g_0000018187.shtml [phonoland.com]

I used to have a New Scientist from the mid-70s

[simong]

that looked into the future of household technology. It foresaw a digital playback system that used the same binary format as the compact disc but the media was credit card shaped. From what I remember (and we're talking 25 years since I last looked at it) the player would still spin to read the data on the card, which made the scanning area about 8" (20cm) in diameter and would require far more oversampling than exists in the best CD players. It can only have been a few years before the first CDs appeared.

Wow

[clickclickdrone]

>The disc diameter was changed from 115m to 120mm
Now that's what you call size reduction.

FTA: Sony and 'other companies' saw potential

[mrjb]

Sony and Philips, to be precise. Can't believe that TFA didn't mention that.

There is a reason why the hole in a CD is *exactly* (and I mean *exactly*) the size of the old Dutch 10-cents coin. Also the size of the CD was derived from the fact that it needed to be able to hold, on a single disc, a 78-minute long Mozart concert which was the favorite of the wife of one of the developers.

James Russell?

[Sprotch]

Why do people need every invention to be invented by someone from their country? James Russell??? The CD is possibly the best example of a joint development between a Dutch and a Japanese company. That an American would try to fit in an American somewhere in here is a bit pathetic. Nothing against Americans, everyone does it. Sad.

Re:

[irtza]

don't you mean HD-DVD?

The flames are out ther, let the war begin!

HD-DVD is dead

[Enderandrew]

It really is. Before it even launched, it was dead. Most of the studios backed BluRay, and it was going to be in the PS3, which whether you care for the PS3 or not, provided a larger installed base almost overnight.

Not only is BlockBuster no longer ordering HD-DVD, but many large retailers are canceling all orders of HD-DVD.

Dead. Dead. Dead.

(Note this doesn't mean the BluRay is guaranteed success, but simply that the HD-DVD is dead)

HD-DVD is dead - Like BSD

[SpaceLifeForm]

Don't assume it's dead yet.

Link [slashdot.org]

But, I hope you're correct.

Re:

[superslacker87]

I have to say I'm honestly shocked. The way fickle America is, I would figure they would go "BluRay? What's that?" and then go "HD-DVD? Well, it has DVD in it, and I know HD has a better quality picture, and it is a DVD after all." I personally wasn't going to buy either until a. A good quality cheap BluRay/HD-DVD/DVD/VCD/CD player came out or b. Someone in this worthless battle of the new "awesome" formats actually won. I'm still going to hold out, but it looks like I'm going to eventually be getting a Blu

Re:

[Enderandrew]

I was walking through Best Buy and immediately stopped and said, "man this TV looks great!"

Then I looked and saw it was playing a BluRay movie. I'll never understand why people attempt to sell these really expensive TVs and in the stores generally just hook up a a standard cable signal. If you want to show off what the TV is capable, pump some HD content into it at the store.

Maybe 'round Christmas time there will be a decent price break on the PS3, and if the $500 version comes down to $400 I'll bite.

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

Personally I take an instant dislike to shops with names like Hairkutz, KoolFoods and KwikiDrinkz so BluRay switches me right off. Put the damned e back in blue FFS.

Re:Now if we could only go back in time...

[AKAImBatman]

go back in time and give him the designs for the bluRay.

It wouldn't help anything. Today's optical discs are based on the continual refinement of manufacturing processes. You could go back in time and explain how to make a BluRay disc and player, but no one would be able to manufacture discs with tight enough tolerances or microchips of sufficient speed and power to play back the data stream. And that's leaving out the issue of finding an HDTV set to make full use of the format. (HDTV was invented in 1969, but wasn't commercially viable until the 90's.)

Most people don't think about it, but inventions are driven as much by infrastructure as they are by smart people. If you lack the necessary industrial base, having all the technical knowledge in the world won't help you. (Witness a lot of third-world countries. The knowledge for a lot of technology is available, but they can't manufacture it.) To close the gap you still need to build tools which you refine and/or use to build better tools which you refine and/or use to build better tools, so on and so forth.

Re:

[friedo]

Not to mention solid-state blue lasers.

Re:

[sokoban]

exactly. The blue laser is a much more important invention that it will likely ever get credit for.

Re:

[trippeh]

[I]nventions are driven as much by infrastructure as they are by smart people.

Yep, I'll agree with that, but that doesn't stop some people. Len Lye [wikipedia.org] is a classic example. Much of his body of work was unproduced at the time of his death, the materials being either not readily available or (most often)technologically possible. Lye never expected to live to see most of his work completed and only now are some of his smaller works being produced at full scale, many of the pieces in galleries [art-newzealand.com] at the moment are

French had high-definition in 1948- sort of....

[Dogtanian]

And that's leaving out the issue of finding an HDTV set to make full use of the format. (HDTV was invented in 1969, but wasn't commercially viable until the 90's.)

The original French TV standard [wikipedia.org] (before they changed to 625-line SECAM) was 819-line. Whether or not that was high-definition is open to debate (according to Wikipedia, the equipment of the time wasn't capable of exploiting that much resolution).

Re:

[jadin]

People came up with formats like DVD-Audio, but what is the point of that?

5.1 channel vs 2 channel.

4-8GB of mp3 space vs 800MB for a CD-R.

Re:

[Enderandrew]

Sounds great. Who adopted it?

If I could go buy say that Star Wars soundtrack on DVD-Audio tomorrow, I would. But I don't believe I can.

Re:

[jadin]

Sounds great. Who adopted it?

If I could go buy say that Star Wars soundtrack on DVD-Audio tomorrow, I would. But I don't believe I can.

If I had to guess nobody wanted to go through 25 years of CDs and remix them to 5.1 channel surround sound. Can't say I blame them, but it pretty much killed the format.

Re:CD isn't obsolete

[fractoid]

No, what killed DVD-Audio was some top-brass exec being asked by his 12-year-old daughter why the kids at school were laughing at her. Apparently they'd found out her daddy "made DVDA albums".

Re:

[Enderandrew]

Which is why I specifically mentioned the Star Wars soundtrack.

Pearl Jam's album likely isn't going to be mixed for 5.1, sadly, though I'd buy that in a heartbeat as well.

But the Star Wars score was recorded and mixed in 5.1 so it isn't a stretch if the format really existed to release some movie scores in DVDA.

By the way, DVDA also has another meaning that I can't link to because it isn't safe for work.

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

>But the Star Wars score was recorded and mixed in 5.1
Surely it was only Dolby Stereo aka ProLogic back then with the two rear channels being identical? 5.1 came much later.

Re:

[Enderandrew]

If nothing else, it was released with 6.1 sound for the Special Editions and all the DVDs have 6.1 sound.

According to About.com, Star Wars was one of the first films to ever receive the Dolby Surround treatment in the mid 70's.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Enderandrew]

Thanks for the suggestion to try out Spatializer.

I like good sound, and I have decent surround setups for both of my TVs and my computer. However, I'm not a huge stickler. I can't tell the difference between say a 128kb MP3 and the original lossless WAV file.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[blackicye]

I like good sound, and I have decent surround setups for both of my TVs and my computer. However, I'm not a huge stickler. I can't tell the difference between say a 128kb MP3 and the original lossless WAV file.

If you can't tell the difference between 128kb and lossless formats, its quite likely that your source either sucked originally, or your speakers aren't good enough.

If you try "audiophile grade" earphones, headphones or speakers (Grado, Shure, Klipsch, Etymotic Research etc) you will likely hear a big

Re:

[Enderandrew]

Yet a recent study (that I believe was posted here in Slashdot) said most people couldn't tell the difference between $400 headphones and $5 ones from listening to them.

I get tons of compliments on how good my sound-setup sounds.

Given that lossless formats have a good chunk of their size coming from areas beyond the capability for the human ear to perceive, I'm not sure why everyone is so down on lossy formats.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

If you try "audiophile grade" earphones, headphones or speakers (Grado, Shure, Klipsch, Etymotic Research etc) you will likely hear a big difference between the two.

I tried and it sounded the same. I guess I should have used oxygen-free nanomolecular cables and impedance matched anisotropic speaker stands too.

I'm surprised that nobody's said vinyl sounds better yet.

Re:

[Random Destruction]

While its unfortunate that he whipped out the "audiophile" term, claiming that Grados/Sennheisers/etc are akin to 'oxygen-free nanomolecular cables and impedance matched anisotropic speaker stands' is ridiculousness.

Yes, "audiophiles" do a lot of crazy stuff, but go compare a set of $100 grado sr-60s to your cheap sonys. If you can't tell a HUGE difference, then I'd say you've done some pretty serious damage to either your ears or the relatively important organ between them.

Inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

This article ignores the significant previous work by David Paul Gregg which led to the Laserdisc and the derivative CD tehcnology. I therefore dispute the validity of James Russell, because Gregg was the first one to put music digitally on a reflective disc to be read by laser. I attended a Laserdisc demonstration Gregg gave to Mensa members in Los Angeles sometime in the early 1970s at his home. Russell may have conceived of a technology, but Gregg was the first to actually implement a working means to di

Re:Inventor

[AKAImBatman]

Russell may have conceived of a technology, but Gregg was the first to actually implement a working means to digitally handle audio and music on a disc for mass consumption.

Just to pick at a nit here, Gregg's work was an analog recording, not digital. If you look at the direct derivitive of Gregg's work - the LaserDisc - you'll find that the data is encoded in a Pulse Width Modulation [wikipedia.org] format. This allowed for NTSC signals to be directly recorded to discs long before the invention of digital encoding technologies like MPEG.

In fact, the microprocessor technology necessary to decode a digital datastream into television quality video cost millions of dollars back when the LaserDisc was introduced to the market. During development of the format, the necessary framebuffer devices were still in development and wouldn't reach truecolor capabilties until the New York Institute of Technology experiment in 1977. (They took three 8-bit, grayscale framebuffers manufactured by Evans & Sutherland and wired them together to create a 24-bit display.)

So as you can imagine, an analog design was far superior to a digital video format back when Laserdiscs were introduced. :-)

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

The early generation Laserdiscs had analog audio tracks, I believe in PWM, later augmented by genuine digital encoding after chip technology made it less expensive to do.

Indeed. Later Laserdisc recordings used PCM for audio, making them sort of a hybrid between Laserdisc and Compact Disc technology.

eight-bit micros in the early 1972s were slow

I presume you mean microchips and not microcomputers? Sorry, you had me confused for a moment there. I was wondering where in the world you were going to find a proper

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

I've always found my AC3 laserdiscs sound far better than DD5.1 DVD's when watching the same movies - are there differences in the encoding/sample rates etc? (sorry for picking on you but you seem to know your stuff ;-) )

Re:

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Can't be sure, AC3 does support different bit rates, but DVD's 448kbit/s is better then the 320kbit/s they used on 35mm film in theatres, so it is unlikely laserdiscs were much better.

The most likely cause is that you are using different quality decoders. The conversion of AC3 back into analogue defiantly depends on the quality of your equipment.

If you are using the same decoder for both sources, then it will be because AC3 was a major selling point when it was introduced on laserdics so they put some serio

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

Thanks. Same amp for both. The LD sounds warmer, more analogue like and with deeper bass whereas the DVDs are very toppy but when the bass is there, it sounds artificial like big chunks of frequencies are missing. That's with 2 LD players and maybe 4-5 DVD players over the years.

Re:

[iainl]

All AC-3 laserdiscs were at 320kbit/s. In theory, they shouldn't even sound as good as DVD, let alone better.

In practice, the reason laserdisc AC-3 sounds "better" is because LD was too much of a niche market for the studios to do anything other than take the theatrical mix, peform the 3dB volume reduction on the rear channels (theatrical mixes are boosted by that due to assorted amp stuff that clearly made sense to someone when they designed it, but I'm blowed if I'll every figure it out) and then slap it

Re:

[whoever57]

Wasn't there a Slashdot story recently proclaiming the CD to be obsolete?

Even though digital music sales are up, for many people, the CD is still the way you carry and purchase music.

I prefer to get CDs and use my fair use rights to rip the music. OK, I could also download from iTunes (well, I could, if I ran Windows of OS-X), but I prefer to buy CDs off ebay and then rip the good tracks.

Could it be more obvious...

[C10H14N2]

Sampling rate of 16-bit @ 44.1khz vs. 24-bit @ 192khz.

For 74 minutes of audio to the latter spec, you're talking about 2.5GB.

But, admittedly, most people couldn't care less about the quality difference with most music. But if you've ever heard the same recording on both formats, the difference is obvious, since you're basically getting a copy of the studio master.

Re:

[Skippy_kangaroo]

the difference is obvious

I'm guessing that it is the 24-bit rather than the 192khz?

As Flanders and Swann [optusnet.com.au] said about much earlier technology:
Flanders: All the highest notes neither sharp nor flat,
Swann: The ear can't hear as high as that.
Flanders: Still, I ought to please any passing bat,
Swann: With my high fidelity.

Re:

[C10H14N2]

No one needs more than 8-bit 640x480.

Re:

[timeOday]

In any case, the History of the Compact Disc is the history of subsequent iterations of the technology as well. "In 1978, Polygram, a division of Philips, decided polycarbonate as the material of choice for the CD. Many other decisions were made that year, such as the disc diameter (115m) and the type of laser to be used by CD players. It was also decided that data on a CD would start at the center and spiral outwards to the edge." Most of that still applies to SACD, DVD, and HDDVD/Blu-Ray. DVDs could ju

Quality is a niche. The masses dig convenience.

[Cordath]

Very few people own music systems capable of revealing the difference between a well encoded lossy track and a CD, let alone the difference between identical recordings on CD and HD formats. Even then, the differences are subtle when played on the same system. If you think you are hearing an enormous and obvious difference, it is probably the result of a different mix. Don't get me wrong. HD recordings can sound great. They can also sound like crap if mastered poorly, just like any other format.

This, h

Re:

[vought]

They could set up a decent home listening rig, but instead buy the latest crappy iPod dock/speaker combo.

I plug my iPod (and more than a few Apple Lossless tracks) into an Adcom GTP-350 connected to a Parasound HCA-500 driving 1998 Paradigm MiniMark-3s.

I'd argue that when playing Apple Lossless or direct 44.1/8 rips, the sound from this setup gets within discerning distance of 8-track digital tape through studio clean amps driving NS-10Ms.

My whole setup cost ~$390.00 on eBay. And I, for one, am glad most pe

Re:

[Hal_Porter]

Sampling rate of 16-bit @ 44.1khz vs. 24-bit @ 192khz.

For 74 minutes of audio to the latter spec, you're talking about 2.5GB.

Look at what you're saying. Improving the sample rate from 44.1kHz to 192kHz moves the Nyqvist frequency from 22.05kHz to 96kHz. Increasing the sample size takes the SNR from 96dB to 144dB.

Now I'm pretty sure I don't care about frequencies between 22.05kHz and 96kHz. Double blind tests make it unlikely most people can even hear them. In fact I suspect the ones thay say they can would

Re:

[suv4x4]

Wasn't there a Slashdot story recently proclaiming the CD to be obsolete?

Even though digital music sales are up, for many people, the CD is still the way you carry and purchase music.

Bad reasoning. There are still many people using VHS, but that's pretty obsolete as well.
For CD usage there's just one thing known: a steep trend downwards. It's inevitable. And since we always like to talk about things as if they happened now and not an year or two from now, well, CD is obsolete.

Re:

[stewbacca]

I disagree about "burns fast" and "resilient" medium. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised it took as long as it did to come up with new media to replace crappy disks that scratch and break and lose data far too easily. I can't wait for the day where digital storage is cheap and ubiquitous, and all my disk data can be stored on flash memory (or something similar).

Re:

[donaldm]

At the moment the CD is not obsolete since it is now predominately used to put music on it to play in your CD player. It is very fortunate that companies in the DVD consortium which includes Sony and Toshiba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Forum [wikipedia.org] decided that the DVD would be the same size as the CD. When Blu-ray and HD-DVD were proposed it was again decided that the size of the disk would be the same size as the CD disk.

The reason for the original size from the article "both Sony and Philips compromised

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm]

As far as i am aware of anyone who can play a CD can also play a DVD.

The other way around.

Re:

[bentcd]

As far as i am aware of anyone who can play a CD can also play a DVD.

The other way around.

I believe his point was that if you can play a CD, chances are you're doing it on a DVD player, since there are hardly any pure CD players left on the market, and so practically anyone who can play a CD can play a DVD.
I'm not entirely convinced of this though. Does it also hold for car stereo systems etc.?

Re:

[larry bagina]

there's a term for people that prefer 12 inchers: size queen.

Why not? Freaking Masers.

[twitter]

It seems to me that if the designers had stuck to the original 115m diameter, we wouldn't have called this thing a *compact* disc. Quite a typo to repeat twice in the document.

Remember, they were working with pumped ammonia masers! Instead of a diode, they had one of those horn shaped things you see on the old Bell towers. Those were brave days, when EE and Civil Engineers were both called on.

You don't want to know about the Hollerith version [wikipedia.org] that really started it all as part of the Manhattan Proje

Re:

[dronkert]

Nope, not Tchaikovsky. The CD was enlarged from 11.5 to 12 cm to be able to fit 74 min of music, the longest known recording of Beethoven's nineth symphony.

The diameter was reduced from the original design

[Poingggg]

From TFA: The disc diameter was changed from 115m to 120mm to allow for 74 minutes of playback...

Maybe they thought it might be hard to get consumers to put a 115 meter playback device in their room. And of course they would get complaints from record stores who should have to get bigger doors to get the disks through, not to mention storage space.

Couldn't make it if you tried...

[Kjella]

Actually, even with all that it wouldn't be possible. A 115m disc would have a surface area of 10382m^2, let's say 10000 less the hole. Let's say a man can lift 100kg, that'd require it to be 10g/m^2 which is thinner than the thinnest paper I could find, which comes out to about 25g/m^2. Obviously it doesn't have the rigidity required to be lifted, and if you dragged it you'd rip it. And you sure as hell wouldn't want to purchase it on a windy day...

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, a look at the Wikipedia answers my question. Looking at the NTSC article [wikipedia.org], it states "Each frame consists of 486 lines out of a total of 525 (the rest are used for sync, vertical retrace, and other data such as captioning)" (Divide the number by 2 because of interlacing). The corresponding PAL article [wikipedia.org] states that PAL is "a video format that has 625 lines per frame (576 visible lines, the rest being used for other information such as sync data and captioning)". OK, so they could use a few, but not many

Re:

[daithesong]

actually, 44.1 kHz is an 'interesting number' -- it is the product of the squares of the first four prime numbers, that is, 2**2 x 3**2 x 5**2 x 7**2. It therefore has a whole host of small integer factors. I don't believe that such relationship came about 'accidentally'.

Re:

[BKX]

It's because the black and white TVs of the 50s and 60s (when color TV was standardized) had pad time between each frame to allow the electron gun to move from the bottom corner back up to the top. Since the powers that be in the US (although I doubt this would have been the case today) decided that the new color standard was to fully compatible with the old b&w standard, this padding had to be present in the new standard as well. It's the same reason FM stereo signals are encoded jointly (That is, one

Re:

[RotateLeftByte]

The last part of your answer is incorrect.

In the UK (As in other places) the same PAL encoded UHF signal can be received and decoded by both Colour & B/W TV sets.
Some 80%+ of the signal is actually the B/W information. The remainder is the colour stuff.
B/W TV's ignore the colour stuff obviously.

The missing lines (here in the UK) are used for vertical sync data and TELETEXT. I was involved in desiging some of the early text inserter kit back in the early 1980's.

I demo'd a CD-ROM in Cannes in Sept 1985 at

Re:

[ShakaZ]

For a more scientifically sound reason about why 44.1 kHz was chosen look here : http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html [columbia.edu]

The CD sampling rate has to be larger than about 40 kHz to fulfill the Nyquist criterion that requires sampling at twice the maximum analog frequency, which is about 20 kHz for audio. The sampling frequency is chosen somewhat higher than the Nyquist rate since practical filters neede to prevent aliasing have a finite slope. Digital audio tapes (DATs) use a sampling rate of 48 kHz. It has been claimed that thier sampling rate differs from that of CDs to make digital copying from one to the other more difficult. 48 kHz is, in principle, a better rate since it is a multiple of the other standard sampling rates, namely 8 and 16 kHz for telephone-quality audio. Sampling rate conversion is simplified if rates are integer multiples of each other.

Re:An open question...why 44.1?

[iluvcapra]

The CD sampling rate has to be larger than about 40 kHz to fulfill the Nyquist criterion that requires sampling at twice the maximum analog frequency, which is about 20 kHz for audio.

As many audiophiles will tell you, though humans cannot generally perceive tones above 20kHz, they are able to use high-frequency information for things like localization, and an entire high-resolution sound recording market, based on 96 and 192 kHz recording formats is built around it. The quote from the website above sort of tries to reason the 44.1 issue backwards: why didn't they just do 44.0 or (44.2 even?) if they were trying to find a sample rate that didn't convert so well? Particularly when the best analogue formats, like 30 ips 2 inch tape, can record up to 30 kHz?

Here's the story my recording engineering teachers passed down to me, accept it if you wish:

A long time ago the only way you could make a digital recording (without building a cleanroom or spending $10 grand on a 1 Gig hard drive) was to take your digital bit-stream and record it on some kind of helical video tape. Sony was the first company to sell these devices, which were basically black boxes with audio in on one side, and video out on the other [wikipedia.org]; you would then take this video signal (which looks like "checkerboard" noise on a TV) and send it to a VCR to record. The best commonly-available video recording format at the time was 3/4" U-Matic.

U-Matic can record the full 525 lines of an NTSC image at (nominally) 30 frames/sec. In tests, the Sony engineers found they could squeeze about 47,040 bits into a frame. (There's some way this worked out into an integer number of bits per an integer number of lines, but I can't remember the math right now. It averages about 90 bits per line.)

So, if you have 47,040 bits per frame, you have 1,411,200 bits per second, which is 176,400 bytes/sec, which is the data rate of 44.1 kHz stereo PCM. The system also works for PAL, which only runs at 25 video frames per second, but has 625 line to record on, making up the difference.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Well, except for the fact that a NTSC signal actually has 259 lines, not 245 lines. I have never gotten a straight answer on why we only use 245 of the 259 lines."

Is that where they hide the data for closed captioning?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

about 74 minutes.

Re:

[clickclickdrone]

And barely a trailblazer. Atari had the Atari CDAR-504 out in late 1985 (sort of) for the ST line although there was only something like half a dozen CD-ROM titles available including such stuff as the Boeing 747 parts manual.

Re:

[TeknoHog]

Capacitance is a physical phenomenon, and so is laser.