Slashdot Log In
The History of the CD-ROM
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:00 PM
from the whatever-happened-to-mini-discs dept.
from the whatever-happened-to-mini-discs dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Is the RIAA reading this? (Score:2)
No, they are writing it. (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
mini-discs (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Original CD Players (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Original CD Players (Score:4, Funny)
Are you new here?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 $10 worth of commodity parts. If the hardware breaks or just sucks, you toss it and buy a new one. How else are you going
Re:a ton would be about right. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Sony CDP-101 (Score:5, Funny)
An interesting guy... (Score:5, Interesting)
At that, my fiancee turned to me and my other friends, sitting behind them, and introduced us.
We chatted for the remainder of the bus ride and he told us a little of what the invention process was like and how he hadn't even made a dime from something that we noted had changed the world. (He wasn't bitter, BTW.)
I got his autograph (as did several others) and a short line formed. I still have the CD I had him sign.
It's nice to see him getting some recognition.
My Discman D-50 STILL Running Strong! (Score:3, Informative)
Chalk one up for Sony's quality during it's power years of the 1980s. I plan to keep using it for many more years!
Bill Gates advocated CD-ROM very early (Score:5, Interesting)
CD-ROM was arguably his last time Bill was close enough to the leading edge that others who made a living at that edge sought his opinion.
*M$ had listed overnight Australian time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the famous Why has the compact disc 74 minutes of playtime is explained there:
Size Change (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Earlier light tech (Score:4, Informative)
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/m
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The flames are out ther, let the war begin!
HD-DVD is dead (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Link [slashdot.org]
But, I hope you're correct.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Now if we could only go back in time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
French had high-definition in 1948- sort of.... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
4-8GB of mp3 space vs 800MB for a CD-R.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I could go buy say that Star Wars soundtrack on DVD-Audio tomorrow, I would. But I don't believe I can.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If I could go buy say that Star Wars soundtrack on DVD-Audio tomorrow, I would. But I don't believe I can.
Re:CD isn't obsolete (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
A number of classical labels (BIS, Naxos, CC...) offer DVD Audio (or SACD). Classical music fans tend to be more concerned with sound quality than the average listener of popular music, so it makes sense these formats would be targeted at them. However, the OP may be right that a CD is good enough. One may question the need for a special format to give 5.1 surround when IRCAM developed software (Spatializer) that could simulate the movement of sounds in a 3D space. I discover
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Look up the concept of a difference tone. Per Norgard creates some weird sonorities in his Symphony No. 5 by having a dog whistle blown at the same time as a tone is produced by one of the traditional orchestral instruments. The sound on its own would be beyond human ears, but the combination of the two sounds is audible. Norgard's not the only one who writes stuff like that
Inventor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Inventor (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could it be more obvious... (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The diameter was reduced from the original design (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent