If I could go back in time I would've somehow changed the development of CD so that they used a Laserdisc sized media, and used the extra storage space to store 64FS 1-bit delta sigma audio much like SACD. Development might have taken longer but then you'd still have a nice big album with album art and much higher quality sound. A digital album would be a nice tactile object like vinyl.
Then all the annoyances of the CD format wouldn't exist.
Then all the annoyances of the CD format wouldn't exist.
Or they could have developed a more advanced Analog recording medium 🙂
It's probably wishful thinking. I just find it had to believe that analog only went as far as it did.
It's probably wishful thinking. I just find it had to believe that analog only went as far as it did.
As I unsdertand things, Philips did not initially intend the CD to be a very high fidelity medium to surplant the quality of an LP.
It was intended as a cheap, simple-to-operate, convenience format for mass market appeal, that would not be susceptible to the damage and hence crackle of records as played on cheap record players.
However, as things progressed, the 'cheap' part became an unobtainable goal, and so the target audience was redefined, while the actual format capabilities were not.
There is a story apparently concerning Ray Dolby, who looked at the inside of one of the multitrack PCM recorders, and pondered to himself what would you get if you put that much complexity into an analogue recorder; the result being Dolby SR.
If YOU hate CD, don't get me going on how much I hate DVD!
It was intended as a cheap, simple-to-operate, convenience format for mass market appeal, that would not be susceptible to the damage and hence crackle of records as played on cheap record players.
However, as things progressed, the 'cheap' part became an unobtainable goal, and so the target audience was redefined, while the actual format capabilities were not.
There is a story apparently concerning Ray Dolby, who looked at the inside of one of the multitrack PCM recorders, and pondered to himself what would you get if you put that much complexity into an analogue recorder; the result being Dolby SR.
If YOU hate CD, don't get me going on how much I hate DVD!
It's always easy to say what if 🙂
CD at launch pushed the boundaries of what was technically/commercially viable. Why not have used a bit higher sampling rate. We couldn't 44.1khz was pushing it back then with the technology available at a reasonable price.
VHS --- why did folks want LP mode, why not a high speed mode for better quality.
El-cassette never caught on. People always want the cheapest, not the highest quality generally.
Try playing a 12 inch disc in the car 😉
What was that about DVD ?
CD at launch pushed the boundaries of what was technically/commercially viable. Why not have used a bit higher sampling rate. We couldn't 44.1khz was pushing it back then with the technology available at a reasonable price.
VHS --- why did folks want LP mode, why not a high speed mode for better quality.
El-cassette never caught on. People always want the cheapest, not the highest quality generally.
Try playing a 12 inch disc in the car 😉
What was that about DVD ?
Much the same could be said about computer operating systems and the 640k memory limit - what if? ( Mac users laugh now!)
Andy
Andy
Mooly said:It's always easy to say what if 🙂
CD at launch pushed the boundaries of what was technically/commercially viable. Why not have used a bit higher sampling rate. We couldn't 44.1khz was pushing it back then with the technology available at a reasonable price.
VHS --- why did folks want LP mode, why not a high speed mode for better quality.
El-cassette never caught on. People always want the cheapest, not the highest quality generally.
Try playing a 12 inch disc in the car 😉
What was that about DVD ?
Chrysler amongst others offered players for 45 rpm records in some U.S. models in the late 1950s and perhaps into the early 1960's.
Anecdotally I remember a taxi ride in an old Chevy ('57 or so) in Cypress in 1970, the cab driver had a 45 rpm slot fed record player mounted under the front dash.. Worked too, and did not skip on the bumpy road on which we were driving - can't imagine the tracking force required to pull that off. Music I think was Greek..
Mooly said:It's always easy to say what if 🙂
CD at launch pushed the boundaries of what was technically/commercially viable. Why not have used a bit higher sampling rate. We couldn't 44.1khz was pushing it back then with the technology available at a reasonable price.
VHS --- why did folks want LP mode, why not a high speed mode for better quality.
El-cassette never caught on. People always want the cheapest, not the highest quality generally.
Try playing a 12 inch disc in the car 😉
What was that about DVD ?
My first CD player acquired in early 1984 ($600) was a 14 bit, 176.4kHz OS Magnavox (Philips) it sounded pretty grim.. Lots of subsequent mods made it pretty listenable, but it was quickly outclassed. I will admit that when it died around 1998 I was a bit sad... 😀
Wonder what folks will be saying of todays technology in 50 years time 🙂 I find you always regret parting with old gear, wish I had kept my Sony CDP101 now, even just to tweak and see how bad it really was.
My first CD player was bought in the early 80's ( can't remember when ) . It was a Sony portable and bought in Geneva and lasted just 3 months when it started to skip very badly. It was sent back under warranty repair ( with great difficulty ). It came back working and lasted another 3 months and started skipping again. It was shelved and I sold it ( a couple of years later ) after I got my my first full sized Rotel CD player which works to this day !
Memory Lane ..............
As we are going down memory lane, I first heard cd when I worked in Singapore in the early 80's.
I bought a Philips CD100, with a very low serial number. This lasted many years but was consigned to the attic when it failed. later sold on Feabay.
I now have a mint Marantz CD63 version.
Andy
As we are going down memory lane, I first heard cd when I worked in Singapore in the early 80's.
I bought a Philips CD100, with a very low serial number. This lasted many years but was consigned to the attic when it failed. later sold on Feabay.
I now have a mint Marantz CD63 version.
Andy
I remember reading a letter in an old issue of Wireless World from the mid '70s that proposed doing digital audio discs with something like 12 to 14 bits. That might have been good enough for pop music, but we should count ourselves lucky that we got 16/44 and 74 minutes.
But I think it was a heinous oversight to leave text display for song and album titles in the original Redbook spec...
I bought the entry-level Philips/Magnavox CD150, which cost me more than my first used pickup truck. 14 real bits, but oversampling which was supposed to make it OK. It went back for warranty repair after developing a skipping habit. I still have it, but it's doomed to go to the recyclers after I salvage anything useful from it, and possibly after using it for pellet pistol practice in retaliation for the frustration I had with that recurring skipping problem.
Some years back my sister found a Philips 480 or 960 (forget which) in the recycling room at her co-op. I generously bought it off her for $20. Much nicer unit, with 16 bits, and digital output. Not that I really need it, what with all the other things that play CDs, but it has a classy look and feel to it.
But I think it was a heinous oversight to leave text display for song and album titles in the original Redbook spec...
I bought the entry-level Philips/Magnavox CD150, which cost me more than my first used pickup truck. 14 real bits, but oversampling which was supposed to make it OK. It went back for warranty repair after developing a skipping habit. I still have it, but it's doomed to go to the recyclers after I salvage anything useful from it, and possibly after using it for pellet pistol practice in retaliation for the frustration I had with that recurring skipping problem.
Some years back my sister found a Philips 480 or 960 (forget which) in the recycling room at her co-op. I generously bought it off her for $20. Much nicer unit, with 16 bits, and digital output. Not that I really need it, what with all the other things that play CDs, but it has a classy look and feel to it.
If I could have influenced the development of CD's somehow, here's what I'd do:
- Increase the recording density slightly, to put the sampling rate to 48KHz while keeping the 74 minute limit. This gives slightly better audio quality, makes designing DAC output filters a bit easier, and it's less of a "weird" frequency.
- Specify the recording level on the CD. This avoids the problem of some CD's being louder than others, and means you don't have to get up and change the volume on your CD changer when it switches CD's. It would also hopefully avoid the loudness war going on right now on CD's, which has completely destroyed the quality of the format.
Other than that, I'm happy with the format. I'd keep it 16-bit PCM, because unlike DSD, it's pretty easy to dither.
- Increase the recording density slightly, to put the sampling rate to 48KHz while keeping the 74 minute limit. This gives slightly better audio quality, makes designing DAC output filters a bit easier, and it's less of a "weird" frequency.
- Specify the recording level on the CD. This avoids the problem of some CD's being louder than others, and means you don't have to get up and change the volume on your CD changer when it switches CD's. It would also hopefully avoid the loudness war going on right now on CD's, which has completely destroyed the quality of the format.
Other than that, I'm happy with the format. I'd keep it 16-bit PCM, because unlike DSD, it's pretty easy to dither.
I'm sure they would have loved to increase density, but it was limited by the affordability of technology from the time.
The recording level of the CD is already specified, there is a maximum bit size of all bits being 1, it's not like a vinyl record where some may dare to use higher amplitudes. The loudness war of today is due to the compression techniques being used, making average level higher. Different CDs will always be louder than one another depending on the style of music and dynamic range and recording techniques.
The recording level of the CD is already specified, there is a maximum bit size of all bits being 1, it's not like a vinyl record where some may dare to use higher amplitudes. The loudness war of today is due to the compression techniques being used, making average level higher. Different CDs will always be louder than one another depending on the style of music and dynamic range and recording techniques.
44.1kHz was specifically chosen since it allows very easy pseudo-video to be drived from it. The intention was that ordinary Umatic video recorders would be the universal format for distributing the CD master tapes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.