Slashdot Mirror
Compact Disc Turns 26, Has a Bright Future
javipas writes "The Compact Disc was created 26 years ago, but apparently it is as healthy as 15 years ago, when computing versions of this format (CD-ROM, CD-R, CD-RW) made the market explode. Nowadays CD has been replaced in some segments, but not on the music industry, that continues to support it massively. The shy return of vinyl and the absence of real competitors make CD's future very bright, so it seems this birthday will not be by any means the last one we celebrate. Happy birthday!"
...except mp3s...
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
More and More car stereos, even factory stereos will play from an ipod or better yet a usb memory device filled with mp3 music. In fact Clarion recently released 2 new car stereos that cant play a CD, only digital memory formats.
I see the CD going away slowly as digital downloads become more and more popular, but that is completely dependent on DRM going away. I have enough friends and customers that are pissed at itunes DRM right now that they will not buy another song.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
IMHO the iPod et al spells doom for the CD. As soon as 'the kids' can transfer music phone 2 phone there goes the music biz.
However, as burning and archive mechanism, why not, but no room there for the 'labels'
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
I think Cds have remained so popular because they're cheap to make, small enough to be convient, and simple to lock down.
Why shouldn't we switch over to flashdrives? They're even better than CDs(smaller,more space, very cheap and getting cheaper,can't scratch)But they're easier to modify. It's hard for the average user to jailbreak/mod a CD. Not so much for new forms of media.
Although the hyper vigilance of Blu-Ray firmware updates may seem to contradict me...
Who the hell celebrates a "26th" anniversary?
You used to have to buy writable 650Mg CDs for $1. Now you can get a gig of flash, near infinitely rewritable for $7. Impervious to scratches, can survive several trips through the washer, and have fast read/write speeds. I cannot understand how TFA is so optimistic. When CDs came out, it would take weeks to download a full CD, now I can download a 720p torrent in an few hours. My HDDVD player has a Ethernet jack... so how long until we stop spinning discs and start slinging bits?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Unfortunately we can't sing Happy Birthday to the CD without paying royalties. Such a cruel world. =/
-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
And if you listen to the RIAA, then the sole reason for that is online piracy. They always point to that peak in the 1990's as being the point that CD sales should be at (or higher) if piracy was stopped. However, it is more truthful to say that it was a temporary high point in sales and that sales dropped afterwords due to normal market forces. (Normal Market Forces including piracy, but not as the main component... probably not even as a major component.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
It may have a healthy future, but now it's severely overpriced. Initially they were expensive because it was new technology and expensive to build plants to manfacture the raw blanks, master, and press them. Over time we were promised that the price would come down drastically as the process matured. That was proven true with CD players.
Of course that turned out to be a lie with the media itself, and prices have risen steadily while the costs of production have plummeted. And the artists will tell you that they're not getting any more money out of them in mechanical royalties than before either.
Evidence of how badly ripped off you are in CD's is evident by the healthy profits made by DVD's which contain far more content, and cost far more to master and press, yet sell for nearly comparable prices. Until we Just Say No to overpriced music CD's we might was well just open our wallets to the recording industry and say, "Just take what you want."
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Here' an example:
The Beatles, Hard Day's Night, the movie on DVD is twelve bucks at Best Buy. It pretty much has every song on the album in the movie. Twelve bucks.
The Beatles, Hard Day's Night, the CD. Has all the music, none of the movie. Price? Fourteen bucks. Same thing, but on media with less scratch resistance, less storage space, and oh yeah - no movie.
The reason why people aren't buying music is because it's not worth it. The price is artificially inflated, which makes consumers grumpy and unwilling to buy.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You can't buy online music from a band at 1:30 am inside a bar as you drunkenly stagger and give them the ultimate praise: "You dudes rock!" But you can reach into your pocket and pull out a $10 bill (you've been doing that all night anyway as you buy beers) in exchange for a plastic box.
CDs aren't going away yet. They, combined with T-shirts, are an important part of offsetting some bands' travel (and drinking) expenses. How can you replace that? Bring a laptop along on a night of drinking, and hope the bar has free wifi, so you can say "you dudes rock" as you peer at a little screen and give them the satisfaction of seeing you click on something, so that the band can then collect the money after they've already spent it on beer and gasoline? I don't think so.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A few years ago someone at worked asked me what the last Rush album was that came out on vinyl and after some poking around I found out that they all had up to the latest (Vapor Trails, IIRC).
Buying new vinyl is a waste. The masters are digital, so you get the worst of both worlds, the disadvantages of both analog and digital and the advantages of neither.
If you're buying anything recorded after ~ 1980, the CD will have the best fidelity. Before that an LP will, provided your turntable is good enough. With analog, the quality input device is paramount.
Yeah, if you're one of the small percentage of all people over the age of 17 who can really hear the difference. Otherwise you're probably only fooling yourself.
If you don't have a really good turntable you're right. But with a good turntable and a well engineered recording, provided the signal was analog from the original to the LP's cutter, vinyl beats digital hands down, and anyone should be able to hear the difference.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Apple seems to be a good job of predicting (if not causing) future trends - first mainstream computer with a 3 and a half inch floppy, first PC to ELIMINATE the floppy (original iMac), and now first computer to get rid of the CD altogether (Macbok Air)
The CD is still arguably the best premium format for buying and collecting music. They can be made inexpensively, they're pretty durable, you get some artwork and liner notes (though not as good as with vinyl), they're reasonably compact, and the audio quality can be very high indeed when it's mastered right.
The mastering process has become the weak link, with the ongoing "loudness war" where dynamic range of music is routinely compressed all to Hell.
The attempt to introduce Super Audio CD and DVD Audio turned into a farce. First strike against them was the ridiculous format war. Second strike was the ridiculous DRM they were saddled with. Third strike was their dependence on superior audio quality to sell the product -- something most people couldn't even hear, and the rest of the industry didn't care about. (If they cared, we would never have got into the aforementioned loudness war.)
I'm sure it's a technical answer but why can't, with 700mb of space available, one lousy kilobyte be reserved for metadata? If older players wouldn't like it, I should think it could be "hidden" after the last track.
It just seems silly that my CD player can't scroll the title of the track being played. Or that my computer can't pull titles and even album art without an Internet connection.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
While I think there are probably certainly some advantages to higher-quality materials used in manufacturing CDs, generally speaking, "enhanced audio quality" would not be one of them. We are talking about digital data here. It's true that if there are flaws in the material, the CD reader/player might have difficulty correctly reading the digital data, so it, I suppose, could cause 'pops' or 'skips' in the audio if there is a section that cannot be read - but that improves the *durability* of the disc. Any disc, if it's readable, would have the same audio quality if they have the same data on it, and the data is fed to the same DAC.
I'm all for making discs more scratch resistant, but this SHM-CD sounds suspiciously similar to 'audiophile grade digital cables' from the likes of Monster Cable, et. al, where the manufacturers are dramatically increasing profit margins on something which, for most users, is only marginally, or possibly not even noticeably, better.
Go buy a book on basic information theory. The Nyquist theorem states that if your sampling rate is at least twice the highest frequency, the reconstructed waveform is indistinguisable from the original.
Now, in edge cases CD can fall flat, because 22KHz may not be enough to capture the full sound. While 22KHz is beyond the limit of most humans' hearing, it is considered good enough, but sometimes high harmonics do have an influence on lower harmonics, and the standard low-pass filter that cuts off a CD at 22KHz will kill those high harmonics and their side-effects. But that's admittedly an edge case. I'd wager that CD is good enough for at least 99% of all music.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
DVDs allow for a higher sampling rates, so less sound is lost. The sound, as a result, is more true to the original source. Currently, DVD movies use 96,000 samples per second or higher.
In theory a 96khz sampling rate ADC should be superior to 44.1 because it allows the anti-aliasing filter rolloff to be shifted above the range of human hearing, creating a flatter passband. In practice all modern sigma-delta DACs use oversampling, 128x, 256x, whatever the case may be. Not only does this reduce the complexity of the input analog anti-aliasing filter, but it pretty much ensures that even at a 44.1khz sampling rate the passband is essentially flat out past 20khz.
I think the issue you have with "slow output" may have less to do with the sampling rate and more to do with the slew rate of the analog amplifiers and overall design of the DAC - on consumer equipment cost cutting measures have to be made somewhere, and the analog output circuitry is often where it happens. Op-amps with very fast slew rates and ultra-low noise, like the Burr Brown OPA series are far too expensive to use in consumer grade equipment.
DVDs allow for a higher sampling rates, so less sound is lost. The sound, as a result, is more true to the original source. Currently, DVD movies use 96,000 samples per second or higher.
What is "true to the original source"? If a difference can be heard at a 96khz sampling rate, then the recording has to be made on absolutely top quality recording equipment in a pristine acoustic environment. For recording jazz and classical this may make sense - but for most other genres including pop and rock the "original source" material (guitars, synths, drums etc.) have very little sonic information aside from noise above 12khz or so anyhow, and before being mastered at 96khz have probably been run through dozens or hundreds of bog-standard ICs in mixing consoles, dynamics processors, and effects. In that case it's hard to justify the sonic advantage of the last step in the chain being "true to the original source" when the sound of the original source has already been processed beyond recognition.