Sony Blu-spec CD Format Detailed, Hits Stores

CNETNate writes "More details about Sony's new Blu-spec CD format — standard CDs authored using Blu-ray's blue diode technology — are beginning to emerge, with commercial releases beginning to hit Amazon. Blu-spec CDs are compatible with existing CD players but have been mastered with higher levels of accuracy by using the same technology used to author Blu-ray discs, with the intention of eliminating reading errors that occur as a result of being authored with traditional red laser technology. Sony has also launched an official (Japanese) site for Blu-spec CDs."

Comments

I'm unimpressed.

[Sj0]

This reminds me of the gold plated cables "to ensure the digital signal has the highest fidelity".

This looks like snake oil marketed to the "I'm a pretend audiophile who loves buying more expensive things with questionable benefits" crowd.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[LUH 3418]

I feel the same way. I never ever had problems with defective audio CDs, or none that my non-audiophile ears could detect anyways! Furthermore, aren't audio CD sales constantly dropping? Do we really need more odd physical media formats?

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[poetmatt]

I thought I misread it there, thank you for confirming.

I completely agree with your second statement.

What is the purpose, to charge more per CD? Is it me, or does this seem to be a way to try to avoid the price fixing scandals involving existing cd prices?

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[Nerdfest]

It's attempting to solve a very serious problem ... Sony's not making enough damn money.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we'll see regular CDs drop to 8 bucks, and these new (identical) cds priced at 20-30 bucks.
No, you'll see these new cds priced at $20-30 and they won't make the older ones anymore.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[Chyeld]

After reading the article, it seems that this in theory would reduce the amount of 'innate' errors in the master. This would imply that, with fewer errors, your CD could get slightly more scratched before it starts to skip/distort/bug out noticeably.

However, as many others have said, this is solving a problem no one seems to have. You aren't getting better quality audio, you are just reducing the already low error rate of the master.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[mrfaithful]

Clarious helpfully provided a decent link for what you asked, but perhaps a simpler way to demonstrate it is in storage capacity.

An 80min CDR can store just over 700MB, but 80min of audio. 80min at 44.1KHz 16bit Stereo works out around 820MB. Some of your data-CD space is eaten up file file system data, but not 120MB.

That extra space that audio uses for audio is used to store that error detection/correction and seek data I was referring to.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[Yvan256]

I think it's trying to solve the problem of Sony losing CD sales to download sales.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[tepples]

This reminds me of the gold plated cables "to ensure the digital signal has the highest fidelity".

Outside pure mathematics, nothing is digital. It is all modulated in and out of analog in the PHY. Because it's analog, it has a signal-to-noise ratio, and signals can't be correctly demodulated unless the SNR is high enough.

In typical environments, it's easy to ensure enough SNR in the cable to pass correct SPDIF audio. But cables with excess capacitance and RF interference can still distort the clocking pulses inherent in a modulated signal. For cheap DACs that use cheap methods to recover the DAC clock from the signal, distorted pulses can sometimes cause timing jitter, which shows up as distortion of high frequencies.

Compact Disc, on the other hand, is an optical storage medium. The SNR can become a lot smaller for a medium as it is handled over time. If a Blu-spec disc has a higher SNR to begin with, and a BD-style scratch coating makes the SNR decrease more slowly at that, this can only extend the useful life during which the error correction decoder has enough SNR to work with.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[sortius_nod]

It can if Sony says it can... or at least the good old Sony fanboys will say.

I'm leaning heavily toward the snake oil side of this one. I've never had a pressed CD have ANY issues, the "benefit" I see is that these CDs will cost more, which is a benefit to Sony - more royalties.

Yet another example of Sony not really innovating, but sucking the lifeblood out of technology markets. If there's a way to kill CDs, causing the price to rise with no benefit will do it.

Is it DRM free?

[LWATCDR]

Just wondering if anyone knows?

Re:Is it DRM free?

[Vectronic]

Maybe I'm an idiot, but how could you apply DRM to it if it works with standard CD players?

DRM can only be applied (in this case) via software, naturally the data stored on it could be encrypted, but that has nothing to do with the technology here, you'd have to find a way to apply DRM to lightwaves or something, therefore DRM would be up to the content distributor, just like everything else.

If they had developed a new hardware (ie: new player + new cd format) then DRM could be embedded into the hardware. This is basically the equivalent of making your household taps spit out water at a higher PSI, it's not converting the water into something else, or adding anything to it.

Huh?

[mweather]

h the intention of eliminating reading errors that occur as a result of being authored with traditional red laser technology.

I thought commercial CDs were pressed, not burnt.

Impressions...

[Firethorn]

I would have been more impressed if they'd somehow managed to keep it compatible while 'hiding' a second layer such that while you'd get the traditional old two channel audio with a traditional player, a blue laser player would be able to access the second layer, enabling high fidelity, high bitrate 6 or even 8 channel sound.

As is, it sounds like they're eliminating 'errors' by doing the equivalent of printing old 200 dpi images with a modern 1200 dpi printer. Sure, it's a bit cleaner, but there's no additional information.

Ok

[ShooterNeo]

So, since a CD is digital, with error correction codes, the ONLY thing this solves is that it might make it easier for a cheap, portable CD player to read the disk. When you rip that CD to a lossless audio file, current technology will do that just fine.

Uh...hello? What exactly is the point, then? Last I heard, portable CD players have been made completely and utterly obsolete due to the advent of portable MP3 players, which are now cheaper, smaller, and can hold a whole CD binder worth of music in a device smaller than a cellphone.

But they introduce the errors anyway!

[james_marsh]

The only problem I've ever had with audible "errors" on CD are when the publishers have introduced them as part of some sort of brain dead DRM attempt!

What the fuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't these the same people that intentionally put errors on disks to make them unreadable on computers? So is the point of this to write the errors more accurately?

Re:Are We There Yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about you, but I don't typically buy CD-Rs for more than about $0.10 apiece.

How this works...

[Burning1]

This technology works by increasing the resolution of the bits coded onto the CD, so that the zeros are rounder, and the ones have the little tip at the top, and a flat line along the bottom.

But seriously... How about we improve CDs by setting a standard that eliminates harsh audio compression, and sets limits on the audio leveling..?