DVD and CD disks

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by aniram, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. aniram

    aniram Guest

    I notice that some DVD movies has both sides used, but on CD audio,
    only one side can be used.
    Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
    sides?
    This will increase the size from 700 Mb to 1400 Mb. Is this possible ?
    aniram, Jan 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. aniram

    Will Dormann Guest

    aniram wrote:

    > I notice that some DVD movies has both sides used, but on CD audio,
    > only one side can be used.
    > Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
    > sides?
    > This will increase the size from 700 Mb to 1400 Mb. Is this possible ?



    Extremely unlikely. With a DVD, the reflective layer is physically in
    the middle of the disc (between two layers), so it's not that difficult
    to make the "top" side have data on it too.

    But with an audio disc, the reflective layer is laminated on one side of
    the disc. There'd be no way to make the other side hold data, unless
    you somehow had a double-thickness disc. (which obviously wouldn't fly)


    -WD
    Will Dormann, Jan 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. aniram

    cwvalle Guest

    "Will Dormann" <> wrote in message
    news:9PWPb.24828$...
    > aniram wrote:
    >
    > > I notice that some DVD movies has both sides used, but on CD audio,
    > > only one side can be used.
    > > Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
    > > sides?
    > > This will increase the size from 700 Mb to 1400 Mb. Is this possible ?

    >
    >
    > Extremely unlikely. With a DVD, the reflective layer is physically in
    > the middle of the disc (between two layers), so it's not that difficult
    > to make the "top" side have data on it too.
    >
    > But with an audio disc, the reflective layer is laminated on one side of
    > the disc. There'd be no way to make the other side hold data, unless
    > you somehow had a double-thickness disc. (which obviously wouldn't fly)
    >
    >
    > -WD


    Actually - Early in the development of CD audio there were dual sided CD
    discs. But at that time the reject rate for making CD was so high that 1 out
    of 10 got rejected. When both sides were required to be good the reject rate
    went very much higher to around 50 percent. This caused the industry to
    abandon the double sided audio CD in favor of slipping two discs in a single
    package for albums that required this extra program length.
    This has stuck as practice even though now, very much better methods would
    lower rejects to an acceptable level for two sided. Such is the case with
    DVD.
    cwvalle, Jan 23, 2004
    #3
  4. "aniram" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I notice that some DVD movies has both sides used, but on CD audio,
    > only one side can be used.
    > Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
    > sides?
    > This will increase the size from 700 Mb to 1400 Mb. Is this possible ?


    **It's all a bit academic now. The cost of DVD-R is now so low that it
    is/will be the preferred method of storing lots of data/music/movies. Blue
    lasers will be the next *big thing* and will lead to far higher data
    storages (25GB - 50GB). I don't see much future in pushing more development
    into 700MB disks.


    --
    Trevor Wilson
    www.rageaudio.com.au
    Trevor Wilson, Jan 24, 2004
    #4
  5. aniram

    Geoff Wood Guest

    Trevor Wilson wrote:
    >
    > **It's all a bit academic now. The cost of DVD-R is now so low that it
    > is/will be the preferred method of storing lots of data/music/movies.
    > Blue lasers will be the next *big thing* and will lead to far higher
    > data storages (25GB - 50GB). I don't see much future in pushing more
    > development into 700MB disks.


    I just upgraded to NTI BackupNow 3, which does DVD-RW . The concept of
    swapping CD-Rs makes it easy to put off doing backups, especially if your
    backup regimen is scheduled and large

    geoff.
    Geoff Wood, Jan 24, 2004
    #5
  6. (aniram) wrote in message news:<>...
    > I notice that some DVD movies has both sides used, but on CD audio,
    > only one side can be used.
    > Will in the future be a CD disk that can store data/audio on both
    > sides?
    > This will increase the size from 700 Mb to 1400 Mb. Is this possible ?


    What would be the point? Unless this would bring CD players that
    read both sides without you needing to turn it over, a double
    sided CD is a liability. You'd have to get up and turn it over,
    which kind of kills the point of CD changers.

    There is plenty of space on a CD, and if you need more time,
    the cost of a second CD at the manufacturer is pretty minimal.
    If space is an issue for audio CDs, the next obvious leap is
    to DVDs. And certainly as data goes, DVDs are an obvious move
    forward. I just got one last week and it has so much space that
    most of the content is junk.

    DVDs need the extra space because movies are longer than CDs,
    and video requires a lot more bytes. Keep in mind that CDs are about
    twice as long as we were used to in the days of LPs, and except for having
    to turn them over nobody said much about their length. Indeed, people
    have argued that the longer running time of a CD results in a high
    percentage of filler, simply because CDs can hold 74 minutes of musing.

    Keep in mind that with DVDs, there is one good reason for
    having a double sided DVD. If you want to put a widescreen
    and a fullscreen version in the same package, if you don't put
    them on the same physical disc, it leaves a potential for
    someone splitting up the package, and two people getting
    the same film for half price. If you put the versions on
    different sides, two people cannot use the DVD at the same
    time. And even then, it seems like dual-layer DVDs are
    a better choice, since you don't have to get up to turn it
    over.

    Michael
    Michael Black, Jan 24, 2004
    #6
  7. aniram

    Guest

    On 23 Jan 2004 20:21:45 -0800, (Michael Black) wrote:

    >DVDs need the extra space because movies are longer than CDs,
    >and video requires a lot more bytes. Keep in mind that CDs are about
    >twice as long as we were used to in the days of LPs, and except for having
    >to turn them over nobody said much about their length. Indeed, people


    You young people are so goddamn lazy now a days you cant even flip a 5
    inch plastic disk over. How goddamn lazy can you get? We used to
    flip 12" LPs after every 5th song, and it never killed us. Why dont
    you get off your big fat asses and start doing something useful
    besides bitching.
    Apparently it's the lousy quality of Cds and DVDs compared to LPs that
    makes you never satisfied with your music.
    I wonder what you lazy useless young spoiled bums would do if you had
    to thread the end of the tape on a reel to reel tape recorder? Could
    your fingers even do it? It's obvious your half dead brains could not
    handle it.
    , Jan 24, 2004
    #7

  8. >
    >>DVDs need the extra space because movies are longer than CDs,
    >>and video requires a lot more bytes. Keep in mind that CDs are about
    >>twice as long as we were used to in the days of LPs, and except for
    >>having to turn them over nobody said much about their length. Indeed,
    >>people

    >
    > You young people are so goddamn lazy now a days you cant even flip a 5
    > inch plastic disk over. How goddamn lazy can you get? We used to
    > flip 12" LPs after every 5th song, and it never killed us. Why dont
    > you get off your big fat asses and start doing something useful
    > besides bitching.
    > Apparently it's the lousy quality of Cds and DVDs compared to LPs that
    > makes you never satisfied with your music.
    > I wonder what you lazy useless young spoiled bums would do if you had
    > to thread the end of the tape on a reel to reel tape recorder? Could
    > your fingers even do it? It's obvious your half dead brains could not
    > handle it.
    >
    >


    I kinda like the idea of a dual-sided CD. It's not that we're lazy; I just
    think that the original poster was implying that companies like Sony use
    convenience as a selling point, and "flipping" would be a drop.

    As for the quality comparison of LP's and CD's... please. Digital is
    awesome. I'm glad records are gone and I don't miss them one bit. CD's
    offer perfect (well, almost perfect if not limited by a small range)
    reproductions of the original sound wave. I can't tell and if you said you
    could you're full of shit. CD's can also be reproduced perfectly every time
    without the addition of noise from the copier. Not to mention it's much
    faster because I don't have to wait for my deck to dub, it just copies.
    They're cheap, too. Pennies. I've got so many CD's that I have a drawer
    full of thousands that I don't even know what's on them, and I don't need
    to care because they didn't cost me a fortune.

    Reel-to-reel was good quality, but I don't trust magnetic portable media -
    ever. I've got too many horror stories to tell.
    Death to Ronald McDonald, Jan 24, 2004
    #8
  9. aniram

    Bill Guest


    > >
    > > You young people are so goddamn lazy now a days you cant even flip a 5
    > > inch plastic disk over. How goddamn lazy can you get? We used to
    > > flip 12" LPs after every 5th song, and it never killed us. Why dont
    > > you get off your big fat asses and start doing something useful
    > > besides bitching.


    Then why were record changers so popular during the heyday of LPs?
    Bill, Jan 24, 2004
    #9
  10. aniram

    John C. Guest

    On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:36:25 GMT, "Bill" <> wrote:

    >
    >> >
    >> > You young people are so goddamn lazy now a days you cant even flip a 5
    >> > inch plastic disk over. How goddamn lazy can you get? We used to
    >> > flip 12" LPs after every 5th song, and it never killed us. Why dont
    >> > you get off your big fat asses and start doing something useful
    >> > besides bitching.

    >
    >Then why were record changers so popular during the heyday of LPs?
    >

    Changers still only played one side of the LP, it just played a few
    "one sides" in a row.
    John C., Jan 25, 2004
    #10
  11. aniram

    Guest

    On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:18:41 GMT, Death to Ronald McDonald
    <> wrote:


    >>

    >
    >I kinda like the idea of a dual-sided CD. It's not that we're lazy; I just
    >think that the original poster was implying that companies like Sony use
    >convenience as a selling point, and "flipping" would be a drop.


    Those companies make you people lazy because they want your money, and
    want to kep you in a state of dissatisfactiion with everything. I was
    glad when I had an old second hand record player when I was young, but
    back then it was not a matter of everyone trying to be the best. We
    were happy just to have something....

    >As for the quality comparison of LP's and CD's... please. Digital is
    >awesome. I'm glad records are gone and I don't miss them one bit. CD's
    >offer perfect (well, almost perfect if not limited by a small range)
    >reproductions of the original sound wave. I can't tell and if you said you
    >could you're full of shit. CD's can also be reproduced perfectly every time
    >without the addition of noise from the copier. Not to mention it's much
    >faster because I don't have to wait for my deck to dub, it just copies.
    >They're cheap, too. Pennies. I've got so many CD's that I have a drawer
    >full of thousands that I don't even know what's on them, and I don't need
    >to care because they didn't cost me a fortune.


    I CAN tell the difference between LPs and CD's, and the LP's have much
    better sound. despite the scratches. Maybe we heard a few scratches,
    but the rest of the recording was as REAL as REAL can be. Digital is
    only a sampling, and not everything is there. There is a website that
    even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds. I was told that dvd
    is better, because of more samples per second. I have not heard dvd
    music. But comparing LP or Tape, to CD, I'll take the LP or tape any
    day. I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
    because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
    highs.

    >Reel-to-reel was good quality, but I don't trust magnetic portable media -
    >ever. I've got too many horror stories to tell.


    I could tell much worse horror stories about digital media. When a
    reel to reel tape broke, there was a patch and splice kit. A few
    seconds of the song was lost, which is why a backup was made of
    something important. The same for cassettes, but they had lower
    quality and were much harder to fix. Yet, if a reel to reel tape
    broke, you did not lose ALL of the data.

    Now for digital. I had someone burn all my photos onto a CD. Luckily
    I kept a copy on a spare harddrive, because the CD would not work.
    NOTHING could be gotten off the thing. My windows 98 CD got stepped
    on by one of the kids. I was unable to install windows at all after
    that. I had to copy all the files to my harddrive, one by one, and
    still had to get the remaining files from a friend.

    I'd rather lose a few seconds of a song, or one photo out of 1000,
    than lose EVERYTHING. I do not trust digital media in the least. I
    wont even own a cd burner, because I would still keep everything
    stored on spare harddrives, so what is the sense of the cd at all
    then.

    To backup my utmost ultimate important data, I use floppies. They are
    much more reliable than any cds. If one floppy goes bad, I lose 10
    pictures, not all 1000 of them. Magnetic media is far superior to
    laser disks, any day of the week.
    , Jan 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Your preferences notwithstanding, vinyl, for all it's charm, is so terribly
    flawed and inconsistent a media that it cannot be discussed as being
    anywhere near equal to properly executed CD technology.

    In the early days of CD's there were some vinyl masters that were used for
    the CD releases and this gave CD's a bad reputation early on.

    Your references to losing 1000 pictures instead of 10 with a floppy is also
    erroneous. Your focus should be on redundancy so you don't lose ANY
    pictures. CD-ROM is a much more robust and reliable media than floppy discs,
    but nobody should go physically stomping on EITHER of them. Keep your discs
    protected if you don't want a disaster, and store copies off-site if you're
    really that worried.

    I collect and use open -reel tape recorders, but a computer recording at
    16/44 blows any analog machine away.

    Just because analog makes a warm and fuzzy sound does not mean it is
    superior. It just means you have introduced one or more distortions to your
    music, which cannot be removed later on.


    Mark Z.

    --
    Please reply only to Group. I regret this is necessary. Viruses and spam
    have rendered my regular e-mail address useless.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:18:41 GMT, Death to Ronald McDonald
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > >>

    > >
    > >I kinda like the idea of a dual-sided CD. It's not that we're lazy; I

    just
    > >think that the original poster was implying that companies like Sony use
    > >convenience as a selling point, and "flipping" would be a drop.

    >
    > Those companies make you people lazy because they want your money, and
    > want to kep you in a state of dissatisfactiion with everything. I was
    > glad when I had an old second hand record player when I was young, but
    > back then it was not a matter of everyone trying to be the best. We
    > were happy just to have something....
    >
    > >As for the quality comparison of LP's and CD's... please. Digital is
    > >awesome. I'm glad records are gone and I don't miss them one bit. CD's
    > >offer perfect (well, almost perfect if not limited by a small range)
    > >reproductions of the original sound wave. I can't tell and if you said

    you
    > >could you're full of shit. CD's can also be reproduced perfectly every

    time
    > >without the addition of noise from the copier. Not to mention it's much
    > >faster because I don't have to wait for my deck to dub, it just copies.
    > >They're cheap, too. Pennies. I've got so many CD's that I have a drawer
    > >full of thousands that I don't even know what's on them, and I don't need
    > >to care because they didn't cost me a fortune.

    >
    > I CAN tell the difference between LPs and CD's, and the LP's have much
    > better sound. despite the scratches. Maybe we heard a few scratches,
    > but the rest of the recording was as REAL as REAL can be. Digital is
    > only a sampling, and not everything is there. There is a website that
    > even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds. I was told that dvd
    > is better, because of more samples per second. I have not heard dvd
    > music. But comparing LP or Tape, to CD, I'll take the LP or tape any
    > day. I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
    > because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
    > highs.
    >
    > >Reel-to-reel was good quality, but I don't trust magnetic portable

    media -
    > >ever. I've got too many horror stories to tell.

    >
    > I could tell much worse horror stories about digital media. When a
    > reel to reel tape broke, there was a patch and splice kit. A few
    > seconds of the song was lost, which is why a backup was made of
    > something important. The same for cassettes, but they had lower
    > quality and were much harder to fix. Yet, if a reel to reel tape
    > broke, you did not lose ALL of the data.
    >
    > Now for digital. I had someone burn all my photos onto a CD. Luckily
    > I kept a copy on a spare harddrive, because the CD would not work.
    > NOTHING could be gotten off the thing. My windows 98 CD got stepped
    > on by one of the kids. I was unable to install windows at all after
    > that. I had to copy all the files to my harddrive, one by one, and
    > still had to get the remaining files from a friend.
    >
    > I'd rather lose a few seconds of a song, or one photo out of 1000,
    > than lose EVERYTHING. I do not trust digital media in the least. I
    > wont even own a cd burner, because I would still keep everything
    > stored on spare harddrives, so what is the sense of the cd at all
    > then.
    >
    > To backup my utmost ultimate important data, I use floppies. They are
    > much more reliable than any cds. If one floppy goes bad, I lose 10
    > pictures, not all 1000 of them. Magnetic media is far superior to
    > laser disks, any day of the week.
    >
    >
    >
    Mark D. Zacharias, Jan 25, 2004
    #12
  13. aniram

    Tony Pearce Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I CAN tell the difference between LPs and CD's, and the LP's have much
    > better sound. despite the scratches. Maybe we heard a few scratches,
    > but the rest of the recording was as REAL as REAL can be.


    As real as a crappy bit of vinyl with a a bit of rock dragged over it can be
    anway. :)

    >Digital is
    > only a sampling, and not everything is there.


    But **FAR** more than can be recorded to vinyl thankfully.

    >There is a website that
    > even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds.


    Yep, over compression is far too common, but not even necessary with CD, as
    it is with vinyl.

    >I was told that dvd
    > is better, because of more samples per second. I have not heard dvd
    > music. But comparing LP or Tape, to CD, I'll take the LP or tape any
    > day.


    A choice you get to make all for yourself.

    >I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
    > because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
    > highs.


    No, it's because the bass reponse is not limited like it is with vinyl.

    > I could tell much worse horror stories about digital media. When a
    > reel to reel tape broke, there was a patch and splice kit. A few
    > seconds of the song was lost, which is why a backup was made of
    > something important. The same for cassettes, but they had lower
    > quality and were much harder to fix. Yet, if a reel to reel tape
    > broke, you did not lose ALL of the data.


    But if you lost just a small amount of the master tape it was effectively
    ruined, and every backup copy is inferior.
    With CD, dozens of back ups can be made for less than the cost of one master
    tape, and they are all IDENTICAL.

    > To backup my utmost ultimate important data, I use floppies. They are
    > much more reliable than any cds. If one floppy goes bad, I lose 10
    > pictures, not all 1000 of them. Magnetic media is far superior to
    > laser disks, any day of the week.


    Or you could make a hundred back up CD's for less price to all those
    floppies, and still take up less room.
    Anyhow, one of MY photo's won't even fit on a floppy let alone ten !!!!!

    You really seem to be extremely technologically ignorant. But as long as
    you're happy, then good luck with the vinyl, tapes and floppies :)

    TonyP.
    Tony Pearce, Jan 26, 2004
    #13
  14. First off, it's obvious you are only here to flame.

    >I CAN tell the difference between LPs and CD's, and the LP's have much
    >better sound. despite the scratches.


    LPs have what's known as even-ordered harmonic distortion. In other words,
    distortions and colorations to the audio which actually make the music sound
    pleasant.

    However, these distortions are distortions, regardless to what they do to the
    sound. Therefore, an LP is not an accurate rendition of the master tape.

    >Maybe we heard a few scratches,
    >but the rest of the recording was as REAL as REAL can be. Digital is
    >only a sampling, and not everything is there.


    Bullshit. If anything, CD captures audio in ranges with accuracy that is
    simply not possible with LP due to practical considerations.

    Your quote pretty much shows your lack of understanding of digital audio. In
    the ranges that a 44.1 KHz sampling rate can capture at 16-bits, it can
    **accurately and consistently** record the ranges from 22,050 cycles all the
    way down to the 5 cycle range with 65,536 possible levels of voltage
    (translates into approximately 96 dB of dynamic range with close to equal SNR
    after dithering, which is FAR superior to even the best LP rigs) with a uniform
    response under full digitization. CD can easily reproduce audio with accuracy
    and with little effort that would otherwise be very difficult, if not
    impossible, to achieve with LPs.

    If you want a most accurate analogy to sampling rate in analogue terms: then
    sampling rate is merely the equivalent of linear tape speed on something like a
    reel-to-reel deck. The higher the tape speed, the better the high frequency
    response. Likewise, the higher the sampling rate, the better the high
    frequency response. To make it more interesting, if you were to play a 44.1
    KHz recording at 22.05 KHz rate, the sound will play **twice as slow**!
    Fascinating at how digital seems to mimic analogue tapes concerning frequency
    response.

    Anyways, records cannot be recorded with frequencies exceeding 15-16 KHz
    because that is beyond the capacity of the record lathe, or cutter if you
    aren't familiar with the word. Attempts to record at frequencies exceeding the
    recommended roll-off will cause the cutter head to overheat and, therefore,
    damage the lathe during the cutting of the mother, among other things.

    Gabe M. Weiner, who was a professional recording engineer for PGM recordings
    until his death in the late 1990s, had done a test where he records an LP
    playback onto his DAT deck. When someone comes in, usually critical of digital
    audio, Gabe plays an LP record, to which the critic sometimes replies with
    something to the effect of "you can't do that kind of sound with digital."
    Then, Gabe goes to the turntable and lifts the stylus off the record with the
    music **still playing** with all of its LP quality ... preserved **digitally**
    using Digital Audio Tape.

    Similar experiments were done by curious people using high quality audio CD
    recorder decks with similar results. Those results are not published, of
    course, because they were done by audio enthusiasts under their own time. What
    helps to prove their point is that there is consistency in the results: as long
    as everything being used to make the recording is good and the whole process is
    done without exceeding the limits of the system (like playing the souce too
    loudly and then wondering why there is clipping in the recording), then the
    results will remain relatively consistent.

    Now what does that say about digital audio?

    This pretty much proves, at least to me, that the so-called "magic" of LP sound
    is due to what the format does to the sound in the process of playback. While
    they are pleasing to the ear, it is, time and again, distortion artifacts that
    are inherent to LP, period. Inaccuracies in an interpretation of a master tape
    need not be unpleasant to be inaccurate, just plain inaccurate. To bolster the
    fact that digital is accurate, it can even record an LP playback, "warmth and
    airiness" qualities along with it, without a hitch.

    To be on the level, digital is nothing more than another way to deal with
    storing and replaying perceivable information. The ideas, regardless of
    process, are the same: you convert information into a form for storage to
    retrieve later, which is the whole idea of reproduction. With digital, you
    turn a sound wave into a numerical representation. With LPs, you turn a sound
    wave into a mechanical interpretation. With magnetic analogue audio tapes, you
    turn a sound wave into magnetic print patterns.

    With any process, you lose information that the process cannot store for
    reproduction, due to design, configuration, or both. But, contrary to your
    beliefs, digital encoding (as long as no lossy compression algorithms are used,
    like MP3 or ATRAC and as long as the encoding equipment is properly dithered)
    is LEAST DETRIMENTAL because it's interpreting the entire sound wave in the
    complete frequency range that the sampling rate will allow as an accurate
    mathematical model with parity checks to account for the ocassional error that
    could occur as opposed to an LP making a dynamic physical approximation of a
    sound wave through relatively inaccurate mechanical means which cannot be
    corrected if this interpretation is altered in any way for any reason (usually
    because of normal wear-n-tear, abuse, or a defect in manufacturing).

    >Now for digital. I had someone burn all my photos onto a CD. Luckily
    >I kept a copy on a spare harddrive, because the CD would not work.
    >NOTHING could be gotten off the thing.


    Irrelevant in the discussion of audio CD.

    Besides, your situation may be explainable by possibilities that the individual
    recorded the disc using too fast a speed which could have allowed excessive
    BLER (BLock Error Rate), didn't close the session on the disc, or recorded it
    using proprietary formatting like Roxio DirectCD instead of writing it as an
    ISO compliant format.

    Also, if the disc was a CD-RW, as opposed to a CD-R, if you use a rather
    ancient CD-ROM drive, then that's also why you may not have been able to read
    the disc. CD-RW discs do not have a refraction index of 1.55, so the optics in
    an obsolete CD-ROM drive will not read the disc. A current CD-ROM drive is
    configured to deal with discs having a different refraction rating to allow
    CD-RW discs to be read, so an upgrade is in order to resolve this issue if it
    is the case.

    >My windows 98 CD got stepped
    >on by one of the kids. I was unable to install windows at all after
    >that.


    And what do you think you can do with an LP that was stepped on, huh? Try to
    weld the record together and hope that it will play like it did before the
    break? Also, what do you think you can do with a floppy that someone bent in
    half?

    >I'd rather lose a few seconds of a song, or one photo out of 1000,
    >than lose EVERYTHING. I do not trust digital media in the least.


    Shows you do not understand digital at all and, therefore, should not post a
    serious crticism.

    >I
    >wont even own a cd burner, because I would still keep everything
    >stored on spare harddrives, so what is the sense of the cd at all
    >then.


    Storage that is more permanent than a hard disk and can be transported anywhere
    and read by any data reader as long as the information is written in a standard
    ISO format.

    Besides, how in the hell do you think hard disks store data on their platters,
    huh? Do they do it with analogue magic? NO! They do it DIGITALLY! It
    doesn't have to be optical to be digital.

    Likewise, it doesn't have to be digital to be optical. The LaserVision
    videodisc system, also known as LaserDisc, is FM analogue. Although there are
    LaserDiscs that contain digital audio tracks, they are stored within frequency
    modulated subcarriers multiplexed to the analogue FM composite video signal.

    Anyways, older hard drives used MFM, or modified frequency modulation, to store
    data. This recorded an FM signal that contained digital information on the
    platters. However, MFM hasn't been in use for hard disks in YEARS! I guess
    you also think that new hard disks still use stepper motors for moving the
    heads when drives produced beyond the past decade all the way up to today use
    voice coil actuators for that job.

    >To backup my utmost ultimate important data, I use floppies.


    Again, how do you think information is written in those things? Floppies write
    **digital** data in MFM formatting.

    >They are
    >much more reliable than any cds.


    Bullshit.

    >If one floppy goes bad, I lose 10
    >pictures, not all 1000 of them.


    Bad argument. Under proper care, as in CDs handled with care and put away in
    their cases when not in use will have a theoretically infinite shelf life. For
    CD-R media, depending on the quality of the disc itself, the shelf life can
    range anywhere from 10 to 100 years. Fingerprints cannot damage the disc and
    dust is easily cleaned. Optical discs, recordable rewritable and permanent,
    cannot be erased by stray magnetic fields. Permanent discs because the pits
    are permanently inscribed in the polycarbonate. Recordable and rewritable
    discs because those rely on temperature changes to affect changes to the dye
    layer, not magnetism.

    In the case of magneto-optical, the area to be recorded as to be heated to its
    curie point first before external magnetism can alter the track pattern.
    Simply leaving the disc to be exposed by the sun for extended periods won't
    heat the disc sufficiently enough to its curie point, but popping it in an oven
    set to BROIL may, except who in their right mind would ever put any data
    storage medium in an oven at any temperature, much less one that's set to
    broil? As for the recorder, the heating is done under highly controlled
    circumstances using a precision instrument to perform the actual heating.
    After heating, a magnetic head above the disc pulses and inscribes data on the
    disc. Instantly after heating and inscribing, the section of disc cools down
    and the data inscription is permanent until it is heated to be altered again.
    That's how MiniDiscs work.

    Now, with floppies, they are susceptible to erasure or corruption from stray
    magnetic fields. They will suffer physical wear as you do have a head
    contacting the flexible magnetic diskette inside the floppy casing. They have
    a shelf life of around 20-30 years, tops. Magnetic floppies are made using a
    binder to bind the magnetic particles to the flexible plastic disc. Binders
    will deteriorate and flake off after a number of years and is more susceptible
    to damage from prolonged exposure to heat and light than decent CD-R discs.

    Magnetic media isn't so superior when compared to laser optical discs after all
    when you know the facts about them. - Reinhart
    LASERandDVDfan, Jan 26, 2004
    #14
  15. aniram

    Arny Krueger Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:

    > I CAN tell the difference between LPs and CD's, and the LP's have much
    > better sound. despite the scratches. Maybe we heard a few scratches,
    > but the rest of the recording was as REAL as REAL can be.


    Horsefeathers.

    > Digital is only a sampling, and not everything is there.


    LP is music plus audible amounts of noise and distortion. It can't touch
    digital for real sound quality.

    > There is a website that
    > even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds.


    That would be some producer's choice, not the inherent properties of the
    digital medium.

    > I was told that dvd is better, because of more samples per second.


    I was told via email that if I buy this pill, it would make my penis larger.

    > I have not heard dvd music.


    I have, and yawn. The CD format well-executed does give a reproduction that
    is indistinguishable from what comes out of the best possible recording and
    production facility known to exist.

    > But comparing LP or Tape, to CD, I'll take the LP or tape any
    > day.


    That would have to be based on some combination of sentimentality, rigidity,
    and perhaps a more than a little deafness.

    > I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
    > because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
    > highs.


    No such thing,

    >> Reel-to-reel was good quality, but I don't trust magnetic portable
    >> media - ever. I've got too many horror stories to tell.


    > I could tell much worse horror stories about digital media. When a
    > reel to reel tape broke, there was a patch and splice kit. A few
    > seconds of the song was lost, which is why a backup was made of
    > something important. The same for cassettes, but they had lower
    > quality and were much harder to fix. Yet, if a reel to reel tape
    > broke, you did not lose ALL of the data.


    You're spewing at the wrong guy. I make a ca. 1 hour 12 track recording at
    church every week, burn it to one or two DVD-ROMs and take it home and mix
    it. If there are problems with the DVD-ROMs (which has happened once or
    twice) I just burn new ones.

    Can I hear the difference between the digital recordings I make and
    cassettes? Heck yes! The cassette is the one with level-dependent frequency
    response, hiss, limited headroom, and audible loss of bass and treble not to
    mention the audible flutter and wow. High speed open reel tape is a heck of
    a lot better than cassette, but its not a sonically perfect copy of what
    comes out of the best possible recording and production facility known to
    exist.

    > Now for digital. I had someone burn all my photos onto a CD. Luckily
    > I kept a copy on a spare harddrive, because the CD would not work.


    Stuff happens. However, millions of people are getting perfect results all
    of the time.

    > NOTHING could be gotten off the thing.


    Stuff happens, but that's why we keep backups. I wouldn't let one bad CD-R
    ruin my day, let alone ruin my life like has apparently happened to you.

    > My windows 98 CD got stepped
    > on by one of the kids. I was unable to install windows at all after
    > that. I had to copy all the files to my harddrive, one by one, and
    > still had to get the remaining files from a friend.


    You mean you have a CD burner and you didn't back this disc up before the
    kids got at it. BTW, why don't you tell us about all the perfect vinyl
    copies you've made at home of your precious LPs. Or are you of the opinion
    that LP's fare better than CD's when kids step on them?

    > I'd rather lose a few seconds of a song, or one photo out of 1000,
    > than lose EVERYTHING.


    So make two CDs. First, don't use cheap garbage media and equipment so that
    the CDs come out right every time.

    > I do not trust digital media in the least.


    I trust no single piece of media.

    > I > wont even own a cd burner, because I would still keep everything
    > stored on spare harddrives, so what is the sense of the cd at all
    > then.


    Obviously you've got some mental problems here, if a bad experience with a
    CD-R goofed up your thinking this badly.

    > To backup my utmost ultimate important data, I use floppies.


    How many floppies to back up 8 GB of 12 track recordings?

    > They are much more reliable than any cds.


    LOL!

    I think you'd be in for a harsh education if you tried to restore a lot of
    data from floppies. besides, who is going to buy me the approximately 6,000
    floppies to back up the 8 GB of audio files that I back up every week? At
    one minute per floppy that would take me 100 hours or two and half work
    weeks per week, just to back up the files! It would take me another 100
    hours to restore the data at home. There aren't 200 hours in a week, so I
    would never get the job done one week before I'd have to start it all over
    again the next week! Letsee, it takes me about 20 minutes to burn two DVDs,
    but I can do other things while it is happening. Ditto for restoring the
    data at home. With floppies, I'd have to sit there and change media every
    minute of the day and night for more than 8 days a week!

    > If one floppy goes bad, I lose 10
    > pictures, not all 1000 of them. Magnetic media is far superior to
    > laser disks, any day of the week.


    Hard drives are pretty nice, but it only costs me about $20 for the DVD-R
    media to back up a $100 hard drive. And DVD-R's are a lot smaller, lighter,
    easier to carry and store, and far more durable if you drop them in a case
    or sleeve.
    Arny Krueger, Jan 26, 2004
    #15
  16. aniram

    Richard C. Guest

    "Tony Pearce" <> wrote in message
    news:40149fca$0$18299$...
    :
    : >Digital is
    : > only a sampling, and not everything is there.
    :
    : But **FAR** more than can be recorded to vinyl thankfully.

    ====================
    Not really.........vinyl has a wider frequency range than CD
    =====================
    :
    : >There is a website that
    : > even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds.
    :
    : Yep, over compression is far too common, but not even necessary with CD, as
    : it is with vinyl.

    ======================
    Most vinyl is not compressed at all.
    ======================
    :
    : >I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
    : > because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
    : > highs.
    :
    : No, it's because the bass reponse is not limited like it is with vinyl.

    =======================
    Bass response on vinyl is virtually unlimited.
    I have a Saint Saens #3 that has the 16 hz organ notes on it.
    =======================
    :
    :
    : You really seem to be extremely technologically ignorant. But as long as
    : you're happy, then good luck with the vinyl, tapes and floppies :)
    :
    ==================
    Vinyl, yes. Tapes (except DAT) and floppies, no.
    Richard C., Jan 26, 2004
    #16
  17. aniram

    Randy Yates Guest

    writes:

    > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:18:41 GMT, Death to Ronald McDonald
    > <> wrote:
    > [...]
    > Digital is only a sampling, and not everything is there.


    So let me get this straight: you're arguing with folks like
    Claude Shannon, Alan Oppenheim, and Dimitris Proakis, who all
    say (and show mathemtically) that quantizing a signal in time
    loses absolutely no information? Or if you want to include
    quantization in amplitude, you would be arguing with folks
    like Stan Lipschitz and Robert Wannamaker who can show that
    such quantization is equivalent to simply adding a benign
    noise floor to the audio (and you can make that noise floor
    as low as you want by increasing the resolution)?

    Tell you what - when you have written a few dozen papers
    about this alleged loss and shown mathematically how it's
    there, I may listen to you.
    --
    % Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
    %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
    %%% 919-577-9882 %
    %%%% <> % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
    http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
    Randy Yates, Jan 26, 2004
    #17
  18. aniram

    Geoff Wood Guest

    wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:18:41 GMT, Death to Ronald McDonald


    > I CAN tell the difference between LPs and CD's, and the LP's have much
    > better sound. despite the scratches. Maybe we heard a few scratches,
    > but the rest of the recording was as REAL as REAL can be. Digital is
    > only a sampling, and not everything is there. There is a website that
    > even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds.


    You don't understand much about audio do you ? Or digital.

    geoff
    Geoff Wood, Jan 26, 2004
    #18
  19. aniram

    Geoff Wood Guest

    Richard C. wrote:
    >> ====================

    > Not really.........vinyl has a wider frequency range than CD
    > =====================


    No.

    > Most vinyl is not compressed at all.
    > ======================


    No

    >> No, it's because the bass reponse is not limited like it is with
    >> vinyl.


    And you can reproduce this ?


    geoff
    Geoff Wood, Jan 26, 2004
    #19
  20. aniram

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Richard C." <> wrote in message
    news:40152b33$0$172$
    > "Tony Pearce" <> wrote in message
    > news:40149fca$0$18299$...


    >>> Digital is
    >>> only a sampling, and not everything is there.


    >> But **FAR** more than can be recorded to vinyl thankfully.


    > Not really.........vinyl has a wider frequency range than CD


    Not if cleanliness of response is considered. Not if number of octaves of
    response are considered.

    >>> There is a website that
    >>> even shows how the peaks are flattened on sounds.


    >> Yep, over compression is far too common, but not even necessary with
    >> CD, as it is with vinyl.


    > Most vinyl is not compressed at all.


    Wrong. Due to the inherent low dynamic range of vinyl, compression is often
    required.

    >>> I guess that is why they amplify the bass so much on CDs,
    >>> because the low notes sample better, and they boom out the lacking
    >>> highs.


    >> No, it's because the bass response is not limited like it is with
    >> vinyl.


    > Bass response on vinyl is virtually unlimited.


    Wrong. The fundamental resonance of the tone arm limits the bass response of
    vinyl. It also greatly disrupts frequency response several octaves above.

    > I have a Saint Saens #3 that has the 16 hz organ notes on it.


    A CD can cleanly hold music and natural sounds at frequencies down to 0.01
    Hz or less.

    >>
    >> You really seem to be extremely technologically ignorant. But as
    >> long as you're happy, then good luck with the vinyl, tapes and
    >> floppies :)


    > Vinyl, yes. Tapes (except DAT) and floppies, no.


    Vinyl's day came, went, and that was that.
    Arny Krueger, Jan 26, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Renee Roberts
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    6,044
    birddog73
    Aug 7, 2006
  2. T. Scott Lad

    Which disks to buy dvd+rw or dvd-rw?

    T. Scott Lad, Jun 27, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    768
    Waterperson77
    Aug 11, 2004
  3. DavidK
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    639
    DavidK
    Sep 6, 2004
  4. Dan E
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    Dan E
    Jun 6, 2005
  5. Fred Seaver

    DVD-+R/RW and DVD-R/RW Disks

    Fred Seaver, Feb 1, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    360
    p-nut
    Feb 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page