Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why The CD Largely Forced The LP From The Marketplace

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:56:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/eng...

starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that reads:

Why CD?
Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
- market ready for innovation
- alliance of key industrial leaders
- superior product
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:56:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:0pCdnao9H_1wQm3cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/eng...
>
> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
> reads:
>
> Why CD?
> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.

Perhaps they are referring to RCA's 45RPM records? :-)
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 12:22:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
news:10v20viqllnp9c7@corp.supernews.com
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:0pCdnao9H_1wQm3cRVn-qg@comcast.com...

>> http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/eng...
>
>> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
>> reads:

>> Why CD?
>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.

> Perhaps they are referring to RCA's 45RPM records? :-)

That's an interesting question. This presentation seems to come from a
reliable source, but this specific claim seems to be exceptional.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 1:53:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:22:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:

>>> Why CD?
>>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>
>> Perhaps they are referring to RCA's 45RPM records? :-)
>
>That's an interesting question. This presentation seems to come from a
>reliable source, but this specific claim seems to be exceptional. <snip>

It's also erroneous. The CD was invented in 1966, although not
brought to market until 1984 by the Philips/Sony partnership. Reason?
The cheap low power lasers needed to make the package workable weren't
available until the late '70s. I browsed this PDF; I should go to
Brown and get a PhD in a year, if their courses are all this "dumbed
down!"

dB
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 8:06:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Why CD?
> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.

If it was, it would have been highly theoretical.

Optical disks depend on lasers -- you need a monochromatic, phase-coherent light
source to be able to focus the beam to a sufficiently small point to get
reasonable recording time. Lasers didn't exist until the '60s, which is when
research on practical optical-disk systems began.
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 10:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:m9Odnem_jtOvjWzcRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
> news:10v20viqllnp9c7@corp.supernews.com
> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:0pCdnao9H_1wQm3cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
>
> >>
http://www.engin.brown.edu/courses/en193-194s7/PDFs/eng...
> >
> >> starting with the foil in the lower left hand corner of page 11 that
> >> reads:
>
> >> Why CD?
> >> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>
> > Perhaps they are referring to RCA's 45RPM records? :-)
>
> That's an interesting question. This presentation seems to come from a
> reliable source, but this specific claim seems to be exceptional.

Indeed. Breaking down the technology of compact discs, it's really two
technologies: digital recording/playback and optical discs. The former
existed in extremely crude form in the 1950s, but wasn't anywhere near good
enough for prime time until the 1970s, when the BBC began using it for
program distribution (14 bit). I heard an interview with the guy who holds
the patents on optical disc technology (Sony & Philips licensed them for the
CD); he began developing the technology in the 1950s, yes, but it took 20
years before it was ready for commercial applications.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 3:55:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Jan 21, 2005, DeserTBoB <desertb@rglobal.net> commented:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:22:52 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Why CD?
>>>> Compact disk process around since the 1950's.
>>
>>> Perhaps they are referring to RCA's 45RPM records? :-)
>>
>> That's an interesting question. This presentation seems to come from a
>> reliable source, but this specific claim seems to be exceptional. <snip>
>
> It's also erroneous. The CD was invented in 1966, although not
> brought to market until 1984 by the Philips/Sony partnership. Reason?
> The cheap low power lasers needed to make the package workable weren't
> available until the late '70s.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

Actually, the full story is more complicated than that. I attended a demo of
Philips "Digital Audio Disc" system at CES in 1979, and kept the presskit
from the demo. I also attended several seminars on the technology throughout
the early 1980s, until the first CD players went on sale in Japan in the
first week of March of 1983. I still own about a dozen CDs produced between
early 1983 and early 1984 (all of which still play fine today). The first
U.S. CD players went on sale in the fall of 1983, though a few dealers were
importing Japanese and European players a little earlier than that.

It's true that there were aspects of digital audio technology that went back
to the late 1950s, but as far as I know, the first commercial digital audio
recording wasn't made until 1969 by Denon. At least, that was the first one
actually _released_ (on LP, and later on CD). Saying the CD was "invented"
in 1966 is kind of like saying that Sony "invented" VHS -- which is vaguely
true depending on how you interpret patents and other developments, but is
also very misleading, in that JVC did 90% of the effort in getting VHS to
actually work after Sony abandoned the transport design, but also that VHS
used about two dozen patents owned by Sony, which they had unfortunately
given away to Matsushita (JVC and Panasonic) in a patent-swapping deal.

I interviewed several Philips and Sony officials around the introduction of
CD, and reading between the lines, I was lead to believe that most of the
initial concept for the CD was Philips', but they were unable to figure out a
way to mass-produce players. Sony's expertise was more in hardware design,
and they were the ones who got all the kinks out of the original prototypes.
It was also Sony who reduced the size of the disc to less than 5" (small
enough to fit in Akio Morita's jacket pocket during the press conference),
yet would still hold at least 72 minutes of material -- enough for Norio
Ohga's favorite classical work, Beethoven's 9th. Sony also came up with a
mastering chain, using their 3/4" videotape recorder, but it was Philips who
first perfected the disc-duplication presses, based on their expertise with
Laserdisc. If Philips had tried to do it alone, they never would've been
able to get CD off the ground.

Sony officials at the time told us the real stumbling block was the limited
availability of "affordable" D/A converters. Philips had lobbied strongly
for 14-bit converters, saying they were "good enough" for a consumer device
selling for under $1000, but Sony insisted on 16-bit, and most of the
industry went along with them. The original Magnavox/Philips consumer player
did have a 14-bit D/A, but within six months, subsequent models went to
16-bit.

The low-cost laser pickups were already widely available by then, since they
had been used in laserdisc players and other kinds of electronic devices for
almost five years. So that wasn't exactly the reason why CD's weren't
introduced until the early 1980s.

--MFW
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 11:55:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Marc Wielage" <mfw@musictrax.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE16E47F00535CE6F060B5B0@news-server.socal.rr.com...

> It's true that there were aspects of digital audio technology that went
back
> to the late 1950s, but as far as I know, the first commercial digital
audio
> recording wasn't made until 1969 by Denon. At least, that was the first
one
> actually _released_ (on LP, and later on CD).

Wasn't Tom Stockham doing digital remasterings of 78s a couple of years
earlier, using an early model of his Soundstream recorder, and didn't RCA
release an LP of his remastered Carusos a few years before Denon's first
issue? Or do I have the times scrambled?

Also, was not the laser disk developed by an American inventor, who then
licensed the patents to Philips for the laser videodisk?

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 11:55:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Also, was not the laser disk developed by an American inventor,
> who then licensed the patents to Philips for the laser videodisk?

AFAIK, the original work on optical disks was done at MCA. They were going to
record teensy images of each frame, which would then be flying-spot scanned. It
finally occurred to the developer that it would make more sense to directly
record the video signal.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 3:24:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Marc Wielage"

>
> It's true that there were aspects of digital audio technology that went
> back
> to the late 1950s, but as far as I know, the first commercial digital
> audio
> recording wasn't made until 1969 by Denon. At least, that was the first
> one
> actually _released_ (on LP, and later on CD).


** I still have a couple of those early Denon PCM releases on LP - a
revelation in sound quality at the time.


> Sony officials at the time told us the real stumbling block was the
> limited
> availability of "affordable" D/A converters. Philips had lobbied strongly
> for 14-bit converters, saying they were "good enough" for a consumer
> device
> selling for under $1000, but Sony insisted on 16-bit, and most of the
> industry went along with them.


** Philips initially considered ( with plenty of justification) that 14
bits were enough for consumer use, however when CD recording equipment is
considered it was much safer to have 16 - so that number was agreed.


> The original Magnavox/Philips consumer player
> did have a 14-bit D/A, but within six months, subsequent models went to
> 16-bit.


** This is an old phurphy.

The very first Philips player converted all 16 bits on the CD - just like
any other player - it achieved a s/n ratio of over 100dB on test. Philips
used one 14 bit converter IC for each channel operating at four times the CD
sampling rate to perform the trick.

Sony developed a single converter IC that did both channels and converted
all 16 bits with near perfection without the need for oversampling - this
appeared in the first couple of Sony models.





.................. Phil
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:06:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message news:tncId.62152

> program distribution (14 bit). I heard an interview with the guy who holds
> the patents on optical disc technology (Sony & Philips licensed them for
> the
> CD); he began developing the technology in the 1950s, yes, but it took 20
> years before it was ready for commercial applications.


.... let alone possible to fabricate (media and machinery) rather than just
'theoretical'.

geoff
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:30:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <tncId.62152$w62.57856@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

> Indeed. Breaking down the technology of compact discs, it's really two
> technologies: digital recording/playback and optical discs. The former
> existed in extremely crude form in the 1950s, but wasn't anywhere near good
> enough for prime time until the 1970s, when the BBC began using it for
> program distribution (14 bit). I heard an interview with the guy who holds
> the patents on optical disc technology (Sony & Philips licensed them for the
> CD); he began developing the technology in the 1950s, yes, but it took 20
> years before it was ready for commercial applications.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

And then there was the research that the Grateful Dead did in the early
70s when they started their record company. The had the idea of making
digital holographic pyramids that would be distributed by themselves
(thus cutting out the money grubbing major labels). Of course, the whole
thing was probably pharmaceutically inspired, but a certain amount of
real research was done into digital technologies.

Edwin
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 2:10:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler"
>
> Wasn't Tom Stockham doing digital remasterings of 78s a couple of years
> earlier, using an early model of his Soundstream recorder,


** Denon were making recordings for commercial release in 1972 - four
years prior to Soundstream's first efforts in 1976.





............ Phil
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 9:06:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Marc Wielage wrote:
> the first CD players went on sale in Japan in the first week of
> March of 1983.

The Japanese CD launch was actually in the fall of 1982. It was the
European launch that occurred in March 1983. (Somewhere in a box
I have a videotape of me appearing on the BBC's breakfast TV
program in early March '83 explaining why a disc the presenter had
coated with butter and marmalade might still play.)

> Sony's expertise was more in hardware design, and they were the
> ones who got all the kinks out of the original prototypes.

According to the late Akio Morita, whom I interviewed in 1981, as
well as persuading Philips that changes were necessary in disc size
and bit depth, Sony also implemented the neccessary error correction
to make the medium viable. Sony's Toshi Doi was the engineer
responsible, and Dr. Doi is still around leading Sony's research
into robots -- that electronic dog is one of his brain children.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:52:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:55:48 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

>"Marc Wielage" <mfw@musictrax.com> wrote in message
>news:0001HW.BE16E47F00535CE6F060B5B0@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>
>> It's true that there were aspects of digital audio technology that went
>back
>> to the late 1950s, but as far as I know, the first commercial digital
>audio
>> recording wasn't made until 1969 by Denon. At least, that was the first
>one
>> actually _released_ (on LP, and later on CD).
>
>Wasn't Tom Stockham doing digital remasterings of 78s a couple of years
>earlier, using an early model of his Soundstream recorder, and didn't RCA
>release an LP of his remastered Carusos a few years before Denon's first
>issue? Or do I have the times scrambled?

Stockham was doing work in Salt Lake City and spoke at the university
- a friend sent me the tape.

I heard a work in progress of the Caruso job in 1979 / 80. They were
attempting to reduce distortion at the time. If memory serves me, they
were doing FFT / additive sine work. It was weird sounding on the
"sobs" and he admitted as much. I don't believe that it had been
released yet. I found a Caruso / Soundstream release in about 1984
when I opened my new studio location.



Kurt Riemann
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 10:54:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:30:26 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz
<edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote:

>In article <tncId.62152$w62.57856@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Indeed. Breaking down the technology of compact discs, it's really two
>> technologies: digital recording/playback and optical discs. The former
>> existed in extremely crude form in the 1950s, but wasn't anywhere near good
>> enough for prime time until the 1970s, when the BBC began using it for
>> program distribution (14 bit). I heard an interview with the guy who holds
>> the patents on optical disc technology (Sony & Philips licensed them for the
>> CD); he began developing the technology in the 1950s, yes, but it took 20
>> years before it was ready for commercial applications.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Paul
>
>And then there was the research that the Grateful Dead did in the early
>70s when they started their record company. The had the idea of making
>digital holographic pyramids that would be distributed by themselves
>(thus cutting out the money grubbing major labels). Of course, the whole
>thing was probably pharmaceutically inspired, but a certain amount of
>real research was done into digital technologies.
>
>Edwin

Remember Flame Modulation? It supposedly worked.





Kurt Riemann
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 3:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
news:edwin-1E3B40.13302622012005@corp.supernews.com...


> The had the idea of making
> digital holographic pyramids that would be distributed by themselves
> (thus cutting out the money grubbing major labels)

How much of Warner's back catalog will fit into 1.6 terabytes?

http://www.inphase-technologies.com/


j
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:41:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:54:50 -0900, Kurt Riemann <> wrote:

>Remember Flame Modulation? It supposedly worked.

There were modulated flame drivers for propaganda flights
over Vietnam (so they say...)

Sounds wacky, but I've seen a speaker diaphragm driven by
a solenoid plus lever arm, (circa 1930's?), so a solenoid
modulation must(?)/ might(?) be possible.

At any rate, it's easy enough to imagine a compelling reason
to make a loud lo-fi sound in the vocal range. And, nowadays,
lots of good reasons not to. But there it is.

Chris Hornbeck
"If that is git only stucco and Slotermeyer? Yes! Celebration dog that
or the Flipperwaldt gersput!" -the deadly WWII joke from Monty Python
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:41:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:54:50 -0900, Kurt Riemann <> wrote:
>
>
>>Remember Flame Modulation? It supposedly worked.
>
>
> There were modulated flame drivers for propaganda flights
> over Vietnam (so they say...)
>
> Sounds wacky, but I've seen a speaker diaphragm driven by
> a solenoid plus lever arm, (circa 1930's?), so a solenoid
> modulation must(?)/ might(?) be possible.
>
> At any rate, it's easy enough to imagine a compelling reason
> to make a loud lo-fi sound in the vocal range. And, nowadays,
> lots of good reasons not to. But there it is.


I built one in high school physics. We hooked a Webcor (or whatever)
school record player/mic amp to an audio output transformer backwards to
step up the audio voltage, stuck two electrodes into the flame of a
bunsen burner. It was supposed to need about 500 Volts DC also, but we
didn't hear any difference with or without it. It seems the electrodes
had to be salted to give a source of ions in the flame.

And it sounded very good, like a massless tweeter might be expected to
sound; absolutely unlimited high end. It probably cut off down about
3.17 kHz or so, but speech was very intelligible.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 10:11:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mYSdnWSz8uE0G2ncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com
> "Edwin Hurwitz" <edwin@TAKEMEOUTindra.com> wrote in message
> news:edwin-1E3B40.13302622012005@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>> The had the idea of making
>> digital holographic pyramids that would be distributed by themselves
>> (thus cutting out the money grubbing major labels)
>
> How much of Warner's back catalog will fit into 1.6 terabytes?
>
> http://www.inphase-technologies.com/

They are in a horse race with conventional media.

Compare:
In-phase holographic conventional magnetic hard drive
2005 200 GB 250 GB
2007 400 GB 500 GB
2008 800 GB 700 GB
2010 1600 GB 1400 GB

It seems like they can't have a competitive product on the usual grounds,
until 2009.
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 1:42:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <tuidnafke5DCPWncRVn-pQ@omsoft.com> nopsam@nospam.net writes:

> We hooked a Webcor (or whatever)
> school record player/mic amp to an audio output transformer backwards to
> step up the audio voltage, stuck two electrodes into the flame of a
> bunsen burner. It was supposed to need about 500 Volts DC also, but we
> didn't hear any difference with or without it. It seems the electrodes
> had to be salted to give a source of ions in the flame.

Who doesn't remember the Ionovac tweeter?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
January 24, 2005 8:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mYSdnWSz8uE0G2ncRVn-qQ@adelphia.com...

> How much of Warner's back catalog will fit into 1.6 terabytes?

At what bit rate?

MrT.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:25:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Jan 23, 2005, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com
<Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> commented:

> The Japanese CD launch was actually in the fall of 1982. It was the
> European launch that occurred in March 1983.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<

You must be right, John. I own a half-dozen Japanese CDs that bear a 1982
copyright date, and I puzzled over those when I bought them in 1983. I
suspect that Sony did the intro around the Japanese Audio Fair in early
October 1982, though I suspect the quantities of those initial CD players and
discs were very small.

In my vast archives, I still own one of the original 1983 Sony CDP-101
players as a curiosity (among a dozen or two other players). One of these
days, I'd like to get an audiophile to sit down and then find out if he or
she can tell the difference between it and, say, a more-recent Sony SACD
player, each playing the same disc. :-)


--MFW
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:34:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Marc Wielage" <mfw@musictrax.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE1C85E4009E5ABEF060B5B0@news-server.socal.rr.com...

> In my vast archives, I still own one of the original 1983 Sony CDP-101
> players as a curiosity (among a dozen or two other players). One of these
> days, I'd like to get an audiophile to sit down and then find out if he or
> she can tell the difference between it and, say, a more-recent Sony SACD
> player, each playing the same disc. :-)

Carefuil, Mark; you might start a legend about how the Blackfront Sonys are
soooo much better than anything they've made since.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 11:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:
> "Marc Wielage" <mfw@musictrax.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BE1C85E4009E5ABEF060B5B0@news-server.socal.rr.com...

>>In my vast archives, I still own one of the original 1983 Sony CDP-101
>>players as a curiosity (among a dozen or two other players). One of these
>>days, I'd like to get an audiophile to sit down and then find out if he or
>>she can tell the difference between it and, say, a more-recent Sony SACD
>>player, each playing the same disc. :-)

> Carefuil, Mark; you might start a legend about how the Blackfront Sonys are
> soooo much better than anything they've made since.

Well, if it's 20+ years old and still actually plays CDs, then in
one sense it is way better than anything they've made since.

- Logan
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 5:22:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1tIJd.71318$Z%.9457@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> Paul Stamler wrote:
>> "Marc Wielage" <mfw@musictrax.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.BE1C85E4009E5ABEF060B5B0@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>
>>>In my vast archives, I still own one of the original 1983 Sony CDP-101
>>>players as a curiosity (among a dozen or two other players). One of
>>>these
>>>days, I'd like to get an audiophile to sit down and then find out if he
>>>or
>>>she can tell the difference between it and, say, a more-recent Sony SACD
>>>player, each playing the same disc. :-)
>
>> Carefuil, Mark; you might start a legend about how the Blackfront Sonys
>> are
>> soooo much better than anything they've made since.
>
> Well, if it's 20+ years old and still actually plays CDs, then in
> one sense it is way better than anything they've made since.

I've got a CDP-190; IIRC I got that in '88 or '89, and it still works just
fine - it's serving duty in the the stereo system in my living room.

And yes, it is the blackface version, so it MUST be worth a lot of money.
:D 

Neil Henderson
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 5:22:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Neil Henderson from the land of neil.henderson@sbcglobal.netNOSPAM wrote:

> I've got a CDP-190; IIRC I got that in '88 or '89, and it still works just
> fine - it's serving duty in the the stereo system in my living room.
>
> And yes, it is the blackface version, so it MUST be worth a lot of money.
> :D 
>
> Neil Henderson

I've got a Sony CDP-C30 5-CD changer c. 1987-88 that just keeps going.
Several moves, a few short drops, and in the last few years hard use by
teenagers (who let those hooligans in my house?!? Oh yeah, they're my
kids....)

I keep waiting for it to break so I can replace it, but it doesn't. I've
always wondered if a newer player would actually sound better or not.

Carlos
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:50:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:25:24 GMT, Marc Wielage <mfw@musictrax.com>
wrote:

>On Jan 23, 2005, Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com
><Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> commented:
>
>> The Japanese CD launch was actually in the fall of 1982. It was the
>> European launch that occurred in March 1983.
>>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
>
>You must be right, John. I own a half-dozen Japanese CDs that bear a 1982
>copyright date, and I puzzled over those when I bought them in 1983. I
>suspect that Sony did the intro around the Japanese Audio Fair in early
>October 1982 <snip>

I have a Sony-produced demo CD dated October, 1982...various jazz,
classical and some softer rock tracks. Sony sold it for years as a
"test CD" by Sony for big bucks, but it's just a music compendium. A
real ripoff at the time, but it's probably "collectable" now.

dB
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:25:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" pstamlerhell@pobox.com wrote:


>"Marc Wielage" <mfw@musictrax.com> wrote in message
>news:0001HW.BE1C85E4009E5ABEF060B5B0@news-server.socal.rr.com...
>
>> In my vast archives, I still own one of the original 1983 Sony CDP-101
>> players as a curiosity (among a dozen or two other players). One of these
>> days, I'd like to get an audiophile to sit down and then find out if he or
>> she can tell the difference between it and, say, a more-recent Sony SACD
>> player, each playing the same disc. :-)
>
>Carefuil, Mark; you might start a legend about how the Blackfront Sonys are
>soooo much better than anything they've made since.
>
>Peace,
>Paul

A few years ago we conducted an interesting experiment along those lines. We
compared a prototype 14-bit Philips CD player (one said to be the first
pre-production machine delivered to the US) and then a portable CD player to a
later model Sony ES. (2 separate tests; blind but no timing synch other than
manual attempts to match synch.)

Only 1 of the 10 subjects was able to reliably tell the Philips and nobody was
able to reliably identify the portable in comparison to the Sony ES.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:25:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

One word: convenience.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 11:03:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Paul Stamler wrote:

> Carefuil, Mark; you might start a legend about how the Blackfront Sonys are
> soooo much better than anything they've made since.

Hell, I thought you already knew they just put more soul into your music
and the time gets better kept, too - the rhythm thing.

--
ha
!