Analog vs digital: 100-200 years from now...

[Mick Davies]

A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm headed?
Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)

--
Mick Davies
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0203865/


"Let us wander through a great modern city with our ears more attentive than
our eyes..."

Luigi Russolo, 1913

[Joe]

Global warming will melt all of the vinyl LPs and the magnetic fields from
the nuclear blasts will wipe out the magnetic tapes, so I guess that leaves
direct metal masters.

"Mick Davies" > wrote in message
m...
> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm
headed?
> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)
>
> --
> Mick Davies
> http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0203865/
>
>
> "Let us wander through a great modern city with our ears more attentive
than
> our eyes..."
>
> Luigi Russolo, 1913
>
>

[reddred]

"Mick Davies" > wrote in message
m...
> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm
headed?
> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)
>
>

I don't know about the specific -medium- but the music will still exist in
digital form, probably redundantly . As storage capacities continue to
increase exponentially, indefinately, it is more expensive to hire an
organism to choose stuff to delete than to just automatically add stuff in.

jb

[Xoreth]

Mick Davies wrote:

> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm headed?
> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)
>

I do see where you're headed at. But consider this, (just for a bit of
fun). Well before the future period you're talking about, you can
expect to see the rise of "biological neural-network" based media with
the associated built-in heuristic redundancy, (as in like our brains),
to replace virtually any known media in existence today. And we're
talking 50 years max. So the future time period you're talking about,
ummm, set's the "mind" boggling.

Cheers,

Xor

[Garthrr]

In article >, Xoreth
> writes:

>A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
>> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
>> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
>> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
>> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
>> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
>> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
>> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm headed?
>> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)

Whenever someone brings up the "vinyl vs CD" question I have the following
thought: What if you had never heard either format and you were brought into a
room and allowed to listen to a song through each format. When you heard the
surface noise of the vinyl I think the battle would be over already but beyond
that, the increased distortion in the last minute or so of each side and the
inconvenience of the short recording time on each side plus the fact that
records (at least the ones I had) wore out fast enough to be considerably
inferior sounding after a year or so-- all that would push most people to
choose CDs I think. It certainly would me. Now it may be that the very best
turntables overcome some of these deficiencies but none of the systems I've
ever heard have. Of course I've never owned or even heard a real high-end
turntable. I dont think most people have.

I think that if the order were reversed, if CDs had been invented first and
then later someone came in with this new invention, the turntable and vinyl
records, he would have been laughed out of the room purely on the issue of
sound quality. I cant honestly say that people who prefer vinyl do so only
because of nostalgia but I cant hear anything better about it.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

Xoreth > wrote:


> I do see where you're headed at. But consider this, (just for a bit of
> fun). Well before the future period you're talking about, you can
> expect to see the rise of "biological neural-network" based media with
> the associated built-in heuristic redundancy, (as in like our brains),
> to replace virtually any known media in existence today. And we're
> talking 50 years max. So the future time period you're talking about,
> ummm, set's the "mind" boggling.


To elaborate on the dawn of the post-human era:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

Really a fun, provocative read.

ulysses

[William Sommerwerck]

Even 10K years from now, it will be a trivial matter to read and decode any
current optical recording medium.

> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series
> of 1s and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm headed?

[philicorda]

"Mick Davies" > wrote in message
m...
> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm
headed?
> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)

CDs? You mean those shiny disks we keep digging up all around the old
cities?
Well, some people think they had some religious significance, others think
they were primitive mirrors.

There is a school of thought that they were part of a cataloging and filing
system for the vinyl recordings, which is why they often have names of the
old songs on them. Many just have abstract patterns or pictures painted on
them though, so that theory is probably not the case. Perhaps they were for
advertising?

Still, the process used to make them has still not been recreated, and those
wise in the ways of repairing the old machines have long since passed, so we
may never know. Since the Great Winter, food and fuel are not easy to come
by, and few have time to waste on the old one's relics.

[David Satz]

Mick Davies wrote:

> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in.

Linear PCM audio isn't a highly abstract representation of sound. Once
the format of CD data frames is understood, it is fairly obvious what to
do with the sample data. Plus the format is thoroughly standardized and
publicly documented in a lot of places, and its mechanical requirements
are met with technology that is still being used and developed (e.g. for
DVD), and that can be produced far less expensively than high-quality
playback equipment for LPs. So the recording and playback hardware for
CD audio is likely to be commonplace for another generation at least.

But it's really just a couple of steps more complicated than "decoding"
an LP, which requires exotic, miniaturized hardware too (phono cartridges
and elliptical diamond-tipped styli applied to the vinyl with just the
right force for good tracking without wearing out the groove).

Since CD tracks can be digitally extracted, when the time comes that
something else is so far better that the world would gladly give up the
use of all CD players and no more will be produced, it should be possible
to transfer the CD audio data transparently into the new format.

Failing that, the data could be archived as wave audio files which are
fundamental, simple objects as well. Presumably years from now we will
have longer-lasting media available for storing such files, too.

What might be more difficult years from now would be playing back audio
in proprietary compressed data formats such as DCC and MiniDisc. I don't
think there are lots of places where you can go to find out how that
information is stored.

[Arny Krueger]

"David Satz" > wrote in message
om

> Mick Davies wrote:

>> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series
>> of 1s and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of
>> historical and archeological use in the future?

Nobody will care because of what's going to happen next. All CDs with any
musical merit in anybody's mind are going to recoded into RAM chips whose
size will continue to shrink. By 2200 all recorded music recorded through
2199 will be reduced to $0.01 worth of static RAM which will be
approximately the size of a grain of sand. Everybody will have one.

Future archeologists will have to find and decode those RAM chips, which
will make finding and decoding CDs look like child's play.

>> Considering the
>> constantly changing technology behind digital recording will anyone
>> in the future be able to decipher or decode what will be an archaic
>> abstraction? Vinyl, on the otherhand, is analogous to sound waves
>> to the extent that those waves are recognizable as such under a
>> microscope and the technology to "decode" it, within a certain RPM
>> range, is pretty much locked in.

...as is the technology to decode current audio CDs.

> Linear PCM audio isn't a highly abstract representation of sound.

Right. if you want abstract, consider a MP3 file.

> Once the format of CD data frames is understood, it is fairly obvious
> what to do with the sample data. Plus the format is thoroughly
> standardized and publicly documented in a lot of places, and its
> mechanical requirements are met with technology that is still being
> used and developed (e.g. for DVD), and that can be produced far less
> expensively than high-quality playback equipment for LPs. So the
> recording and playback hardware for CD audio is likely to be
> commonplace for another generation at least.

Consider how much 8mm film is out there and still potentially playable.

> But it's really just a couple of steps more complicated than
> "decoding" an LP, which requires exotic, miniaturized hardware too
> (phono cartridges and elliptical diamond-tipped styli applied to the
> vinyl with just the right force for good tracking without wearing out
> the groove).

It's has already been demonstrated that it is possible to decode a LP with a
high-resolution optical scanner of the kind used to scan documents.

> Since CD tracks can be digitally extracted, when the time comes that
> something else is so far better that the world would gladly give up
> the use of all CD players and no more will be produced, it should be
> possible to transfer the CD audio data transparently into the new
> format.

Furthermore, every optical disc music player to reach the mass market
thusfar has been fully backwards compatible with audio CDs. When will this
practice stop? Only when the cost of doing so is prohibitive.

> Failing that, the data could be archived as wave audio files which are
> fundamental, simple objects as well. Presumably years from now we
> will have longer-lasting media available for storing such files, too.

One view is that the artifacts of human culture tend to become more trivial
and ephermeral as time wears on. As long as civilization has continuity,
grains of sand with the Library of Congress and/or all recorded music will
be entirely manageable.

If civilization loses continuity, which it really never has done thoroughly
that we know of, (and we know what happened at that level for the last 5,000
years or more) then it could well be "start over" time. So what?

> What might be more difficult years from now would be playing back
> audio in proprietary compressed data formats such as DCC and
> MiniDisc.

Or a CD or DVD that is full of MP3s or AACs or WMAs or whatever.

> I don't think there are lots of places where you can go to
> find out how that information is stored.

Well, there's a frame structure and some regular patterns. The software to
decode it will be encapsulated with some of it. Some grad student might
have a project that involves developing a program for the latest quantum
computer that emulates a 3 GHz Pentium...

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Whenever someone brings up the "vinyl vs CD" question I have the following
> thought: What if you had never heard either format and you were brought into a
> room and allowed to listen to a song through each format. When you heard the
> surface noise of the vinyl I think the battle would be over already but beyond
> that, the increased distortion in the last minute or so of each side and the
> inconvenience of the short recording time on each side plus the fact that
> records (at least the ones I had) wore out fast enough to be considerably
> inferior sounding after a year or so-- all that would push most people to
> choose CDs I think.

That was not the point of the question.

If this was the year 2104 and two round objects were brought into your
laborator by an archeologist, one black with grooves on it and the
other bright and silvery with some diffraction lines on it when you
held it just right (let's say this was a very well preserved CD, not
one where the metal had separated from the plastic), and were told
that there was music from early in the previous century on them, which
one do you think you could get playing first?

Bonus question: How long do you think it would take you to figure out
how to get the other one to play, and how would you go about it?

The question isn't about which one would sound better in 100 years,
it's about which one would be recoverable. There may not be record
players or CD players 100 years from now, so you'd have to reverse
engineer each one.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Sean Conolly]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> Furthermore, every optical disc music player to reach the mass market
> thusfar has been fully backwards compatible with audio CDs. When will this
> practice stop? Only when the cost of doing so is prohibitive.

Let's see, we haven't dropped off support for needle based records since
record cylinders disappeared. Even today you can readily buy a brand new
player that will play 78 RPM records. You can still take an -old- telephone
and use it at home, although you do need at least a dial to initiate calls.
The telegraph has gotten pretty rare in the land line world, but is alive
and well for radio operators.

As long as there are players that can handle the physical format, like DVD
players, it's just too cheap to leave the legacy support for CDs for anyone
not to do so. I wouldn't surprised to find it still supported 200 years from
now.

Now if you want to talk about a really obscure media for recording
information, has anyone figured out how to decode a Quipo yet?

Sean

[Les Cargill]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Whenever someone brings up the "vinyl vs CD" question I have the following
> > thought: What if you had never heard either format and you were brought into a
> > room and allowed to listen to a song through each format. When you heard the
> > surface noise of the vinyl I think the battle would be over already but beyond
> > that, the increased distortion in the last minute or so of each side and the
> > inconvenience of the short recording time on each side plus the fact that
> > records (at least the ones I had) wore out fast enough to be considerably
> > inferior sounding after a year or so-- all that would push most people to
> > choose CDs I think.
>
> That was not the point of the question.
>
> If this was the year 2104 and two round objects were brought into your
> laborator by an archeologist, one black with grooves on it and the
> other bright and silvery with some diffraction lines on it when you
> held it just right (let's say this was a very well preserved CD, not
> one where the metal had separated from the plastic), and were told
> that there was music from early in the previous century on them, which
> one do you think you could get playing first?
>
> Bonus question: How long do you think it would take you to figure out
> how to get the other one to play, and how would you go about it?
>
> The question isn't about which one would sound better in 100 years,
> it's about which one would be recoverable. There may not be record
> players or CD players 100 years from now, so you'd have to reverse
> engineer each one.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

My money's on the vinyl being simpler
to decode. It has an axle hole in the middle, it's a wheel,
so they turn it. Then all they have to do is hold
a pine needle to it to know it'll make noise.

Besides, they always have wind-up Victrolas in all those
post-apocolyptic movies.

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

> Now if you want to talk about a really obscure media for recording
> information, has anyone figured out how to decode a Quipo yet?

Don't you mean quipu? I believe it's base-20.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:47:12 GMT, "Mick Davies" >
wrote:

>A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
>and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
>archeological use in the future?

The stability of the physical media is the largest variable. If raw
data can still be read from the media, recovering information will
not be a big deal. Frame structure, interleaving and EFM all fall
out pretty easily.

Vinyl analog recordings can be played with a pencil for a spindle
and a straight pin stuck through a 3X5 card for a transducer. But
will the vinyl still be intact in 200 years?

Neither polycarbonate or vinyl has a 200 year track record - yet.
Only one media of sufficient density comes close: photographic paper.

The more pressing issue for 200 years from now is one of temperature.
Climate is chaotic, jumping between semi-stable states as various
positive feedback mechanisms are nudged a little too far. What's
the next (higher) state, and how close are we to finding out?



Chris Hornbeck
new email address

[reddred]

"Xoreth" > wrote in message
...

>
> I do see where you're headed at. But consider this, (just for a bit of
> fun). Well before the future period you're talking about, you can
> expect to see the rise of "biological neural-network" based media

Self-replicating memory vines!!!

jb




>with
> the associated built-in heuristic redundancy, (as in like our brains),
> to replace virtually any known media in existence today. And we're
> talking 50 years max. So the future time period you're talking about,
> ummm, set's the "mind" boggling.
>

[James Perrett]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> If this was the year 2104 and two round objects were brought into your
> laborator by an archeologist, one black with grooves on it and the
> other bright and silvery with some diffraction lines on it when you
> held it just right (let's say this was a very well preserved CD, not
> one where the metal had separated from the plastic), and were told
> that there was music from early in the previous century on them, which
> one do you think you could get playing first?
>
> Bonus question: How long do you think it would take you to figure out
> how to get the other one to play, and how would you go about it?
>
> The question isn't about which one would sound better in 100 years,
> it's about which one would be recoverable. There may not be record
> players or CD players 100 years from now, so you'd have to reverse
> engineer each one.

We're talking 100 or 200 years here so this isn't really archaeology.
Think about the technology of 100 years ago and how much we know about
that. Records existed then and we can still play recordings made in that
era.

I suspect that optical discs will still be around for a good few years -
the CD to DVD transition is a little like the 78 to microgroove
transition in the 50's. Things are certainly moving faster but there is
still a certain level of compatibility with older optical disc formats
in the new formats.

I would guess that many of the coding algorithms used for current
optical disc formats will remain with us although the physical medium
will change to allow much greater recording densities.

Cheers.

James.

[Doctor Phibes]

(Garthrr) wrote in message >...
> In article >, Xoreth
> > writes:
>
> >A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> >> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> >> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> >> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> >> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> >> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> >> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> >> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm headed?
> >> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)
>
> Whenever someone brings up the "vinyl vs CD" question I have the following
> thought: What if you had never heard either format and you were brought into a
> room and allowed to listen to a song through each format. When you heard the
> surface noise of the vinyl I think the battle would be over already but beyond
> that, the increased distortion in the last minute or so of each side and the
> inconvenience of the short recording time on each side plus the fact that
> records (at least the ones I had) wore out fast enough to be considerably
> inferior sounding after a year or so-- all that would push most people to
> choose CDs I think. It certainly would me. Now it may be that the very best
> turntables overcome some of these deficiencies but none of the systems I've
> ever heard have. Of course I've never owned or even heard a real high-end
> turntable. I dont think most people have.
>
> I think that if the order were reversed, if CDs had been invented first and
> then later someone came in with this new invention, the turntable and vinyl
> records, he would have been laughed out of the room purely on the issue of
> sound quality. I cant honestly say that people who prefer vinyl do so only
> because of nostalgia but I cant hear anything better about it.
>
> Garth~
>
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney

>
I disagree that vinyl is substandard. Vinyl was the product of good
engineering. Cds were the result of crosseyed engineering with
absolutely no thought on the consequences. Pushing cds were sluggish
album sales. The "industry" pushed for the cd to "make" the record
buyer replace or should I say repurchase their music catalog and buy
new stuff as well no longer available(for most part) on vinyl.

Having said that I used to be pro cd till I learned how inferior cds
are. Fragility was often associated with vinyl. This isn't so compared
to cds. One speck of sand on a cd will render it useless. One doesn't
have to live on a beach to accomplish this. At least with vinyl you
can tap the arm, put a coin on it. If a cd skips you're screwed to the
tune of $15. When I compare the sound quality even on modest equipment
vinyl wins. The slight hiss, crackle doesn't bother me. What bothers
me is how sterile cds sound. This is especially true when tube amps
are used. On a cd it sounds awful. On vinyl it breathes. The notes are
crisp and full. It's like the difference between a solid state amp and
a class a tube amp. Sure the former has better specs but which sounds
better?

The tube amp has survived quite a few fads. Vinyl will survive it as
well. Peoplewill dl their lo fidelity music but those who appreciate
sound quality will continue to buy vinyl. Some will argue the cost
factor but ripple is a poor substitute for a decent bottle of wine.

[P Stamler]

This seems to be turning into the standard LP vs. CD argument, out of which I
usually opt. But I will offer the following proposal: They both suck.

CDs suck for most of the reasons CD-haters say they do -- which really doesn't
have anything to do with CDs themselves, but with the choices of sampling rate
and bit depth that characterize the standard. (Yes, Arny, you believe those
standards are adequate. I don't. That's a religious war, and I don't usually
argue religion.) I've made some decent CDs in my time, but have yet to make one
that sounds as good as a fresh tape from a good, clean Ampex at 15 ips.

LPs suck after you've played them a few times, or after they's sat around on
the shelf until the plasticizer has leached out and they get shrill and
brittle. Yes, a really well-made LP played on a really good turntable, when
new, can sound wonderful. But it won't last. I spend a *lot* of time making
ghastly-sounding LPs sound acceptable for radio broadcast, and that leads me to
the conclusion that, for long-term keeping and listening, they suck.

Like I said, a good, clean analog tape can sound very much like a mike feed. So
can a good high-res digital recording. So far, we have no mass-market way to
get the Ampex tape out to the public in a pristine way (and it'll deteriorate
over the years too). We're just beginning to find ways to get high-res digital
distributed.

Meanwhile we're stuck with two media that suck. I mostly prefer CDs because,
when well-made, the ways in which they suck are subtle, whereas the ways in
which LPs suck are gross. At least after they've been around a while.

Peace,
Paul

[Garthrr]

In article >,
(Doctor Phibes) writes:

>I disagree that vinyl is substandard. Vinyl was the product of good
>engineering. Cds were the result of crosseyed engineering with
>absolutely no thought on the consequences. Pushing cds were sluggish
>album sales.

That may be true, I dont know. It has nothing to do with this discussion
however.


>Having said that I used to be pro cd till I learned how inferior cds
>are. Fragility was often associated with vinyl. This isn't so compared
>to cds. One speck of sand on a cd will render it useless. One doesn't
>have to live on a beach to accomplish this. At least with vinyl you
>can tap the arm, put a coin on it. If a cd skips you're screwed to the
>tune of $15. When I compare the sound quality even on modest equipment
>vinyl wins. The slight hiss, crackle doesn't bother me.

Thats where we differ. The hiss and crackle bug me and always did. Even when I
was 15 years old I was thinking there had to be a better way. When CDs came out
I was ecstatic.As far as a grain of sand rendering a CD useless, so what? You
buy another one if you like it enough.

>The tube amp has survived quite a few fads. Vinyl will survive it as
>well. Peoplewill dl their lo fidelity music but those who appreciate
>sound quality will continue to buy vinyl.

I suppose vinyl may hold onto a tiny fragment of the total music sales but as
far as making any sort of comeback, I would be astonished.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[LeBaron & Alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Even 10K years from now, it will be a trivial matter to read and decode any
> current optical recording medium.

Look how long it's taken to figure out Egyptian...

--
ha

[Mike Caffrey]

In article >, "Mick Davies"
> wrote:

> A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm headed?
> Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)

I'd say zero. By then PCM digital will be viewed as more hideous than a
wax cylander and MP3s will be the brand of stupidity.



www.monsterisland.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I suspect that optical discs will still be around for a good few years -
> the CD to DVD transition is a little like the 78 to microgroove
> transition in the 50's.

Only a very little. You can play both with the same "needle" but it
takes different decoding to get audio from each format. I don't have a
lot of faith that it will be easy to come up with documentation of the
format once it's gone into obscurity. It happens a lot with computer
stuff.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[reddred]

"P Stamler" > wrote
>
> Meanwhile we're stuck with two media that suck. I mostly prefer CDs
because,
> when well-made, the ways in which they suck are subtle, whereas the ways
in
> which LPs suck are gross. At least after they've been around a while.
>
> Peace,
> Paul

I always figured the people that liked vinyl better just prefer the sound of
the RIAA curve.

jb

[P Stamler]

>Only a very little. You can play both with the same "needle" but it
>takes different decoding to get audio from each format. I don't have a
>lot of faith that it will be easy to come up with documentation of the
>format once it's gone into obscurity. It happens a lot with computer
>stuff.

Yeah, but we're talking (in the case of CD) about standards promulgated by one
of the biggest manufacturers of audio hardware, unviersally accepted by
manufacturers, with an installed base of hundreds of millions of players and
billions upon billions of discs. And copies of the standard widely distributed.
Not to mention patent records.

If things reach such a state that we can't get hold of a copy of the Red Book,
we'll have also reached a state where we probably have nowhere to plug a player
in any more.

The later standards aren't quite as widely accepted, so aren't as widely
distributed, but there are still copies in major technical libraries and patent
offices.

Still, it'd probably be useful to deposit in the Library of Congress or some
other archive copies, in relatively stable form (like acid-free paper), of all
technical standards used in making recordings, from Edison's patents to Bell
Labs' electrical recording system to DVD and SACD. Shouldn't take up more than
a couple of file drawers at most. In fact, this might be a good project for the
AES to undertake. (Hope they include a good set of 78 playback curves.)

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
reddred > wrote:
>
>"P Stamler" > wrote
>>
>> Meanwhile we're stuck with two media that suck. I mostly prefer CDs
>because,
>> when well-made, the ways in which they suck are subtle, whereas the ways
>in
>> which LPs suck are gross. At least after they've been around a while.
>
>I always figured the people that liked vinyl better just prefer the sound of
>the RIAA curve.

The RIAA curve should have no sound. That's the point.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob Adelman]

reddred wrote:

>
> I always figured the people that liked vinyl better just prefer the sound of
> the RIAA curve.

As Scott pointed out, the RIAA curve should make the overall frequency
response closer to flat.

I was listening to some albums last night including for the first time
John Mayers first album, which I had been listening to on CD for quite a
while. At first it didn't sound better than the CD, until I turned it
up. And then something dawned on me. The reason albums seem (to me) to
have a greater dynamic range than CD is because I do tend to turn the
albums way up compared to CD's. Of course if you are listening much
louder, the dynamic range will be much greater, as the zero point stays
the same, but the maximum is increased.

So even though technically the dynamic range of CD may be greater, I
can't listen to a CD anywhere near as loud as I can an album, so to my
ears, this makes the dynamic range of the album much greater and more
live sounding.

[EggHd]

<< As Scott pointed out, the RIAA curve should make the overall frequency
response closer to flat. >>

Do you know what the curve does and why?

<< I was listening to some albums last night including for the first time
John Mayers first album, which I had been listening to on CD for quite a
while. >>

My best guess (but was not involved) is the CD mastering and the LP mastering
are the same, other than what level was put onto the LP. I have been involved
in some releases recently where the LP was cut from a 1630 of the PCM
mastering.

<< At first it didn't sound better than the CD, until I turned it
up. >>

I still stick to my story that full level CDs hit the receiver's input pretty
hard and it's not pleasing, but others disagree.

<< And then something dawned on me. The reason albums seem (to me) to
have a greater dynamic range than CD is because I do tend to turn the
albums way up compared to CD's. >>

Not if the LP was cut from the same material, but again I wasn't involved.

<< So even though technically the dynamic range of CD may be greater, I
can't listen to a CD anywhere near as loud as I can an album, so to my
ears, this makes the dynamic range of the album much greater and more
live sounding. >>

if the identical source is put on CD and LP the dynamic range will be the same.
Many early CDs simply took the EQ'd tapes and transferred them to digital.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:


>
> My best guess (but was not involved) is the CD mastering and the LP mastering
> are the same, other than what level was put onto the LP. I have been involved
> in some releases recently where the LP was cut from a 1630 of the PCM
> mastering.

I have noticed albums cut from digital masters. Roll With It (Winwood)
was the first one I noticed many years ago.



> << And then something dawned on me. The reason albums seem (to me) to
> have a greater dynamic range than CD is because I do tend to turn the
> albums way up compared to CD's. >>
>
> Not if the LP was cut from the same material, but again I wasn't involved.

I am not sayiong the album actually has a greater range, but the
effective range is greater because I am comfortable listening to it at
overall greater volume.



> if the identical source is put on CD and LP the dynamic range will be the same.
> Many early CDs simply took the EQ'd tapes and transferred them to digital.

See above.

-Rob

[EggHd]

So no response to the RIAA curve question?


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Doctor Phibes]

(Garthrr) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Doctor Phibes) writes:
>
> >I disagree that vinyl is substandard. Vinyl was the product of good
> >engineering. Cds were the result of crosseyed engineering with
> >absolutely no thought on the consequences. Pushing cds were sluggish
> >album sales.
>
> That may be true, I dont know. It has nothing to do with this discussion
> however.
>
>
> >Having said that I used to be pro cd till I learned how inferior cds
> >are. Fragility was often associated with vinyl. This isn't so compared
> >to cds. One speck of sand on a cd will render it useless. One doesn't
> >have to live on a beach to accomplish this. At least with vinyl you
> >can tap the arm, put a coin on it. If a cd skips you're screwed to the
> >tune of $15. When I compare the sound quality even on modest equipment
> >vinyl wins. The slight hiss, crackle doesn't bother me.
>
> Thats where we differ. The hiss and crackle bug me and always did. Even when I
> was 15 years old I was thinking there had to be a better way. When CDs came out
> I was ecstatic.As far as a grain of sand rendering a CD useless, so what? You
> buy another one if you like it enough.
>
> >The tube amp has survived quite a few fads. Vinyl will survive it as
> >well. Peoplewill dl their lo fidelity music but those who appreciate
> >sound quality will continue to buy vinyl.
>
> I suppose vinyl may hold onto a tiny fragment of the total music sales but as
> far as making any sort of comeback, I would be astonished.
>
> Garth~
>
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney

>
Well that's just it Garth to each his own. I want to release my music
in the future on vinyl but in limited quantity. I will also offer my
music in digital form, for a price but about cd quality. As high as
the host allows. So if someone likes my music they can have it their
way. The vinyl is mostly for me.

As far as how long vinyl will last I think a long time because
everything happens in cycles. And thoughts go in cycles too. There
will always be a small amount of people who still want vinyl. I wont
say comeback but album sales have increased. (don't have the data) But
EBAY has saw to it that consumers are willing to over pay for vinyl,
ie; beatles etc.

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:
> So no response to the RIAA curve question?

I know very little about it. What I do know is that there is something
about the turntable preamp stage that knocks the frequency response out
of whack and the RIAA standard is suppose to eq it back to flat again.
Not sure of the specifics, but it sounds good to me.

-Rob

[Rob Adelman]

Doctor Phibes wrote:

>
> I wont
> say comeback but album sales have increased. (don't have the data) But
> EBAY has saw to it that consumers are willing to over pay for vinyl,
> ie; beatles etc.

I have noticed a bit of a comeback. I am finding more newer releases
available that were previously only on CD. And I am also noticing
reissues in the newer formats (SACD & DVD-A) are sometimes being
accompanied by reissues in vinyl.

-Rob

[Mike]

"reddred" > wrote in message >...
> "Mick Davies" > wrote in message
> m...
> > A purely academic question. What are the chances that CDs, a series of 1s
> > and 0s, an abstract representation of sound, will be of historical and
> > archeological use in the future? Considering the constantly changing
> > technology behind digital recording will anyone in the future be able to
> > decipher or decode what will be an archaic abstraction? Vinyl, on the
> > otherhand, is analogous to sound waves to the extent that those waves are
> > recognizable as such under a microscope and the technology to "decode" it,
> > within a certain RPM range, is pretty much locked in. See where I'm
> headed?
> > Okay, so I'm terribly bored at the moment. Sue me. ;)
> >
> >
>
> I don't know about the specific -medium- but the music will still exist in
> digital form, probably redundantly . As storage capacities continue to
> increase exponentially, indefinately, it is more expensive to hire an
> organism to choose stuff to delete than to just automatically add stuff in.
>
> jb

The problem will be having players that will play CD's as they are
today. So if we come to a point where there are none, any CD or music
that isn't transferred into a more viable medium will be lost.
Certainly there is analog music that was lost due to lack of transfer
to a modern medium before it decayed or otherwise, so there is no
reason to think there won't be plenty of that occuring when CD's are
no longer available or when other older storage mediums become
obsolete or unreadable.

Mike
http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Kurt Albershardt]

Rob Adelman wrote:
>
>
> EggHd wrote:
>
>> So no response to the RIAA curve question?
>
>
> I know very little about it. What I do know is that there is something
> about the turntable preamp stage that knocks the frequency response out
> of whack and the RIAA standard is suppose to eq it back to flat again.
> Not sure of the specifics, but it sounds good to me.

Um, right.

Do a little research and get back to us.




Hint: preemphasis and deemphasis

[reddred]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> reddred > wrote:
> >
> >"P Stamler" > wrote
> >>
> >> Meanwhile we're stuck with two media that suck. I mostly prefer CDs
> >because,
> >> when well-made, the ways in which they suck are subtle, whereas the
ways
> >in
> >> which LPs suck are gross. At least after they've been around a while.
> >
> >I always figured the people that liked vinyl better just prefer the sound
of
> >the RIAA curve.
>
> The RIAA curve should have no sound. That's the point.
> --scott

I thought it had to do with optimizing the cutting process.

jb

[Rob Adelman]

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

> Um, right.
>
> Do a little research and get back to us.

>
>
> Hint: preemphasis and deemphasis

Ok, so I am close. So the eq is knocked out of whack on purpose before
the album is cut? Why are you so concerned that I know all the specifics?

[EggHd]

<< Why are you so concerned that I know all the specifics? >>

Could it be because you made a reference to what it did in a post? I simply
asked based on your post.







---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:
> << Why are you so concerned that I know all the specifics? >>
>
> Could it be because you made a reference to what it did in a post? I simply
> asked based on your post.

Ok, true. But I didn't claim to know a lot of detail. I said:

"the RIAA curve should make the overall frequency response closer to flat".

Pretty general, but not incorrect,is it?

[Scott Dorsey]

EggHd > wrote:
>So no response to the RIAA curve question?

As to what it's for?

It does two things: first of all it means the noise floor is flat, and
secondly it means the record is cut constant-velocity rather than constant
displacement, so low end doesn't cause huge groove modulations. This makes
the clipping point about equal for all frequencies too.

Since it's emphasized in recording and de-emphasized in playback, the total
system response is flat. On the other hand, it means that some fairly high
precision stuff is required in the preamp to make sure it really is flat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:

> I simply
> asked based on your post.

But your right, sometimes I know just enough to be dangerous..

Good thing you're there to keep me straight :)

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>
>Ok, so I am close. So the eq is knocked out of whack on purpose before
>the album is cut? Why are you so concerned that I know all the specifics?

HINT: if you use a ceramic cartridge, you don't need RIAA de-emphasis.
Why?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob Adelman]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> HINT: if you use a ceramic cartridge, you don't need RIAA de-emphasis.
> Why?

Ok this helped me out a bit.
<http://www.shellac.org/wams/wequal.html>

It also seems to show there is a different standard between record
companies. But I still don't get why a ceramic cartridge doesn't need
it. Unless it is because they have poor high frequency response anyway?

-Rob

[Rob Adelman]

Rob Adelman wrote:


> It also seems to show there is a different standard between record
> companies.

Oops, I just noticed that was before 1955.

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> HINT: if you use a ceramic cartridge, you don't need RIAA de-emphasis.
>> Why?
>
>Ok this helped me out a bit.
><http://www.shellac.org/wams/wequal.html>
>
>It also seems to show there is a different standard between record
>companies.

No, in the days before the RIAA standard (what was that, 1954 or so?)
there were different standards, which is why if you play 78s or very
early LPs, you need a special preamp with adjustable turnover and slope
on the de-emphasis filters, so you can perfectly match the original filters.

>But I still don't get why a ceramic cartridge doesn't need
>it. Unless it is because they have poor high frequency response anyway?

How is a piezo element different than a magnetic pickup?
Hint2: the output of one is equal to the derivative of the output of the other.
One has an output directly proportional to position, the other has an output
directly proportional to a change in position.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Yeah, but we're talking (in the case of CD) about standards promulgated by one
> of the biggest manufacturers of audio hardware, unviersally accepted by
> manufacturers, with an installed base of hundreds of millions of players and
> billions upon billions of discs. And copies of the standard widely distributed.
> Not to mention patent records.

Yes, but we're also talking 100 years. Got any Visicalc spreadsheets
that you can still read? That was from Apple, and it was only 20 years
ago.

> If things reach such a state that we can't get hold of a copy of the Red Book,
> we'll have also reached a state where we probably have nowhere to plug a player
> in any more.

This is part of the problem. How easy is it today to find an MDM disc
controller? That was the IBM PC, and only 20 years ago.

> The later standards aren't quite as widely accepted, so aren't as widely
> distributed, but there are still copies in major technical libraries and patent
> offices.

Maybe it's folklore, but the word is that the IRS has tapes of tax
data that they can no longer read. It's not that the tapes have lost
the data, they don't have (either) hardware or software.

> Still, it'd probably be useful to deposit in the Library of Congress or some
> other archive copies, in relatively stable form (like acid-free paper), of all
> technical standards used in making recordings, from Edison's patents to Bell
> Labs' electrical recording system to DVD and SACD. Shouldn't take up more than
> a couple of file drawers at most. In fact, this might be a good project for the
> AES to undertake. (Hope they include a good set of 78 playback curves.)

Yup, that would be a good project for a time capsule.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Jason Vigo]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Yeah, but we're talking (in the case of CD) about standards promulgated by one
> > of the biggest manufacturers of audio hardware, unviersally accepted by
> > manufacturers, with an installed base of hundreds of millions of players and
> > billions upon billions of discs. And copies of the standard widely distributed.
> > Not to mention patent records.
>
> Yes, but we're also talking 100 years. Got any Visicalc spreadsheets
> that you can still read? That was from Apple, and it was only 20 years
> ago.
>

Sure.

http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm

> > If things reach such a state that we can't get hold of a copy of the Red Book,
> > we'll have also reached a state where we probably have nowhere to plug a player
> > in any more.
>
> This is part of the problem. How easy is it today to find an MDM disc
> controller? That was the IBM PC, and only 20 years ago.

Easy enough.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22IBM+PC%22+XT+mfm+controller

There will always be nostalgists and collectors around, and nothing else you've mentioned so far even approaches the
ubiquity of devices that can read audio compact discs. I would think they number at least a billion worldwide --

* Standard CD players
* Portable CD players
* Boom boxes
* Car CD players
* DVD players
* CD and DVD drives in nearly every desktop, notebook, and server computer made since the mid-1990s

A typical office worker in the U.S., Japan, Europe, etc. will have at least one of these within reach
at work, at home, and in between. A hundred years has nothing on this kind of installed base.

[Xoreth]

Jason Vigo wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>>In article > writes:
>>
>>Yes, but we're also talking 100 years. Got any Visicalc spreadsheets
>>that you can still read? That was from Apple, and it was only 20 years
>>ago.
>>
>
>
> Sure.
>
> http://www.bricklin.com/history/vcexecutable.htm
>
>
>>>If things reach such a state that we can't get hold of a copy of the Red Book,
>>>we'll have also reached a state where we probably have nowhere to plug a player
>>>in any more.
>>
>>This is part of the problem. How easy is it today to find an MDM disc
>>controller? That was the IBM PC, and only 20 years ago.
>
>
> Easy enough.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22IBM+PC%22+XT+mfm+controller

Beautiful stuff.

Here's a challange for any who can be bothered. Let's see who can find
the blue-prints, schematic, technical specifications, emulator, etc.,
for the most obscure, oldest, most forgotten piece of audio related kit
EVER.
On the 'Net.

Winner gets major R.A.P points, and the right to fart in the general
direction of Lusers.

;)

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1066861189k@trad
> In article >
> writes:
>
>> Yeah, but we're talking (in the case of CD) about standards
>> promulgated by one of the biggest manufacturers of audio hardware,
>> unviersally accepted by manufacturers, with an installed base of
>> hundreds of millions of players and billions upon billions of discs.
>> And copies of the standard widely distributed. Not to mention patent
>> records.
>
> Yes, but we're also talking 100 years. Got any Visicalc spreadsheets
> that you can still read? That was from Apple, and it was only 20 years
> ago.

Both Visicalc and Excel XP and just about every spread sheet in-between
supports .DIF format.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message

> EggHd wrote:
>> So no response to the RIAA curve question?
>
> I know very little about it. What I do know is that there is something
> about the turntable preamp stage that knocks the frequency response
> out of whack and the RIAA standard is suppose to eq it back to flat
> again. Not sure of the specifics, but it sounds good to me.

No, its something about how the LP stamper was mastered that "knocks the
frequency response out of shape".

Why is it that the more one knows about how LPs are made, the more one
doubts the claims for audible superiority that are made for it?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message


> So even though technically the dynamic range of CD may be greater, I
> can't listen to a CD anywhere near as loud as I can an album, so to my
> ears, this makes the dynamic range of the album much greater and more
> live sounding.

Basically, you're saying that dynamic range compression of live music makes
it sound more live.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message

> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Um, right.
>>
>> Do a little research and get back to us.
>
>>
>>
>> Hint: preemphasis and deemphasis
>
> Ok, so I am close.

About a million miles away.

> So the eq is knocked out of whack on purpose before
> the album is cut?

Bingo.

>Why are you so concerned that I know all the specifics?

The more we educate you, the more likely you'll start making sense.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> It also seems to show there is a different standard between record
> companies.

The RIAA curve supposedly fixed that, but prior to the establishment
of that standard, different companies used their own curves. It was
pretty common for high end hi-fir preamps of the '60's to have several
switchable phono equalization curves.

> But I still don't get why a ceramic cartridge doesn't need
> it. Unless it is because they have poor high frequency response anyway?

No, it's because a piezoelectric element (which a ceramic cartridge
uses) has its output voltage proportional to displacement. A magnetic
cartridge has its output proportional to velocity.

Think about the stylus moving in the groove. If the groove was the
same width for a low frequency as for a high frequency, the stylus
would have a higher velocity at the higher frequency since it has to
move faster to go the same groove width distance in each cycle. So a
magnetic cartridge would have a higher output at high frequencies. The
RIAA curve is the inverse of this.

A piezoelectric cartridge would have the same output at the low
frequency as the high frequency since the stylus moves the same amount
(equal groove widths) for each frequency. Hence no need for the RIAA
curve.






--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Rob Adelman]

Thanks Mike, this helps. Question though, how come the vinyl couldn't be
cut differently to compansate for this rather than eq on playback?
Though I suppose then you would have the inverse problem with a ceramic
cartridge?

Mike Rivers wrote:

> No, it's because a piezoelectric element (which a ceramic cartridge
> uses) has its output voltage proportional to displacement. A magnetic
> cartridge has its output proportional to velocity.
>
> Think about the stylus moving in the groove. If the groove was the
> same width for a low frequency as for a high frequency, the stylus
> would have a higher velocity at the higher frequency since it has to
> move faster to go the same groove width distance in each cycle. So a
> magnetic cartridge would have a higher output at high frequencies. The
> RIAA curve is the inverse of this.
>
> A piezoelectric cartridge would have the same output at the low
> frequency as the high frequency since the stylus moves the same amount
> (equal groove widths) for each frequency. Hence no need for the RIAA
> curve.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>Thanks Mike, this helps. Question though, how come the vinyl couldn't be
>cut differently to compansate for this rather than eq on playback?

You're asking the question backwards. The EQ exists to make it easier to
cut the record. EQ is easy. Wide excursion is hard.

Incidentally, emphasis on CDs is also similar in process, though in that
case the idea is to remove high end distortion products. Not that anyone
much uses emphasis any more.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Rob Adelman]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> You're asking the question backwards. The EQ exists to make it easier to
> cut the record. EQ is easy. Wide excursion is hard.

Ok, I see. So does this process (i.y.o.) add a sound signiture of it's
own as was suggested a few posts back?

-Rob

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > Yes, but we're also talking 100 years. Got any Visicalc spreadsheets
> > that you can still read? That was from Apple, and it was only 20 years
> > ago.
>
> Respectfully, I feel that everybody is missing one very important
> component in this whole theoretical calculation. The Internet.
>
> Using the above as an example, I bet it would take all of 2 minutes
> worth of Googling to track down an enthusiast that has the means and/or
> equipment to handle "Visicalc spreadsheets" and would be only too happy
> to assist, as is the nature of enthusiasts. Not to mention the hard-core
> enthusiasts who have probably already written emulation programs.

This is now. Will the Internet be around in 100 years? The Internet is
today's Citizen's Band only you can't find out where the smokeys are
in time to avoid them. There however may be enthusiasts so all is not
lost, but much will be difficult and expensive and may not be worth
while.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> There will always be nostalgists and collectors around, and nothing else you've
> mentioned so far even approaches the
> ubiquity of devices that can read audio compact discs. I would think they
> number at least a billion worldwide --
>
> * Standard CD players
> * Portable CD players
> * Boom boxes
> * Car CD players
> * DVD players
> * CD and DVD drives in nearly every desktop, notebook, and server computer made
> since the mid-1990s
>
> A typical office worker in the U.S., Japan, Europe, etc. will have at least one
> of these within reach
> at work, at home, and in between. A hundred years has nothing on this kind of
> installed base.

Neither of us will be around then to know what a typical office
worker will have within reach, but I sincerely doubt that the CD
format will be all that common. Just don't leave anything that you
really want those in the future to hear buried on a CD. Be sure it's
on a couple of other formats, and that these are refreshed every now
and then, replacing those with a doubtful future with whatever is the
current darling format. That's the only way to be sure your magnum
opus will survive. And then hope that somebody cares.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Both Visicalc and Excel XP and just about every spread sheet in-between
> supports .DIF format.

Is this the "native" format for Visicalc? I know it isn't for Excel.

So if you just happened to save your Visicalc spreadsheet in the DIF
format, then it could be read by another program. But who thinks of
that 100 years before it's needed?

I have a really great Lotus spreadsheet for a general ledger that I
use to keep my business records. I've been using it for years. I tried
to run it in Excel (which is supposed to be able to read Lotus) but
the macros don't run properly. I don't have the patience to try to
rewrite them (I didn't write them inititally, it was a freeware
application) so I keep a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 (my old DOS version)
running. It's (Lotus) backed up here on floppy disk and CD just in
case. But I don't really expect to be using it for maybe more than 10
years, so I guess I'm safe.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Thanks Mike, this helps. Question though, how come the vinyl couldn't be
> cut differently to compansate for this rather than eq on playback?

The cutter works like the pickup - a constant current through the
cutter head produces a constant velocity, rather than a constant width
of the groove. Because of this, the grooves for the high frequencies
would be narrow without equalization, and the highs would be prone to
noise on playback. The situation is even worse because there's less
high frequency energy than low in most music.

By boosting the highs when cutting, the groove width stays roughly the
same for the same amplitude of highs as lows. But if this is played
back with a velocity-sensitive pickup, the highs would be too loud.
The equalization brings them back to normal.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1066924572k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Both Visicalc and Excel XP and just about every spread sheet in-between
> > supports .DIF format.
>
> Is this the "native" format for Visicalc? I know it isn't for Excel.

Good question. It's been a long time since I used Visicalc.

> So if you just happened to save your Visicalc spreadsheet in the DIF
> format, then it could be read by another program. But who thinks of
> that 100 years before it's needed?
>
> I have a really great Lotus spreadsheet for a general ledger that I
> use to keep my business records. I've been using it for years. I tried
> to run it in Excel (which is supposed to be able to read Lotus) but
> the macros don't run properly. I don't have the patience to try to
> rewrite them (I didn't write them inititally, it was a freeware
> application) so I keep a copy of Lotus 1-2-3 (my old DOS version)
> running. It's (Lotus) backed up here on floppy disk and CD just in
> case. But I don't really expect to be using it for maybe more than 10
> years, so I guess I'm safe.

Macros are a problem.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Rob Adelman > wrote:

> >Thanks Mike, this helps. Question though, how come the vinyl couldn't be
> >cut differently to compensate for this rather than eq on playback?

> You're asking the question backwards. The EQ exists to make it easier to
> cut the record. EQ is easy. Wide excursion is hard.

My understanding is that the biggest problem with wide excursion within
reasonable limits, is that it eats up playing time.

However, if LPs were recorded flat, the amplitude of 20 Hz signals might be
about 20 dB higher than it is now, compared to 1 KHz, and that would be a
BIG problem. It would be unreasonable.

The RIAA curve was developed to match the dynamic range requirements of
music to the dynamic range capabilities of the LP medium. One problem with
the RIAA curve is that it presumes that the signal being recorded has a
certain spectral content. When musical tastes changed, this assumption
became less valid.

> Incidentally, emphasis on CDs is also similar in process, though in that
> case the idea is to remove high end distortion products.

Distortion has nothing to do with CD preemphasis. There is no distortion in
a properly-dithered digital recording and the developers of the CD knew
this. The pre-emphasis was provided to reduce noise.

> Not that anyone much uses emphasis any more.

Most people figured out that in actual use recording studios, microphones
and most consoles are nosier than the CD format.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

James Perrett wrote:

> We're talking 100 or 200 years here so this isn't really archaeology.
> Think about the technology of 100 years ago and how much we know about
> that. Records existed then and we can still play recordings made in that
> era.

Yeah, but what was in the library at Alexandria?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Jason Vigo wrote:

> I would think they number at least a billion worldwide --
>
> * Standard CD players
> * Portable CD players
> * Boom boxes
> * Car CD players
> * DVD players
> * CD and DVD drives in nearly every desktop, notebook, and server computer
> made since the mid-1990s
>
> A typical office worker in the U.S., Japan, Europe, etc. will have at
> least one of these within reach at work, at home, and in between. A
> hundred years has nothing on this kind of installed base.

How mqany of those devices have been shown to run a hundred years after
their manufacture?

--
ha

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>My understanding is that the biggest problem with wide excursion within
>reasonable limits, is that it eats up playing time.

This is true.

>However, if LPs were recorded flat, the amplitude of 20 Hz signals might be
>about 20 dB higher than it is now, compared to 1 KHz, and that would be a
>BIG problem. It would be unreasonable.

Right. Also, you should know that the noise floor would not be flat either.
The RIAA curve also helps to normalize the noise floor.

>The RIAA curve was developed to match the dynamic range requirements of
>music to the dynamic range capabilities of the LP medium. One problem with
>the RIAA curve is that it presumes that the signal being recorded has a
>certain spectral content. When musical tastes changed, this assumption
>became less valid.

This is true, but the assumption is still fairly close. And you're still
glossing over the whole notion of constant displacement vs. constant velocity
which is important.

>> Incidentally, emphasis on CDs is also similar in process, though in that
>> case the idea is to remove high end distortion products.
>
>Distortion has nothing to do with CD preemphasis. There is no distortion in
>a properly-dithered digital recording and the developers of the CD knew
>this. The pre-emphasis was provided to reduce noise.

Early converters were not only noisy, but had serious nonlinearity issues.
Emphasizing the top end in recording and then de-emphasizing it on playback
means that the higher frequency distortion products get reduced as well
as high frequency noise.

Thank God that modern converters sound better than the PCM-1610 did.

>> Not that anyone much uses emphasis any more.
>
>Most people figured out that in actual use recording studios, microphones
>and most consoles are nosier than the CD format.

This is the case today, but it wasn't the case with the PCM-1610. Emphasis
had a place, and I was pretty gung-ho about it (check out some of the arguments
I got into with Gabe Weiner in the eighties here) but that place is gone and
that time is over.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Pooh Bear]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Early converters were not only noisy, but had serious nonlinearity issues.

Oh yes !

>
> Emphasizing the top end in recording and then de-emphasizing it on playback
> means that the higher frequency distortion products get reduced as well
> as high frequency noise.

As also used in good old tape recording. Presumably to help 'normalise' the noise
floor in this instance as you have commented.

I even have *one* CD ( classical ) encoded with emphasis on. My player has an
indicator to flag it.

Anyone know if this is still common practice with classical ? I don't have enough
material to form a valid view.

>
> Thank God that modern converters sound better than the PCM-1610 did.
>

Oh yes ! $2.50 for a stereo 24 bit codec these days. The manufacturers admit that
the last 4 bits are just 'for show' but at least the preceding ones should be
accurate.

Oversampling made a huge difference too. I didn't buy a CD player 'til that came
along. They all sounded 'harsh' ? for lack of a better description. The dual
Burr-Brown matched converters were nice too.


Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
> > Thanks Mike, this helps. Question though, how come the vinyl couldn't be
> > cut differently to compansate for this rather than eq on playback?
>
> The cutter works like the pickup - a constant current through the
> cutter head produces a constant velocity, rather than a constant width
> of the groove. Because of this, the grooves for the high frequencies
> would be narrow without equalization, and the highs would be prone to
> noise on playback. The situation is even worse because there's less
> high frequency energy than low in most music.
>
> By boosting the highs when cutting, the groove width stays roughly the
> same for the same amplitude of highs as lows. But if this is played
> back with a velocity-sensitive pickup, the highs would be too loud.
> The equalization brings them back to normal.

For velocity sensitive pickups ( normal ) there is a 6dB / octave rise in output vs frequency.

Yet the RIAA curve averages about 4dB / octave.

Hence the cutter has to do an 'inverse RIAA' anyway. So the cut highs are marginally less
amplitude than lows anyway. Easy to see this when looking at vinyl. Bass heavy grooves are
clearly visible due to modulation.


Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> In article > writes:
>
> > Whenever someone brings up the "vinyl vs CD" question I have the following
> > thought: What if you had never heard either format and you were brought into a
> > room and allowed to listen to a song through each format. When you heard the
> > surface noise of the vinyl I think the battle would be over already but beyond
> > that, the increased distortion in the last minute or so of each side and the
> > inconvenience of the short recording time on each side plus the fact that
> > records (at least the ones I had) wore out fast enough to be considerably
> > inferior sounding after a year or so-- all that would push most people to
> > choose CDs I think.
>
> That was not the point of the question.
>
> If this was the year 2104 and two round objects were brought into your
> laborator by an archeologist, one black with grooves on it and the
> other bright and silvery with some diffraction lines on it when you
> held it just right (let's say this was a very well preserved CD, not
> one where the metal had separated from the plastic), and were told
> that there was music from early in the previous century on them, which
> one do you think you could get playing first?
>
> Bonus question: How long do you think it would take you to figure out
> how to get the other one to play, and how would you go about it?
>
> The question isn't about which one would sound better in 100 years,
> it's about which one would be recoverable. There may not be record
> players or CD players 100 years from now, so you'd have to reverse
> engineer each one.

Well, the phonograph is well historically documented and simple to implement.

The CD, whilst potentially more durable in some ways is a product of its time. Will
CD players still be around in 20 yrs ? Maybe not as we know them. Presumably DVD/SACD
combo with backwards compatability.

Want to 'reverse engineer' that ?

I wouldn't kill vinyl off too soon. Apparently, I'm told, there is a now a *shortage*
of pressing plant capacity !

Then again, there's those shellac 78s. I had a stack once - where did they go ?


Graham

[Scott Dorsey]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
>I even have *one* CD ( classical ) encoded with emphasis on. My player has an
>indicator to flag it.
>
>Anyone know if this is still common practice with classical ? I don't have enough
>material to form a valid view.

Nope, not at all. It was a good idea 20 years ago, but today it really
isn't needed since we really do have an outrageous 96 dB of range to work
with, and since CD players are not all very good about implementing de-emphasis.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Well, the phonograph is well historically documented and simple to implement.

This is why I believe that as long as a phonograph record physically
survives (or the pieces can be put together) it will always be
playable. You can do a rough playback with a very simple apparatus,
and can improve on that once you understand how the process works.
Same with analog magnetic tape though it's going to be less obvious
(if the technology has been lost) to figure out what it is and what to
do with it. Drag a piece of tape across a coil of wire, amplify the
current generated in the coil, and you'll get sound. Pull it at the
right speed and you'll get sound at the right pitch. No problem to
build something to do that assuming we don't revert to the stone age.

> The CD, whilst potentially more durable in some ways is a product of its time.
> Will
> CD players still be around in 20 yrs ?

Probably, but probably not in 50 years. They're too inexpensive for
people to keep. If you paid $100 for a phonograph in 1950, it was not
only a solid piece of machinery, it was a solid piece of furniture,
and something worth hanging on to for quite a long time. (Although
eventually the record player mechanism, though probalby still working,
will go into the attic and the furniture will be used to store dishes
or photos.)

> Want to 'reverse engineer' that ?

That's my point. How would someone go about reverse engineering a CD
player from a CD? You don't need a very high resolution first pass
system to get sound off a phonograph record or analog tape, but shine
a flashlight on a CD and you'll never hear anything resembling music.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Rob Adelman]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>
>>Early converters were not only noisy, but had serious nonlinearity issues.
>
>
> Oh yes !

But didn't they still show perfect frequency response on the "chart"?

[William Sommerwerck]

I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic about the "non-playability" of CDs 20 or even
200 years from now.

The CD is the size it is because it's easy to handle. It's unlikely the size of
optical media is going to change in the next couple of centuries. They might
very well be replaced by something different, but, if they remain, they will
have the same diameter, and will almost certainly have the same spindle size.

Furthermore, it's easy to provide reverse compatibility for "obsolete" media at
almost no cost. So, if 500 years from, we're still using plastic optical disks,
they'll almost certainly be able to handle CDs.

[William Sommerwerck]

> But didn't they still show perfect frequency response on the "chart"?

He's referring to conversion linearity, not frequency response.

[Rob Adelman]

William Sommerwerck wrote:


> The CD is the size it is because it's easy to handle. It's unlikely the size of
> optical media is going to change in the next couple of centuries. They might
> very well be replaced by something different, but, if they remain, they will
> have the same diameter, and will almost certainly have the same spindle size.

I have thought for many years that eventually we will have chip players.
No moving parts and you could even have one built into your watch.
Just plug in a chip, and your headphones, and away you go. With
microchip technology constantly improving I think this will one day be a
reality. Long before a couple of centuries.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The CD is the size it is because it's easy to handle. It's unlikely the
>> size of optical media is going to change in the next couple of centuries.
>> They might very well be replaced by something different, but, if they
>> remain, they will have the same diameter, and will almost certainly
>> have the same spindle size.

> I have thought for many years that eventually we will have chip players.
> No moving parts and you could even have one built into your watch.
> Just plug in a chip, and your headphones, and away you go. With
> microchip technology constantly improving I think this will one day
> be a reality. Long before a couple of centuries.

I used to pooh-pooh the idea of chip technology, as it seemed unlikely that a
chip -- however cheap -- would ever be able to match the cost of a
pressed-plastic disk. This is especially true of DVD and Blu-Ray recordings.

I still feel that way (though who knows what amazing piece of technology might
come along). However, _music_ optical discs might very well disappear, replaced
with direct downloads.

My opinion stands. As long as optical media exist, you _will_ be able to play
CDs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Early converters were not only noisy, but had serious nonlinearity
>>> issues.
>>
>>
>> Oh yes !
>
> But didn't they still show perfect frequency response on the "chart"?

not at all.

[Charlie Hubbard]

On 23 Oct 2003 18:08:35 -0400, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

>The cutter works like the pickup - a constant current through the
>cutter head produces a constant velocity, rather than a constant width
>of the groove. Because of this, the grooves for the high frequencies
>would be narrow without equalization, and the highs would be prone to
>noise on playback. The situation is even worse because there's less
>high frequency energy than low in most music.
>
>By boosting the highs when cutting, the groove width stays roughly the
>same for the same amplitude of highs as lows. But if this is played
>back with a velocity-sensitive pickup, the highs would be too loud.
>The equalization brings them back to normal.

For any that are interested...

On advice from one of the forum's phonograph gurus, I recently got a
copy of the "book" (actually a series of articles from various sources
compiled into a single volume) "The LP is Back!". It has two good
articles on disc equalization.

"Audio Fundamentals: About Equalization" by Reginald Williamson
"Disc Recording Equalization Demystified" by Gary A. Galo

The Galo article in particular is very in-depth and easy to follow.
If you're curious about this topic, I would definitely recommend a
copy of "The LP is Back!". It can be purchased online for about 8
bucks (USD)

http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/books/bkaa49.htm



Charlie Hubbard

[Kurt Albershardt]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> I wouldn't be quite so pessimistic about the "non-playability" of CDs 20 or even
> 200 years from now.
>
> The CD is the size it is because it's easy to handle. It's unlikely the size of
> optical media is going to change in the next couple of centuries. They might
> very well be replaced by something different, but, if they remain, they will
> have the same diameter, and will almost certainly have the same spindle size.
>
> Furthermore, it's easy to provide reverse compatibility for "obsolete" media at
> almost no cost.

Agreed up to this point...



> if 500 years from, we're still using plastic optical disks

I think we'll be onto holographic or quantum storage systems well before
the end of this century, in which storage densities we can barely
imagine now will be commonplace.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I think we'll be onto holographic or quantum storage systems
> well before the end of this century, in which storage densities
> we can barely imagine now will be commonplace.

I can imagine buying a crystal with "everything ever recorded in a particular
genre" for $1K or so.

[Rob Adelman]

William Sommerwerck wrote:


> I can imagine buying a crystal with "everything ever recorded in a particular
> genre" for $1K or so.


But at least the artists would get paid. Everyone would have to buy
their own. I couldn't see the average person being able to duplicate it.

[P Stamler]

>> But didn't they still show perfect frequency response on the "chart"?
>
>not at all.

Many of them did -- frequency response +/- 0.1dB out to 20kHz. The frequency
response wasn't the problem. Nonlinear converters, badly-designed filters and
jitter were BIG problems.

Peace,
Paul

[Rob Adelman]

P Stamler wrote:

> Many of them did -- frequency response +/- 0.1dB out to 20kHz. The frequency
> response wasn't the problem. Nonlinear converters, badly-designed filters and
> jitter were BIG problems.

Couldn't nonlinearity show up as abnormalities in the frequency response?

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I can imagine buying a crystal with "everything ever recorded in a particular
> genre" for $1K or so.

Tax and license fees extra, of course.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Couldn't nonlinearity show up as abnormalities in the frequency response?

Sure, but a few percent distortion of various types won't show up as
frequency response anomalies. You put in one frequency, you get out
several frequencies, but as long as the amplitude of the frequency out
that's the same as the frequncy in is linear, that's flat frequency
response.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[LeBaron & Alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> It's unlikely the size of
> optical media is going to change in the next couple of centuries.

It's just as unlikely the present paradigm will survive even another
twenty years. Whole new concepts will come at us and they will reside in
media as different from any present optical format as is a CD different
from an LP. And you know how well LP's play on CD players. <g>

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message

> P Stamler wrote:

>> Many of them did -- frequency response +/- 0.1dB out to 20kHz.

I've never seen this kind of analog-digital performance in legacy digital
audio gear and I've looked pretty hard. Especially the 20 KHz part.

Over the past 3-5 years or so I've started seeing a lot of converters this
good or better, but it has taken quite a bit of time since the beginning of
digital audio for that to happen, except at great expense.

Of course, it's nothing special to have response far better than this as
long as you stay in the digital domain. But, in the digital domain it's
common to have zero amounts of everything bad and 100% of everything good.
No noise, no distortion, no problems with frequency response variations.

>> The frequency response wasn't the problem.

The frequency response of the analog filters in the CDP-101 (Sony's first
production CD player) was bad enough that positive results were obtained in
published DBTs based on this factor. It's been a long time since I've seen
test reports on the earlier digital stuff, PCM F1 and so on, but I doubt it
was any better.

> Nonlinear converters,

One of the worst cases of this was the 3M digital recorder that had field
adjustments for converter linearity, and needed them to be attended to quite
frequently. However, by the time of the CDP-101, the digital player was far
from being the most nonlinear part of the system, even ignoring the
speakers.

In my travels I found some CD players from the mid-late 80's that had
problems with high frequency IM.

> badly-designed filters

We already treated frequency response.

> and jitter were BIG problems.

Again, the CDP 101 and sequels had no issues in this area. However there
have been players from later times that had problems in this regard. This
happened because after the CD hit big time there was a lot of pressure to
get players out cheap, and some of them were too cheap.

However, the worst audible fault of CD players has historically related to
how they handled suboptimal discs.

> Couldn't nonlinearity show up as abnormalities in the frequency
> response?

One percent of nonlinear distortion has a maximum effect of about 0.1 dB.
Even $30 CD players have nonlinear distortion on the order of 0.05% or less,
so now we're talking real-world effects on the order of 0.01 dB. Response
flat within 0.2 dB or better is audibly perfect.

[P Stamler]

>>> Many of them did -- frequency response +/- 0.1dB out to 20kHz.
>
>I've never seen this kind of analog-digital performance in legacy digital
>audio gear and I've looked pretty hard. Especially the 20 KHz part.

When Sony's first consumer DAT recorders came out, one of the mags -- I think
Stereophile, but I could be wrong -- came out with a review where they did a
shootout of the flagship model against the 1630. The 1630's frequency response
was, if I remember correctly, ruler-flat. It was a stinko machine, but its
problems were not frequency-response related.

>However, the worst audible fault of CD players has historically related to
>how they handled suboptimal discs.

Just to clarify -- I wasn't talking primarily about CD players, but about
recorders, which did have a lot of problems with jitter, non-optimal filters
and converter nonlinearity.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"P Stamler" > wrote in message


>>>> Many of them did -- frequency response +/- 0.1dB out to 20kHz.

>> I've never seen this kind of analog-digital performance in legacy
>> digital audio gear and I've looked pretty hard. Especially the 20
>> KHz part.

> When Sony's first consumer DAT recorders came out, one of the mags --
> I think Stereophile, but I could be wrong -- came out with a review
> where they did a shootout of the flagship model against the 1630. The
> 1630's frequency response was, if I remember correctly, ruler-flat.
> It was a stinko machine, but its problems were not frequency-response
> related.

I have different recollections of the 1630 analog converters.

"Ruler-flat" generally means something different today, than it meant 20 or
so years ago.

AFAIK the 1630 also had digital I/O and there were published test results
for this mode of operation, as well. This would be a likely source of
frequency response curves with 0.1 dB or better performance.

[P Stamler]

>"Ruler-flat" generally means something different today, than it meant 20 or
>so years ago.
>
>AFAIK the 1630 also had digital I/O and there were published test results
>for this mode of operation, as well. This would be a likely source of
>frequency response curves with 0.1 dB or better performance.

Nope -- it was analog in, analog out. With pre-emphasis switched off (switched
on it wasn't so hot). The response was flat +/- 0.1dB, which is close enough to
ruler-flat for my definition.

Peace,
Paul

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message


> P Stamler wrote:

>> Many of them did -- frequency response +/- 0.1dB out to 20kHz.

I've gone back and measured a modest amount of legacy equipment, none even
came close to being +/- 0.1 dB out to 20 KHz (44.1 KHz sampling). What I did
see is lots of ripples and sharp cutoffs well below 20 KHz.

>> The frequency response wasn't the problem. Nonlinear converters,

Some yes, some no

>> badly-designed filters

....which give frequency response problems.

>> and jitter were BIG problems.

As a rule, legacy equipment had very good jitter performance.




> Couldn't nonlinearity show up as abnormalities in the frequency
> response?

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1066912851k@trad...
>
> Neither of us will be around then to know what a typical office
> worker will have within reach, but I sincerely doubt that the CD
> format will be all that common. Just don't leave anything that you
> really want those in the future to hear buried on a CD. Be sure it's
> on a couple of other formats, and that these are refreshed every now
> and then, replacing those with a doubtful future with whatever is the
> current darling format. That's the only way to be sure your magnum
> opus will survive. And then hope that somebody cares.
>
There are two points that everyone seems to be missing. Data on a cd is
digital. It's 0s and 1s. Is there any reason to believe that binary would be
a lost concept in 100 or 200 years? Is there any reason to believe that data
won't be read and written using light in 100-200 years, or at least the
concept will still be around? So, the concept of a cd wouldn't be that
difficult to reverse engineer, given that one side is shiny and looks like
it might be meant to reflect light. Once you get to that point, it's just a
matter of translation. It's a bunch of numbers... maybe the numbers describe
a waveform?... etc. To you, an audio engineer, that you can put a needle to
vinyl and see the waveform may be obvious, but to me, a software guy,
shining a light through a pattern of filled and empty spaces and seeing
binary data is obvious.

The second and more important point that you're missing is that because
the data is digital it is easily converted to an infinite number of formats
without loss, so who cares if the format goes away? If you care about it,
you'll have transferred it to a newer format, or even better a fluid format
that can change with the medium, long before then anyway. There is no real
transition, if it's in one kind of format today and the tech changes, simply
convert it to the new format, copy it to the new medium, it only takes a
matter of seconds (depending on the amount of material we're talking about,
of course).

The reason you guys can't use your old spreadsheets anymore isn't
because it's impossible to reverse engineer them, it's because it's not
worth the effort to you to get them into a usable format. Most of those
spreadsheets could probably be mostly salvaged by reading them in a text
editor, it's just not worth the time. However, in the analogy of an
archeological find and attempting to reverse engineer the tech to get at the
information, it would be worth the time and could be accomplished, I think,
with relative ease.

ryanm

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> There are two points that everyone seems to be missing. Data on a cd is
> digital. It's 0s and 1s. Is there any reason to believe that binary would be
> a lost concept in 100 or 200 years?

No, but it's quite likely that the structure of a data fram on a CD
will be lost. If you don't know that, then all you have is a bunch of
ones and zeros. Some of those represent the value of the sample
(direct number? 2's complement? 1's complement? big endian? little
endian? etc.) and others represent all sorts of things that don't have
anything to do with the audio, but which make the CD player work like
a CD player. Those could be ignored when trying to extract the program
material from a disk, but it would take some study to figure out how
the data was framed if you didn't know where to start.

> So, the concept of a cd wouldn't be that
> difficult to reverse engineer, given that one side is shiny and looks like
> it might be meant to reflect light. Once you get to that point, it's just a
> matter of translation. It's a bunch of numbers... maybe the numbers describe
> a waveform?... etc.

How would you go about it? What would be your first step? Play
engineer for a while and see what occurs to you.

> To you, an audio engineer, that you can put a needle to
> vinyl and see the waveform may be obvious, but to me, a software guy,
> shining a light through a pattern of filled and empty spaces and seeing
> binary data is obvious.

The difference is that there's only one kind of data on a mechanical
disk. Play it and that's all there is. How do you go about separating
out the audio from the control and status bits? Maybe to a software
guy, there are known techniques for doing this. If so, tell us. If
not, tell us how you'd go about inventing those techniques.

> The second and more important point that you're missing is that because
> the data is digital it is easily converted to an infinite number of formats
> without loss, so who cares if the format goes away?

Someone who hasn't converted it before it goes away.

> If you care about it,
> you'll have transferred it to a newer format, or even better a fluid format
> that can change with the medium, long before then anyway.

That's the key. If you care enough about it to keep it in a form that
can be played with whatever the current technology is at the time,
then it doesn't matter what that format is. Of course a format that's
replicable without errors is desirable, and that points to digital
technology. But what happens more often that not is that this key step
is ignored entirely, or ignored for too long. People find a wire
recording in their attic that they think might have Great Grandpa's
voice on it and want to hear it. It's still possible today, but when
they find that the local audiophile doesn't have a wire recorder and
they have to send it off to an archival expert and pay a few
hundred bucks to get a CD copy, the project is usually abandoned (but
they ALWAYS keep the spool of wire).

> The reason you guys can't use your old spreadsheets anymore isn't
> because it's impossible to reverse engineer them, it's because it's not
> worth the effort to you to get them into a usable format.

Exactly. Few things are impossible if you have enough time or money,
but a couple of hours to re-copy a CD master on to a new format every
ten years will only take you (or your CD's heirs) only 20 hours to
make it playable for 100 years. But if someone forgets one generation,
it might take 400 hours to a healthy payment to someone who has what
you don't in order to get it into easily playable form again.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Glenn Booth]

Hi,

In message >, ryanm
> writes
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1066912851k@trad...
>>
>> Neither of us will be around then to know what a typical office
>> worker will have within reach, but I sincerely doubt that the CD
>> format will be all that common. Just don't leave anything that you
>> really want those in the future to hear buried on a CD. Be sure it's
>> on a couple of other formats, and that these are refreshed every now
>> and then, replacing those with a doubtful future with whatever is the
>> current darling format. That's the only way to be sure your magnum
>> opus will survive. And then hope that somebody cares.
>>
> There are two points that everyone seems to be missing. Data on a cd is
>digital. It's 0s and 1s. Is there any reason to believe that binary would be
>a lost concept in 100 or 200 years? Is there any reason to believe that data
>won't be read and written using light in 100-200 years, or at least the
>concept will still be around?

Our successors will probably still understand lasers, and still have the
red book, but they might scratch their heads at the many and varied copy
protection schemes they'll find on our 21st century silver discs.
They might also wonder why all those little silver frisbees look the
same, but come in a bunch of different flavours, and some of the boxes
lie about what's on the disc.

I wouldn't want the job of sorting red book CD from non-red book (but
with a CD label), DVD/A, DVD/V, DVD-R/W, DVD+R/W, CD-Rom (ISO9660, or
maybe not, and maybe with extensions like Joliet), Video CD, Cd-i, and a
bunch of others that I forgot. That's a whole rainbow of books, and some
of them never even got to be standards, or the standards got abused.

Keep backups. Lots of backups, in lots of formats :-)

Incidentally, I could read MFM, RLL and ESDI format discs without
leaving my office. It would mean installing a motherboard with ISA
slots, in one case EISA slots, and installing a 5 1/4 inch floppy drive
for drivers, so it would be a bitch. I could do it though. Maybe it's
time for a clear out.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

[Glenn Booth]

Hi,

In message >, ryanm
> writes
>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>news:znr1066912851k@trad...
>>
>> Neither of us will be around then to know what a typical office
>> worker will have within reach, but I sincerely doubt that the CD
>> format will be all that common. Just don't leave anything that you
>> really want those in the future to hear buried on a CD. Be sure it's
>> on a couple of other formats, and that these are refreshed every now
>> and then, replacing those with a doubtful future with whatever is the
>> current darling format. That's the only way to be sure your magnum
>> opus will survive. And then hope that somebody cares.
>>
> There are two points that everyone seems to be missing. Data on a cd is
>digital. It's 0s and 1s. Is there any reason to believe that binary would be
>a lost concept in 100 or 200 years? Is there any reason to believe that data
>won't be read and written using light in 100-200 years, or at least the
>concept will still be around?

Our successors will probably still understand lasers, and still have the
red book, but they might scratch their heads at the many and varied copy
protection schemes they'll find on our 21st century silver discs.
They might also wonder why all those little silver frisbees look the
same, but come in a bunch of different flavours, and some of the boxes
lie about what's on the disc.

I wouldn't want the job of sorting red book CD from non-red book (but
with a CD label), DVD/A, DVD/V, DVD-R/W, DVD+R/W, CD-Rom (ISO9660, or
maybe not, and maybe with extensions like Joliet), Video CD, Cd-i, and a
bunch of others that I forgot. That's a whole rainbow of books, and some
of them never even got to be standards, or the standards got abused.

Keep backups. Lots of backups, in lots of formats :-)

Incidentally, I could read MFM, RLL and ESDI format discs without
leaving my office. It would mean installing a motherboard with ISA
slots, in one case EISA slots, and installing a 5 1/4 inch floppy drive
for drivers, so it would be a bitch. I could do it though. Maybe it's
time for a clear out.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1067264929k@trad...
>
> How would you go about it? What would be your first step? Play
> engineer for a while and see what occurs to you.
>
Data formats are reasonably standardized from a general perspective. You
generally have raw data, surrounded by header and footer data to describe
the format, delimetters, etc. On a storage medium there is generally an
index of some kind at the top of the data space. The patterns aren't that
hard to recognize, although low level translation could be time consuming
(filtering control bits, switching between big/little endian etc). I could
probably write an app that read binary data and tried to discover the format
specs if I needed to, but that would be a tedious process.

> The difference is that there's only one kind of data on a mechanical
> disk. Play it and that's all there is. How do you go about separating
> out the audio from the control and status bits? Maybe to a software
> guy, there are known techniques for doing this. If so, tell us. If
> not, tell us how you'd go about inventing those techniques.
>
Standard decryption techniques should work. This is a whole field of
study which I've never had the time to go into as deeply as I would like,
but there are people who could probably decrypt something as simple as red
book cd data on paper in a matter of hours, let alone with the help of
software.

> Exactly. Few things are impossible if you have enough time or money,
> but a couple of hours to re-copy a CD master on to a new format every
> ten years will only take you (or your CD's heirs) only 20 hours to
> make it playable for 100 years. But if someone forgets one generation,
> it might take 400 hours to a healthy payment to someone who has what
> you don't in order to get it into easily playable form again.
>
Even better, keep it in a soft format so that all you have to do is copy
it to the storage space of your next playback device. You could feasibly
never use a physical medium again, and just continue to transfer the
material to whatever playback device you currently use.

ryanm

[ryanm]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1067264929k@trad...
>
> How would you go about it? What would be your first step? Play
> engineer for a while and see what occurs to you.
>
Data formats are reasonably standardized from a general perspective. You
generally have raw data, surrounded by header and footer data to describe
the format, delimetters, etc. On a storage medium there is generally an
index of some kind at the top of the data space. The patterns aren't that
hard to recognize, although low level translation could be time consuming
(filtering control bits, switching between big/little endian etc). I could
probably write an app that read binary data and tried to discover the format
specs if I needed to, but that would be a tedious process.

> The difference is that there's only one kind of data on a mechanical
> disk. Play it and that's all there is. How do you go about separating
> out the audio from the control and status bits? Maybe to a software
> guy, there are known techniques for doing this. If so, tell us. If
> not, tell us how you'd go about inventing those techniques.
>
Standard decryption techniques should work. This is a whole field of
study which I've never had the time to go into as deeply as I would like,
but there are people who could probably decrypt something as simple as red
book cd data on paper in a matter of hours, let alone with the help of
software.

> Exactly. Few things are impossible if you have enough time or money,
> but a couple of hours to re-copy a CD master on to a new format every
> ten years will only take you (or your CD's heirs) only 20 hours to
> make it playable for 100 years. But if someone forgets one generation,
> it might take 400 hours to a healthy payment to someone who has what
> you don't in order to get it into easily playable form again.
>
Even better, keep it in a soft format so that all you have to do is copy
it to the storage space of your next playback device. You could feasibly
never use a physical medium again, and just continue to transfer the
material to whatever playback device you currently use.

ryanm