why didn't cd players ever re-buffer?

[pvadbx]

this is mostly a historical question, since i think traditional cd players are a dying breed and I'm installing my transporter tonight, but i'm still curious. why didn't cd manufacturers stick 20-30 megabytes of memory into their machines and rebuffer and re-clock the bitstream to avoid all the sonic problems associated with a mechanical transport? it would be like an SB3, except the network would be replaced with the cd.

it seems like this would have made some very good sounding cd transports for not a huge cost. am i missing something? why didn't manufacturures do this?

.phil

[empty99]

Since they do that on portable CDs to fight the skipping problems. Too late now, computer music storage is the new killer apps for the home audio market.
SB3>MF3.24DAC>Nak PA7s>B&W N802>Nice!

[pfarrell]

pvadbx wrote:
> why didn't cd manufacturers stick 20-30
> megabytes of memory into their machines and rebuffer and re-clock the
> bitstream to avoid all the sonic problems associated with a mechanical
> transport?

Because the RedBook CD was designed in 1975 or so, when memory cost
thousands of dollars per kilobyte.

I bought my first CD player in 84 or 85.
When I bought a PC in 1990, I got 5MB of ram, and folks asked
what kind of fool I was for getting all that unusable memory.

> am i missing something? why didn't manufacturures do this?

Because it would have cost too much.
And 700 MB was an inconceivable amount of storage.

Plus RedBook was invented to crush casettes, not LPs. At the time, the
record companies were worried sick about lost revenue from people
bootlegging albums onto cassettes, and recording directly from FM radio.
In the olden days, a DJ would say "Coming up, the complete Led Zepplin
IV" ablum, which meant everyone put a fresh cassette into their deck.

There are audiophiles that claim that vinyl is still vastely superior to
RedBook. It might even be true, but I don't care, records are such a
hassle, and a SqueezeBox, let alone Transporter, is so much more convenient.

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimse...msoftware.html

[pvadbx]

pvadbx wrote:
> am i missing something? why didn't manufacturures do this?

Because it would have cost too much.
And 700 MB was an inconceivable amount of storage.

sure, when CDs were invented, I understand. but say in 2000, why didn't the audiophile CD manufacturers take a different approach. when you are selling a machine for $1K, $2K plus, you can do a lot of things.

speaking of cost for technology, in a past life, I bought 300 megabyte (not gigabyte) hard drives for the college I was working for. they were the size of washing machines, and cost (if memory serves) about $17,500 each.

[seanadams]

Even better that just having more buffer, and I'm not sure why nobody thought of this for DVDs, would have been to distribute the data in a RAID-like way, with parity blocks on diametrically opposite areas of the disc. So you could completely obliterate any part of the disc and as long as enough bits could still be read elsewhere you would sill get 100% of the data. As it is, everything is still laid down in a continuous spiral (not even concentric circles like a hard disk) and assumes the data is accessed sequentially, with the additional error correction bits right next to the data they're protecting. I should file a patent...

[pvadbx]

Even better that just having more buffer, and I'm not sure why nobody thought of this for DVDs, would have been to distribute the data in a RAID-like way, with parity blocks on diametrically opposite areas of the disc. So you could completely obliterate any part of the disc and as long as enough bits could still be read elsewhere you would sill get 100% of the data. As it is, everything is still laid down in a continuous spiral (not even concentric circles like a CD) and assumes the data is accessed sequentially, with the additional error correction bits right next to the data they're protecting. I should file a patent...

so true. optical drives are fast enough now, why not treat them more like data drives than real-time data delivery mechanisms. but i once worked for philips nv and got a good understanding of the standards process that went into the cd and dvd formats. you can't even imagine how long it took and the compromises that were made, as well as the interesting politics between the consumer electronic companies (even standardizing the details of MPEG 2 took forever). just look at the HD format wars now. we're lucky we got anything standardized.

so thank the audio gods for a company like slim devices that lets us get away from all those compromises!

.phil

[pfarrell]

pvadbx wrote:
> sure, when CDs were invented, I understand. but say in 2000, why did't
> the audiophile CD manufacturers take a different approach. when you are
> selling a machine for $1K, $2K plus, you can do a lot of things.

In the 2000s, they conspired to sell you DVD-A and SACD. Of course,
since the format wars prevented either from reaching mass market, both
are dead.

> speaking of cost for technology, in a past life, I bought 300 megabyte
> (not gigabyte) hard drives for the college I was working for. they
> were the size of washing machines, and cost (if memory serves) about
> $17,500 each.

Must of been 81 or 82. I remember in 1980 paying $31,000 each for 200 MB
drives, took three phase power, were the size of said washing machines,
and had a cable the size of your wrist. They were essentially just
rebadged Memorex IBM drives, but since they had a Digital logo, they
where special. They might have been the most expensive disks, as soon
thereafter, prices droped to the $20K range you mention. I think I paid
about $4000 for a 5MB 5-1/2" disk in 83 or 84.


--
Pat Farrell pfarrell (AT) bioinformatx (DOT) com
www.bioinformatx.com

[mbonsack]

speaking of cost for technology, in a past life, I bought 300 megabyte (not gigabyte) hard drives for the college I was working for. they were the size of washing machines, and cost (if memory serves) about $17,500 each.

When I was at HP in 83 and 84, we affectionately called our 404MB drives "dishwashers", as they looked almost *exactly* like one, replete with front-panel controls and door-locking mechanism for the top-load disk pack. They too required 220V power, weighed a ton, and used a removable pack that looked like a stack of dinner plates in keeping with the kitchen motif. It even sounded like a dishwasher and practically shook itself off the floor when doing heavy I/O.

These drives were the ones used in the data center that got shot up in one of the "Die Hard" movies. It was good to see these things still had a useful life well after the last bit was transferred from them.

[pvadbx]

When I was at HP in 83 and 84, we affectionately called our 404MB drives "dishwashers", as they looked almost *exactly* like one, replete with front-panel controls and door-locking mechanism for the top-load disk pack. They too required 220V power, weighed a ton, and used a removable pack that looked like a stack of dinner plates in keeping with the kitchen motif. It even sounded like a dishwasher and practically shook itself off the floor when doing heavy I/O.

yep, those were the ones. ours used to wander around the computer room when a lot of students were accessing them. for the uninitiated, these were "super-mini" computers that used a time-sharing approach--I managed a lab with 35 terminals where they all accessed the same computer. does anyone remember Pr1me Computer?

[Robin Bowes]

pvadbx wrote:
> mbonsack;145860 Wrote:
>> When I was at HP in 83 and 84, we affectionately called our 404MB drives
>> "dishwashers", as they looked almost *exactly* like one, replete with
>> front-panel controls and door-locking mechanism for the top-load disk
>> pack. They too required 220V power, weighed a ton, and used a
>> removable pack that looked like a stack of dinner plates in keeping
>> with the kitchen motif. It even sounded like a dishwasher and
>> practically shook itself off the floor when doing heavy I/O.
>
> yep, those were the ones. ours used to wander around the computer room
> when a lot of students were accessing them. for the uninitiated, these
> were "super-mini" computers that used a time-sharing approach--I
> managed a lab with 35 terminals where they all accessed the same
> computer. does anyone remember Pr1me Computer?

Hey, yes!

I wrote my final year undergraduate paper in Fortran77 on a Pr1me at the
University of Salford in 1991. Something to do with Digital Filter design...

R.