| Author
|
Why are we still using 80/90 minutes cd's?
|
Djones
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
267
Posts :
1766
Posted : Jan 15, 2007 13:52
|
So for 20 years now, we're using cd's that only play 80/90 minutes.
During this time dvd's developed containing over 30gb's of date.
So why isn't there a 200 or more minute cd created or so?
let's say we will have 200 minute cd's.
Would that mean we're all releasing 200 minute albums in the future as well? |
|
|
makus
Overdream
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
3087
Posted : Jan 15, 2007 15:47
|
|
Dharma Lab
Started Topics :
8
Posts :
342
Posted : Jan 15, 2007 18:55
|
A few reasons that might be the cause:
1) Cost: DVD's cost more to make. Only recently has the cost come down dramatically.
2) Standards: Takes awhile for new standards to get adapted (if they get adapted). This requires convincing lots of companies & organizations to cooperate.
3) Demand: Difference of sound quality between records, tapes & CD's is pretty large in my opinion. Difference in CD vs. a better CD/DVD is smaller.
Personally, why build a longer CD when mp3 players & flash drives are becoming so cheap, are smaller, offers more possibility, etc etc. I think the next step won't be a disc at all.
 Keep The Faith,
Christian K. |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Jan 15, 2007 19:08
|
At 96KHz, 24Bit, 5.1 surround - on a standard DVD that would be around 52 minutes of music. On an HD DVD (single layer), with 192Khz, 32Bits, and 7.1 surround, we'd get 46.5 minutes. On a single layer Blu-Ray disc though, that's 77.5 minutes at the same quality. That should satisfy any audiophile.
That should offer basically as rich a sound as possible to hear, and a decent album length (a 200 minute long album will kinda make it a big deal to listen through, no?)... I propose this as the next standard of audio - of course, the human ears probably won't notice much of the nuance of the sound, but it's a calming thing to know your ears will never be sharp enough to pick up all the details, no mater how gifted.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Jan 16, 2007 02:03
|
I've always liked CD's being 70/80 minutes. You get a good amount of tracks and it just feels 'right' for an album length. I don't relish the idea of having to come up with 2 hours of material for an album release.
All filler - no killer! |
|
|
|
Raoul V
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
26
Posts :
583
Posted : Jan 16, 2007 08:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-16 02:03, Tomos wrote:
I've always liked CD's being 70/80 minutes. You get a good amount of tracks and it just feels 'right' for an album length.
|
|
ah, but is that cuz it feels right or your used too it that way??
it feels like we've been conditioned that way...
i can imagine it being a bitch writing a two hr cd, but can u imagine a 2 hr shpongle cd?? or northern exposure if it was two hrs long?? amazing, i would love it!! |
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Jan 16, 2007 10:15
|
|
Tomos
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
981
Posted : Jan 16, 2007 11:25
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-16 08:42, Raoul V wrote:
ah, but is that cuz it feels right or your used too it that way??
it feels like we've been conditioned that way...
i can imagine it being a bitch writing a two hr cd, but can u imagine a 2 hr shpongle cd?? or northern exposure if it was two hrs long?? amazing, i would love it!!
|
|
Nope. I'm happy to sit and listen to someones ideas about music for about an hour. I've had double CD's, tape packs, huge MP3 mixes.. I think the cd length is perfect for my attention span. Anyway, I've always seen an album as an expression of your ideas at that point in your life, so many great artists change their style and improve their sound between releases. You don't want to spread yourself too thin to make up the time. Simon Posford is about the only person that could churn out solid gold continuously, but I still wouldn't spend more than an hour scrutinising it. |
|
|
|
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Jan 16, 2007 12:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-01-16 08:42, Raoul V wrote:
or northern exposure if it was two hrs long??
|
|
Two hour Northern Exposure? I'd rather stab myself in the head.
http://www.myspace.com/Hooloovoo222 |
|
|
|
Djones
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
267
Posts :
1766
Posted : Jan 16, 2007 22:02
|
Actually this question should also be brought up regarding to the length of films!
When I watch a real fine movie, it always sucks that it ends after 100 minutes or so.
That has also become a standard to make movies usually not longer than 2 hours, but why?
A good movie, I could watch for 3 hours.
|
|
|
|
