Optical media - thoughts/feels

i still use it for backups and VHS tape captures if i can

I hate the whole paid streaming market. I'm used to having a physical/digital copy on my server of something. I know that it's there for life (well I hope anyway). My gf, still prefers CDs of her music, so she's got a big pile of them in binders. But for backup of large data (say 9TB) it would suck. So I prefer to just use hdds.

I use CDs for music in my car because I can control it via the stereo. I can get my phone to work but I can only control the volume.

>>61565718
OP here, right I have an 8TB, so burning even triple layered blurays would be pointless and expensive. So for large data storage yea no reason.

I would still prefer CDs for music to rip to LOSLESS since majority of stores offer lossy DRMed shit. As for shows/movies, I again prefer to have a physical copy (DVD or bluray), and not have to worry about it being removed from a server.

If there's some music I really like I'll go and buy the physical CD of it

I have Netflix and have no complaints. But if I really like something, I still like to have a physical copy. Same goes for pirated stuff; even if I have the files on my computer, I'll still sometimes buy the CD/DVD/BD just to have it. (Though, when I do, it's usually from a bargain bin, or one of the local used music/video stores.)

Also, physical discs are good for portability. You'd be surprised how many supposedly tech-savy friends can't play a bloody MKV file through their home theater setup. But I can always bring over a DVD/BD, stick it in, and watch it.

>>61565626
I only use optical media for ripping old discs, and occasionally burning them for old consoles that don't have SD loaders yet.

But, I got an external drive for that recently, and have been removing the internal ones from my machine. That way I can finally move to a case that doesn't need optical bays, or at most it has one or two for a fan controller or an external hdd rack.

I only have 1 drive left in my machine, and only because I actually don't have space for it in my used parts drawer.

OP here:
>tfw a 6TB disc is available, and a hd will already be 500TB or more in capacity.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS-R
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archival_Disc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc
https://www.engadget.com/2006/07/12/protein-coated-discs-could-enable-50tb-capacities/

I guess, should we even care at this point? Conventional drives have a better chance of hanging on more, than optical media - until NAND becomes more durable (read/write cycles)

>>61566027
AFAIK a bluray player (unless it is a cheap POS) should play files off a data (CD/DVD/Bluray) disc , such as audio mp3/flac, pictures jpeg, video mkv/mpg1,2,3 (though my player doesn't support divx, but plays mkv and mp4)

I'm still sitting here watching laserdisc on my crt

File: awesome.jpg (31KB, 551x549px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 551x549px

>>61566149
What kind of player? Is it a Pioneer Elite? Or a DVD/LD combo player?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y7nz63YjaI

Man, back in the day, electronics had some awesome engineering.. also, tfw never had a LD player, but my elementary school did (i remember educational LD stuff).

Too bad that laserdisc itself, was never a 'digital' format but an analog format; so it's quality video wise was at best comparable to beta if the disc was mastered correctly. At least NTSC discs eventually got the option of digital AC-3 , which was something.

>>61566128
True. I should've specified that with downloaded Chinese cartoons, sometimes they do fancy stuff with the subtitles that work fine in MPC/VLC/whatever, but set-top players don't always handle correctly. (But even with other shows or movies, I'll sometimes run across some weird encoding or whatever that won't work outside of a computer.)

And to add to my portability comment, discs are still usually the best way to share things with others. SD cards and flash drives may be cheap, but they're still not as cheap as blank discs. If a friend wants some songs, or photos from last weekend's trip, or whatever, it's still quickest and easiest to just burn them to a CD, rather than sending hundreds of MB online, or asking for my flash drive back later.

File: pioneerlaserdisc.jpg (78KB, 550x360px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 550x360px

I still love and use CDs daily. DVDs often, but also VHS sometimes for that matter. I just like physical media. Its also a good way to discover older/obscure movies/music if you see an album in a thrift shop or $1 DVD at a Goodwill store.

CDs in particular I see no reason to stop using, personally. I get that portability can be an issue but its no biggy to just put one in your bag on the way out or something. Most cars still have players. I put files on hard drives like everyone else and won't poo-poo MP3s or anything, but a CD is preferable. I even burn MP3s and WAVs to CDs sometimes.

>>61566149
>>61566275
I've got 3 Pioneer LD players (no Elites sadly)...

I love Laserdiscs even thought I barely use them. Only certain movies I'd buy on the format. The machines themselves are awesome and they make neat noises....If you upscale through a DVD recorder it looks fine on a modern screen too.

>>61566275
A pioneer cld, so it can play cd format as well, as short-lived as cdv was. I also have a 1984 pioneer player that actually top-level and is built to take a bomb, unfortunately it only outputs rf signal so the quality tanks.

Ld being analog was a plus for any movies shot with film; aside from Blu-ray remaster, in my opinion ld is the highest quality format for old movies when put through a nice comb filter.

>>61566433
>top-level
Top loading I meant.

Also forgot to mention that ld is perfect for importing old anime and Japanese kaiju kino.

>>61566027
>You'd be surprised how many supposedly tech-savy friends can't play a bloody MKV file through their home theater setup.

This happened several years ago now, so maybe Apple has improved somewhat.

>Watching Chinese cartoons on a nine-year-old WinXP computer connected to a 32-inch CRT TV.
>feelsokayman.jpg
>Friend invites me over to watch Chinese cartoons on his new 72-inch flat screen connected to his top-of-the-line Mac via AppleTV.
>This gon be sweet.
>Arrive at friend's place, put flash drive with cartoons into Mac.
>itsfuckingnothing.tiff
>Friend says, "We'll have to watch something else for the next five hours while these are converted to something iTunes can play."
>tfw I have no face.

>>61566430
>CDs in particular I see no reason to stop using, personally. I get that portability can be an issue but its no biggy to just put one in your bag on the way out or something. Most cars still have players. I put files on hard drives like everyone else and won't poo-poo MP3s or anything, but a CD is preferable. I even burn MP3s and WAVs to CDs sometimes.

Yes, all car stereo players can support MP3 CDs, and I would still rather use MP3 over WMA (since now even the patent has finally expired) - it is not likely that you will see players in cars add support for MP4 AAC though.

>If you upscale through a DVD recorder it looks fine on a modern screen too.

AFAIK a modern flatscreen is enough, and it is actually pointless to run an upscalar or run the LD player through a dvd recorder, since modern screens already upscale a composite image. I would be surprised if there were any LD players that have an S-Video out, which again, would be pointless these days, I don't know of any flatscreens that even have an S-Video port, just composite/component for analog , with RCA audio, and of course HDMI. Still again, a S-Video on an LD player is still pointless since an LD disc original signal is composite only.

This is also relevant about LD - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOrn2hBsYKE

>>61566433
CDV was just a laserdisc in a standard compact disc size. Those were usually just video singles , and were very rare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfZlTir57U

>>61565626
>diary entry warning
When I was younger I fell for the Apple/iPod touch meme. Most of my music even now is all iTunes AAC files, but now 1/3 of it is lossless from CD's and one vinyl rip. CD's are great and I have a little collection, along with some DVD's.

DVD's are kind of shit though, I wanted to get into Blu Ray until I learned how fucking much the legally paying customer is punished. It's so much easier to acquire it online.

I kind of feel like there is some kind of stigma attached to CD's though. If you're not a hipster buying vinyl, they're either fags who stream everything or download (and fell for the 192khz-24bit meme).

CD's are good for short car trips so they don't get damaged in the heat, otherwise I use my flash drive with hq AAC files. It's always great to physically own something, like real books.

File: laserturtle.jpg (280KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 720x480px

>>61566488
There are many LD players with S-Video but it doesn't improve the picture whereas plugging into the back of a monitor or thru a DVD Recorder with a 3D comb filter will improve it and upscale it properly. In the 1990s S Video made a difference but not anything past CRT.

Yeah there's no reason to spend hundreds on an upscaler/converter, I just got lucky and had a DVDR Panasonic sitting around with a really good comb filter so I hooked it up. I think it slightly bests the quality I get if I go directly thru the back of the monitor.

>it is not likely that you will see players in cars add support for MP4 AAC though.
My 2013 Honda Civic has support for it. Civic's are pretty common, I don't know about earlier or later models.

It supports MP3s obviously, MP4 container AACs and WMA. I have no fucking clue how to get WMA lossless or any kind of file but I don't care too much or put much thought into it.

>>61566580
>>61566488
I forgot to quote you shit

>>61566554
>>61566580
Sad fact is many 2018+ cars won't have optical drives at all. "Apple Car Play" is standard on Chevys now with no CD option. So you can actually go pay $40k for a new car......that won't even have the capability to play a 30+yr old format. New cars are for suckers.

>>61566554
At least you didn't fall for the miniDISC meme (now that was a SHIT format, and Sony tried to keep it alive with HI-MID (data miniDISC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU3BceoMuaA

Conventional optical media CD/DVD/Bluray is more alive than that.

Sadly LD won't really enjoy a vinyl revival, because quality. Only HD LD out there is Muse LD but available only in Japan. So technically the only vinyl like revival would be audio CD.

>>61566561
Ah interesting info. I don't have a LD player, if I ever did come across one, I would just plug directly to my flatscreen, since again even though can upscale composite, and getting a recorder would actually not make any quality difference.

Other interesting notes about optical media was the MO (magneto optical) , those were some fucking weird discs..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdwI4l34AFM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laAivJZgJ2g

Again, for those the supposed equivalent are DVD-RAM , Bluray doesn't have a 'RAM' format, though BD-RE supposedly supersedes the need for it, though in it's brief lifespan, HD-DVD did have a work in progress HD-DVDRAM.

>>61566554
>I wanted to get into Blu Ray until I learned how fucking much the legally paying customer is punished.
This is anecdotal, of course, but I've found most BDs to be better in this regard than DVDs. My BD collection is admittedly small at this point, but I only have one that has previews start when it loads, and even then, they can be skipped. I was also surprised at how many of my BDs are either all regions or have no region code at all, as opposed to nearly all of my DVDs which are region 1 only.

>>61565626
If I'm at the store and see the blu-ray discount bin, I'll dig through and see if there's anything that catches my eye.

I like having the lossless copy without sacrificing 30+ GB on my NAS.

I also burn CDs at work all the time for reasons.

>>61566636
>At least you didn't fall for the miniDISC meme
Unfortunately, I did. At the time, iPods and other hard drive players were expensive, and flash-based players topped out at 512 MB. The idea of storing five hours of music on a $1.50 reusable disc seemed pretty awesome. But there was very noticeable sound degradation at LP4 (where the five-hour figure comes from), and the software was a bloody nightmare.

>>61566636
I actually love MDs but that is a format I pull out maybe once a year just for shits. I bought a Kenwood deck and a Sony portable player with some guy's early 00s mixes for about $40 a few years ago on ebay and I've made a few CDs into MDs for the fun of it.

>>61566642
I have noticed that. On the back of my titles I have seen discs that play in all regions (I livei n the US). The only other question I have about blurays, is that some titles seem to only be in MPEG2 , which is weird, I thought all bluray discs were at least in either MPEG4 or AVC-1 or something. Kinda weird to find an HD title in MPEG2

>>61566642
I understand having to get a Blu Ray drive because of how it works, but I read a review saying at least some BR need you to have a VGA monitor etc. for HDCP compliance or something. Quite discouraging to read that if true.

To my understanding the vast majority of BR's can't be played by just popping them in and playing with VLC or something. You need to pay for or pirate specific software in addition to the drive. It seems like such a hassle all because of DRM and decrypting and all that.

Blu-Rays are still interesting and I still want to get into them. Probably won't.

>>61566612
They better have flac support then

>>61566636
>Techmoan
Great channel

>>61566682
AFAIK the only 'lossless' part of bluray is the audio (Dolby Master), AVC and MPEG4 video is still a lossy video format.

I fucking love cds

Just bought another pack of 50 for 20 bucks yesterday
The cd has the perfect size for things like making it a live distro cd or a music album and is cheap as fuck

Ive lost too many flash drives, yet cds are pretty reliable

I just hope the tech doesnt get sorted out in the next years as it was the case with floppys

>>61566715
>>>61566612
>They better have flac support then

Well, burning FLAC to a CD-R is kinda pointless due to size limitation on a CD.

>>61566729
I guess I meant lossless in terms of what's available to the consumer.

An uncompressed blu ray is the best quality that one would hope to achieve, right?

>>61566715
Yeah, I've read that BD on computer can be a clusterfuck, I personally would never bother. I have a set-top player connected to my TV and am slowly collecting movies I like, that's all I care about at this point.

>>61566779
Yes in that sense you are correct.

>>61566715
Yes that is a downside, especially if you also run a OS other than Mac or Win. I use Linux, so only bluray support is burning a bluray data disc.

>>61566740
It would be nice to see CD's make a little comeback like vinyl. Maybe it's just hipsters who buy it for the artwork and to look good, but one good reason for vinyl is because it's technologically limited. The people who master the music HAVE to make it dynamic, while with CD's it's possible to make it squashed to shit.

The current trend looks like dynamic range is slowly coming back with a few big names in recent years releasing good albums. I think it was Bob Ludwig who worked with Guns n Roses with Chinese Democracy, and Daft Punk for RAM. I've heard those were good. Yet he redid one of my favourite artists Bright Eyes with a remastered box set which was just loud garbage.

CD's are objectively superior to vinyl and if they became dynamic I think the appeal is pretty good. I don't know how normies would feel though. Probably stick to spotify.

>>61565626
The only use I have for my old BD-R media is backing up all my photos and documents and stashing it at my parents without them knowing - too bad optical media is so shit - I would love a back up of all my 24bit flac but that is not going to happen.

>>61566816
Well redbook audio cannot be updated, it has to stay as 16-bit pcm 44.1khz; so only way to get digital with on par with vinyl is to have a higher res file, such as 24-bit 48khz or 192khz (?). But you won't be allowed to make such an audio cd, no burner software will allow you to burn a file in that format, or it will downsample to 16-bit 44.1khz , since an audio cd player is only made to handle that standard.

>>61566859
Well, depends on how much 24bit flac files you have, if over 500GB+ , then yea, don't even bother, if however well within 2-3 triple layered media, maybe, but again that is still a personal choice, so yea , conventional hd would be better

>>61566862
I suppose. Have you (guys) read this?
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Sort of on topic but it's about 'high resolution' music. I believe vinyl can't store frequencies >20khz anyways, and it has about 36 db's less to work with unlike CD's.

>>61566862
God I wish 24/48 DAT went mainstream. Only a few high end decks and no portables supported it. It would be the true patrician format.

>>61565626

I'll keep burning CD's and DVD's until they stop selling them. I have CD's I burned back in '98 that are still readable. I had SDCards and flash drives I bought even a few years ago that are unusable now.

Like this anon>>61565808
I also prefer to have a physical copy of shit. I never have to worry about DRM, never have to worry about a movie studio or record label removing their content from a service. None of that is anything I ever have to worry about. I have copies of movies on VHS, Video CD, and DVD. I have music on vinyl, cassette, and CD. No worries from me about my collections suddenly being inaccessible.

I wish there were better optical archival mediums.

Back in '99 the average HDD size was what.. 4GB? So A CD-R was 17% of your HDD size.

2007: Average HDD... 250GB? DL BD-R holds 50 GB. 20%.

2017: Still BD-R DL, except HDD sizes are 4x-12x larger, on the low end. Ideally there would be something that could handle 300GB+, for 4k movies.

>>61566908
DAT was rather expensive, so it was only a niche market, or used in professional settings, also DAT did get used as tape backup for computers, as well as Hi-8 tapes too oddly enough.

Side note about tapes, the TRUE patrician format would have still been reel-to-reel tape at 11 IPS(Inches Per Second for those that are not familiar).

Again some info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnZXmpMo0XY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4K1QKKPX_g

A 'consumer' digital tape (not DAT, but DCC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkGMJBqZawA

>>61567045
>I wish there were better optical archival mediums.

see >>61566087 - but again remember those are theoretical or only in a lab environment if they even exist.

>>61567052

IIRC DCC was fairly popular in part of Europe especially as a mastering medium for indie artists to get CD's pressed.

I remember seeing DCC players at Radio Shack back in the early 90s. I almost bought one because it promised backwards compatibility with regular analog tapes.

What is the best redundant data storage you can go for without completely breaking the bank? I was thinking something like FreeNAS software raid (on ZFS) with error correcting ram.

>>61566895
thank you for posting this, it's the most concise explanation of the snake oil that is high res audio out there. redbook was chosen for a reason.

>>61566471
using itunes to play video on mac is beyond retarded, it's actually a step below using WMP on Windows which would be more akin to quicktime on Mac. Like any other OS, download VLC.

File: knofler.jpg (300KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1200x1600px

>>61567052
>>61567649
I bought a Philips DCC player on Ebay for about $50 last year. The guy said it worked, when it arrived at my house, It wouldn't play a tape it just clicked....so I had to send it back.

Just as well because any DCC tape by itself is expensive and the novelty of the thing would've worn off eventually. It came with the original Sears receipt and everything though, shame....

File: audiophiles.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>61567740
np. I do think 24 bit audio is fine though, and i'll take it where I can get it. It can play softer meaning I can cool my bit perfect autism when it comes to (digital) volume control.

But people frothing over >96khz "hd" tracks is silly. I can only think of the visible spectrum argument when I see it.

File: IMAG1037.jpg (858KB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 2688x1520px

>>61566461
Funny you say about kaiju
I picked this up a few weeks ago
Paid 10 for a T2 special edition and a Godzilla LD set of 8 movies.

>>61568063
> It can play softer meaning I can cool my bit perfect autism when it comes to (digital) volume control.

sorry, but you don't understand volume control.

picture this: set your analogue volume to whichever setting produces a listenable level when fed a -0dBFS signal (the loudest song you have, set so that you won't piss off your neighbours/blow your ears out). Take a seat in your usual position. Play a "silent" 16 bit file (-90dbFS-ish white noise). Do you hear anything? Chances are you don't, not even close. Living rooms and offices are LOUD compared to soundproofed studios.

Now, imagine this: no matter how far into the 16-bit noise floor your digital volume reduction pushes your music, the perceived noise floor never increases. It stays where it is, buried beneath your room's ambient noise and the sound of your own breathing.

Go try this, now. It will change your listening habits completely. You won't care about bit perfection anymore. It's a weight lifted off your shoulders (ears?). I've been there, anon. It's time for rehab.

File: t2 laserdisc.jpg (83KB, 800x376px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x376px

>>61568121
There's way too many T2 Laserdiscs in Japan...

>>61568149
But it makes me feel good knowing that I have perfect information I can't perceive!

Good post though, and it's kind of reassuring. I'm kind of at the tipping point of my bit-perfect autism. But what I was trying to refer to (/regurgitate things I have half an understanding in) was this:
http://thewelltemperedcomputer.com/Intro/SQ/VolumeControl.htm

>>61566087
>protein coated discs
Storage space and gains!

>>61566752
>FLAC ripped from CD is bigger than CD
I don't get it

>>61567052
Holy fucking shit this guy doesn't know he is talking about ! Bullshit alert.

Reel to reels were 7.5 and 15 ips and I own a teac x-7 r2r and they are good but the tape hiss is still a thing and the decent Dolby and dbx companders were worth more than the deck and useless if it wasn't encoded from the start

I have used half inch multi track tape in a studio environment and can't believe the black magic they used in the 80s to get it to sound that good

As I said in an earlier post. 24/48 DAT had a shot at being the ultimate format ? Why ? Because DAT decks back in the 90s actually supported it ! And today j transcode my hi res library back to 24/48 ALAC for listening in my iPhone with iems and couldn't be happier

So my point R2R is just unfeasible when it comes to consumers but 24/48 DAT existed and is the digital resolution I still use today

>>61568413
At best, you could fit two lossless albums on a single CD. And pretty much no one uses CDs to play FLAC, so putting it on optical disc would be simply for storage. So DVD or Bluray would be the better storage option.

>>61566087
Magnetic tape is better.

File: 20170726_103758.jpg (3MB, 4160x2340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x2340px

Feels good, but mostly because if nostalgia. I think I'll use DVDs for films only in the future, but I'll keep my drive even if I don't.

>>61566554
>Blu Ray until I learned how fucking much the legally paying customer is punished
Pls elaborate. I'm on the verge of getting one and possibly starting a BRD "collection" myself.

>>61569279
>r2r perfected is nazi technology
literally, look it up if u no believes
>inb4 go back to /pol/

>>61565626
dead and stay dead.

I wouldn't mind 500Tb crystals though.

>>61569302
can you even install all those from cd without downloads?

>>61570884
Those are DVD's, tho.
The magazine kept its name back from the 90's.

>>61568160
pleese ld anon, rip 4x3 pan and scan jap alien 1979 and dump somewheres. thank u from fellow anon.

>>61570884
Those are DVDs, name stuck because originally they (magazine to which discs were a bonus) had CDs and it was fancy back then. In general everything pre-2016 is completely on discs, while then they sometimes gave some games that wouldn't fit on 1 or 2 discs (like Lords of the Fallen). Since they still aren't out of business I'll continue to buy them for dem 5€ games (but content in magazine is still breddy gud), and it feels good to have some physical evidence of games.

I like Blu-ray for backups. Much cheaper thanks stacks of hdds