Are audio cds the only universal physical digital format?

[yoda313]

I was wondering something are audio cds the only universal physical digital format?

I know you can pretty much play any mp3 file from around the world (at least in theory - I actually bought some mp3 files from the german amazon website using a vpn and they play just fine on my computer and zune mp3 hardware player with no conversions).

My only international purchase of audio cds was a roxette album that was an import from Sweden. It plays perfectly in any player (an official disc of course).

So why weren't audio cds region locked?

Why don't audio cds have different playback rates like video does with frame rates - 25 vs 29.97/23.97 for example?

------------------------

I guess what I'm getting at is if audio cds are the one and only universal physical format its ashame it couldn't have led the way to making it that way for video.

However I do understand that pal and ntsc were well established before the audio cd was created.

Its just a shame it couldn't have at least influenced the removal of region restrictions for those that have the right players. Yes I know its easy enough to rip and reburn and all that but at least the principal of it should have been to let the videos flow from region to region.

But I guess the pundits just wanted to stick it to everybody with timed releases and prevent people from getting content early. Too bad politics mixes with business. You would think a pure business would want to sell as many copies of its own product as possible and make it as easy as possible.

I am not really hammering against copy protection - I know why thats there. Its just the region restriction.

Its too bad though that dvds couldn't have been as open and distributable as audio cds. Wouldn't it be great if you could have bought a dvd from anywhere in the world and play it on any dvd player? These days the same goes for bluray.

However I guess with bluray at least they made the regions larger with only three regions if I'm not mistaken (isn't it region a, b, and c for bluray? with a being north america?)

Edit - I guess I should include those niche digital cassettes that were available for a short time. I assume those could play any where in the world too.

Edit 2 - what about sacd? Do those have region restrictions like dvds? Or do they operate more like cds than dvds?

Edit 3 - Once I left this thread I realized I missed two obvious answers:

VCD AND SVCD

These weren't region locked right? Now the only question would be the pal/ntsc issue right? But if you had a player that could do pal at all would you be able to do a vcd/svcd from anywhere in the world then?

[bigass]

Well, there's DAT. Minidisc. I mean, they're universal, I suppose.
PAL/NTSC are relatively ancient standards grandfathered into the digital age.
And as for why CDs don't have region protection -- CDAD is also an old standard. At that time, it was an achievement to put digital music on a disc in the first place. Copy protection and regional fiefdoms were not the prevailing concerns.
As for why no 'frame rate' differences in CDAD -- no need. Didn't have to match TV standards in any way.

Am I misunderstanding your question?

[yoda313]

Well, there's DAT. Minidisc. I mean, they're universal, I suppose.

Ahh there is another niche audio market I forgot about.

At that time, it was an achievement to put digital music on a disc in the first place. Copy protection and regional fiefdoms were not the prevailing concerns.

Good point. Make it work first than worry about walling off the world from each other later.

As for why no 'frame rate' differences in CDAD -- no need. Didn't have to match TV standards in any way.

Yes it is only half as complex as video since its only audio. I understand that. I guess I might have been making it more complicated than it needed to be.

But there could have been differences in the 44.1khz sampling rate. That could have been different region to region couldn't it? I mean theoretically this country could have said no its 41khz or this country said its gotta be 42khz. Could that have happened similar to the tv rate issue?

Am I misunderstanding your question?

Nope thats pretty much on target. Thanks.

[bigass]

But there could have been differences in the 44.1khz sampling rate. That could have been different region to region couldn't it? I mean theoretically this country could have said no its 41khz or this country said its gotta be 42khz. Could that have happened similar to the tv rate issue?

I suppose... but in the case of CDAD, IIRC, Sony or the consortium got together to decide on the standard from the get-go, based on Nyquist limit, technical do-ability, etc.

I mean, if they were going to go back in time and do it over again, some audiophile types would have preferred 24-bit/48kHz. But considering what everybody had to work with in the late 70s/early 80s when the CD standard came about, it's pretty amazing how it's lasted.

The ADC/DAC process back then was some kind of crazy magic. Now we take it for granted. Hell, back when I was in school, we were told to record digital audio as close to 0dB as possible without going over, because of a certain kind of distortion inherent in 16-bit conversion at the time. From what I gather now, with 24/44.1 sampling and better converters today, we can record at a lower level without fear and enjoy the extra headroom afforded...even with small-sized, relatively cheap piece of gear. Just magical.

As for why PAL vs NTSC and the differing framerates -- again, this is going back 20 years to broadcast school, but IIRC, it partly goes to the power system standards in North America vs Europe. 60Hz vs 50Hz. NTSC B&W was, of course, a flat 30 fps -- 60 fields...60Hz power. Everyone here is probably more well-versed than I am on what relationship may be obvious between 50Hz and whatever PAL/Secam/RussiaVision has for a frame rate.

What'd have me curious would be -- why is our A/C power system 60Hz? And a neat story of intrigue and intrigue that out-WTFs any Apple vs MS debate is the story of AC vs DC!

[yoda313]

any Apple vs MS debate is the story of AC vs DC!

Well sort of. But dc didn't have any of the bling incentives apple has versus ms - that is if you assign ac=ms and dc=apple. Ie everybody at home uses ac but specialty hardware is dc. Would that sound about right in your analogy?

This is an intersting spinoff.

And that is good that consortium put together some kind of standard to get the audio cd off the ground.

[bigass]

any Apple vs MS debate is the story of AC vs DC!

Well sort of. But dc didn't have any of the bling incentives apple has versus ms - that is if you assign ac=ms and dc=apple. Ie everybody at home uses ac but specialty hardware is dc. Would that sound about right in your analogy?

Nah, I'm more thinking of the mud-slinging involved... Wikipedia has an article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

"Edison opposed capital punishment, but his desire to disparage the system of alternating current led to the invention of the electric chair. Harold P. Brown, who was being secretly paid by Edison, built the first electric chair for the state of New York to promote the idea that alternating current was deadlier than DC."

[yoda313]

I'm more thinking of the mud-slinging involved

Yeah those annoying "hi im a pc", "im a mac" commercials drove me nuts.

Yep I remember hearing about the whole electric chair thing in one of those history channel modern marvels episodes.

[bigass]

I mean, I guess we're getting closer to a 'universal standard' with HD. I'm not as up on current standards as most here probably are, but is 1080p here the same as 1080p everywhere? In the digital HD world, are we still hobbled by conflicting frame rates and resolutions?

Plus, digital devices are more adept at adjusting on the fly to different source material than analog TVs. I remember when a multiscan VGA monitor was extraordinarily pricey, and people would pay it because it could offer different resolutions and referesh rates on the fly. Now our flat-panel displays and televisions, coupled with the devices that feed them, do it all in the box.

Of course, it comes back to a universal hardware standard. I guess BluRay is as close as we've come for now. Region-coding aside, am I correct in assuming the program content is the same everywhere -- 1080p is 1080p everywhere?

Yeah, we've come a long way from the 78 RPM record in terms of durability, fidelity, copyability, etc... but hey, you can run those old records on a hand-cranked turntable and play them with a rusty nail and still get sound out of them. Minidisc? Great format for its time, but good luck making a copy of one in ten years when you can't find a working player in your home town.

[yoda313]

There is the frame rate issue for pal hd. I think its pal 50 or something.

What changed for pal vs ntsc was the resolution is now constant. The frame rate is still different if I understand it correctly.

At least that is what I read about in those threads about capturing from an xbox 360.

So we are halfway there at least. At least the res is the same now.

Edit - not sure how reliable this site is but it seems to confirm my suspicion:

http://www.sharbor.com/tutorials/1674.html

As mentioned earlier, HD video was supposed to eliminate the incompatibility between videos from different countries, since the same frame sizes are used worldwide. For instance, full 1080 HD is 1920x1080 pixels, 1080 HDV uses 1440x1080 pixels, and 720p uses 1280x720 pixels in any country.


The problem that arises is that many HD formats still have different frame rates between NTSC and PAL countries. While HD has unified the frame sizes, we are still stuck with "PAL" HD using 25 fps while "NTSC" HD uses 29.97 fps.
With interlaced video formats, each frame of video is actually made up of two fields, meaning PAL video has 50 fields and NTSC has 60. This correlates to the electrical systems used in PAL and NTSC countries, which operate at 50Hz and 60Hz respectively – in other words, the video equipment gets its timing from the power source.


Even though progressive-scan video uses only frames and not fields, we can still feel the effects of PAL vs. NTSC when looking at 720p video – 720p30 runs at 29.97 fps and is used in countries with NTSC, while PAL users shooting 720p will have 720p25 at 25fps! It seems that the only "universal formats" may be 1080p24 and 720p24, as these will be 24 fps in any country. Note that 24 fps is also the speed of movie film, which may be behind the universal appeal of 24p video.
From now on, if you see "PAL" associated with an HD format, it means it uses 25 fps, while NTSC would mean 29.97 fps. While not really correct, these labels continue to be used, but at least you’ll understand the reference when it comes up.
So as not to perpetuate the erroneous PAL and NTSC labels as you move into HD production, you should be familiar with proper HD format labels. While the exact syntax may vary from place to place, a typical designation of "1080i30" would equate to 1080 interlaced video at 29.97 fps and "720p24" would be 720 progressive at 24 fps. You will do well to forget about PAL and NTSC labels and pay close attention to frame rates when shooting and editing HD video.

Note the bolded section on the power source issue. THat was the 50/60 stuff you were mentioning earlier in the thread.

I hope this particular article is accurate for the sake of this disscussion. THis came from a google search using "pal hd vs ntsc hd" as the search criteria fyi.

edit 2 - fyi I did the bolding the bolding isn't in the article it was to highlight the important stuff relevant to this thread