Talk:Compact disc/Archive 1

message: I think the see also section is way too long. The linklist should be trimmed to a more managble size. I can take a look but other people should as well. Chipotlehero 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also Section

message: I got to this article from this page, which mentions that CDs are limited to 99 tracks.  But I can't find that fact anywhere on this page.  I suspect it's true, but I hate to add it without actually knowing it for certain.  Would someone that can verify that fact add it somewhere?  Thanks. Rmarquet 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing else, the typical CD player cannot display a number larger than that.—überRegenbogen 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 99 Tracks?

message: "equivalent to approximately 500 rpm at the inside of the disc, and approximately 200 rpm at the outside edge." That would mean that the inside is spinning more times than the outside in a given timeframe, creating a spiral. Physically impossible, and yet it's in the main section of the wiki.
:Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) and please take a look at WP:CIVIL. In this case, the misunderstanding is yours. The article states that CDs are read at constant linear velocity, which logically requires a disc to spin more rapidly when it is being read near the center than when it is being read closer to the edge, where the circumference is greater. It does not say that it turns at these two rotational speeds at the same time.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 10:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, headings should betray the content of the section. ツ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Patrie (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's the fool who wrote this?

message: Somebody needs to go through and fix the dozens of grammatical errors and cases of redundancy. Theswillman 15:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a complete mess!

message: What were the first album(s) released on cd, overall and in the USA?
---Scaryice 10:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First albums?

message: The CD-ROM was pushed by Bill Gates? This needs a bit more info! - David Gerard 13:09, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
: See Bill Gates Mikkalai 04:35, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Gates?

message: For drives installed in computers, all current CD-ROM and DVD-ROM drives can read and write CD-R and CD-RW discs.
:This is nonsense. ALL is VERY false. Recordable drives are almost never called ROM drives. This implies that no more CD-ROM or DVD-ROM drives are made. Only CD-RW drives, DVD-ROM/CD-RW combo drives, Or DVD+/-R(W) (also DVD-ram) drives are made. Therefore I have removed this Statement from the main page. Feel free to correct it and place it back on the page. Tacvek 22:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Statement was poorly clairfied.  Windows operating system itself calls all such drives ROM's, so this person isn't too far off.  To propose that no cd read only's are manufactured is a stretch though.  The truth is that the overwhelming majority of newly marketed drives will at minimum write to a CDR/RW.--207.69.138.8 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writable drives

message: I realize that CDs are constant linear velocity, but what are the general maximum and minimum speeds for reading at 1X (CD audio)?
Ckape 22:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Velocity specs

message: Quoted from the current version:
Another copy protection method places a data track (usually containing bonus software for computer users) at the end of the disc and gives it an invalid size in the disc's table of contents. This is intended to prevent the data track from being ripped, but can be defeated by ignoring the table of contents and reading the disc sector by sector.
Isn't detailing circumvention measures to a copy protection scheme in violation of the DMCA unless for academic or virus scanning purposes? I'm specifically referring to the line:  
but can be defeated by ignoring the table of contents and reading the disc sector by sector.
Could Wikipedia have any liability here?
:Probably, but it's something very much worth fighting. The DMCA makes a joke of "Fair Use". Not to mention the part about detailing circumvention measures is clearly unconstitutional. But regardless, Wikipedia is most certainly "academic", so it should not be in violation of the letter of the law to begin with.--NRen2k5 16:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of the exact language of the Dastardly Molestation of Consumers Act.  But i think that such a crude "protection" measure (akin to locking a room by laying a 2x4 in front of the door) is beneath the level of its provisions.  A user could easily clone a disc for backup (as i have done for some very hard to find discs) without ever noticing that there was any kind of protection mechanism—as easily as a person stepping over the 2x4, without ever knowing that they're meant not to. —überRegenbogen 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible DMCA Violation? 

message: The external links to overburning information, while useful, aren't really relevant here. I'm going to move them to overburning and place a reference to that article in the Recordability section. - mako 07:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Overburn

message: I remember something regarding cd-writers able to burn ~1 GB of data in 700-MB CDs.
I've searched, but I've only found news regarding Plextor GigaRec writers (which do what I remember, but aren't the ones I read about years ago).
Could someone, knowing|finding, write a paragraph about this?
::I don't think such a thing exists.  There are ways to burn a little more information, but a 45% increase...no.  Unless you play the games marketeers played in the mid 90s where a given data tape would hold "750 megabytes" of data but only really stored 250 megabytes of uncompressed data.  Samboy 03:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding 'other burning technology' for CD 

message: I have a problem with the intro to this section:
"The Compact Disc is not an invention: it is the convergence of a series of enabling technologies, such as laser technology, mechanics, electronics, and coding technology. Therefore, nobody can claim that he or she is the inventor of the Compact Disc."
The same sort of argument could be made for just about any invention.  Take the automobile - we couldn't have cars if someone hadn't invented the wheel, wagons, metalurgy, internal combustion engines, etc.  And of course we never would have CDs if nobody had invented lasers, transistors, computers, digital audio formats, etc.  But just because an invention builds on previous inventions doesn't mean that it's any less an invention in its own right.  
Credit for the invention should be given to Philips and Sony and their "joint taskforce of engineers."
--4.245.5.118 23:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I think it would be appropriate to add a longevity/lifespan/durability section in the article.  With so much expensive audio and other data stored on CDs, it has become more common to discuss how long the data is expected to last and what can be done, if anything, to preserve or minimize degradation and/or to recover data from an aging CD.  I'm no expert (thus, I'm on the talk page!), but related topics might be:
* lifespan under ideal circumstances
* normal wear and tear 
* damage
There was something else i herd on the radio. Aperently if you expose an audio cd to mold for long periods of time, different effects can occour, almost like a Natural Remix (Echo, panning and interesting skips can occour). Maybe someone should check that out when listing durability. I dont remember the professor's name, but he was at an australian university
*Seconded - CD was presented to the world as an inert, effectively immortal storage medium which proves not to be the case. I am no expert either, but I do know that I own commercially manufactured music and data CDs from the early 1990s which have taken on a bronze tinge, and which are either unusable or unreliable now. Of course different manufacturers will have had varying manufacturing standards, but even the materials used are subject to deterioration. --Ndaisley 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Durability or longevity of the CD medium

message: I found a CD-R FAQ, but before adding the link, should we advise the author?
http://www.cdrfaq.org/
Eptalon
:You don't need to notify the author. Also, that link should go on the CD-R page. - mako 07:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a link? 

message: I've deleted the mention of the Abbey Road 'bonus track'.  This is neither a hidden track, nor a bonus track, nor any other such thing that the article describes.  It is a full-fledged track, fully intended that way and proceeds exactly the way the original LP does.  --patton1138 1 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
A good example of a hidden track would be on Rammstein's album "Reise Reise". It's a clip from the CVR from a commercial airline crash in 1985.--NRen2k5 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Tracks 

message: After adding the mention of Klass Compaan as the originator of the idea of the CD, user DSC posted the following to my talk: 
"I have noticed your contribution to the Compact Disc article regarding Klaas (not Klass; it is the Dutch version of the German Claus, like in SantaClaus) Compaan. Your statement is false, see the laservision article, where you may read that Laserdisc technology was invented by David Paul Gregg in 1958, patented in 1961 and 1969, and first publicly demonstrated by Philips and MCA in 1972. It was first available on the market on December 15, 1978, two years after the VHS VCR and five years before the CD. So please delete your addition to the CD article. Dsc 10:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you only saw the Klass spelling is because that is what the search was done with! The fact remains that there are over 500 sites which mention his name as being integrally associated with the creation of the compact disc and his name obviously belongs in the article somewhere.--Deglr6328 06:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Compaan's idea

message: "Recordable compact discs are injection molded with a "blank" data spiral." Could someone please describe the physcial details of the blank data spiral? --JWSchmidt 18:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blank data spiral 

message: "Many CDs, especially classical music, but also many popular recordings (especially on early CDs), come with a three letter code printed on the back, where "A" stands for analog and "D" stands for digital. The first letter represents how the album was recorded, the second how it was mixed, and the third how it was transferred (inevitably a D, as the CD is a digital medium). As a result, almost all early CDs are "AAD" (analog recording and mixing, digital transfer to CD). Often this code was accompanied by a short description such as "Full Digital Recording" for DDD and "Digitally Mixed Analog Recording" for ADD. The logo of record label 4AD is a spoof of this process designation."
Some clarification is needed here, ADD does not mean it digitaly mixed, but that the mixed down recording is/was digital - it could have been digitsed before or after mixdown. Is the former or the latter more common and which did George Martin use? The former is obviously obligitory if "tube production" is preferred.
The original sentence seems pretty clear to me.
If analog signal sources are digitized before being mixed into a single stereo signal, it's ADD.
If analog signal sources are mixed into a single stereo signal and *afterwards* digitized, it's AAD.
What else could it possibly mean?
--70.130.37.179 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAD ADD DDD 

message: In the subcategory name in the CD article, it says that CDs are commonly spelled "disc" rather than "disk," because Philips has a copyright under that spelling.  What spelling does Philips have a copyright under?  I couldn't tell from the article.  I am making a request that that section should be cleared up. Thanx. Bob the ducq 02:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Confusion 

message: Someone made changes saying that the 125 nm depth was one-sixth of the wavelength of the light, not one-quarter. They are neglecting the fact that the laser wavelength is reduced by ~1.58 in the polycarbonate (its refractive index), and thus 125 nm is almost exactly λ/4. I removed this line:
:The sixth, 125 nm, (and not a quarter) of the wavelength was chosen to have a good trade-off between the push-pull radial tracking signal and the full-aperture read-out signal
Since it makes no sense given that fact. --Bob Mellish 14:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical description

message: there's nothing here about the music industry's push to make cd's [sic] more accepted and widen adoption by limiting the returnability of vinyl records in record stores. this page is mostly technical info. 
And what about how they have steadily increased the retail price of cd's while the manufacturing costs have steadily gone down?
:Well, at this point, that would be a matter of historical trivia. A more current issue would be the deliberate bad mastering of audio-CDs so as to make the DVDA and SACD releases of the same recordings sound better. Er, could you please sign your messages? There's a button on the toolbar to do so. --NRen2k5 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  music industry 

message: As it is now, the pictures of a smaller-size 8mm CD and of normal 12cm CDs are nearly identical at a glance.  I think it would be useful to have a picture of one of each side-by-side.
: I agree. There is a ruler showing that the 8cm (not 8mm :) ) CD is 8cm long.... well, we don't need a ruler to explain that. The two together, along with a ballpoint pen (or possibly audio cassette) for scale would be more useful. (Note: U.S. coins are not a particularly great indication of scale for those of us who don't live there). Fourohfour 10:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  8mm CD picture. 

message: The article completely lacks information about DTS-CDs. While they are not very common, they still exist and should be mentioned.
For those who haven't heard of them, instead of 16-bit PCM at 44.1 kHz these CDs contain DTS encoded audio at 1411.2 kbit/s (ie the same bitrate as 'normal' CD audio). Those can be played by most normal CD players if they are linked digitally to a DTS capable surround decoder. This may sound hackish, but is a standard.
Maybe in this context Dolby Digital CDs sholud be mentioned also which is the same principle used with AC3 encoded audio, but as far as I know this is really a hack and not a standard. Belgabor 80.129.94.211 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I see that DTS-CD doesn't seem to have its own article, nor is it included in the general DTS article. --NRen2k5 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created a stub for DTS-CD and added a link under 'See Also' Edokter 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DTS-CD 

message: 1: there are many other variants of the compact disc logo other than the traditional digital audio one (digital video, digital data,recordable,no subtext at all). Does anyone know what the status of theese is.
2: are the rules different for embossing the logo into the boxes different from those for putting it on the CD, I often see CD-ROMs sold by large companies in boxes with the digital audio logo (less so than they used to as lots of software vendors have moved to using bare DVD cases as the entire package rather than CD boxes as one item in a large cardboard box). Plugwash 11:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  compact disc logo 

message: I know this is a really minor point, but I just can't get used to seeing "Philips's" with that "s" plonked on the end.  I've tried to find some rationale for why it should go, but haven't succeeded yet; quite the opposite, in fact.  Can anybody out there think of a good reason to get rid of it?—Chris (blather • contribs • e)  15:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into this recently. Some style guides allow you to drop the second 's' but all I checked prefer leaving it in. I couldn't find anything in the Wikipedia style guide about it. Rees11 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't the correct grammar be " Philips' " when using the word as a plural?Arendedwinter 06:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophe hell 

message: Many times in this article we see "compact disc" with lower-case initials, and many times (including in the title) we see two capital initials.  Which should it be?  If the former, the article title needs to get changed accordingly. Michael Hardy 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the format should always be uppercase (and thus the name of the article should be in uppercase). When talking about the actual physical disc, there doesn't seem to be consensus one way or the other. --- RockMFR 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital or lower case??

message: Which way do the disks spin? Clockwise or countercloskwise? Am I missing something?
71.102.186.234 11:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spin

message: Is there a reason why we're using a vector image representation of a CD in the infobox? Isn't there a clean, hi-res photograph of an actual CD we could use instead? Pele Merengue 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No good reason for it. I've replaced it with a real Commons image. ProhibitOnions (T) 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image in Infobox

message: The source for the information appears to be a video here: http://dabble.com/node/11373553 (I believe it's in German). 
I really do not think that one Mario Koss with a little side business hacking CDs into works of art (which I assume that they are, since it's doubtful they are playable in that condition) is significant enough to have a mention on an article about general technology standards. Therefore, I have moved the content here for now. If anyone disagrees, just tell me why I'm wrong, and put it back. vLaDsINgEr 02:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Shape CDs?"

message: Preston + Steve did a Science Day, and they put a CD in a Microwave, and it glowed purple. --66.218.11.201 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD + Microwave 

message: Several online sources confirm the 588-bit frames, so I did a major rewrite. I also removed some information that is beyond the scope of the article and made it more readable for the average reader. I hope it meets everyone's approval.  — Edokter • Talk •  11:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you have rewritten the section to essentially the state before it was improved a few days ago. The original text was just fine. I have edited your text, since at places it was false, as for example, mode II does not have any 3rd layer ECC. It would be nice if you could read the literature prior to imroving the text. The section on timing is false, but I have no time to  rewrite it. I do hope that you will study this topic, and revert or remove the text. Izab1 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I only edited what was already there (or in the history), so I can't be blamed for the mistakes regarding the mode II error corection. Second, I do think you use to many 'scholary' words. This is an encyclodepia article, not a research paper. And like I said, I can't read the literature, and have to make due with what's online. Regarding the timing section, I ask you again to quote the relevant text from the red book. I do know that 99% of all editing applications do refer to the 1/75th timing as a frame, and I have indicated it as such.  — Edokter • Talk •  15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data structure - section break 

message: Anyone know where that 30 billion number in the introduction comes from?
That's a HUGE number... I'd love to see how that number was reached.
I have been hunting for similar data on floppy disks, too... if anyone knows.
--Beagley 18:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "anual". More likely the total sales since it's introduction.  — Edokter • Talk •  21:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for 30-billion-a-year number? 

message: After reading this article, I am left unclear on the manufacturing process. In the Manufacturing section, does the initial disc formation from plastic granules introduce a spiral into the resulting surface? Later, does the data die press the data into the metalic layer alone? Is the thin, metal coating thick enough to hold the data or is the plastic substrate involved? Without clarity on these areas, I am left unable to think clearly about the physics of what happens when a disc degrades. Of course, commercially recorded discs, writable discs, re-writable discs, etc. are all different. My hope is that this article will be updated with greater detail in the Manufacturing section. Ideally, a disc diagram clearly showing the location(s) of the spiral and data will be provided. I suspect that the data reside in two places: in the metalic layer and in the plastic substrate upon which the metalic layer has been coated. However, it isn't clear to me how data could be introduced into the plactic substrate without the use of heat. Heat is not mentioned in the data impression step. --JimOfCR (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great to have this information added to the article (eg. with a diagram showing the construction at each stage of manufacture).  Could you possible assist in researching it (eg. the best place to start is probably the original Philips patents).  —Sladen (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I too found the manufacture section lacking, specifically with "After a metallic reflecting layer […] is applied to the clear blank substrate…" but no mention of how this seemingly magical process is accomplished.  I will continue my search as to how a metal so finicky as Aluminum can be deposited over 100-500µm "pits" and "lands" of polycarbonate plastic without destroying it. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be able to expound the article to include a more detailed explanation of this extremely interesting part of the process. —98.210.138.200 (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc Manufacture Clarification Request 

message: The longest known single compact-disc is The Rest of New Order by New Order, which lasts exactly 80 minutes (80:02 with pregap), which is the longest a single CD album can go. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.125.225 (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The same sentence above was inserted verbatium today on the Album article, also without citation.  —Sladen (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the longest cd 

message: This says that the speed is different from the edge to the middle. OK. But it also says the RPM is different from edge to middle! That's literally impossible! What the heck is going on here? --Jtle515 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Speed and rpm are the same thing—rpm is spinning speed—and the spinning speed lowers as the CD plays. It starts revolving fast at 495 rpm at where the laser is reading a short inner track near the middle, then gradually and smoothly reduces in rpm (spinning speed) until the laser is near the outside edge and the rpm is about 212, for a maximum length CD that has data all the way out to the outside edge. The laser reading speed is constant, called a constant linear velocity (CLV)—it reads about 1.2 meters (47 inches) worth of pits and lands every second for a 1x speed realtime player. To me, the article is quite clear and I don't see the need to modify it. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, 69.204.43.162 (Your name please?) Reference number changes all the time. Did you mark it as Dead Link? —冷雾 (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical parameters 

message: Hans B.Peek, "The Emergence of the Compact Disc", IEEE Communications Magazine, Jan. 2010, pp.10-17.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peek (talk • contribs) 11:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr Peek, does any of your papers contain the precise physical parameters of the compact disks? See this section. —冷雾 (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Compact Disc, further reading 

message: A careful read on this article http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm will reveal that the cd playing time of 74 minutes is more of a competition thing between Sony and Phillips than the usual story about Beethoven'w 9th. I would suggest reading the article and maybe correct the wikipedia article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.48.34 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD Playing time 

message: Firstly, would there be any value in updating the stated maximum write speed of CDRs to 52x as these are now widely available?
Secondly, how about mentioning CDRs with a capacity of 90mins/800MB and 100mins/900MB? They're available at various online stores in the UK and I imagine elsewhere, too. (One site picked at random: www.digitalpromo.co.uk)
SP1R1TM4N (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDR Capacity and Speed 

message: The History section is badly over-written. It can be cleaned up without removing useful content. I'll take a crack at it later today, or tomorrow, unless someone objects. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: has suggested a merge of Blu-spec CD into this article. We might want to also consider a few other similar techniques as part of this proposal.
* DSD-CD (Sony)
* K2 High Definition (JVC)
* XRCD (JVC)
* HDCD (Pacific Microsonics/Microsoft)
* SHM-CD
:I oppose this proposal. I could not find a good place to work in this material. It looks like Compact Disc manufacturing might be a more workable merge destination but I am reluctant to clutter that article with these marketed refinements to the basic process. --Kvng (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal As the Two formats are compatible and the Blue-spec CD is playable on any CD player, I think it would make for a noteworthy section in the Compact Disk article.  z'Comandif l'Statentaru l'Zeklingtonum! (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I support this proposal  Unless someone is planning a large increase in the size of the Blu-spec CD  article, it makes an ideal subheading in this page, and unified information about, as pointed out above, a backward compatible formatTim bates (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blu-spec merge 

message: It would be good to have the article improved to meet WP:Featured article standards in the next few months so that it can be featured on the main page on the 30th birthday of the CD: 17 August 2012. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  30th birthday coming 17 August 2012 

message: I have included a citation for a website list of known Copy Protected CDs (mainly found in the UK, but some elsewhere which I remember reading at the time) as this was the only thing a very quick scholar.google.com search ignoring patents, brought up to verify the previous early-2002 information (with citation-needed remark). The original link is now dead but it's available on archive.org's Wayback Machine from 5th December 2012 - I found the link in one of the academic paper's references sections.
There were academic discussions of Sony/BMG copy-protection and root-kit techniques by Halderman/Felten then of Princeton, including a 15th USENIX Security Symposium paper but these did not mention earlier copy protection schemes dating back to 2001. I believe there were reasonably erudite forum discussions on hydrogenaudio.org soon after many of the bad CDs were discovered in the wild, though I haven't yet checked the archives.
Dynamicimanyd (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic citations for Copy Protection 

message: A relatively recent book (2009, I don't expect to see much more recent ones about this technology) by Philips authors uses "Compact Disc" to refer to the technology but "compact disc" to refer to an individual disc  (they also use the abbreviation CD aplenty for that matter). Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note 

message: thumb|right|Individual pits are visible on the micrometre scale
In the Manufacture section, there is an AFM image of the compact disc data surface. The upper half uses color to indicate surface height. Unfortunately, whereas the article describes the surface to have just two types of region -- "pits" and "land" -- there are three distinct colors in the image. If the black color represent pits and the orange color represents the virgin (unexposed, unwritten) surface, what are the white regions along the track between pits? They should be the same shade as the space between tracks. Perhaps some data-processing step caused the white regions, I don't know. The bottom half is difficult to interpret. I think the image should be replaced. Spiel496 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very confusing image 

message: I like the article, still have to read over it.Peas345 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: The Red Book CD-DA standard was published in 1980. The article originally stated that this was "available" in 1979. This is not true. The standard was finalized and published in 1980.
(86.170.95.234 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Finalized by who? The people who were looking at it in 1979. The proposed standard was being passed around to engineers and executives in the industry, those who would certify it. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Book Standard - 1980 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Compact disc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/russell.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/cdstory.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417000316/http://www.cd-testing.com:80/ to http://www.cd-testing.com/#i17
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The capitalization in the article name indicates compact disc is not a proper noun. The lead uses title case and so presumably believes otherwise. Capitalization is inconsistent throughout the rest of the article. Which is it? I'd do something WP:BOLD but I don't have a good track record making these calls. ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho, it's a proper noun and should be capitalized. A "compact disc" is just about any flat, circular object that can be described as compact. The "Compact Disc" standard is what this page is about. --Zac67 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've always seen "compact disc" written in lowercase. It's written in lowercase on this CD player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_player#/media/File:CDP101a.jpg 2602:306:3653:8920:8845:B1A5:A7FD:157F (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's spelled "COMPACT disc DIGITAL AUDIO" on the CDP-101... --Zac67 (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

text: For our purposes here, it doesn't matter how others style it, it just matters what kind of noun it is. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Capital_letters. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper noun? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Compact disc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319141821/http://www.philipsmuseumeindhoven.nl/phe/products/e_cd.htm to http://www.philipsmuseumeindhoven.nl/phe/products/e_cd.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/beethoven.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.research.philips.com/newscenter/dossier/optrec/beethoven.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718100639/http://indiemusicstop.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/cd-baby-payouts-surge/ to http://indiemusicstop.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/cd-baby-payouts-surge/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.research.philips.com/newscenter/dossier/optrec/beethoven.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121216094847/http://www.ip.philips.com/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_cdplayer_joint.html to http://www.ip.philips.com/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_cdplayer_joint.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121206014421/http://www.ip.philips.com/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_cddisc_joint.html to http://www.ip.philips.com/licensing/licensingprogramshistory/history_cddisc_joint.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 11 August 2017 (
------------
Wonder
 Apologies for the poor presentation, I'm new to this and will appreciate any corrections in format. 
Please see this image here -  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_cd_played_on_BBC_Radio_and_Independent_radio_in_the_uk.jpg Not sure whether it should be linked to this page, or how best to do it? This does show some social history in that the heavy soiling all occurred in 1982, when the BBC radio and independent radio presenters wanted to see it scratched and covered in jam to 'prove', Philips advertising claim of "perfect sound forever".Supermack01 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There have been a bunch of edits in the past few weeks, most by , and I am just getting to reviewing them. I do not see any clear net improvements and I see some potential regressions. And per WP:BRD I have reverted the whole lot of them. Examples of issues include replacing an archived link with a live link without archive. Unformatting a reference. Confusion between 'die' and 'dye' that I'm not confident has been sorted out. Quiet removal (marked minor) of a low-quality reference. Replacement of  with unreliable reference and no commentary in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits are not clear improvements 

message: The question should be asked of industry of music why CD's are so prone to easily damage. Creating a metal layer on the top without any protective layer will easily get damaged.--2605:6000:3D11:3200:211A:8044:929B:34D1 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but demanding answers from Sony and Philips about design decisions is not what Wikipedia does. And talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing the article's subject. See WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTFORUM. If you can find reliable sources for the reason for the decision to put only a thin layer of shellac or paint on the data layer, please be WP:BOLD and add the info (with references) to the article. Jeh (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  intentional weakness built into standard for planned obsolescence. 

message: The unsourced first three paragraphs in the Manufacture section are wrong. It's got the steps more or less correct but in the wrong order. The process is described correctly at Compact Disc manufacturing, but I can't just summarize that because it's unsourced too. I tried searching for sources online but couldn't find any. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the magazine archives at http://www.americanradiohistory.com . Jeh (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that earlier but couldn't find what I needed. There are a few articles that come close, but I couldn't find one that describes all the steps in the proper order. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacture 

message: I've always heard that the first compact disc was a Billy Joel CD.
I found an article that mentions it here...
The CD turns 30: The first player and album were released today in 1982
...and that page references this source (at the Internet Archive)...
Sony Global - Sony History
Wkrick (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a myth.  There were 50 titles released simultaneously on October 1st, 1982.  52nd Street just had the lowest catalog number. —Torc. (Talk.) 23:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are some additional sources about the first batch of commercial CDs: a list of the first 50 titles, all realeased on Oct 1, 1982, "Sony" by John Nathan, PC World article, and Independent UK article.  The Billy Joel 52nd Street myth frequently reappears, especially in the Billy Joel and 52nd Street (album) articles, so we need to keep an eye on those so we can finally kill this piece of fiction. —Torc. (Talk.) 19:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first commercially released CD album