what the hell is a...

Red Book CD? I keep seeing this phrase, and still have no concept of what it is???? Red Book cd? or Red book cd player????

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc_Digital_Audio

 

so , and thanks Dik, it is nothing to do with sound quality then? I ve read it, but dont get the reason why people bang on about red book cds...am I missing something? Im still alittle confused.

 

thanks to the red book specs everytime some gits like Sony try to produce a disc with DRM on it they cannot call it a CD, and if they want to call a disc a CD they have to offer an alternative without it

 

I'm the last person that's qualified to answer questions about cd players.... I don't own one=) but I won't let that stop me...
As far as I know "Red Book" just means a CD player (or disc) that is just a CD, as opposed to all the fancy stuff like dvd, or blueray or some of the non standard stuff like the anti piracy coded cd discs.
It only relates to sound quality in so far as the red book cd standard is 44.1khz sampling rate etc, whereas some of the newer higher resolution formats are 96khz sampling rate for example.
Hopefully someone that knows a bit more about this stuff will answer you, I'm just an old fashioned analogue guy=)

 

It just means that it (player or CD) conforms to the standards for audio CDs laid out by Philips and Sony when they invented it.

As far as I know, it states nothing about the methods used to convert the digital data to an analog music signal, so it has little baring on sound quality besides saying its not a fancy HDCD or SACD or anything.

 

There are quite a few 'books', for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Books

But 'Red Book' is just 'Plain old audio CD'.

Paul

 

marantz first tried to launch the digital disc by listing it as red book to avoid paying the inventors that of course was philips royalties for the logo that was there in all cdr's on a conner no matter what make a percentage of all was to be payied to philips, it died,
nando

 

p.s. red book was red lazer and stogage book
nando

 

Given that Philips owned Marantz from 1980 until 2001, that is a complete and utter load of tosh.

 

quate

philips did not owned marantz they where a partnership of two divisions, marantz was a USA company at the time , tosh

 

Some "partnership" if they were really trying to "avoid paying... royalties". Do you have the slightest bit of evidence for this, or are you just doing your usual?

 

quate

how long have you being in the industry? if you have any knowledge about and when compact disc's where used then tell me as i used to work for island records.
nanado

 

quate

p.s i also worked with sony when SACD was to come on the market
nando

 

I have been in the industry for my entire career.

And worth noting that Marantz's first CD player, the CD-63 (the original, not the mid-90s budget player of the same name) carries the CD Digital Audio logo, and is made of philips parts, because, as I mentioned earlier, Philips OWNED all marantz assets at that time other than US/canada trademarks and dealer network.

You've contradicted yourself anyway, with first saying that marantz were trying to pull a fast one on philips, and then declaring that they were in partnership?

References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marantz
http://www.marantzphilips.nl/index.asp?strPage=Info&strBrand=Marantz&strType=Marantz_cd63
http://www.marantzphilips.nl/index.asp?strBrand=Various&strType=Marantzhistory&strPage=Info#9

Please note in the last of those:

Please feel free to link any references to your allegations.