2004 CD player

[micky]

Is my 2004 original equipment CD player likely to be able to play Mp3
cds (in the car I just bought)?

There is one I want to buy (though I dont' have the url now) that had
far more songs on it, maybe 50 or 100, than the 15 that I'm used to, and
another poster made me realize that this might be a set of MP3 files.

The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
right?

[Dave Platt]

>The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
>right?

It almost certainly means "no" although you might get lucky.

Ordinary Red Book audio CDs can hold up to 99 tracks. It's _possible_
that the CD you are interested in might be an audio CD with lots of
tracks, and be playable in your car. Total up the track lengths (if
that information is available). If it's less than 80 minutes you may
be in luck; if it's more than that, then it's very probably an MP3
(or similar lossy-encoded) disc and your car player probably won't
recognize it.

If it's MP3, you could buy it, use a PC to decompress the individual
.MP3 files into audio format, and burn them onto a set of Red Book
audio CD-R discs. Those would be playable in your car.

[Gareth Magennis]

"micky" wrote in message news:s6d7ncdecv29j9dsl...@4ax.com...

**********************************************************


My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no
problem.



Gareth.

[Michael Black]

I don't think it's a matter of age. I think that some CD players could
play MP3 discs, and the rest couldn't. I know in buying used portable CD
players, some specify that they can play MP3s, others don't, and I take
them for their word.

And I think it's a relatively brief period. After MP3s took off, maybe
some time later, but before MP3 players came along, or maybe some overlap
into the era of MP3 players. An MP3 player is so much better, they took
over.

There was an issue of older CD players not playing CDRW discs. I forget
the details, but after a certain date, CD players didn't seem to have the
problem. So something was changed there. But that's different from
playing MP3s, though for many people it did matter, since they put MP3s on
a CDRW disc and then played that.

Maybe DVD players are more likely to play MP3 discs. Now I can't
remember, but I vaguely recall making an MP3 disc to try in my circa 2003
DVD player. But that's different circuitry, and have more of what's
needed to play MP3s.

Michael

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:14:50 +0100, "Gareth

OOOO. That sounds good I'm going to have to make one up and test
the player with it, and if it works, I can buy that thing above.
>
>Gareth.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 13:45:24 -0700,

dpl...@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote:

>>The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
>>right?
>
>It almost certainly means "no" although you might get lucky.
>
>Ordinary Red Book audio CDs can hold up to 99 tracks. It's _possible_
>that the CD you are interested in might be an audio CD with lots of
>tracks, and be playable in your car. Total up the track lengths (if
>that information is available). If it's less than 80 minutes you may
>be in luck;

That would be bad for other reasons. If they try to squeeze even 50
songs into 80 minutes, they won't be the versions I want.

if it's more than that, then it's very probably an MP3
>(or similar lossy-encoded) disc and your car player probably won't
>recognize it.
>
>If it's MP3, you could buy it, use a PC to decompress the individual
>.MP3 files into audio format, and burn them onto a set of Red Book
>audio CD-R discs. Those would be playable in your car.

that sounds like a lot of work! But let me go track down the CD and
see if it gives clues related to your post or Gareth's

Thanks all.

[bitrex]

On 07/22/2017 05:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:

> There was an issue of older CD players not playing CDRW discs. I forget
> the details, but after a certain date, CD players didn't seem to have
> the problem. So something was changed there. But that's different from
> playing MP3s, though for many people it did matter, since they put MP3s
> on a CDRW disc and then played that.

CD-RWs required more sensitive optics on the part of the playback
device, CD-Rs however once they were written with PCM audio data (_not_
mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material equivalent
of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any CD player, even
ones from the 1980s.

[bitrex]

IIRC my 2002 Ford Taurus OEM CD player would play CD-Rs of mp3 files,
but not CD-RWs.

[~misfit~]

Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some
older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected)
signal. This was common knowledge back when CDRs first became affordable and
people would have trouble with their older players not playing them (or not
playing them reliably). Back then some players started being sold as being
CDR compatible but after a while it became taken for granted and the badging
vanished.

CDRW discs are even less reflective than CDRs.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

[Phil Allison]

~misfit~ wrote:

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

> >
> > CD-RWs required more sensitive optics on the part of the playback
> > device, CD-Rs however once they were written with PCM audio data
> > (_not_ mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material
> > equivalent of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any
> > CD player, even ones from the 1980s.
>
> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some
> older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected)
> signal.
>

** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as a normal CD.

They play perfectly in my 1982, Sony CDP101.



.... Phil

[~misfit~]

Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting areas. In a
CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits' whereas with a
CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is 'burned'
changing it's reflectivity index. The result, done on a modern high-quality
burner on a modern high quality blank and at a reasonable speed is close to
a pressed CD w/r/t readability. However a lot of CDRs are burned too fast
and / or are not top quality blanks resulting in a less-well defined change
from reflective to non-reflective which can give some older readers
problems. Especially when they were first on the market.

It's not so much of an issue these days as the quality of blanks has
improved considerably and the price of good quality ones has come down.
There used to be a large difference in price between the cheapest discs and
the best discs and and a corresponding difference in readability. This could
give some older players - especially those with lasers that were starting to
weaken - issues reading CDRs.

> They play perfectly in my 1982, Sony CDP101.

My 1986 Philips CD 160 and my 1987 Sony CDP-17F will both read all of my
newer CDRs but used to struggle with ones I burned in the early days when
discs and burners weren't as good. I still have some of those CDrs and even
though they've been looked after and are in good physical condition both of
the older players struggle with them.

I don't have an older player any longer and will probably be getting rid of
those two soon as them not having remotes and me having mobility issues
makes it so I hardly use them these days anyway.

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet ~misfit~ wrote:
> Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------
>>
>>>>
>>>> CD-RWs required more sensitive optics on the part of the playback
>>>> device, CD-Rs however once they were written with PCM audio data
>>>> (_not_ mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material
>>>> equivalent of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any
>>>> CD player, even ones from the 1980s.
>>>
>>> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
>>> such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get
>>> a good (reflected) signal.
>>>
>>
>> ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as
>> a normal CD.
>
> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
> areas. In a CD they're pressed into the refecting later

layer not later.

> and become
> 'pits' whereas with a CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and
> the pickup laser is 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.

I forgot to mention that this dye layer that is burned into a non-reflective
bit when a CDR is burned is not as optically clear in its unburned state as
the clear coat on a pressed CD which results in a lower index of reflection.
That when combined with the following results in CDRs being harder to read
than pressed CDs.

[Phil Allison]

~misfit~ wrote:

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

>
>>
> >> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
> >> such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get
> >> a good (reflected) signal.
> >>
> >
> > ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer as
> > a normal CD.
>
>
>
> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting areas.
>

** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.

> In a
> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
>

** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.

The whole game is wavelength dependant.

> whereas with a
> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is 'burned'
> changing it's reflectivity index.
>

** The dye simply becomes opaque.

You are just making " facts " up as you go.

A process called "confabulation".

A euphemism for bullshitting.




..... Phil

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:

> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
> -------------------
>>
>>>
>>>> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
>>>> such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get
>>>> a good (reflected) signal.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer
>>> as a normal CD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
>> areas.
>>
>
> ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.

I didn't think that you were going to split hairs.

>> In a
>> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
>>
>
>
> ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.
>
> The whole game is wavelength dependant.

Perhaps with blu-ray it is but not so much with CDs as the dark and light
areas are large enough for any wavelength to read you moron.

>> whereas with a
>> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is
>> 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.
>>
>
>
> ** The dye simply becomes opaque.

Which is a fuckwit way of saying it's reflectivity index or ability to
transmit light has changed.

> You are just making " facts " up as you go.
>
> A process called "confabulation".
>
> A euphemism for bullshitting.

I see you're back to your MO of trying to be so obnoxious as to scare others
off so you can have the last say. Funny how it always happens in the evening
when you're pisssed. You fucking cock-swallowing galah.

[Phil Allison]

~misfit~ wrote:

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

> >>>
> >>>> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
> >>>> such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get
> >>>> a good (reflected) signal.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer
> >>> as a normal CD.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
> >> areas.
> >>
> >
> > ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.
>
> I didn't think that you were going to split hairs.
>

** And I'm not.

> >> In a
> >> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
> >>
> >
> >
> > ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.
> >
> > The whole game is wavelength dependant.
>
> Perhaps with blu-ray it is but not so much with CDs as the dark and light
> areas are large enough for any wavelength to read you moron.
>

** Pressed CDs do not have dark and light areas.

The pits are exactly 1/4 wave deep the 780nm IR wavelength used - the IR laser light travels and extra half wavelength causing self cancellation.

Go look it up.

> >> whereas with a
> >> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is
> >> 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ** The dye simply becomes opaque.
>
> Which is a fuckwit way of saying it's reflectivity index or ability to
> transmit light has changed.
>

** Remember posting this?

" Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some
older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected)
signal. "

> > You are just making " facts " up as you go.
> >
> > A process called "confabulation".
> >
> > A euphemism for bullshitting.
>
> I see you're back to your MO of trying to be so obnoxious as to scare others
> off so you can have the last say. Funny how it always happens in the evening
>
>

** The one being obnoxious here is you - pal.




.... Phil

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:

> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
> --------------------
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
>>>>>> such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to
>>>>>> get a good (reflected) signal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer
>>>>> as a normal CD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
>>>> areas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.
>>
>> I didn't think that you were going to split hairs.
>>
>
> ** And I'm not.
>
>
>
>>>> In a
>>>> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.
>>>
>>> The whole game is wavelength dependant.
>>
>> Perhaps with blu-ray it is but not so much with CDs as the dark and
>> light areas are large enough for any wavelength to read you moron.
>>
>
> ** Pressed CDs do not have dark and light areas.
>
> The pits are exactly 1/4 wave deep the 780nm IR wavelength used - the
> IR laser light travels and extra half wavelength causing self
> cancellation.
>
> Go look it up.

All good I'll take your word for it. So it's even more 'black-and-white'
w/r/t reflections than I thought with a pressed CD.

>>>> whereas with a
>>>> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is
>>>> 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ** The dye simply becomes opaque.
>>
>> Which is a fuckwit way of saying it's reflectivity index or ability
>> to transmit light has changed.
>>
>
> ** Remember posting this?
>
> " Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
> such some
> older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good
> (reflected)
> signal. "

Yep, and I stand by it. Notice I said "CDRs..." and not 'the metallised
layer inside CRDs...'?

In fact you've just told me that the whole of the underside of pressed CDs
is reflective, just that part is 180º out of phase with the rest when read
with a CD laser. That's certainly not the case with CDRs.

>>> You are just making " facts " up as you go.
>>>
>>> A process called "confabulation".
>>>
>>> A euphemism for bullshitting.
>>
>> I see you're back to your MO of trying to be so obnoxious as to
>> scare others off so you can have the last say. Funny how it always
>> happens in the evening
>>
>
> ** The one being obnoxious here is you - pal.

Not exactly true but, if it was, it would make a change eh?

[Phil Allison]

~misfit~ bullshitted:

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

> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
> >>>>>> such some older CD players don't have the laser power needed to
> >>>>>> get a good (reflected) signal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ** CDRs use the same metallised ( Gold or Silver) reflecting layer
> >>>>> as a normal CD.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. The difference is in the construction of the non-refecting
> >>>> areas.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ** Shame how that admission completely removes your original claim.
> >>
> >> I didn't think that you were going to split hairs.
> >>
> >
> > ** And I'm not.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>> In a
> >>>> CD they're pressed into the refecting later and become 'pits'
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ** Pits come first, reflective metallisation comes afterwards.
> >>>
> >>> The whole game is wavelength dependant.
> >>
> >> Perhaps with blu-ray it is but not so much with CDs as the dark and
> >> light areas are large enough for any wavelength to read you moron.
> >>
> >
> > ** Pressed CDs do not have dark and light areas.
> >
> > The pits are exactly 1/4 wave deep the 780nm IR wavelength used - the
> > IR laser light travels and extra half wavelength causing self
> > cancellation.
> >
> > Go look it up.
>
> All good I'll take your word for it.
>

** So you never had a clue how CDs work ?

> So it's even more 'black-and-white'
> w/r/t reflections than I thought with a pressed CD.

** Wot a desperate bullshit artist you are.

> >>>> whereas with a
> >>>> CDR a dye layer between the reflecting area and the pickup laser is
> >>>> 'burned' changing it's reflectivity index.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ** The dye simply becomes opaque.
> >>
> >> Which is a fuckwit way of saying it's reflectivity index or ability
> >> to transmit light has changed.
> >>
> >
> > ** Remember posting this?
> >
> > " Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as
> > such some
> > older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good
> > (reflected)
> > signal. "
>
> Yep, and I stand by it.

** You are standing on quicksand - pal.

> Notice I said "CDRs..." and not 'the metallised
> layer inside CRDs...'?
>

** Shame how nothing else is reflective.

Wot a bullshitter.

>>
> >
> > ** The one being obnoxious here is you - pal.
>
> Not exactly true but,
>

** It is precisely the truth.

Fact is, you have no interest in the truth.



..... Phil

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 23 Jul 2017 13:35:47 -0400, bitrex

<bit...@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 07/22/2017 05:14 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>
>> "micky" wrote in message
>> news:s6d7ncdecv29j9dsl...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Is my 2004 original equipment CD player likely to be able to play Mp3
>> cds (in the car I just bought)?

This is a Chrysler Sebring, 2004. I don't know who actually made the
radio.

>> There is one I want to buy (though I dont' have the url now) that had
>> far more songs on it, maybe 50 or 100, than the 15 that I'm used to, and
>> another poster made me realize that this might be a set of MP3 files.
>>
>> The owners manual says nothing about mp3. That probably means no,
>> right?
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************
>>
>>
>> My 1999 Ford Focus Original CD/radio would play a CD full of mp3's no
>> problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gareth.
>>
>
>IIRC my 2002 Ford Taurus OEM CD player would play CD-Rs of mp3 files,
>but not CD-RWs.

Well, I made up a CD on the PC and tried to play it and I got ERR.

I guess I could have done this in the first place, but I learned things
in this thread, so it was worth it.

I finally noticed that some CDs are labeled "audio CD" and I guess
that's all mine can play.



I didn't mention my previous car, a 2000 Toyota Solara with an
AM/FM/6-CD-changer in one box, that I still own, which used to work,
then gave Err 2, then worked again after I took it out and fiddled with
it a little, then gave Err 2 again, repeat previous step, and then did
nothing at all when I pressed the CD button.

But I'm selling the car and it has I think 3 CDs in it.

This time fiddling did nothing, and trying to disassemble didn't
accomplish much, so I ended up taking out as many screws as possible and
ripping the pieces out.

By the time I was done, the laser assembly didn't slide well on its
track, so maybe that's why it finally stopped working (though earlier it
was the changer that was causing trouble.) Or maybe I damaged the
track or laser carriage when ripping it out, though I don't think so.

But I got the CDs out and there were *four* of them.

I don't know who made that radio either.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Mon, 24 Jul 2017 15:06:47 +1200,

"~misfit~" <shaun.at...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time on usenet bitrex wrote:
>> On 07/22/2017 05:33 PM, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>> There was an issue of older CD players not playing CDRW discs. I
>>> forget the details, but after a certain date, CD players didn't seem
>>> to have the problem. So something was changed there. But that's
>>> different from playing MP3s, though for many people it did matter,
>>> since they put MP3s on a CDRW disc and then played that.
>>
>> CD-RWs required more sensitive optics on the part of the playback
>> device, CD-Rs however once they were written with PCM audio data
>> (_not_ mp3 files) and finalized IIRC were essentially the material
>> equivalent of a commercial Red Book audio CD and should work on any
>> CD player, even ones from the 1980s.
>
>Actually CDRs are much less reflective than 'pressed' CDs and as such some
>older CD players don't have the laser power needed to get a good (reflected)
>signal. This was common knowledge back when CDRs first became affordable and
>people would have trouble with their older players not playing them (or not
>playing them reliably). Back then some players started being sold as being
>CDR compatible but after a while it became taken for granted and the badging
>vanished.

So this accounts for my original question.