Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Is it true that CD's won't be around much longer, replaced by MP3's?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeff

unread,
Feb 19, 2011, 7:21:09 AM2/19/11
to
It's what I've heard.

Tony

unread,
Feb 19, 2011, 8:43:09 PM2/19/11
to
I think they'll be around for awhile. I wish they'd release everything
on CD/SACD hybrid in surround sound.
I was disappointed that the Beatles' remasters weren't released as a
hybrid and that they weren't remixed.

Jeff

unread,
Feb 21, 2011, 3:42:49 AM2/21/11
to
On Feb 19, 7:43 pm, Shaw...@webtv.net (Tony) wrote:
>  I think they'll be around for awhile. I wish they'd release everything
> on CD/SACD hybrid in surround sound.

I don't think SACD ever really took off did it?

>  I was disappointed that the Beatles' remasters weren't released as a
> hybrid and that they weren't remixed.

I'm sorry too they weren't remixed. Perhaps in our life time.

Tony

unread,
Feb 21, 2011, 5:36:55 PM2/21/11
to
>I don't think SACD ever really took off
> did it?

They don't appear to have and neither have DVD-A's.
It's strange how some new technologies never do. In 1974 a friend and I
bought quadrophonic stereos. They were great and delivered true
four-channel sound but they never caught on for some reason.

Jeff

unread,
Feb 27, 2011, 5:06:52 AM2/27/11
to
On Feb 21, 4:36 pm, Shaw...@webtv.net (Tony) wrote:
> >I don't think SACD ever really took off
> > did it?
>
>  They don't appear to have

Didn't the Stones take some of their recordings to SACD?

and neither have DVD-A's.

I don't know what those are.

>  It's strange how some new technologies never do. In 1974 a friend and I
> bought quadrophonic stereos. They were great and delivered true
> four-channel sound but they never caught on for some reason.

I think it was because they were too expensive, and I didn't buy
one figuring the format wouldn't take off.

Tony

unread,
Feb 27, 2011, 12:47:50 PM2/27/11
to
>Didn't the Stones take some of their
> recordings to SACD?
Several of their albums were re-issued in the hybrid format a few years
ago.

 >I don't know what those are.

DVD'As are DVDs with audio only.

>I think it was because they were too
> expensive, and I didn't buy one figuring
> the format wouldn't take off.

I bought mine on January 15th, 1974 and it cost $399.95 and the tapes
were only one dollar more than the standard 8-tracks.
My system was a Panasonic and it included a receiver with am/fm stereo,
quad 8-track and you could record with the 8-track. I dubbed many
records and cassette tapes onto 8-track for use in the car.
I paid a little extra for the phonograph and I used the system until
December, 1990, when I purchased a new stereo. I used the receiver a few
years back and it still worked like new and I'm using two of the
speakers in my home theater set-up.

Jeff

unread,
Mar 16, 2011, 3:05:04 AM3/16/11
to

Lets see: In 1974, I was working at an unskilled job that paid
only about 85 dollars a week, so with the cost of driving
15-20 miles each way...and still living with my parents
and paying them rent, (I don't remember how much per
week) I just didn't have the money to fork out $ 399.95
for a stereo in 1974. I did save up $ 600.00 by 1977 though,
and I borrowed another $ 600.00 to buy a pair of JBL
speakers, and a receiver that cost about $ 350.00,
but I never even thought about buying quad by that time,
knowing the format never took off. It seemed like it took
forever just to pay off that other $ 600.00, for that other
JBL speaker...at a cost of $ 50.00 a week to the bank.

0 new messages