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.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages