CD did not replace LP

[Carl Valle]

The thread on the subject of CD replacing LP is not entirely correct. In
fact, if you look at RIAA numbers you would find that for 2 years, LP sales
were outstripped by the lowly cassette. What consumers wanted was an
alternative to LP's problems. Several high end attempts were made with
cassette, such as HX Pro, chrome tape, better casings, and digital bin
duplicators. When the CD came out it was a natural. It was more convenient
than tape. But it took two years for CD sales to eclipse cassette, mainly
because of the high price of the playback machines. DCC and DAT also made a
run for the money, and scared the hell out of the RIAA because they were
recordable. Open reel never made it because the machines cost way too much,
but open reel did provide a jump to cassette when cheap cassette machines
and software became available. Anyway, the LP had already been replaced when
the CD made it's appearance. The CD just killed LP faster. If car CD players
had come out earlier, it would have been even faster, but the cassette held
on for a while for automobile use. To be fair there was talk about perfect
sound, but what sold was acceptable sound, cheap software, and cheap
machnes. The rest as they say, was fringe benefit. It will be interesting to
see if CD survives much longer, I suspect that internet music on demand like
the ipod and apple music store etc. finish off the 'record store.' Several
shops in st. louis are going under right now.

Carl

[Robert Morein]

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m...
> The thread on the subject of CD replacing LP is not entirely correct. In
> fact, if you look at RIAA numbers you would find that for 2 years, LP
sales
> were outstripped by the lowly cassette. What consumers wanted was an
> alternative to LP's problems. Several high end attempts were made with
> cassette, such as HX Pro, chrome tape, better casings, and digital bin
> duplicators. When the CD came out it was a natural. It was more convenient
> than tape. But it took two years for CD sales to eclipse cassette, mainly
> because of the high price of the playback machines. DCC and DAT also made
a
> run for the money, and scared the hell out of the RIAA because they were
> recordable. Open reel never made it because the machines cost way too
much,
> but open reel did provide a jump to cassette when cheap cassette machines
> and software became available. Anyway, the LP had already been replaced
when
> the CD made it's appearance. The CD just killed LP faster. If car CD
players
> had come out earlier, it would have been even faster, but the cassette
held
> on for a while for automobile use. To be fair there was talk about perfect
> sound, but what sold was acceptable sound, cheap software, and cheap
> machnes. The rest as they say, was fringe benefit. It will be interesting
to
> see if CD survives much longer, I suspect that internet music on demand
like
> the ipod and apple music store etc. finish off the 'record store.' Several
> shops in st. louis are going under right now.
>
> Carl
>
I saw an industry study that projected that the CD would continue to
represent the majority of music sales for much longer than we might think.

Perhaps Atkinson has the figures?

[Arny Krueger]

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m

> The thread on the subject of CD replacing LP is not entirely correct.

Nothing's perfect, but based on past experience, Valle posts are very far
from perfect.

> In fact, if you look at RIAA numbers you would find that for 2 years,
> LP sales were outstripped by the lowly cassette.

Note that Valle tries to distract readers from the obvious fact that CD
sales outstripped both formats. DVD sales outstripped both formats.

> What consumers wanted was an alternative to LP's problems.

Actually, both producers and consumers wanted to end the LP madness.

>Several high end attempts
> were made with cassette, such as HX Pro, chrome tape, better casings,
> and digital bin duplicators.

Mere efforts to polish a well-known turd being the cassette, and by
extension analog tape.

> When the CD came out it was a natural.

The CD did just about everything better. In fact other than riding the hobby
horses of luddite vinylphiles, it has few if any faults.

> It was more convenient than tape.

Valle can't bring himself to admit that the CD format has the potential to
sound vastly better than the best LP. No tic, tic, tic, and lots of other
nastly-sounding things that are built into the LP and analog tape
technologies.

> But it took two years for CD sales
> to eclipse cassette, mainly because of the high price of the playback
> machines.

And high price of media and avaiilability of product. Remember this is Valle
talking and it seems like he can't get anything right.

> DCC and DAT also made a run for the money, and scared the
> hell out of the RIAA because they were recordable.

Speaking of getting something right. Valle actually got something right.

>Open reel never made it because the machines cost way too much,

Actually, pretty fair open reel machines were cheaper than cassette machines
at some point. Open reel didn't make it because it was too complex -
required people thread the tape to play it. If you did it a lot it was not
much of a hassle, but initially, it scared a lot of people.

> but open reel did provide a jump to cassette when cheap cassette machines
> and software
> became available.

The big advantage of cassette was that you didn't have to thread the tapes
and the tapes were smaller and easier to move around and store. The big
disadvantage was sound quality - while 7.5 and higher tape speeds had the
best sound this side of digital, cassette sound quality always sucked and
still sucks. No amount of cheap or expensive band-aids could or did fix
that.

> Anyway, the LP had already been replaced when the CD made it's
> appearance.

So what?

>The CD just killed LP faster. If car CD
> players had come out earlier, it would have been even faster, but the
> cassette held on for a while for automobile use.

Ageed again. Car CD players really didn't become mainstream until 10 or more
years after the introduction of the CD. In 1995 the standard audio package
for many car lines was still based on a cassette player.

> To be fair there was
> talk about perfect sound, but what sold was acceptable sound, cheap
> software, and cheap machnes.

The perfect sound is there, as experienced by anybody who has burned a
hi-rez master tape to CD and done careful comparisons. No sonic loss
whatsoever. Bad CD sound was always due to bad music, bad recording, bad
production, bad mastering, but it was never due to an inadequate medium.

> The rest as they say, was fringe
> benefit. It will be interesting to see if CD survives much longer, I
> suspect that internet music on demand like the ipod and apple music
> store etc. finish off the 'record store.'

Internet sellers like Amazon did their part. Few if any brick-and-mortar
stores can compete with the selection. Now that Amazon has wired used and
specialty media sellers into their system, they are hard to beat for
convenience and selection.

>Several shops in st. louis are going under right now.

Again agreed. For over 30 years Detroit had a thriving local chain called
Harmony House. They closed their doors in the past 2 years. Three years ago
there was a Harmony House and a Sam Goody's within walking distance. They
both closed and the Barnes and Nobles doesn't carry prerecorded music. never
did.

[Carl Valle]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> m
>
> Valle can't bring himself to admit that the CD format has the potential to
> sound vastly better than the best LP. No tic, tic, tic, and lots of other
> nastly-sounding things that are built into the LP and analog tape
> technologies.
>

Please post a ref. to any comment I ever made where I claimed that vinyl was
better than CD. I am really getting tired of being mis-quoted by you on that
point. I have never claimed that any format was superior to any other. Such
a claim serves no purpose as far as I can tell. The best format is the one
that has the music you want to hear, whether that is Toscanini on Red Seal
or on CD bears little importance to me.

We shall see however if my argument holds up. I contend that MP3 or
something like it, will be the next format, supplied on cheap memory chips
of some kind that will be recycleable, either at home using download
on-demand, or traded at the store for some modest fee. there is no reason to
sell all that plastic wrap and other junk when what the consumer really
wants is convenience and cheap price. Its not about perfect music, it's
about acceptable music and lots of it. Evidence all the sales of relativly
expensive MP3 products. Imagine what will happen to CD brick and mortar when
ipods sell for 30$. Just look at what digital cameras did to film. It's not
even close to a quality issue.

Carl

[Arny Krueger]

"Carl Valle" > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>> m
>>
>> Valle can't bring himself to admit that the CD format has the
>> potential to sound vastly better than the best LP. No tic, tic, tic,
>> and lots of other nastly-sounding things that are built into the LP
>> and analog tape technologies.
>>
>
> Please post a ref. to any comment I ever made where I claimed that
> vinyl was better than CD.


That's not what I said, Valle. Try learning how to read properly.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>That's not what I said, Valle. Try learning how to read properly.

You just found out about C&P?

Try learning how to write more clearly.
Failure to communicate almost always involves 2 (or more) parties.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> The big advantage of cassette was that you didn't have to thread the tapes
> and the tapes were smaller and easier to move around and store. The big
> disadvantage was sound quality - while 7.5 and higher tape speeds had the
> best sound this side of digital, cassette sound quality always sucked and
> still sucks. No amount of cheap or expensive band-aids could or did fix
> that.

Hi-Fi VHS actually does nearly the same job - and most players
can do this now. It's become a good alternative for tape.

[Carl Valle]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
> m
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Carl Valle" > wrote in message
>>> m
>>>
>>> Valle can't bring himself to admit that the CD format has the
>>> potential to sound vastly better than the best LP. No tic, tic, tic,
>>> and lots of other nastly-sounding things that are built into the LP
>>> and analog tape technologies.
>>>
>>
>> Please post a ref. to any comment I ever made where I claimed that
>> vinyl was better than CD.
>
>
> That's not what I said, Valle. Try learning how to read properly.
>

Try not accusing me of things you can't prove
Carl

[Carl Valle]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Carl Valle said to ****borg:
>
>> > Try learning how to read properly.
>
> Or, in Krooglish, "Its like I can poke out, my eye with your dick! LOL!"
>
>> Try not accusing me of things you can't prove
>
> Are you suggesting Turdy's "debating trade" license be revoked? Hmmm....
> You might have something there.
>
>
>
>

I keep forgetting...
it only took 5 minutes for the last emission...
Carl