Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Oct 2012 00:05 UTC
Multimedia, AV "On October 1 1982, Joel's sixth studio album, 52nd Street, was the first commercially released CD album... Which means CDs are 30-years-old today. It's worth noting here that 52nd Street wasn't a new album - it was launched initially in 1978, but it was selected for relaunch on the new digital audio disc, rolling out alongside the first CD player - the Sony CDP-101 - in Japan. But of course, the CD didn't spring up overnight - the road to launch started long before 1982." I'm still 100% CD when it comes to music. The act of physically holding a new album in your hands for the first time and gently placing the disk in the tray can't be matched by pressing a download button behind a computer.
Thread beginning with comment 537378
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by kenji on Tue 2nd Oct 2012 22:10 UTC
Member since:

Does anyone remember (or still use) Super Audio CD's? I remember listening to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" on SACD and it was spectacular, but it's pretty spectacular on any format. It was a neat idea that didn't catch on, much like quadraphonics.

Reply Score: 1

by Jason Bourne on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 21:49 in reply to "SACD"
Jason Bourne Member since:

SACD is a format that failed. There are no audible benefits of DSD compared to Red Book PCM. What may be the factor that some SACD will "sound better" than CD is the mastering factor, not anything special about the media. Being that said, the same mastering could be used for a common CD.

As far as more than two channel mixes go, 4.0 and 5.1 music will never leave its tiny audience nich.

Edited 2012-10-03 21:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

by ilovebeer on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 23:58 in reply to "RE: SACD"
ilovebeer Member since:

As far as more than two channel mixes go, 4.0 and 5.1 music will never leave its tiny audience nich.

100% right. Most music is heard in an environment completely unsuitable for anything other than 2 channel stereo. It makes no sense to invest into it when you know you're going to be in the red doing so. You can always do (cheap) surround simulation but the quality is bad (horrible by comparison to a proper/real surround mix), and as you said the market is extremely small anyways. Music (not attached to video content) in surround looks good on paper but it's a near complete waste in practice.

Reply Parent Score: 2