DVD / Laserdiscs ?

[Tom81]

Why did DVD take off when laserdiscs hardly did anything in the consumer marketplace? Introduced in 1979, the quality was much better than vhs , the prerecorded discs were cheaper than vhs, but the format never made a dent in the market compared to vcr sales. In fact, I believe most people didn't even know the format existed.
The reason and explanation then, was that vcrs COULD RECORD.

Well DVD until recently had the same problem, but the sales had taken way off prior to the introduction of dvd recorders.......why?

[FulciLives]

Why did DVD take off when laserdiscs hardly did anything in the consumer marketplace? Introduced in 1979, the quality was much better than vhs , the prerecorded discs were cheaper than vhs, but the format never made a dent in the market compared to vcr sales. In fact, I believe most people didn't even know the format existed.
The reason and explanation then, was that vcrs COULD RECORD.

Well DVD until recently had the same problem, but the sales had taken way off prior to the introduction of dvd recorders.......why?

I bought a LaserDisc player for the first time in 1990

Around that time the format was just starting to get popular and by the mid-90's was more popular than you probably thought it ever was but yes it was still WAY behind VHS

I think the biggest problem with LaserDisc not being accepted was the price. The LD hardware was way expensive. My first unit was something like $600 or $650 and by the mid-90's a good model was still over $400

On top of that the real killer I think was the pricing of the movies. When I first got it most Warner Bros and MGM titles were $24.99 with IMAGE titles (the biggest LD releasing company) were I think at least $30 maybe $40

Then FOX f**ked it all up. They started releasing stuff WIDESCREEN but just about all of their WIDESCREEN titles were $69.99

Before you knew it Warner Bros and MGM went up to an average of $35.00 for a single disc LD and $40 for a double disc LD and IMAGE went to $40 for a single LD and $50 for a double LD

It was almost impossible to get anything less than $35.00 in a time when most VHS releases were $19.99

As for DVD it was clear from the get go that the industry saw this as a replacement for VHS and pushed it with fairly decent pricing. Most of the first wave of DVD discs had an MSRP of either $24.99 or $29.99 with very few going over that.

So when it boils all down to it I think it was mostly the pricing of the software aka the movies themselves that kept LD from becomming more popular than it did.

Of course there are other factors ... like a single disc only holding a MAX of 60 minutes per side which required a side break ... the cheapest LD players made you get up and flip the disc ... the more expensive models fliped the laser inside but even then it took anywhere from 10 to 30 seconds to do that. Plus with that limitation many movies were on 2 discs which even with auto-flipping meant a physical get up and switch the discs method to watching.

Picture quality and sound quality were superb but you couldn't do special effects with most discs. Pause meant a blue, green or black disc. Only certain discs could do pause and slow motion and such discs were a pain-in-the-ass because they could only hold 30 minutes per side. I had the extended cut of ALIENS on LD which existed that way first for YEARS before a VHS release then DVD release but it was in that special format. 3 Discs for a total of 5 or 6 sides. Made watching the movie a pain-in-the-ass

Some of the REALLY expensive players could do special effects on the discs that you normally couldn't do it on but then the quality wasn't as good as it was a "trick" of sorts. The movie still played back high quality but still and slow motion looked like crap on the non-special discs.

So yes many issues as you can see with price probably being the BIG one.

I still loved the format ... still have some movies on it that you can't get on DVD and still use it but I've tried to re-buy most of the movies I had on LD on DVD

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[wulf109]

Laser-disk,for reasons too technical for me to understand,could not have macrovision added to the disks. For that reason Hollywood hated the format and probably acounts for the high disk prices.
Hollywood embraced DVD because they thought it provided an uncrackable anti-copy system. Events have proven that wrong,but for most consumers it is an uncrackable system.

[dphirschler]

Interesting question...

Could it have been the promise of recordable DVD?

My own opinion was that the picture was equal or superior to LD, instant chapters (like LD), no disc flipping, and the size of the disc was much more managable. Oh and the audio was superior.

It may also have been timing. For instance, I had been promising myself for years that I was eventually going to get an LD player, then DVD came out, so I got that since it looked even better.

BTW, I don't think Hollywood liked the DVD format too much. I seem to remember them fighting it tooth and nail - especially Disney. They liked DiVX better since they could keep you on a leash so to speak.


Darryl

[mazinz]

i also remember back then that they either had (which i think they did) or were toying around with the idea of doing something similar to our now dvd (space wise) , i recall it being called "blue laser".

[solarfox]

Yes, it's true, LaserDiscs couldn't have Macrovision attached to them; the way the video data was encoded wouldn't allow for it. (Leave us not forget that macrovision was a "hack" which the NTSC spec never allowed for, which is why it was able to fritz up VCRs to begin with!) Imbedding macrovision would've required them to do it the same way they do it in DVD players now, by adding circuitry to attach the MVv crap to the decoded video signal on its way out of the box -- which, back in the '80s, is something that the manufacturers had little incentive to do, especially since it would've significantly increased the manufacturing cost of the unit and there were no laws requiring them to do it.

Anyway, as to why LaserDisc just didn't take off the way DVD's did: There's really no one single major reason; rather, a bunch of minor reasons all came together to conspire against it.

Tom, your observation about LD and DVD both sharing the same problem of not being able to record is correct, as far as it goes... but there's one difference between then and now which you haven't factored into the equation. In the late 70's-mid 80's era, the vast majority of television sets did not have more than one input connection! Hell, many TV sets didn't even have 75-ohm coaxial inputs yet; an awful lot of the market was still feeding everything through 300-ohm twinlead terminals. This meant that any device coming onto the market, including game consoles and home computers, faced an uphill "how the heck do I hook it up?" battle, and most people simply did not want to deal with trying to figure out how to hook up more than one device to their single-antenna-input TV sets. (In fact, I knew a lot of people back then who were convinced it wasn't even possible. Then, as now, your "average consumer" was utterly baffled by a technology they didn't really understand. )

This magnified the "can't record on it" effect tremedously, because most consumers looked at LD as something which was trying to replace the VCR (since obviously you had to disconnect the VCR to hook up the LD unit!), and didn't see why they should spend the money on some new gizmo that could only do half the job of the thing they already had.

Now, LD might have overcome this in time, as more TV sets with multiple-input capability appeared (and as Radio Shack began selling multi-input switchboxes for older sets), since it did have the advantage of movies being far, far cheaper on LD than on VHS. (At the time, movies on VHS typically cost $90 - $100 apiece, while the LD's came out in the $25-$30 range.) Unfortunately, two things took this advantage away from it -- one was the invention of a high-speed duplication process for VHS; the other, more important factor was the invention of the video-rental store. Why spend $100, or even $25, on something you were probably only going to watch a couple of times at most, when you could go rent it for $3?

As an offshoot of this mentality, came the "why buy it when I can rent and copy it" mindset, and lo, macrovision was invented. (Although I've heard that the studios weren't initially so worried about home users, few of whom had more than one VCR anyway, so much as they were trying to stop some of the shadier rental shops from buying one copy of a movie and then running off multiple copies for rent.) Unfortunately, LD couldn't be macrovisioned... so, in their ever-increasing paranoia over piracy, the studios decided they'd stall the release of movies on LD as long as possible, and created a situation where if you were an LD user, you had to wait to get any given movie for at least six months after all of your VHS-using friends had it.

I don't think FOX was really to blame for their pricing. They simply assumed -- and it was a reasonable assumption at the time -- that the widescreen versions would be a "niche market" item that would only appeal to hardcore cinematic purists, would only sell in limited numbers, and would therefore be a lot more expensive per-unit to produce once all the mastering & duplication costs were spread across the number of units they expected to sell. Yes, it started a chain reaction of rising LD prices as the other studios discovered what the market would bear, but again, it wasn't unreasonable to assume that the WS versions just wouldn't sell but maybe a tenth as many units. (Even today, a lot of people prefer the full-screen versions; they think that those black bars mean they're "not getting all the picture", and you simply are not going to convince them otherwise. Believe me, I've tried. )

BTW, Fulci, the "trick" you mention on the really expensive LD players was the first use of digital frame memory. The unit tried to digitize a small group of frames on the fly as they came off the disc, letting you still-frame your way through them while it tried to pull the next group. If you think it looked bad, well, try to remember that back in the 80's (and even into the early 90's) this was a very new and expensive technology! Getting it down to a consumer-electronics price level involved some compromises, as any electronics capable of doing a rock-solid "perfect" image would've pushed the cost of the player well into the $5000-and-beyond range. I think we forget, sometimes, just how fast this technology has evolved and how rapidly the cost of it has dropped; back then, the kind of memory capacity and processing power contained inside that $5 chipset inside your $40 DVD player would've cost tens of thousands of dollars and required a cabinet the size of your spiffy new 50-inch TV set just to hold it. (To say nothing of the power-consumption and cooling requirements!)

[DTSL06]

Another big reason that nobody mention was the porn industry's support of the VHS (killed Beta) format and it never caught on with LD (cost of manufacturing).

I have a good LD collection with a lot of Criterion Discs that are now collecting dust. The Criterion disks were real expensive (~$150 - $200 cdn). The problm with LD was that they cost a lot and can only hold 1 hr of video per side of higher quality. I have movies that needed 3-4 sides to hold them, what a pain to have to get up and swap sides. I have a hi-end Pioneer LD that suppose to play both sides but it never work correctly. Went back to Pioneer like 6 times and I finally gave up esp when DVD arrived. Major reason I bought LD was for letterbox/widescreen pictures of better quality then the letterboxed VHS tapes and when DVD did this ...goodnite LD.

[solarfox]

Oh, and speaking of format wars, let us not forget that the videodisc had its own little format war: the Pioneer Laserdisc system vs. the RCA CED (Capacitance Electronic Disc, or Capacitance-Encoded Disc) system. There were a lot of potential customers who, having just come off the Beta/VHS wars, took one look at the fact that there were two competing and utterly incompatible videodisc systems and said "uh-uh, not getting into that again."

(CED, for those of you who don't remember it, was basically a vinyl record on steroids; it held one hour of video per side on a conductive vinyl disc with extremely fine-pitch grooves in it.)

[lordsmurf]

Simple reason: too damned big.
People want small, not huge.

[solarfox]

Sorry, but no. Laserdiscs were the same size as vinyl records, which were a pretty damn popular format during the 70's and 80's as I recall... (and I do recall, since I'm old enough to actually remember those days -- hell, I remember when VCRs and Laserdiscs alike didn't even exist), and a collection of 100 laserdiscs takes up a lot less shelf space than 100 VHS tapes does.

[lordsmurf]

Sorry, but no. Laserdiscs were the same size as vinyl records, which were a pretty damn popular format during the 70's and 80's as I recall... (and I do recall, since I'm old enough to actually remember those days -- hell, I remember when VCRs and Laserdiscs alike didn't even exist), and a collection of 100 laserdiscs takes up a lot less shelf space than 100 VHS tapes does.

Records were also too big. Again, people want small.

[Rookie64]

I was in my teens when Laser Discs first came out - the RCA ones.
The price was high per movie and there wasn't much of a selection. Right off the bat I wasn't interested in any movie that wouldn't fit onto a single disc, when you could fit more than twice as much time onto a cassette.

Keep in mind that cable TV and video rental stores were also becoming popular around that time and had more to offer at more affordable prices.

It was a lot more convenient to rent movies, rather than buy them.
Most people are only interested in seeing a movie once or just a handful of times, so there's no question why VHS caught on.

Cable TV allowed you to see more movies and you could record them - a much better deal.

What attracted me to DVDs wasn't the picture quality - though I appreciate having that quality now.

I actually didn't rush into getting a DVD player - at first, I was against the idea of it...because I already had a big video collection and wasn't wild about changing formats or replacing everything (which I knew would be impossible and still would be).

What changed my mind was the price came way down on DVD players and more of a selection became available - stuff that had never even been released on VHS.
But the main attraction was the extra features that came with the movies - deleted scenes, restored versions, director's cut...and that you could RENT DVDs (very big attraction)

Not only could you rent them, but the rentals were better priced for online rentals than it was to rent video cassettes.
Plus there was a very decent selection of harder to find titles.

Within a few short months after I bought my first DVD player, the price came way down on players...and the players started supporting other formats, which also made it more of an attraction, since I already had the hardware and software to convert my own stuff into a format that I could play on a DVD player.

I think these are all the main reasons why DVDs took off in a short amount of time - they have much more to offer than LD and are much better priced.

[solarfox]

Records were also too big. Again, people want small.

Simple answers for simple minds, I guess.

OK, Mr. Smurf, then answer me this -- if small is the only thing that matters, then why didn't MiniDisc take off? Why didn't DataPlay? Why not microcassettes? (They actually did come out with stereo microcassette units which used type-IV metal-bias tape, that actually achieved decent sonic quality... it went nowhere.) Why didn't 8mm and Hi-8 take over the home-video market the way they took over the camcorder market?

Again -- I lived through the time period in question. I saw these technologies emerge, saw the way people reacted to them, listened to people talk about them around the watercooler and the lunchroom tables, and I know damn well that it was not just a matter of "people want small."

[SquirrelDip]

My belief is that tapes (VHS or BETA) were new at the same time (or about) and the average joe couldn't justify spending the coin on both formats. Add in that you can't record onto laser and also add in that most peoples viewing hardware didn't show any massive quality increase over tape.

So, if I can afford only one system I'm going to choose tape.

Now, I would bet that if DVD wasn't available and laser were to be released now (considering that tapes are really cheap and the viewing hardware is much better) they would stand a much better chance of making it.

[solarfox]

BTW, Rookie -- minor correction. The RCA discs were not Laser. Not by a long shot.

The limited selection on CED was due in large part to the fact everything had to come out of only two pressing plants: the Rockville Road facility in Indianapolis, or CBS's facility in Carrollton, GA... and also due to the fact that the company never sold nearly as many players as they'd anticipated and the division just wasn't profitable enough for RCA to sink a lot of money and effort into securing licenses unless it was something either (a) so popular they had to offer it to generate any interest in the system at all, or (b) so cheap to license they didn't care.

And yes, the rental shops and cable were more of a factor -- but the CED system also came to market somewhat later than LaserDisc did, as I recall, so RCA had far less of a window of opportunity to establish the system before the rising popularity of the video-rental shops meant that the videodiscs (both types) lost their $90-vs.-$30 price advantage.

[FulciLives]

A few things I would like to address:

My own opinion was that the picture was equal or superior to LD, instant chapters (like LD), no disc flipping, and the size of the disc was much more managable. Oh and the audio was superior.

This doesn't really apply to why LaserDisc didn't take off more than it did prior to the release of DVD ... afterall LD had a WAY noticeable superior picture quality over VHS and although I think most people were happy with VHS Hi-Fi audio LD did use PCM audio and even had 5.1 Dolby Digital and DTS as well ... long before DVD ever hit the market. Also as for extras don't forget that the audio commentary first made it's light of day on the LaserDisc format.

BTW, I don't think Hollywood liked the DVD format too much. I seem to remember them fighting it tooth and nail - especially Disney. They liked DiVX better since they could keep you on a leash so to speak.

Yes it is true that some studios did seem to try and resist it at first but DVD came into being mostly due to Warner Bros ... DVD was basically their child.

I don't think FOX was really to blame for their pricing.

Oh I totally blame them for the price increase. If you were there then paying attention (i.e., had a LD player and actually bought LD movies) you would have realized WHAT A BIG DEAL it was as NO ONE ever charged that much for a LaserDisc other than Criterion (and even then most CLV release were only $49.99) but at least that made "sense" in that they never owned any movies and had to pay the studios for the rights to release them. Also FOX would create remastered WS LD versions but rarely a matching remastered pan & scan version. They knew what they were doing ... bastards!

Another big reason that nobody mention was the porn industry's support of the VHS (killed Beta) format and it never caught on with LD (cost of manufacturing).

XXX rated or PORNO movies did exist on LD but never in the numbers of different titles that existed on VHS plus the price was usually pretty high ... like $49.99

Which leads us into the other major comment other people made ... the rental situation.

Perhaps ... now that I have thoght about it some more ... this might have been the real problem.

I think that had video rental stores carried LD that things might be very different today.

Unfortunately very few did ... I had to travel WAY out of my way to rent LD and who wants to go out of the way just to rent something that you then need to return.

Was not a good situation.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Rookie64]

My belief is that tapes (VHS or BETA) were new at the same time (or about) and the average joe couldn't justify spending the coin on both formats.

I think the same reason applies to VHS being more popular than BETA, was that you couldn't rent movies in BETA format.

The price on VHS recorders was less and more movies were available in that format.

The average person wouldn't even know of there being any difference in quality between the two.
I remember BETA becoming the butt jokes of TV sitcoms, for example, Married With Children when Al Bundy bought a BETA VCR, the whole family were saying only an idiot would buy BETA


Keep in mind that when the first VHS plarers hit the market, it was during inflation years when economy was bad.
Same time the record companies were pleading with college students to stop recording off the radio or they'd be forced to stop making records.
Then MTV came along and the record business soared...and the video revolution took off.

[Rookie64]

BTW, Rookie -- minor correction. The RCA discs were not Laser. Not by a long shot.

And I think that played a part in why Laserdiscs didn't take off...a lot of people wouldn't know the difference (being they didn't have either to notice)

I knew they improved...but like I said above, there really wasn't much of a selection of what was available on Laserdisc compared to VHS.
Quantity over Quality - people in general are not gonna care if they aren't getting the best quality when they have more to choose from.
It's not much of a sacrifice when you hadn't seen the quality difference to begin with.

And those things don't really seem to matter to the average person.

I think that had video rental stores carried LD that things might be very different today.

BINGO

[ktnwin]

It's quite obvious why Laser disc did not win the market.

The disc is BIG, much heavier than vinyl record. You can carry a lot of DVD discs in your briefcase. Try that with the laser disc.

Each movie on laser disc costs a lot compare to DVD discs.
Not being able to record is not the reason.

SIZE and PRICE seem to be the main reason.

Many years ago, when I have enough money to buy a laser disc player, there are words that DVD player will come out soon, so I waited and I was so glad. Some of my relatives still has the LD player and huge stack of laser discs sitting there collecting dust.

[Perro Grande]

I worked for a stereo/video store during the VHS/Beta wars, and also during the dawn of the laser disc era.

Beta was cool. It had a better picture than VHS, hands down. But...there weren't as many Beta movies available and the recording time of the tapes was too short.

The CED players were fairly economically priced, and we sold some of them, but many people wanted the ability to record their favorite TV shows. Selection of available movies was limited, too.

Laserdisc had, by far, the best picture and sound. However, an awful lot of our customers wanted to watch movies on their crappy lil' TV's (many still using tubes) and didn't have a sound system apart from the 3.5" oval speaker in the front of their TV... and they wanted to be able to record... Sure, LD looked incredible on our big screen (front projection, even!!) TV with a stereo with it for sound, and people would marvel at it...and then go buy a VHS deck so they could tape "Hardcastle and McCormick."

By the time TV's and the associated sound systems improved to the point where LD could really be appreciated, VHS has a tremendous base of movies available, as well as being the defacto rental format.

I just think LD was an interesting and good technology that came along at the wrong time. It was too good, too soon. By the time the rest of the technology caught up, DVD's were out there with a smaller form factor and longer playing time.

Nevertheless, I always kinda liked the big ol' laserdisc. I still have some discs and several players. I kick around on E-Bay buying up LD's of the older movies I like. Instead of 17.99 for a DVD, I spend (typically) less than $8 for an LD on E-Bay. I buy newer titles that I like on DVD, of course, but the LD's represent an affordable way to enhance my movie collection.

[lordsmurf]

@solarfox

Size, price and selection. Those are the three killers.

LD, minidisc, etc ... they all failed on at least 2 those counts.

Records were replaced by 8-tracks in the 70s and cassettes and DVDs in the 80s. Why? Small. Can't put a record player in your car. Records still existed in that time, but they died a slow death. Biggest reason: size. They also didn't last because many 70s-80s records were getting too thin. I have a record collection that I've been putting onto CD for about 5 years now, very slowly, most of them from family and personal 80s buys. The 60s records are the only thick ones, those last.

And a store near me has rented laserdiscs for at least 10 years now. Of course it helps that I live near one of the first 3 Blockbusters too, and this area is often known as the place where movie rentals began.

[solarfox]

It's quite obvious why Laser disc did not win the market.

The disc is BIG, much heavier than vinyl record. You can carry a lot of DVD discs in your briefcase. Try that with the laser disc.

Y'know, I really wish those of you making this argument would remember that DVD and Laserdisc did not come out at the same time!

Is the LD disc larger than a DVD? Yes, of course it is.

Was the smaller DVD disc an option back in the 1979-to-mid-80's era when LD was trying to establish itself? NO, it was not!!!

In fact, the Compact Disc did not exist for much of that point either; CD's did not come out until at least 2 - 3 years after LD made its debut. Therefore, the 12" movie disc still compared favorably in size to the vinyl LP, which most people were still using as their primary music source back then. (Smurf, I don't know who you were hanging out with in the '70s, but 8-Tracks most definitely did not replace LP's, and neither did cassettes. What they did do is open up greater possibilities for taking music with you -- but 8-Tracks were far too unreliable, cassettes didn't really get to sound great until they got the CrO2 and metal-bias formulations down during the 80's, and when it came to pre-recorded store-bought tapes neither sounded as good as LP's because the record companies typically cheaped out on the tape stock anyway. Most of the people I knew back then bought the LP to listen to at home, then copied it onto a blank 8-track or cassette to listen to in their cars or on their portables.)

kntwin, if you were hearing that DVD was coming out soon back when you were contemplating buying an LD player, then you came into the game well after the time frame I'm talking about.

Oh, and Lordsmurf:

Size, price and selection. Those are the three killers.

LD, minidisc, etc ... they all failed on at least 2 those counts.

OK, then why did Compact Disc succeed? When it was first introduced in the early-to-mid-80's, it was enormously expensive ($700 - $900 for a player, and the discs cost at least twice as much as an LP), and the selection of titles was very limited.

[Rookie64]

Therefore, the 12" movie disc still compared favorably in size to the vinyl LP, which most people were still using as their primary music source back then. (Smurf, I don't know who you were hanging out with in the '70s, but 8-Tracks most definitely did not replace LP's, and neither did cassettes. What they did do is open up greater possibilities for taking music with you -- but 8-Tracks were far too unreliable, cassettes didn't really get to sound great until they got the CrO2 and metal-bias formulations down during the 80's,

I completely agree...8-tracks were junk, and we knew that even back in the '70s.
You were lucky if they didn't break after you played them once or twice...or if the tape deck didn't eat them first

Not all songs could fit onto each track, so the song would fade out and fade back in when the tape track switched over - it was the wost possible format.

Cassettes became more popular in the 80's when boom boxes were the fad.
I personally never got into that and stuck with vinyl - I always feared cassettes would break much easier and sooner.

OK, then why did Compact Disc succeed? When it was first introduced in the early-to-mid-80's, it was enormously expensive ($700 - $900 for a player, and the discs cost at least twice as much as an LP), and the selection of titles was very limited.

True, but I didn't rush out to buy CDs when they first came out.
I knew others were buying them and saying how great the sound quality was, but I thought they were way too expensive and not worth the effort.

Why they caught on besides quality and size, is that companies stopped manufacturing vinyl and practically forced people into buying them.
Stores stopped stocking vinyl.
Stereos being sold stopped including turntables and had tape decks and CD players.

Much like DVDs, CDs could store more music and the new albums included more tracks...as well as reissues of older albums including bonus tracks that weren't available on the original releases.

Home computers were becoming more affordable and popular, and were compatible with CDs (and soon enough compatible with DVDs) that a lot of people didn't need to buy a stereo or standalone player to play their discs - they could simply use their computer.

Then burners were affordable or came included with home computers, and allowed people to make their own CDs...either converting from their previous formats or ripping their friends' CDs and having a copy for themselves to save money.

Many songs could be downloaded online - it first started on Usenet...then P2P programs made it a whole lot easier to download and gave you much more to choose from.
That got a lot of people into CDs.

[Jah_Rankin]

Price of the good laser disc movies and players were outraged, plus the fact that u can play cd in the dvd players is a no brainer.

[dphirschler]

Who said LPs aren't portable?

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=2495&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2311

http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html




Darryl

[mike1061]

I never got into laser disks, becauce of price period. And the fact that music relaited movies seem to take a back seat to main stream movies.

Records did not get replaced by 8-tracks. They still make limeted pressings on vinyl now, when was the last time you saw a new 8-track? Cassttes did more damage to the vinyl industry than 8-tracks. The reson imo is mobility, I bought casstess for the car, and the job site radio. There were not many protable 8-track players.
I got a VHS vcr instead of Bata, because of the avalability of moveis. And now I am going to start getting rid of me VHS tapes only to save sapce.
Thanks Mike.

[FulciLives]

Who said LPs aren't portable?

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=2495&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2311

http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html




Darryl

LOL

Some kewl links there Darryl

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[cim]

They also didn't last because many 70s-80s records were getting too thin. I have a record collection that I've been putting onto CD for about 5 years now, very slowly, most of them from family and personal 80s buys. The 60s records are the only thick ones, those last.
.

What? Your records are "shrinking???" Please Explain, "getting too thin"

[mike1061]

Those were cool links. Now all I have to do find one of those cars, and I can stop transfering vinyl to CD. (ha ha). Who cares if there not my dream car, I would be the only person with a record player in my car. Realisticly I would be have been afriad to play any of my good records on those.
Mike.

[eats**t&die]

Who said LPs aren't portable?

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detailv2.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=2495&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2311

http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html




Darryl

Nice links man, this was the funniest thing i've read in a while. I mean they even had units that can hold and play up to 14 records, just like a cd changer! Seriously though when i first clicked on those links i thought it was gonna take me to site about some dude who decided to install a record player in their car, complete with open turntable and the arm thing with the needle on it!