[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I always hated the Hi-space disks, from even holding the disc up to
>the light you can see "patchy bits" as if parts of the disc were
>thicker than others. TDK my fav brand but they are still 15 quid for
>5. Hi Space less than a pound each for an 80min blank. fine for every
>day use with recordings that are not important.
I have heard nothing but good things about Hi-Space discs, from both
retailers and reviewers. Do you have any evidence to your claim that they
are inferior, and should not be used for "important" recordings?
For example, minidisco.com says this about Hi-Space discs:
Europe's top-of-the-line maker of digital recording media...
Minidisco labs thoroughly tested these discs, and we love them.
Some of the lowest error rates we've ever seen, and the disc flap
housing uses a heavier embedded spring for durability.
* Total compliance with every type of MiniDisc drive on the market
ensured by perfect control of the pre-groove geometry of the disc
during the mastering process. * Outstanding durability thanks to a
protective lacquer developed by MPO. This lacquer offers excellent
resistance to abrasion, a low friction coefficient and guarantees
two million recordings without any measurable wear or increase in
friction. * Operation under extreme conditions of use thanks to the
composition, homogeneity and thickness of the magneto-optical
layer. Even when exposed to the extreme temperatures or used in
drives running on low-power batteries, Hi-SpaceTM MiniDiscs
guarantee optimum sound quality.
I've been examining some of my Hi-Space discs compared to some of my Sony
and TDK discs, and I can't see any of the "patchy bits" you describe.
Are you saying that we shouldn't use Hi-Space discs for "important"
recordings because they are less expensive?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
