> It is not, nor will it ever be, a replacement (or even serious
competition)
> for CD portables.
Why must it be? Why can't CD and MD just live side-by-side as siblings? Why
can't stereos come standard with CD/MD features instead of CD/tape. Yes, a
handful of stereos DO have CD/MD, but these are by far the minority and can
be hard to find.
> > This is so bloody ridiculous!! MD is far better than CD-R or CD-RW!
> Sorry. But here I cannot agree with you. How can a data compressed format
> possibly be superior to a properly dithered uncompressed digital
recording?
> This statement just doesn't make sense.
The original poster was perhaps a bit broad there. But one has to remember
that the quality of a medium is not just its sound -- it's also cost,
portability, features, et cetera. Generally, MD sounds, for all intents and
purposes anywhere near the realm of normal usage, identical to CD. If I
could, I would switch almost all of my CDs to MDs -- maybe all (and I do
have some classical). I believe MD to sound indistinguishable to CDs for my
usage, plus there are the standard MD features that are above CDs (e.g. the
plastic casing, easy re-recordability, titling, size).
For ME, "MD is far better than CD-R or CD-RW!" And probably for many other
people. However, overall, there is no one clear winner. There ARE winners,
though: CD and MD.
J. C. R. Davis ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
