> >Dear sir,
> > i do like the minidisc for its size and quailtiy however, portable
> >mp3 cd players have been introduced. I like the fact that i can now burn up
> >to 8 hrs of cd quality music to one CD
Sir you incorrectly state that an MP3 file will produce CD quality music. The
quality of MP3 files can vary greatly. But one thing that I am fairly certain
about is that the quality of a true digital copy of an original (prerecorded CD)
to an ATRAC encoded Mini Disc is superior to that of MP3 .
> I agree that the storage is a significant factor and that for the vast majority
> of people the difference in sound quality between MP3 and digital transfer Mini
> Disc is not as important as the extended time. But the fact still remains that
> MD is superior in fidelity when compared to MP3.
>
> Sony and others have just announced MDLP products (see the MDCP news),
> these can provide 5h20m of stereo playback at "reasonable" fidelity
> (not much has been reported about MP3 vs. ATRAC3 quality at 66kbps
> yet).
Until certified A/B double blind listening tests have been performed it is
impossible to say who the quality of the new ATRAC3 encoding compares to MP3
files transferred to a CDR(W).
>
>
> MDLP can be seen as the MiniDisc's [current] answer to MP3.
>
> Should the walls of RIAA and SDMI someday come tumbling down, I am
> sure there might be other, more interesting MD/MP3 (or at least open
> ATRAC) synergies.
As Rick has stated, I think that the consumer electronics industry in general is
waiting to see if legislation will be passed permitting the downloading of
copyrighted music. It is very possible that some agreement will be reached. But
I feel strongly that there will be some cost to the consumer paid to the
copyright holder. Such as the few cents that are supposed to be added to compact
cassettes.
In spite of of the terrible disappointment regarding the growth of the Mini Disc
format in the United States (it remains a huge success in Japan), if this whole
MP3 thing is eventually worked out, I think that we may see new growth (certainly
the door would be opened for growth potential) in the MD in the US.
> I do not see static RAM (for example Flash Cards) as a realistic means of
> storing music. Although they offer the advantage of totally eliminating the
> skipping problem (when shaken) I do not realistically see them as anything more
> then a temporary means of storing songs. The price is way to high and will
> continue to remain so.
It is important not to confuse photographs with music. Flash cards are great for
use in digital cameras. They are not intended for anything but temporary
storage. Since digital images will require a computer or hard copy, the object
of the flash card is to use on the "road" and then to transfer to your computer
(CDRs are a great place to store them).
With the advent of direct memory to computer transfer using USB (either through
newer camera or the quite inexpensive card readers (e.g. SanDisc's is only $30)
copying images takes only seconds.
Music on the other hand must be stored on something very portable and inexpensive
so that you can build up a library. You don't need computer to listen to music.
Just a player. You want to be able to carry with you as many songs as you feel
like and play them at will. Even with the larger CD, you can still carry dozens
of them with hundreds of songs in a relatively small space and weight.
> Larry
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
> "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
