... Churchill, Guy writes:
> [snip]
>
> The key criteria is the element that we are most concerned with here.
>
> MD vs CD
>
> MD is better if "portability" is the key criteria
> MD is better if "robustness (scratches)" is the key criteria
> MD is better if "ease of editing" is the key criteria
> CD is better if "audio quality" is the key criteria
> CD is better if "number of resources that can play the medium" is the key
> criteria
> MD is better if "long play modes" is the key criteria
> CD is better if "cover art" is the key criteria
> MD is better if "making live bootleg copies" is the key criteria
A post like that is bound to raise some controversy.
First of all, "ease of editing" requires the proper editing hardware. If you
compare the ease of editing on a MD Player/Recorder with the ease of editing
on a computer hooked up to a CD burner, I'd pick the computer any day. MD
brings simple editing to the masses, and computers bring power to the pros.
I'm not saying your statement is wrong, but I don't think it's completely
accurate either.
Second, "long play modes". There are some CDs that can hold up to 80 minutes
of music. MDs can go beyond 80 minutes, but at the cost of audio quality
(i.e.: mono mode or LP-2, LP-4, etc...). And of course if you want to
sacrifice audio quality and compatibility (where the MD can be played) in
favour of recording time, you can do the same by burning MP3s onto CD, which
effectively sacrifices audio quality and vastly reduces compatibility, so
it's a fair comparison.
And lastly, "making live bootleg copies". I've been able to smuggle my
computer and burner into a concert hall and.....oh, OK. Maybe MD is better
for bootlegging concerts. :)
- Anthony L.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
