From: "Donald Person" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>What I was referring to was the ease of use...
Here we obviously agree.
>My statement (when you read it in the proper context) was OBVIOUSLY not a
comparison of audio quality, but ease-of-use. Please don't jump on a
statement just to blurt out a state
Donald Person wrote:
> Jeez. Why do I feel the need to defend myself? I dunno. I obviously
> didn't intend to compare CD sound quality to MD. There is an obvious
> difference to me (especially in my Classical recordings..)
Are you saying that there is an obvious difference in sound quality
> 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.
Jeez. Why do I feel the need
