Stainless Steel Rat said:
> I have absolutely nothing against the 702. It's just that comparing the
> ST55 to the 702 is a lot unfair, that's all.
I was replying to the first reply. Anyway, I'm not comparing the two. I merely
mention that I own the 702 and say that there is one particular fe
* Owen Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 23 May 2000
| why buy another recorder when I have one that already works? Now I can
| record my discs at home, and have a small player with 56 hours of play
| time for wherever I go. Sure it doesn't record, but the quality of the
| 702's recordings
why buy another recorder when I have one that already works? Now I can record my
discs at home, and have a small player with 56 hours of play time for wherever I go.
Sure it doesn't record, but the quality of the 702's recordings are fine. Laugh all
you want, but I'm happy.
owen
--
* Jeanmougin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 23 May 2000
| You changed a recorder (Sharp 702) by a player (Sharp ST55) and you call
| this an upgrade ???!!! Ah ah ah ah
I knew there was something making me twitch about that. The title of
smallest *recorder* belongs to the MZ-R90, I think.
--
You changed a recorder (Sharp 702) by a player (Sharp ST55) and you call this an
upgrade ???!!! Ah ah ah ah
Owen Williams a écrit:
> After owning a sharp 702 recorder for two years, I decided it was time to upgrade to
>a new player mostly because the 702 skips horribly when poked at all.
After owning a sharp 702 recorder for two years, I decided it was time to upgrade to a
new player mostly because the 702 skips horribly when poked at all. After checking
out various web pages and resources, I settled on the sharp st55, the latest and
smallest MD player on the market currently
