Hiho,
Adam Sampson wrote:
>Cesare Marilungo <cesare@email-addr-hidden> writes:
>
>
>>Another reason, and this is why I was sarcastic with your first
>>post, Maluvia, is that there are still people who believe that a
>>printed cd sounds better than a cd-r or a flac file downloaded from
>>the Net.
>>
>>
>
>It won't sound better, but there are other advantages to buying a real
>CD (even if it's a CDR that the band's produced themselves) -- having
>a nicely-printed case with liner notes, and having a physical artefact
>that represents the music you've paid for.
>
there is a difference between a CD-R and a CD... not directly the sound
quality, but how long the data is preserved... CD-R's decay much faster
than printed CD's, even faster when not stored right. Of course, this
also depends on the brand of CD-R you get: some are better than others.
So in the end, it may be cheaper to get the real CD instead of a burned
copy of it... as you have to renew the second one from time to time. Of
course, if you don't like the music anymore after a few years, then
there's no problem...
sincerely,
Marije
Received on Wed Mar 8 16:15:05 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 08 2006 - 16:15:05 EET