Marije Baalman wrote:
Hiho,
Adam Sampson wrote:
Cesare Marilungo <cesare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
This is true. Even if, in my experience, it happened also with some
printed cds were a wronk ink were used. For instance it happened with
some phillips classical recordings.
At the price of 10 cheap CDRs from a small label or mainstream 5 CDs
you can buy an hard disk to backup hundreds if not thousands CDs at full
quality.
But my argument was that people's perception of an artefact that stores
a digitalized information (music in this case) is still tied with the
physical value, when what matter are just the bits.
Once something has been digitalized it's archived for the eternity, or
better as long as somebody owns a backup. This is also saving old
records and films that would've been lost otherwise.
c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
