Posted by: "Lou Judson"
> Digital copies do not degrade, unless the software or the user does
> something to it.
However, the storage media you put them on does have a error rate. It
would take a long time, but that could, with enough copy rounds, appear
as a degraded digital file.
> I've had friends who would copy CDs not realizing that their PCs would
> make MP3s and then make CDs from them - that was degradation, and
> contributes to copy degradation myths...
To say nothing of cheap CD-R being not too trustworthy.
For most folks they are playing the CDs with such poor sound
reproduction it has to get really bad before they notice. Thus the
success of distributing music as mp3s.
> And MD is probably the most robust digital storage around, due to the
> magneto-optical recording process, according to some people I know.
MD is not quite as robust as the 3.5" MO disks, but the difference is
not that big. And there is nothing else close.
> I have also found that even the cheaper MDs record just as well as
> premium, though I have not done exbhaustive testing. Has anyone else
> here?
I'm not into testing, but reported error rates of the cheaper MDs can be
more than double the high end brands. It's just the error correction of
MDs is real good so you won't notice. I stick with HHb's high end disks,
but partially that's because I have a lifetime supply of them. Just
maybe the lower starting error rate will mean longer until the error
rate increases to matter. Maybe in 50-100 years it will matter. Though I
don't think I'll care by then.
Walt
|