I'm sure I read somewhere that 80min discs lose samples or something of the sort, is this true, can anyone explain?.

IMHO I dont think there are any lost samples, its more like the spiral which the CD-R is burnt is more tighter more than anything else, hence giving you more space.

Pio2001 and other knowledgable people maybe have more information.

AudioCD is such an inferior format as it is, why care?
Don't trust a disc

MTRH: Why is Audio CD inferior?

A little off-topic but for a format first introduced in 1979 I think it's amazing.

I'm guessing error correction?.

pick up a disc and look at it...
think about the position of the datalayer, think about the error redundancy...
when were the specs written?
There's so much to improve, about everything...
and yet they cost you so much. think about a music CD you buy.

20USD for a CD, what happens if you happen to scratch the topside of the CD?

Oh yeah that sucks don't it! The top layer is as fragile as the bottom layer!

but if you scratch the bottom you can "easily" fix that whereas if you scratch the top it's just gone...

I'd love to know what you think about vinyl records...

Edit -- I've heard that the highest fidelity format is 15ips reel to reel tape... obviously a debatable point with digital around, it's only hear-say.

I think you pay for the music more than the format just look at CD-R= 50c - $1.50
If there where any systems to stop scratches it would mean more $$ which is dumb because if you really can't take care of your CD's & want protection you can purchase it separately also it's just as important to get the music as widely spread as possible this means it has to be compatible nothing more compatible than CDA.
CDA has all the elements,

*Features/easy of use

*Audio Quality

*Compatibility

* Low Ca$h to produce


So far there's no better format, If you don’t like the $$$ blame the RIAA.

Dvd

How is DVD better? I can tell way i think it's not,

*Debatable topic but audio quality is (close to)undistinguishable from CDA (could use superCD)

*Compatibility is lower

*Cost more to produce

What's the good alternative? Do you know?

vinyl is cute, not as fragile as CDs either, but not an option for me as I want higher quality
yes that tape is the best according to frequecy, but has other flaws
it's like tubeamps vs. transistoramps

Vinyl is a fun hobby, but it's a money-burner even at the low end. I imagine the quality anyone would want can be had... at a price. Not to mention the various inconveniences. The records themselves can be cheap though, and they are infact quite durable (you're right).

I can only imagine the flaws of 15ips reel to reel (not including having two big, fat reels of tape to store for every album.. ARRGH).

Cheers,

fewtch

I also have this weird undescribable love for vinyls... but they're so expensive.. atleast the ones I'm after
and the quality I get with a CD that's pricewize slightly beneath the vinyl makes me skip it

Yup that's the same reason why i don't buy them

What about Mini Discs?
I just love the idea of a CD protected from scratches, like a nice diskette or something. I think they should have done it like this from the beginning with CDs. Don't know how much more expensive it is, but i bet not much at all.
It could have saved ENDLESS heartaches for people who had their CDs scratched ..

It took me awhile, but I finally have a turntable/cartridge where the hiss from the master tapes is usually louder than any rumble or resonances coming from the table. It was really a matter of luck that I came by this setup pretty cheap tho.

Depends on musical taste... the thing I like about vinyl is there's so much stuff that was never released on CD (probably at least 5 times the number of stuff that did make it to CD). But it takes a broad musical interest (& lots of time flipping thru stuff at used record stores). Buying new stuff on vinyl would definitely be expensive.

Caddy's were a form of protection, but they were out of fashion when CD-ROMs became mass market.

This is wrong.

With a Yamaha 6416S burner, I had sometimes one or two wrong samples in a burned CD.

Now with the Yamaha CRW3200 EWK, the data burned is exactly identical, sample for sample, bit for bit (after offset correction) to the original wav files.

And I always use 80 min CDRs.

AFAIK Mini Discs are lossy

Lossy? I thought they're only lossy if you use the compression method, like, there's a non lossy option and lossy option. I suppose i was wrong, really never checked details about MD's...

With minidisc, you've got the choice between lossy (stereo), very lossy (LP2), and very very lossy (LP4).

The agreement's I have with that statement are for the reasons of scratching, and the lack of protection (e.g.; the disc is not sealed in a protective housing like a floppy where it 'the readable layer' cannot collect dust or be physically touched).

The format is old and in my mind is in need to be reincarnated into a better format (something which was hinted on a television forum by a few big shots from recording companies). Although the audio CD is now old newer disc format technologies such as DVD would "probably" had never happened had it not been for the audio CD first.