Ayumi Hamasaki Sekai - View Single Post - [2004] Which portable audio Player do u prefer?
View Single Post
  #31  
Old 2nd June 2004, 01:59 AM
SurrealDreams's Avatar
SurrealDreams SurrealDreams is offline
Evolution Wind

 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: 英國
Posts: 3,423
Luna - haha, i realise uncompressed files wont be practical on smaller storages like 128MB (3 songs on an mp3 player? haha), but arent the I-Pods have something like 20 or 40GB? then uncompressed would be alright. and yep, i would want that (call me audiophile geek, my ears are just sensitive)

Unimatrix Prime™ -
Quote:
don't have an MD player, obviously, but do they show ID3 tags like MP3 players do? I know I wouldn't want to browse thru songs and have them called "Track 1", "Track 2", etc. Also, aren't the discs themselves expensive? I've heard that you can compress them in such a way that they can store several times more than normal, but most MP3 players can store 10-100 times more than what the MD compression can offer
Nope they dont have tags, but u can name each individual track manually via the buttons on the MD recorder, or if the minidisc is recorded optical digitally from a CD player, and that the CD itself has track/artist names on them, those names would be automatically transfered to the MD (however i think both the CD player and the MD player needs to have this text transfering feature - but mine are old they both dont).

the MDs comes in 60, 75 and 80 minutes varities, but it can record in mono and newer MD recorders can record 'long play' which each of them can halve the recording time. say it was recorded normal (short play) in stereo it's max 80 minutes on the disc - record in long play AND mono it can make it 240 minutes max.

the minidiscs arent expensive.
__________________

Merry * Christmas ! * *
* * * * *

i'm ditching my old 5 years unchanged sig to something else soon so watch this space if u like reading sigs
Reply With Quote