Talk:Compressed audio optical disc

I removed the info about the number of rewrites of CDRWs compared to flash memory because 1000 rewrites is enough to make the number of rewrites have little impact on the cost of the media. Also as far as I know many flash memory chips can't withstand 1 Billion (i.e. 10^9) writes. Ten thousand used to be typical. Mrcaseyj 13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but, when considering the W/RW cycles a benefit, putting the price into proportion with the W/RW cycles will render a device to be more "economical" depending on characteristics. --PlayStation 69 01:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that only a tiny proportion of users will ever rewrite their CDRWs more than a 1000 times, thus that will almost never be an influence on cost. The mere possibility that that will have a tiny effect on the cost to a tiny portion of users, doesn't justify wasting space in the encyclopedia. With the price and advantages of flash these days, it's probably academic now anyway. Mrcaseyj (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When I edited this page, I tried to keep it similar to the previous revision by talking about 160kbps MP3 files and 128kbps AAC files. Really, though, isn't that confusing the issue? Should it be changed to only mention 128kbps MP3 files? They seem like the standard as much as there is one, at any rate. Zoeb (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of number of song shouldn't it be better with just time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.217.190 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the number of songs per disk for the other formats because the comparison was unfair. If the number of songs per format is going to be included, the numbers must be based on careful and neutral evaluations of the formats at equal quality levels. The claim that Windows Media format is twice as good as mp3 demands a very high quality cite. While lacking such a cite, the logical thing to do is just include an estimate for mp3s. This is especially the case given that this is a very approximate number where precision doesn't matter a whole lot anyway. Another possibility is to give a range of numbers. Mrcaseyj (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

An mp3 cd is just a data disc filled with mp3's. Theres nothing special about it, theres no standards. If some higher up decides this silly article shouldn't just be deleted, perhaps the page should have some discussion on this point and include the typical limitations of devices that play mp3's from a disc, including filename length limits, subfolder limits, number of file limits, bugs with special characters, and however else 'mp3 enabled' devices F up six ways from sunday trying to play something that HAS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.131.205 (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be retained instead of merged. I don't think the mp3 article is a great place to go over in detail all the possible music storage devices. Mp3CDs are, or at least were, special creatures that could be useful to people who don't realize that they're possible. It's also useful to make clear the difference between Mp3CDs and regular music CDs. Furthermore, because mp3CDs are becoming less important as flash memory drops in price, I think it's best to keep this extra information from cluttering up the Mp3 article. It's been so long since the merge has been proposed, I'm going to remove the proposal notice. Mrcaseyj (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that "A standard audio CD (74 minutes) can hold about 18 songs" is based on the assumption that the average length of a song is around 4 min and 7 s. Do we have any evidence for that? For example, Metallica's Death Magnetic is 74 min and 48 s in length but contains only 10 songs making the average song length about 7 min and 29 s while even the shortest track (My Apocalypse at 5:06) is nearly a minute longer than this average. The average song length probably varies greatly depending on genre so perhaps stating only the actual time without the song count would be better. - 193.84.186.81 (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compressed audio optical disc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028011451/http://www.ce.org/Standards/Product-Marks/Audiobook-Marks%2C-CEA-2003-C.aspx to http://www.ce.org/Standards/Product-Marks/Audiobook-Marks%2C-CEA-2003-C.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)