The debate "Records are way better than CDs" was started by
an anonymous person on
August 20, 2015, 10:12 pm.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 62 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Sooraj posted 1 argument, zoeclare7 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments, Musstta posted 1 argument, shobhit posted 1 argument, BennieBenston posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
wmd, Edson, Turtle, Inpoliticallycorrect, amtvj, desght, Sooraj, Navin19_das, Bluevelvet, djuanstewart, zoeclare7, truth_or_ture, TheControversy, SalonY and 25 visitors agree.
spellbeechamp, sloanstar1000, roy, PsychDave, Musstta, invincible_01, Moo1, stantinou93, shobhit, BennieBenston, Afshin, gouthamabi, Maharshi, rajarshimaiti, keshav_garg, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, ailasorecarg, hey_its_brit, toffeebrush, owenpaul, MarlemR, Nury, scotthansonMC, Picassota, Sebsworth, AngryBlogger, barman, AGustafson and 34 visitors disagree.
Records are way better for sound quality, but cds are more portable and more robust. However I still prefer records.
They both function to serve the same purpose. Records have become more of a novelty while CD's are more convenient.
while concerning about storing big data in a much less time, cd are preferred and it is easy to deal with cds in case of space occupied and transportation
CDs have an expected life span of 100-200 years and rewritable CDs roughly 25 years.
records are better than cds for storing music for long... layers is cds will only last for 5 to 6yrs but records lasts for a lifetime
I have to agree with Dave in this one, and I think that a better comparison would be Vinyls vs CDs, for me its an obvious win for vinyls
Records have their own charm, but they do not provide a true representation of what the artist recorded.