🚀 go-pugleaf

   In article <1jov32INN53@uwm.edu> ken@isgtec.com (Ken Newman) writes:
   >2) Why do they not "record" or "press" or "download" :) or whatever
   >   the appropriate term is, on both sides of a CD? Again, this would
   >   be more expensive, sure, but probably much less than two CD's?
   >   I certainly wouldn't mind flipping a CD over if I could save 
   >   several bucks and obtain the several other obvious advantages
   >   of this.

	   a) It would essentially be made the way a laser disc is made,
	      that is, two CD's glued together.
	   b) It would be too thick for most players, especially high-end
	      players with special transport designs.
	   c) The quality control problems would make it more expensive than
	      two CD's.
	   d) Where would you put the "label" ??

Not only this, but record companies seem to have a hard time filling
up the 70 odd minutes of music that you can cram into a CD today.
What would they put on double sided discs?  We'd probably just see 42
minute discs with 21 minutes on each side for 1.6 times the current
price of a CD, rather than (as we have today) 42 minutes of music on
one side.  I don't see any advantage.

/mvH



--
Programming isn't a science,        | Foo:    mvh@lysator.liu.se
it's an art.                        | Bar:    d89marho@und.ida.liu.se
Why is it called common sense,      | Who:    Martin V. Howard
when so few possess it ?            | Voice:  Int +46 (0)13 261 283 (GMT + 1h)