If I must bind an already printed 250 page book, it is less time consuming for me to insert a comb rather than photocopy 250 pages. I've never found a ring binder that costs less money than a comb. While I love and often use ring-binders, there are scenarios where I do not find it easier and cheaper to use ring-binders: Of course, there are pros and cons with that, too! Currently, I have gone all digital, using a 13.3 inch e-paper tablet for my entire library. The drawback I've encountered: (1) have to remove paper from the transparent sleeves in order to make annotations, (however, I can make them on the sleeve, temporarily,) and (2) the sleeves are reflective and reflections can be annoying, especially with poor eyesight. This is a good, versatile system and avoids the whole binding problem and gives one a spine for marking identification! I have also been using this method for a long time. Meanwhile the books can be left on the shelf and will not be damaged by use. Hours of repertoire will fit in a single binder and can be arranged in any desired order.įor pieces that appear in collections and anthologies this is much more useful than binding together the whole book and carrying around a lot of music you don't play. I find it easier and cheaper to use transparent inserts in a ring-binder, I just p/copy the music and slip it into a sleeve and its job done. PeteJ wrote: ↑ Tuesday 16 July 2019, 17:55 pm
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |