|
|
Posted by NoNoBadDog! on 10/05/15 11:51
"kitekrazy" <kitekrazy@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:Zjdog.55014$fb2.44849@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> NoNoBadDog! wrote:
>> "Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
>> news:44a01520.7253015@news-server.houston.rr.com...
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 11:28:15 -0400, blank@adelphia.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>1. You bought the cheapest discs available.
>>>
>>>>Not necessarily true. Sometime "name brand" discs go on sale, maybe
>>>>for half of their regular price. But they are the same discs. They
>>>>didnt go bad because somebody decided to have a sale.
>>>
>>>All discs are either crap or crap shoots with one notable exception:
>>>Taiyo Yuden.
>>>
>>>http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=146146
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>"It's impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from
>>>an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can
>>>physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
>>>--Winston Churchill
>>
>>
>> The poll you cited is not scientific.
>>
>
> No but I'd rather trust a consumer than a scientist.
>
>
>> While TY are good discs, there are others that have been tested to have
>> superior archival quality.
>>
>> Also, for the OP....
>>
>> Burning your discs at faster than 2X is also responsible. The faster the
>> burn speed, the less likely the disc is going to last for 2 or more
>> years.
>>
>
> Not necessarily true.
Please cite the validation for your claim?
>
>> I have CD discs that I burned in 1998; they are still working. I keep
>> them in a cool, dim place, and I recorded them at no more than 2X. They
>> are on a wide range of brands. Point is, they all still work.
>>
>> Bobby
>>
>>
>
> You didn't have much choice of burn speeds back then.
I had 1x, 2x, or 4x (when the discs could be found). I had an NEC internal
4x and an NEC external 2x. Even if 48x existed then, I would still have
burned important data discs at 2x.
Bobby
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|