|
|
Posted by GlickFurn on 10/05/61 11:51
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:48:57 -0500, kitekrazy =
<kitekrazy@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote:
> 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=3D146146
>>>
>>> -- "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 ha=
ve =
>> superior archival quality.
>> Also, for the OP....
>> Burning your discs at faster than 2X is also responsible. The faste=
r =
>> the burn speed, the less likely the disc is going to last for 2 or mo=
re =
>> years.
>>
>
> Not necessarily true.
>
>> I have CD discs that I burned in 1998; they are still working. I kee=
p =
>> 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.
And that's true, back then. What it does show us is that the slower spe=
ed =
prevailed.
The faster burning speeds appear to invite problems down the road.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|