Posted by blank on 06/25/06 15:28

On Thu, 11 May 2006 21:32:28 -1000, "NoNoBadDog!" <nospam@mymail.net>
wrote:

>
>"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
>news:b5e868bc83155f31e918916347851a3e@dizum.com...
>> I've got some +R discs that were recorded about a year ago starting to go
>> bad. The DVDR that recorded them doesn't even recognize them anymore. A
>> separate player machine reads some of them but not others.
>>
>> What's going on here? I thought these discs were supposed to last 100
>> years. Maybe the plastic substrate will, but the image emulsion doesn't
>> seem to hold the data, at least on my discs. Is this an inherent
>> defective
>> technology? I've never had trouble with CD-R discs but DVD has been a big
>> headache and I'm ready to throw in the towel after a lot of money and time
>> wasted.
>>
>
>Two reasons;
>
>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.
>2. You recorded them at faster than 1x or 2x.
Surely 4x is not expecting too much. If you always burn at a lower
speed than the blank is capable of, that should be enough.
>
>Number 1 speaks for itself. If you want good quality discs with a high
>degree of quality control, you have to spend more money.
>
Throwing money at the problem doesnt always solve it. Some brands of
burners simply dont work well with some discs. I burned some "name
brand" Verbatim discs and the burner (NEC) wouldnt read the disc it
just burned! Put it in another brand of drive and it read it just
fine. Go figure. If you want to spend money, buy two or three
different drives, if one wont read, move to the next. With drives
under 50 bucks, you can certainly justify two or more.
>As for the second, the faster the disc spins, the less time the laser has to
>burn pits. Thus the pits are "fainter" compared to a disc burned at 1x or
>2x.
>
>Moral of the story; buy a name brand disc, and burn it at the slowest speed
>possible.
>
>Bobby
>

[Back to original message]