Posted by kitekrazy on 11/15/37 11:51

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.

> 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.

[Back to original message]