What about Single Layer disks?

[Dave Briggs]

I've been using some Verbatim DVD+R single layer disks "Made in Taiwan". ImgBurn codes them out as MKM 004. They seem to be working fine and I've had no fails in more than twenty burns. What do you guys think about these for single layer burns?

[blutach]

I've used quite a lot of those (are you sure they aren't MCC004?) and while I prefer the MCC003s, they have been excellent discs.

Regards

[Dave Briggs]

I've used quite a lot of those (are you sure they aren't MCC004?) and while I prefer the MCC003s, they have been excellent discs.

Regards

My mistake. They are MCC004. Are MCC003 DVD-R?
Thanks.

[blutach]

No, the MCC003s are 8x. The MCC004s are 16x. I burn the 003s at 12x in my Samsung 203B and they are the best burns I have ever had.

Regards

[Dave Briggs]

No, the MCC003s are 8x. The MCC004s are 16x. I burn the 003s at 12x in my Samsung 203B and they are the best burns I have ever had.

Regards

When I burn single layer disks I always burn at 4x. I was originally told that it was best to burn at slow speed for best results and I've always done that. I've had very good results doing that. Of course burning faster would be handy. Do you think these 004's would burn as well at 8x or 12x? I'm burning with an LQ GSA E60L external that seems to work extremely well using ImgBurn.

I appreciate the advice you've given.

[blutach]

There's no use getting 16x discs if you don't plan to burn that fast. Many people use a rule of thumb, and that's all it is, to burn at half the stated maximum. Depending on the writer, some discs can give better burns at their rated speeds and above. It's best to experiment and see what's best for you.

Regards

[GrofLuigi]

There's no use getting 16x discs if you don't plan to burn that fast.

But nowadays it's really hard to find lower rated discs.

Oh well...

GL

[CWR03]

It's my opinion that the speed of the burn vs. its reliability and longevity is more dependent on the rated speed of the media than the actual burn speed. When DVD+R was rated at 8X and a friend would burn a disk for me (He always uses the highest rated speed) it would skip or read slowly. If I asked him to burn at 4X, it'd read fine. Same with 16X disks, burned at 16X will read poorly, 8X is always fine.

I've been using cheap disks for years, always burn at half the rated speed, and many hundreds of burned disks around that show no signs of degrading, some probably five years old now.

[Sophocles]

There's no use getting 16x discs if you don't plan to burn that fast


If you do A PI and PO test on finished high speed burns you will find that the rate of error increases with the speed of burn. This doesn't mean that one has to be stuck with 4X burns using a fast 16X burner and 16X media, but it does call to question what could happen if one chooses to burn at top speed. My thoughts are, that if one has adequate time to burn a bit slower then why not do it if it can reduce burn errors?

It's my opinion that the speed of the burn vs. its reliability and longevity is more dependent on the rated speed of the media than the actual burn speed.

No doubt that the quality of media affects the outcome of a burn, but so does the condition or quality of a burner which suggests that both needs to be attended too!