Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > DVD burning

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd January 2011, 10:48   #21  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Now who's comparing apples and mango fruit?
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2011, 10:58   #22  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
Now who's comparing apples and mango fruit?
Well, put some of your scans here to substantiate your allegations, like Groucho2004 did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho2004 View Post
Here is the PlexTools PI/PO scan of one of my oldest DVD-Rs:



Looks pretty much the same as 6 years ago when I burned it, the error rate being as low as it can be. I have always used good quality Verbatim disks.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2011, 11:01   #23  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Well, put some of your scans here to substantiate your allegations, like Groucho2004 did.
Age before beauty. After you....
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2011, 11:12   #24  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
When someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with him. Show us that you're right and we're wrong. For me the things reached an end, I don't have anything to show to you (remember, this is another topic you poisoned). I said my opinions to the OP. If you feel that we gave him a wrong advice please show him the correct answer.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2011, 12:33   #25  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
When someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with him. Show us that you're right and we're wrong. For me the things reached an end, I don't have anything to show to you (remember, this is another topic you poisoned). I said my opinions to the OP. If you feel that we gave him a wrong advice please show him the correct answer.
Okay then, when someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with them. I'm waiting.
In the mean time, here's a couple of burn quality tests. Don't think of me as poisoning the thread when I contradict your opinionated advice, think of me as being more like anti-virus....

From six months ago:


Yesterday:


I'll eagerly await your explanations as the quality drop I'm not seeing.
By the way, I posted yesterday's burn test as well as a six month old one because they're two different types of discs. Both Verbatim, but the 6 month old one is a standard disc while the one from yesterday is a printable disc. There's no evidence of a six month deterioration in quality there, it just happens that for some reason I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs, and I thought while I was uploading pictures I might as well pre-empt the opinionated contradiction which was bound to follow if I said so.

Would you like me to post some burn tests from three or four years ago? I'd no doubt be able to find some discs which weren't burned to the same quality, thereby proving the quality of blanks has in fact improved in the last few years. I'd even, no doubt, be able to find some burned with the same burners, so while the claim would be as unfounded as yours, it'd at least be more logical.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2011, 13:28   #26  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
Wow, it was supposed to be vice-versa! You know, bigger is better is false here And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2011, 14:00   #27  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
By the way, I posted yesterday's burn test as well as a six month old one because they're two different types of discs. Both Verbatim, but the 6 month old one is a standard disc while the one from yesterday is a printable disc. There's no evidence of a six month deterioration in quality there, it just happens that for some reason I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs, and I thought while I was uploading pictures I might as well pre-empt the opinionated contradiction which was bound to follow if I said so.
I guess there's no pre-empting total foolishness.
For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Wow, it was supposed to be vice-versa! You know, bigger is better is false here And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.
Did you notice..... by any chance.... those two discs were also burned with different burners? Don't go mixing up your apples with kiwifruit again.
I guess I should have known better. I'd assumed I could have posted a couple of burns, both of which are of a high quality, explained why one was slightly better than the other, and end up with a response from an adult on the actual topic being discussed. Which if you recall was your claim that blank discs aren't of as good a quality as they used to be, including Verbatim.
So now you've had a chance to avoid the topic as you clapped your hands in glee over a quality difference even you must know is irrelevant when only comparing two burns made by different burners, how about you explain why either of them is of poor quality, irrespective of any minor difference between them, and whether they support or contradict your claim of Verbatim not making as good a quality DVD-R as they used to.

Last edited by yetanotherid; 23rd January 2011 at 18:10.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 14:25   #28  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
Did you notice..... by any chance.... those two discs were also burned with different burners?
Read my post you just quoted. The pio 218 is made by QSI (Quantum Storage Inc), while the pio 112 was still manufactured by pioneer. So I assume you don't know what you're talking about but still continue to futilely stir the waters ....

It may be that the Verbatims were from different batches, however 6 months is not a big leap in time, it may be that you bought the second batch from the same container. Try find an original Verbatim, ie one bearing the MKM code (unfalsified, of course). Also 6 months is nothing, if one needs a backup, then probably 10 years are a must.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 15:18   #29  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Read my post you just quoted. The pio 218 is made by QSI (Quantum Storage Inc), while the pio 112 was still manufactured by pioneer.
Yeah, you're correct. Sorry about that. I skimmed your post and foolishly assumed you hadn't totally gone off on another tangent and you were just comparing the two burns as your red herring offering of the day. My mistake.
Yes, I was aware the manufacturer had changed, although I couldn't have told you who made which.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
So I assume you don't know what you're talking about but still continue to futilely stir the waters ....
You've got to give up on so much assuming, it keeps getting you into trouble. It doesn't matter if I burn a printable disc with a 212 or a 218 (in fact I've burned a whole bunch of them using both burners today) it's not the burner which makes the difference, it's the type of disc. I'll repeat it again for you.... I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs than I do using the printable types. I always have.
I mentioned it a few posts ago..... the one where I posted the screen shots. Sorry if my posting them has stirred your muddy waters of misinformation again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
It may be that the Verbatims were from different batches, however 6 months is not a big leap in time, it may be that you bought the second batch from the same container. Try find an original Verbatim, ie one bearing the MKM code (unfalsified, of course). Also 6 months is nothing, if one needs a backup, then probably 10 years are a must.
Err.... hello?? They're different types of discs. Printable v non-printable. Did I mention that? What a mistake posting two burn quality tests was..... it's let you spot several different red herrings leading you down several different garden paths.

Can we maybe just look at one of the burn quality tests I posted (you can pick) and get back on topic? Is it a good quality burn or not, and where's the deterioration in Verbatim's disc quality you mentioned? You asked me to post a burn test to prove it hasn't, and there it is.

I'll eagerly await the screen shots of the perfect burns you made back in the good old days when you could buy all sorts of things with a penny, and I imagine they'd pretty much have to be perfect burns to be better quality than my recent ones. You can even compare like-discs, assuming printers had been invented when you were burning perfect discs and Verbatim were making printable blanks. If not, you've got a standard disc for comparison, that's why I posted two quality tests....
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 15:36   #30  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
You've got to give up on so much assuming, it keeps getting you into trouble. It doesn't matter if I burn a printable disc with a 212 or a 218 (in fact I've burned a whole bunch of them using both burners today) it's not the burner which makes the difference, it's the type of disc. I'll repeat it again for you.... I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs than I do using the printable types. I always have.
I mentioned it a few posts ago..... the one where I posted the screen shots. Sorry if my posting them has stirred your muddy waters of misinformation again.
I do not misinform. And your scans simply supported my statements (ie better scans with older disks than with newer).

Who misinforms here is you: the Burner definitively plays a role in the quality. And this is known to anyone involved in burning CDs/DVDs/BDRs. This short example shows how ignorant are you.

So stop propagating nonsenses here. Start your own blog and propagate there your ideas if you feel you're doing the world a service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yetanotherid View Post
Err.... hello?? They're different types of discs. Printable v non-printable. Did I mention that? What a mistake posting two burn quality tests was..... it's let you spot several different red herrings leading you down several different garden paths.
What difference do printable vs. non-printable to the disk? The burner doesn't know the differences, it checks the MID and sets the burning strategy accordingly. If the MID is fake, the burning strategy does not provide the best quality possible. FYI, there is a difference in printable vs. non-printable, and for Verbatim this goes like this: printable disks are manufactured in one factory, the non-printable in another one. Sony has the same MID (for 16x) for the last probably 5 years, yet the disks were produced in at least 5 countries, now it's India.

Nobody except you could see that one disk was printable whereas the other was not, because you saw them.

The rest of your arguments are silly and again nonsense. To reiterate your own arguments, you did show nothing that a 6 months old disk has better values (lower errors) than a fresh one.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 16:09   #31  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
I do not misinform. And your scans simply supported my statements (ie better scans with older disks than with newer).
Twaddle. They're six months different in age, and if you're really expecting me to believe it proves the quality of discs has dropped in the last six months you're more foolish than I thought you were. They're different types of discs! How many times do I have to repeat it. They'd look the same if I'd bought and burned them both yesterday. I've been burning both types to a similar quality as the examples in my screen shots for a long time, or are you calling me a liar?
In fact a little later I'll post a burn test of a standard disc from a few weeks ago just to put your nonsense to rest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Who misinforms here is you: the Burner definitively plays a role in the quality. And this is known to anyone involved in burning CDs/DVDs/BDRs. This short example shows how ignorant are you.
There's no point discussing a subject with an idiot who thinks putting words in my mouth and then offering a counter argument proves me wrong. I never said different burners don't play a role in quality.... although your very statement to that effect contradicts your argument that it must be the quality of the disc, only you're so busy arguing around in circles to avoid the topic you probably haven't noticed.
I said in THIS CASE the burner is irrelevant because I'm getting pretty much the same quality results using the same type of Verbatim blank whether I use a 112, a 212 a 215 a 216 or a 218, so for the purpose of the discussion the burner used is irrelevant. Is that clear enough for you or do you need pictures of burns from each burner before you'll understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
So stop propagating nonsenses here. Start your own blog and propagate there your ideas if you feel you're doing the world a service.
How about you bite me? I'll post what I want to, regardless of any illusion you may have of a divine right to post whatever you dribble you want to post without it being contradicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
What difference do printable vs. non-printable to the disk? The burner doesn't know the differences, it checks the MID and sets the burning strategy accordingly.
Rigidity of the disc... the amount it vibrates when spinning due to being made of different layers.... I don't know the answer but it's obviously nothing to do with the burner and the dye used, therefore once you eliminate what's not different a little common sense (look it up) might provide some theories.... but the printable discs always burn with a slightly lower quality than the non-printable ones and they always have, even if you see it as a believable excuse for not admitting your original statement was a load of bullocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Nobody except you could see that one disk was printable whereas the other was not, because you saw them.
Would they even weigh the same? And you can forgo the highlighting if you like, it only has me imagining you realise your argument is falling over and you're trying to compensate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
The rest of your arguments are silly and again nonsense. To reiterate your own arguments, you did show nothing that a 6 months old disk has better values (lower errors) than a fresh one.
And you've grasped onto that nonsense as an excuse to justify avoiding answering a simple question, or providing examples of the better quality burns you achieved when Verbatim were making discs of a better quality as you claimed, and you're doing so apparently believing it doesn't make you look like a fool. You asked me for examples so how about you now put up yourself or shut up? Are you honestly trying to tell me I've proved Verbatim's quality has dropped in the last 6 months, or are you simply willing to argue such a silly assumption because you think playing the fool is better than being wrong?

Last edited by yetanotherid; 24th January 2011 at 16:13.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 16:28   #32  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Oh and by the way, when I burn stuff I generally wait till the "waiting to be burned" folder on my drive starts to take up too much space, then I sit down with a spindle of 50 or 100 discs. So whether you want to live in denial of reality or not, I know for a fact.... and especially when averaged over a large number of discs (50 to 100)..... there's a definite quality difference between the burns to printable v non-printable discs (regardless of the burner). Last time I burned a huge batch of non-printable discs, the time before they were possibly printable.... it simply depends what the local PC shop has for sale in bulk at the time.... but I've certainly burned enough "batches" of each to know I'm not wrong, no matter how many fairy stories you invent to the contrary.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 16:37   #33  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
There no need to argue with you.

The quality of a burn depends on how well the burner does understand the medium, on the medium quality as such and on the burner quality as such.

The quality of the DVDR decreased a lot in the past 5 years. The quality of the burners equally decreased. Yamaha, Teac and Plextor opted out, this left us with Sony (which relabels everything), NEC (bad quality), Samsung (probably the worst competitor), LiteOn (decreased quality from 8x DVDburners onwards, with Philips at bord, the BDwriters suffer from many issues) and LG (probably the best bet, especially when money is an issue).

The best DVDRs one can buy now are the JVC, which acquired the media division of TY. I couldn't test one of these as they are not officially sold in Germany and I don't trust online shops nor eBay, there were too many fakes, and the price is high. The second best were (because there are no longer manufactured) the Verbatim archival gold (only 8x). Equally good, as made by the same factory, were the EMTEC gold, again extinct.

Now verbatim relabels MBI products (made with Verbatims' stampers), so does Sony (own stampers). These are still ok compared to 2005, but super compared to what one may buy today (2011).

Then comes the ritek, one of the worst products being the CMC. Philips had once a really good batch (INFOMEDIA R30) but now only CMC.

These are good burns


TTH02 is the last MID from TDK.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 16:40   #34  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
For some reason the images do not appear
http://img835.imageshack.us/i/liteon...0a1s9l091.png/

http://img638.imageshack.us/i/liteon...20a1lbl06.png/
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 17:00   #35  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
There no need to argue with you.

The quality of a burn depends on how well the burner does understand the medium, on the medium quality as such and on the burner quality as such.
I know.

Here's me proving how much Verbatim's quality has improved in the last two years.


Here's me proving it's increased somewhat in the last 24 hours.


Your screen shots seem to indicate you were getting the same type of quality burns using TY discs two years ago as I'm getting today with Verbatim.

The only time I ever use Ritek discs is if I get them for almost nothing and even then I only keep them as the discs I use when I'm burning something for someone else, and only if they're not a good friend.
The last time a disc "surprised me" was when I found some Benq blanks going really cheap so I bought 50. I can't remember the dye they used (I'd have to dig one out) but it wasn't a "top rated" dye. The burns they gave me though were even slightly better on average than the Verbatim discs.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 17:25   #36  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
You're still using a 2007 burner and 2004 media. The 2009 one does not have the same good qualities.

However, one flower is not enough to bring the spring.
http://club.myce.com/f33/verbatim-mc...0/#post1768689
http://translate.google.com/translat...eme-mit-MCC004

A short look into the German twin forum for your printable MCC 03RG20 would show a nice ascending error rate, from 2005 to 2009, as verbatim changed 3 factories and 2 countries -> http://forum.gleitz.info/forumdisplay.php?139-Verbatim. No need to understand German, the figures are the same.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th January 2011, 17:28   #37  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
Or this poll -> http://club.myce.com/f33/verbatim-16...-worse-255549/
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2011, 12:58   #38  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Okay, for completeness of info..... for some reason I've found Verbatim DVD+R discs burn to a slightly lesser quality than their DVD-R... on average. However, I'm fairly sure if I buy +R blanks it's generally because the local shop is out of -R and generally when I end up buying +R they're printable discs, so I couldn't say whether it's because they're printable discs, whether it's because my burners simply burn to -R discs better than +R or whether there's for some unknown reason, a quality difference between the -R and +R versions, but I'm not going to take forum here-say and an inaccurate pole (a whole 69 respondents in total) as proof Verbatim's quality has dropped. Especially not while you're unable to post screenshots of better quality burns than the burns I'm getting with Verbatim discs today. Did you notice the last screen shot was MCC004 and how good the burn was?

For the record, I've got a Samsung burner in amongst my collection of Pioneer burners, and during the last week I've burned a lot of discs, initially with a spindle of printable DVD+R and then with a spindle of DVD-R. The Samsung burner was spitting out so many coasters using the DVD+R discs I was ready to pull it out and throw it away, but since I started on the DVD-R spindle it's been burning to a quality pretty close to that of the Pioneer burners. I guess if I only owned a single Samsung burner I could start a thread in a forum and moan about the diminishing quality of Verbatim DVD+R discs, but unfortunately I don't.

The trouble is there's so many variables when it comes to burning discs. I've had days when I've burned a bunch of discs (and I'm talking about using discs from the same spindle) when every burn has been average, at least for Verbatim. Then the next day I return to finish the burning and suddenly I'm burning to a better quality for what seems to be no apparent reason. I sometimes wonder whether the ambient temperature makes a noticeable difference... and therefore the temperature inside the drive itself.... and I've wondered whether sometimes it's simply because I haven't used the burners for a while and initially the discs spinning around are disturbing the dust which has accumulated inside and it effects the burn quality for a while. And I've never been able to explain why a particular burner will burn several average quality discs in a row, then just as I'm getting annoyed it'll produce a couple of excellent quality burns. I doubt it's because the quality varies dramatically from one disc to another.

Also for the record.... as I'm fussy about the burn quality when I'm archiving stuff, if the burn's not pretty good I throw the disc away and burn it again. Sometimes I throw away something like 1 in 5, which I probably did when burning using the DVD+R spindle, but much of that was courtesy of the Samsung burner. So far, now I've nearly worked my way through a 100 spindle of DVD-R discs (and it's such a relief to get all that hard drive space back) I've maybe thrown away 1 in 20 and the burns are all pretty close (on average) to the burn in the second screenshot I posted (post #25).

Anyway..... after all my own experiences with Verbatim discs over the last few years.... am I willing to say I'm confident Verbatim's disc quality has changed? Well I don't burn using DVD+Rs often enough to form a confident opinion there but when it comes to DVD-Rs I'm confident it hasn't changed at all. Have you shown me anything which points to your contention of Verbatim's quality having dropped in the last few years being correct? Not anything close to substantial I can see, and you've not been able to offer examples of burns you've made in the past which are better quality than the examples I've posted from burns made in the last few days. Anecdotal stories of discs being manufactured in India instead of the U.S. or China or wherever they were originally made aren't proof of anything either. Manufacturer's move their factories to places like India because the labour is cheaper, not because they have to relinquish control over the quality of their products by doing so.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2011, 13:04   #39  |  Link
yetanotherid
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
You're still using a 2007 burner and 2004 media. The 2009 one does not have the same good qualities.
Well the discussion is regarding the quality of the media, not the age of the burner used, so let's not get sidetracked there, and you'll have to explain to me how you know the media I'm using.... which I literally bought a week ago (well at least the second screen shot from each post)..... was manufactured six or seven years ago, because it doesn't seem too likely.
yetanotherid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th January 2011, 13:47   #40  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,708
Well, this is something I expected.

Not only that you contradict a lot of people from 2 countries, you still insist in your theories. I think anyone has by now realised the quality of the advices you give. Small sample size, short interval, yet grandiose conclusions, oh no, sorry, axioms.

Typically, around the time Groucho2004 burned the DVD whose scan was posted, the manufacturers liked to advertise a sort of 50 years for the lifespan. One should also know that the measuring conditions the companies use are completely different than those a typical user has (also the accelerated ageing is different, but this is another story). That a DVDR supports 16x (or for that time 4x) it doesn't automatically mean that if burned anyway, at 16x or 22x, with any burner, it would last 50 years. Same for the measurements Philips likes to show on the package.
After a while, all these information went with the wind. Only Verbatim dared to mention a "lifetime warranty" for its archival grade DVDRs. What's a "lifetime warranty"? Nothing else that the product is free of defects for all its life, before being burned, as they cannot control the burning process. The second one was EMTEC, for its gold media. EMTEC ran out of business while Verbatim rebadges Indian disks today. Even its Blu-ray media look like being of a lower quality than the competitors -> http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showforum=16
I am happy I burned a lot of good DVDs in the past and that I still have a reserve of premium TY for the gold recordings.

Should a DVDR be recognised and read out during the Verify phase of the writing procedure, there are chances that it would withstand at least 1 year (of course, if correctly handled). Top disks of 2010 may last up to 10 years. 50 or 100 years of storage are a dream.

It is also a difference between a DVD out of specs and an unreadable (or partially readable) disk. An out-of-specs disk can be read back with great chances, as it needs 1664 PI before the error correction be completely screwed up, whereas the standard prescribes here only 280. So with the other parameters. Lots of disk having PO over 4 are perfectly readable. Changing the reader (using maybe an LG DVDburner) could make an unreadable disk readable.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.