View Single Post
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