View Single Post
Old 24th January 2011, 15:36   #30  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,769
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