Cheap is not always low quality :)

[zilvinas]

Hey, everyone

I just want to proove that cheap is not always low quality media :disagree:
These are results of ePro (old eProFormance) @ 4x.
WOPC: off

What do you all think, are these results satisfying on media, which costs only 0.89 EUR per DVD+RW disc?

Thanks

[ninbang]

@ zilvinas:

I'm not that familiar with RW media. From the scans I've seen, yours looks alright. I have yet to see RW media that burns anywhere near the best of +/-R's. Should be fine ... if you have problems, then erase and do it again.

Btw ... "quality" and "cheap" media ... there are "cheap" media that will show acceptable to nice looking scans, but there's a lot more to assessing quality of media than just quality scans. Just look at the Ritek G05 thread, and you'll realize it's a must to consider long term reliabilty and integrity of the media when you judge quality. Your initial scan just tells gives you a snapshot of that particular moment. Every media will degrade, some faster than others. The risk with "cheap" (referring to known price-to-quality perception) media is you may run the risk of having to re-burn your data due to marked quality loss in a short amount of time. So, in the end, the "cheap" media .. gets rather expensive. Just my $.02. Good luck.

[zilvinas]

Very nice opinion, thanks for sharing it with others!

[adoniscik]

This is fine for RW, but for write-once media you want it to last. A high score does not guarantee this.

[abalone]

my 2.4x Prodisc +RW behave very bad, never gives success full 4.38GB burn. Only first 2G is readable.

[tehGrue]

I wouldn't consider 4x DVD+RW old. And while that's a decent result, how will it be after a few rewrites?

[lui_gough]

Or after time? what about a read speed curve on a speedhacked 166s (really picky)?

I had problems with phillips wid PI scores much less than that but would read-error.