Cheap is not always low quality :)

Hey, everyone :slight_smile:

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? :confused:


@ 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. :slight_smile:

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.

Very nice opinion, thanks for sharing it with others! :slight_smile:

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

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

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

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.