Sarcasm doesn’t make you more knowledgable or insightful.
You don’t produce any serious data, since you don’t produce comparative scans (original vs recent). So you’re just going by personal experience and opinion, despite the fact that you seem to think that it’s what I do and that I’m not entitled to. Why would [I]you[/I] be, then?
> “Professional level longevity tests done with CATS analyzers have invariably shown that the drive used for burning the disc is as significant a factor in it’s longevity as the material/manufacturing quality”
Tell me something I don’t know.
> "to something other than a Pio 112D "
? Mind you, I use 8 different burners here. Where did you get this crazy idea I only use a 112D?
Besides, if you imply that you consider the 112D as a ‘suspect’ burner, that is baffling, since it’s probably one of the 3-4 best DVD burners ever built. And this is backed up by professional testing equipement.
From this post of yours, I’d say you’re a victim of group thinking, or maybe are paid by Falcon?
> “based on consumer drive scanning results”
When you use scanning for [I]comparative[/I] reasons with a given disc, any consistent scanner is entirely pertinent and legitimate. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand what scanning is all about.
> “Discs often show a very noticeable PIE increase after the first year, then it rises more slowly over time.”
Total hogwash. Blanket statement. Show me a bunch of -R Verbatim or TY disc doing that, then we’ll talk. I can produce dozens of scans of discs showing absolutely zero increase in PIEs after four years.
> “I like the odds of this disc lasting a long time.”
LOL. Wishful thinking. Oh my. And you have the nerve to come up with introductions such as “Pronouncements like this based on…”? My poor boy! You don’t seem to be willing to take some of your own criticism, are you?
I’ve seen my share of foolishness and pretension on this forum when I was a mod… looks like it hasn’t changed much since. I miss the days when I could learn from the best minds.