DVD+R vs DVD - R

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:33:18 GMT, MikeM <mmo45018.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> wrote
in <e650r398kltl4enptlbsl72477okl5n6ul.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>:

>On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:40:38 GMT, MikeM <mmo45018.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au>
>wrote:
>
>>I was told by a salesman that the 50 packs of TDK DVD+Rs are $20
>>dearer than 50 packs of DVD-Rs because the DVD+Rs are intended for
>>archival use whereas the DVD-Rs are for recording things like TV
>>shows. This is not what I've been told about the difference in the
>>past. The packs seem to be almost identical, no mention of quality on
>>either pack.

>I have used DVDs to back up digital photos on my computer. I started
>using HDDs because I kept getting errors on the disks. Since then I
>have read a number of posts about burning speed making a difference. I
>am thinking of having another go at disks, but burning at the slowest
>speeds. The speed difference might explain my experience that DVD-RWs
>didn't have errors, it seems it might have been because they are 4X. I
>was burning the DVD-Rs at whatever speed my burner chose.

Rewritable discs (RW) are different technology that has lower
reflectivity and higher chance of error on readback as compared to write
once (R) discs. I personally would not use them for archival storage.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:57:41 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<p_Urj.5275$XI.971@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>MikeM wrote:
>> I have used DVDs to back up digital photos on my computer. I started
>> using HDDs because I kept getting errors on the disks. Since then I
>> have read a number of posts about burning speed making a difference. I
>> am thinking of having another go at disks, but burning at the slowest
>> speeds. The speed difference might explain my experience that DVD-RWs
>> didn't have errors, it seems it might have been because they are 4X. I
>> was burning the DVD-Rs at whatever speed my burner chose.
>
>I've found it best not to use the top-rated speed, but burning 16X at 12X
>seems to be OK in one of my PCs, whereas burning at 16X sometimes gave
>errors on the verification pass.

Based on my own analysis of soft error rate with a variety of different
media, I usually limit my own DVD burn speed to 4X when burning archival
media.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:03:57 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" <none RemoveThis @none.en> wrote in
<Xns9A4133889DDBAReplyScoreID RemoveThis @140.99.99.130>:

>David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> MikeM wrote:
>>> I have used DVDs to back up digital photos on my computer. I
>>> started using HDDs because I kept getting errors on the
>>> disks. Since then I have read a number of posts about burning
>>> speed making a difference. I am thinking of having another go
>>> at disks, but burning at the slowest speeds. The speed
>>> difference might explain my experience that DVD-RWs didn't
>>> have errors, it seems it might have been because they are 4X.
>>> I was burning the DVD-Rs at whatever speed my burner chose.
>>
>> I've found it best not to use the top-rated speed, but burning
>> 16X at 12X seems to be OK in one of my PCs, whereas burning at
>> 16X sometimes gave errors on the verification pass.
>>
>What brand(s) of discs do you prefer, David, and what brand(s)
>have you found to be more problematical than others. As I
>commented in another post, I haven't had any speed-related
>failures since the Roxio 5 CD-R days, none I can recall with many
>types of media with Roxio 8.

My own favorite commonly available brands are Verbatim and Sony.
Best in my opinion are Taiyo Yuden.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:33:21 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<RvVrj.5298$XI.4359@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>To be honest, I haven't done a lot of comaprison. The two 100-packs on my
>shelf right now are marked Verbatim and Philips 16X DVD-R, but who knows
>where they were really made? ...

Use a utility (e.g., Nero InfoTool) to read and display the internal
media code.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:02:48 GMT, MikeM <mmo45018.RemoveThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote
in <uaa0r3dg1f6t39990rke9122g7blm1onpr.RemoveThis@4ax.com>:

>What's the latest thinking on when archived DVDs need to be copied to
>fresh disks? After how many years?

Check them periodically, and copy when error rate starts to rise.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:54:01 GMT, "HEMI-Powered" <none DeleteThis @none.en> wrote in
<Xns9A4131DA0B192ReplyScoreID DeleteThis @140.99.99.130>:

>John Navas added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD%2BR>
>>
>> In addition, DVD+R(W) has a more robust error management
>> system than DVD-R(W), allowing for more accurate burning to
>> media independent of the quality of the media. Additional
>> session linking methods are more accurate with DVD+R(W)
>> versus DVD-R(W), resulting in fewer damaged or unusable
>> discs due to buffer under-run and multi-session disks with
>> fewer PI/PO errors.
>
>John, thanks for the link. I read the entire article but still do
>not understand the apparent point.

The point is that DVD+R technology has more robust error management than
DVD-R technology.

<http://www.ceqna.com/tivo-dvrs/989-tivo-3.html>

Improved tracking / speed control / error-management technologies
reduce the number of rejects during manufacture and errors during
playback. Because of this, DVD+R disks are less sensitive to media
quality than DVD-R disks.

<http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Why-DVDRW-is-superior-to-DVD-RW>

Why DVD+R(W) is superior to DVD-R(W)
[read entire article]

<http://www.homefurnish.com/hometheaterelectronics/computers/dvdrvsdvdr.aspx>

The ADIP system of tracking and speed control in a DVD+R recorder is
more accurate than the LPP system used by DVD-R, making it less
susceptible to interference and error at high speeds.

Also, DVD+R has a more accurate and stronger error management system
than DVD-R(W), allowing for more consistent quality. Additional
session linking methods are quite a bit more accurate with DVD+R
versus DVD-R, resulting in fewer ruined disks.

>I've not seen Roxio 8 throw any
>errors thus I have no direct experience but if the +R format
>supports better error reporting, maybe I haven't seen it because
>all of my burns have been error free with both -R and +R, at least
>as far as Roxio "sees."

You're only looking at immediate hard errors. Sort errors are also
important because they can become hard errors over time and/or on
different equipment.

>Do you have an opinion wrt my DVR throwing errors with DVD+R as
>well as requiring a format by the DVR even though neither has ever
>occurred with my PC?

DVD+R do not require formatting. Are you thinking of DVD+RW? Different
technology. Please be precise in your posts.

>Of course, I've long known that on PCs occasionally and certainly
>on the 2 different models with similar specs of the Panasonic DVR I
>talked about are sensitive to media type because of the color of
>the dye layer "confusing" the burning laser.

That's a myth. What matters are reflectivity and media quality.

>John, would I be correct in assuming that you have experienced
>errors with -R discs that burn OK with +R?

I experience higher quality burned discs with +R than with -R.

>I will add one more
>comment about my method of insuring or at least trying to insure a
>truly error-free burn: no matter what the file type whether it be
>JPEG, RAW, MS Office, downloaded app updates, MP3 files, just about
>any common graphics or non-graphics file formats, I ALWAYS do a
>number of sample reads/opens on the just burned disc even though no
>errors have been reported. Now THAT has shown an occasional
>problem. e.g., an entire folder full of MS 97 Word .doc files
>burned correctly but none could be opened.

Then your burning software is fatally flawed and should be replaced.

>Do you have any comments about Joliet vs. UDF? ...

I use UDF.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

John Navas wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:33:21 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> <RvVrj.5298$XI.4359@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>
>> To be honest, I haven't done a lot of comaprison. The two 100-packs
>> on my shelf right now are marked Verbatim and Philips 16X DVD-R, but
>> who knows where they were really made? ...
>
> Use a utility (e.g., Nero InfoTool) to read and display the internal
> media code.

Thanks for that pointer, John. I'm not that fussed right now.

David
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:38:38 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<2_Zrj.5430$XI.837@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:33:21 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>> <RvVrj.5298$XI.4359@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>
>>> To be honest, I haven't done a lot of comaprison. The two 100-packs
>>> on my shelf right now are marked Verbatim and Philips 16X DVD-R, but
>>> who knows where they were really made? ...
>>
>> Use a utility (e.g., Nero InfoTool) to read and display the internal
>> media code.
>
>Thanks for that pointer, John. I'm not that fussed right now.

When you do get that fussed, free download from
<http://www.nero.com/enu/support-nero8-tools-utilities.html>

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 04:40:38 +0000, MikeM wrote:

> I was told by a salesman that the 50 packs of TDK DVD+Rs are $20 dearer
> than 50 packs of DVD-Rs because the DVD+Rs are intended for archival
> use whereas the DVD-Rs are for recording things like TV shows. This is
> not what I've been told about the difference in the past. The packs seem
> to be almost identical, no mention of quality on either pack.
>
> Thanks
> Mike

The sales people will tell you anything. Generally, you know more than
they do.
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
John Navas wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:8gpvq3lndns9ddsvpk6vkhe1tmkre5sn1r@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 11 Feb 2008 06:05:00 GMT, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rfischer@sonic.net">rfischer@sonic.net</a> (Ray Fischer) wrote in
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:47afe58c$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net"><47afe58c$0$36344$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net></a>:

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">MikeM <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mmo45018@bigpond.net.au"><mmo45018.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I was told by a salesman that the 50 packs of TDK DVD+Rs are $20
dearer than 50 packs of DVD-Rs because the DVD+Rs are intended for
archival use whereas the DVD-Rs are for recording things like TV
shows.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">If you had brains would you be a salesdweeb at some electronics store?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
If brains were dynamite, he would not have enough to blow his nose.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:8gpvq3lndns9ddsvpk6vkhe1tmkre5sn1r@4ax.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
If you had brains would you be believing a salesdweeb at some
electronics store?

</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:32:11 +0200, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
<nowhere.TakeThisOut@noone.com> wrote in <foq0rv$3lc$1@mouse.otenet.gr>:

>? "MikeM" <mmo45018.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> ?????? ??? ??????
>news:77jvq3516jbe6hb5pmugefko3akkm1r7v4@4ax.com...
>> I was told by a salesman that the 50 packs of TDK DVD+Rs are $20
>> dearer than 50 packs of DVD-Rs because the DVD+Rs are intended for
>> archival use whereas the DVD-Rs are for recording things like TV
>> shows. This is not what I've been told about the difference in the
>> past. The packs seem to be almost identical, no mention of quality on
>> either pack.
>>
>I always use printable cds and dvds. My vendor (www.cccira.gr) claims all
>major brands optical media is made by OEM like sirius and re-labelled.

Your vendor is giving you a load of baloney. There are a number of
different media manufacturers, with great differences in quality, which
can be identified from the internal media code. Unfortunately, many of
the well-known brands private label the cheapest media they can find.
See <http://www.videohelp.com/dvdmedia>

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

John Navas wrote:
[]
> When you do get that fussed, free download from
> <http://www.nero.com/enu/support-nero8-tools-utilities.html>

I already have the program as part of my Nero installation, but your URL
provided a useful upgrade from what I had. The two DVDs show:

Philips: MBI 01RG40
Verbatim: MCC 03RG20

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R 

John Navas added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Do you have an opinion wrt my DVR throwing errors with DVD+R
>>as well as requiring a format by the DVR even though neither
>>has ever occurred with my PC?
>
> DVD+R do not require formatting. Are you thinking of DVD+RW?
> Different technology. Please be precise in your posts.

No, I meant what I said. My PC does not need to format a +R but
my DVR does. I do not use -RW anything, too many problems.

>>I will add one more
>>comment about my method of insuring or at least trying to
>>insure a truly error-free burn: no matter what the file type
>>whether it be JPEG, RAW, MS Office, downloaded app updates,
>>MP3 files, just about any common graphics or non-graphics file
>>formats, I ALWAYS do a number of sample reads/opens on the
>>just burned disc even though no errors have been reported. Now
>>THAT has shown an occasional problem. e.g., an entire folder
>>full of MS 97 Word .doc files burned correctly but none could
>>be opened.
>
> Then your burning software is fatally flawed and should be
> replaced.

John, please don't jump to conclusions here. I hardly think that
Roxio 8 is "fatally flawed", I was simply commenting in the
context of errorless burns that in fact were not reliable. It
often occurs in many peer-to-peer help NGs that some folks assume
that anything out of the ordinary, perhaps not what they're used
to seeing, automagically means that either the software or the
user is broken. My experience is that while that MAY be true, one
needs to dig a little deeper and clarify what is happening. So, I
was describing MY method of increasing my confidence in a good
burn and NOT because I don't trust Roxio 8.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Never complain, never explain" - Henry Ford II
 >> Stay informed about: DVD+R vs DVD - R