Re: preferred CDR's

["Frank" <fmiller6@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While we are on the subject of cdr's I have been wondering something. Is
there really a difference in the disks that are supposed to be for music and
the ones for data. I think it is just a marketing ploy and there really is
no difference. I have burned shows onto both (for my private use) and have
found no difference in sound quality or error rate. So, is there really a
difference?

:O)

Chef


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Buddy Boy Page" <traders55@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <zeppelin@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 7:56 AM
Subject: re: preferred CDR's


> >Some may pipe up with "quality" issues, and how
> >one brand may last longer than another. Tell ya
> >the truth, I doubt I will be around in 70 years
>
> From my experience, I have two problems with cheapie
> CDRs, and neither have to do with how many decades
> they will last for.
>
> 1) My burner, coupled with EAC, can take upwards of 15
> _hours_ to extract the WAV from the cheap discs.  That
> is a pain in the ass.  Quality discs don't give me
> this problem.
>
> 2) Cheapie discs sometimes burn _incorrectly_.  I do
> everything right, use EAC to extract, extract as one
> large file, create a CUE sheet, listen to the WAV file
> off my computer and burn to disc with CDRWIN.  If I
> use a cheapie disc, somehow pops and snaps get added
> in, when I check the burned disc on my stereo.  When I
> use quality discs, this never happens.  The only
> difference is the blank media, not any of the burning
> steps.
>
> I could care less if this or that brand will last a
> hundred years if kept at room temperature in a dry
> room.  I just want to be able to copy a disc in a
> decent amount of time, and don't want to add
> diginoise.