CD Duplication Vs. Cd Replication, what's the real difference?

[QueBert]

I have been in the market to find a place that does cd duplication. It seems about half of the ones I've checked off google'ing offer both duplication & replication. I know Replication is a molding/stamping type process, where dupin is just burning. Is there any benifit to either? One site said Replication yeilded much better results (which I don't buy)
But I'm curious why some companys offer both methods.

just got me thinking, that's all...

 

[Electrode]

Replicated discs would probably last longer.

 

[tcsenter]

Is there any benifit to either? One site said Replication yeilded much better results (which I don't buy) But I'm curious why some companys offer both methods.

There is a reason companies offer both services, but you just admitted that you refuse to accept the reason why. So, just make something up and believe that. Or I can make something up and you can believe it. Either way.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Is there any benifit to either? One site said Replication yeilded much better results (which I don't buy) But I'm curious why some companys offer both methods.

There is a reason companies offer both services, but you just admitted that you refuse to accept the reason why. So, just make something up and believe that. Or I can make something up and you can believe it. Either way.

ha sorry let me clear that up, I don't believe they yield MUCH better results. I know they are better, but these sites make it sound like burnt media is complete junk compared to pressed stuff *shrug*

 

[LethalWolfe]

w/CDs I don't know how big the difference is, but w/DVD's it's huge. A replicated DVD is far superior to a duplicated DVD. If duplication was on par w/replication I'm sure companies would go the cheaper route and and have their media duplicated instead of replicated.


Lethal

 

[kt]

Wouldn't replication process be quicker as well compared to duplication?

 

[ElFenix]

replication is cheaper and faster for large amounts of discs. not to mention that a pressed disc should last 30 or so years while a burnt one is about 5

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Is there any benifit to either? One site said Replication yeilded much better results (which I don't buy) But I'm curious why some companys offer both methods.

There is a reason companies offer both services, but you just admitted that you refuse to accept the reason why. So, just make something up and believe that. Or I can make something up and you can believe it. Either way.

ha sorry let me clear that up, I don't believe they yield MUCH better results. I know they are better, but these sites make it sound like burnt media is complete junk compared to pressed stuff *shrug*

I've had MANY cds fail. Some were due to weather (leaving it in the car for awhile), some due to peeling, and some just plain o' just had errors for some reason. If a CD is REALLY important, such as copyrighted material, or you want a family album stored and kept for decades or longer, then i would certainly pay the premium.

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Is there any benifit to either? One site said Replication yeilded much better results (which I don't buy) But I'm curious why some companys offer both methods.

There is a reason companies offer both services, but you just admitted that you refuse to accept the reason why. So, just make something up and believe that. Or I can make something up and you can believe it. Either way.

ha sorry let me clear that up, I don't believe they yield MUCH better results. I know they are better, but these sites make it sound like burnt media is complete junk compared to pressed stuff *shrug*

I've had MANY cds fail. Some were due to weather (leaving it in the car for awhile), some due to peeling, and some just plain o' just had errors for some reason. If a CD is REALLY important, such as copyrighted material, or you want a family album stored and kept for decades or longer, then i would certainly pay the premium.

now that makes sense, what doesn't (to me) 3 of the places I saw that did both methods that recommended the rep over the dup. the Rep'ing was a few cents cheaper. And I think Rep'ing can stamp that cool bit of text around the inner ring of the disc to make it really look professional 🙂

 

[PlatinumGold]

it's like Photo Copying vs Master Printing.

If you are doing significant volume than you go with replication, if not, then dupe. simple as that.

 

[Yossarian]

I would imagine they'd want you to commit to a much greater volume if you're doing replication. Setup costs are much higher than for duping.