i have this guy coming http://www.plextor.com/english/products/716SA.htm
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Whats better or more compatible, DVD-R or DVD+R?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
imported_fatal
Senior member
get DVD+R media 🙂
NightCrawler
Diamond Member
DVD+R/RW
1. Cost the same today { minus use to be cheaper but not anynore, they cost the same }
2. Compatibility with 90% of DVD players { My 1998 Pioneer DV-414 plays +R/RW}
3. Better media quality overall { Lots of junk minus media being produced }
4. DVD+RW does background formating.
1. Cost the same today { minus use to be cheaper but not anynore, they cost the same }
2. Compatibility with 90% of DVD players { My 1998 Pioneer DV-414 plays +R/RW}
3. Better media quality overall { Lots of junk minus media being produced }
4. DVD+RW does background formating.
The Boston Dangler
Lifer
+r at 8x takes 7min 30sec
-r at 8x 9min 30sec, +R burns great because at start of disc it burn immediately with faster lead out as well. with -r, it waste 1 min doing lead in and another min lead out as well. -R will probably die pretty soon like with cd-rw
pretty useless format IMHO
+r at 16x 3min 45sec?
-r at 16x 5min 30sec?
+R are now more expensive when buying generic dvd
Well it always have and always will.
-r at 8x 9min 30sec, +R burns great because at start of disc it burn immediately with faster lead out as well. with -r, it waste 1 min doing lead in and another min lead out as well. -R will probably die pretty soon like with cd-rw
pretty useless format IMHO
+r at 16x 3min 45sec?
-r at 16x 5min 30sec?
+R are now more expensive when buying generic dvd
Well it always have and always will.
t3h l337 n3wb
Platinum Member
Why are there 2 "standard" forms of DVD? Why can't the world just agree on a single, universal, format. This is so retarded and confusing...
HMM you must be talking about burning speed, dvd-rom type will get read fastest even if it is burned at 2.4x.
unless you didn't modified your firmware, there's no way to read them faster then 8x
what really pains me is that all my 4x dvd-r media can't be read faster then 8x regardless, is this the same for 8x media??? their expensive yet it doesn't offer better read speed.
I notice that at 4x, it start to spin at 3000 rpm
while at 16x it start to spin at 6000 rpm
First off, let me say *YAWN* ... This has been duscussed in about 150 other threads already, and the people who actually know what they're talking about are probably too bored with the topic to post, so you should use the search function.
You're wrong, and anybody saying one format is definitely superior to the other is wrong. You're just splitting hairs.
The fact is that DVD-R is slightly more compatible with older players, and bitsetting DVD+R doesn't change that much. Bitsetting just makes a few ancient players (that refuse to play anything that doesn't have a DVD-ROM booktype) play DVDs, but 99% of the time that isn't the issue if an old player won't play your burned DVDs. It's usually just a problem of the player being able to physically tell what's on the disc, and when it can read it it doesn't read it well and there might be skipping. I've never seen a DVD player that refused to play DVD-Rs, but I have actually seen 1997 models of Toshiba and Panasonic players that would skip very badly on anything but the lowest bitrate movies unless it was on Taiyo Yuden DVD-Rs.
On paper, DVD+R has more features, but if these are not features that anybody uses, how does that make the format any better? The only good feature of DVD+R was supposed to be that it didn't require royalties like DVD-R and it was supposed to be cheaper, but that never happened.
The bottom line is that you need to look at your specific DVD burner and see how well it burns different media. With the NEC 3520A, this is DVD+R, but with most burners the very best quality burns come from Taiyo DVD-R media. That's a very important thing to keep in mind, because there's a lot of crap media out there, and I've seen literally hundreds of DVD+/-Rs that are unreadable just a year after they were burned.
Now, if you're talking about rewritable media, some of those extra features come into play, and I think you can say that DVD+RW is better than DVD-RW. As far as write-once media, you're splitting hairs, but I would be more inclined to go with DVD-R except in the rare case that your burner gets higher quality burns from DVD+R.
It's a shame so many ignorant people are pushing this "DVD+R is better" agenda without knowing what they're talking about. What are you doing that you need DVD+R's features? If you actually have one of the very few players that benefits from bitsetting and a hacked bitsetting firmware helps you, that's one thing, but that's certainly not the case for most people.
I mean, the "features" people make a big deal about are things like adding a session to a DVD+R uses a few less K than adding a session to DVD-R. How many sessions are you going to have? It would take almost 1000 sessions before you made up for the fact that DVD-R fits around 5MB more than DVD+R.
LOL! That's like saying, "I have an 8-track player in my car, so any audio setup that doesn't support 8-tracks is a POS."
Stop giving out bad information. That depends on the burner. For example, the NEC 3520A burns 16X DVD-R 23 seconds faster than 16X DVD+R. The Pioneer DVR-A09 burns 16X DVD+R 18 seconds faster than 16X DVD-R.
It still doesn't make the choice simple, though. The NEC burns DVD-R faster but has better quality burns with DVD+R. The Pioneer burns DVD+R faster but has better quality burns with DVD-R.
Where did you hear that? The NEC-3520A reads DVD-R and DVD+R at 16X. The Pioneer reads both of them at 12X. With or without bitsetting, if a drive can't read DVD+R at 12-16X, it will have trouble with bookset DVD+R at that speed. Just like reading a dirty disk, the speed will be reduced if it can't handle it.
In my old PS2, Taiyo Yuden DVD-R works, Verbatim DVD-R doesn't work, and no DVD+R works. I have heard XBOXs are more compatible with +R, though.
You're wrong, and anybody saying one format is definitely superior to the other is wrong. You're just splitting hairs.
The fact is that DVD-R is slightly more compatible with older players, and bitsetting DVD+R doesn't change that much. Bitsetting just makes a few ancient players (that refuse to play anything that doesn't have a DVD-ROM booktype) play DVDs, but 99% of the time that isn't the issue if an old player won't play your burned DVDs. It's usually just a problem of the player being able to physically tell what's on the disc, and when it can read it it doesn't read it well and there might be skipping. I've never seen a DVD player that refused to play DVD-Rs, but I have actually seen 1997 models of Toshiba and Panasonic players that would skip very badly on anything but the lowest bitrate movies unless it was on Taiyo Yuden DVD-Rs.
On paper, DVD+R has more features, but if these are not features that anybody uses, how does that make the format any better? The only good feature of DVD+R was supposed to be that it didn't require royalties like DVD-R and it was supposed to be cheaper, but that never happened.
The bottom line is that you need to look at your specific DVD burner and see how well it burns different media. With the NEC 3520A, this is DVD+R, but with most burners the very best quality burns come from Taiyo DVD-R media. That's a very important thing to keep in mind, because there's a lot of crap media out there, and I've seen literally hundreds of DVD+/-Rs that are unreadable just a year after they were burned.
Now, if you're talking about rewritable media, some of those extra features come into play, and I think you can say that DVD+RW is better than DVD-RW. As far as write-once media, you're splitting hairs, but I would be more inclined to go with DVD-R except in the rare case that your burner gets higher quality burns from DVD+R.
It's a shame so many ignorant people are pushing this "DVD+R is better" agenda without knowing what they're talking about. What are you doing that you need DVD+R's features? If you actually have one of the very few players that benefits from bitsetting and a hacked bitsetting firmware helps you, that's one thing, but that's certainly not the case for most people.
I mean, the "features" people make a big deal about are things like adding a session to a DVD+R uses a few less K than adding a session to DVD-R. How many sessions are you going to have? It would take almost 1000 sessions before you made up for the fact that DVD-R fits around 5MB more than DVD+R.
LOL! That's like saying, "I have an 8-track player in my car, so any audio setup that doesn't support 8-tracks is a POS."
Stop giving out bad information. That depends on the burner. For example, the NEC 3520A burns 16X DVD-R 23 seconds faster than 16X DVD+R. The Pioneer DVR-A09 burns 16X DVD+R 18 seconds faster than 16X DVD-R.
It still doesn't make the choice simple, though. The NEC burns DVD-R faster but has better quality burns with DVD+R. The Pioneer burns DVD+R faster but has better quality burns with DVD-R.
Where did you hear that? The NEC-3520A reads DVD-R and DVD+R at 16X. The Pioneer reads both of them at 12X. With or without bitsetting, if a drive can't read DVD+R at 12-16X, it will have trouble with bookset DVD+R at that speed. Just like reading a dirty disk, the speed will be reduced if it can't handle it.
In my old PS2, Taiyo Yuden DVD-R works, Verbatim DVD-R doesn't work, and no DVD+R works. I have heard XBOXs are more compatible with +R, though.
Some DVD players will only play DVD-R. I'm talking about players hooked up to a TV, not ones in computers. I burned a DVD on DVD+R which played fine on my comp., but I sliped it in a Toshiba and it wouldn't play. I looked in the manual, and it said +R is not compatible. It is my understanding that DVD-R has been around longer than DVD+R and has better overall comptaibility.
I've had many similar experiences. My brother's old Toshiba is the exact same way.
My friend has an old Panasonic set-top player and a NEC 3520A. The Panasonic won't play DVD+R. It will skip on a lot of DVD-R media. If he uses Taiyo Yuden DVD-Rs, though, everything plays perfectly, even though the NEC gets slightly better quality burns on DVD+R media.
I used to have an old Sony set-top player that was the exact same way (wouldn't play DVD+R and skipped with cheap DVD-R). My old PS2 is also the same way.
Apparently I'm not the only one who's had this kind of experience, so it really confuses me that so many people adamently demand DVD+R is better.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
