I just recently discovered that Verbatim DVD+R DL DataLifePlus *Made In Singapore* discs have been discontinued.
The reviews for the made in United Arab Emirates seem to be quite mixed leading me to believe that this brand is not as reliable as it once was.
What is being highly recommended now?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25
So I went hunting on the actual Verbatim website and could not find them listed.
If you go here and roll your mouse over the picture, it shows Made in UAE
Edit: Interesting, the photo for the 20 pack shows "Made in Singapore"
But when I clicked on the "Buy Now" link, I got "Sorry, this product is not available on our store at this time."
These show to be made in Singapore, but best confirm that with them before ordering.
Edit: Also here: http://www.meritline.com/verbatim-8x-dvd-plus-r-dl-branded-on-spindle-96542---p-27286.aspx
These are the 8x variety. And if you absolutely have to have Singapore made discs, I'd call or chat with them online to make sure as one of the reviews says that they are using UAE made discs.
Last edited by Kerry56; 11th Jan 2015 at 12:38.
Thank you, All but I was looking for the DataLife Plus.
I'm going to be blunt and direct.
1) When Verbatim moved most DVD+R DL production to India, we had the same arguments - "The made in India discs are 100% crap!" and so on. I did some personal testing and the Indian discs worked fine for me.
2) If you don't like Verbatim then you can buy Taiyo Yuden's VERY expensive and hard to find DVD-R DL discs. They don't make DVD+R DL discs.
3) That's it. If you don't like those choices then you can buy whatever you like and hope it works, but you'll have problems for sure.
I like their made in Singapore DataLifePlus discs too for DVD+R DL, but if they don't exist any more, I'm still going to buy Verbatim.
I like *some* Verbatims for regular things (the "Life series" - no way! Again - problems for sure indeed.) and I also like the TY DVD+R but for special things or as part of my backup routine, I liked the DataLifePlus (Made in Singapore).
Perhaps I should've specified that in my first post.
jman98 is correct.
There was zero difference in media locations for Verbatim -- Singapore, Taiwan, India and UAE.
The anti-India info is unsubstantiated malarkey based on nothingness.
Sorry for resurrecting this tread, but the early made in India Verbatim DL spindles I got were utter trash. 50% failure rate. Some even had obvious physical defects like bubbles.
Maybe they were eventually fixed but I never touched them after that.
Currently have been using the MKM003 from the United Arab Emirates and so far no issues with them burning or reading either
Well, I'm going to find out with the UAE shortly as I'm on my last stack of Singapores. I haven't had a bad burn on the Singapore disks for years now, so the UAE has a high standard to live up to.
you will get the usual "I don't like the look of this disc" but say out of 25 it was like 3 tops. Also as previously mentioned so far no miss burns or read errors with them. For more important data I would have imgburn do a verify check and that too- no issues
I have been using them less than a year (ehh just about a year) but so far if I can no longer get Singapore made, I will gladly take these over some of the others
I've had no complaints with the UAE discs.
As time has progressed, I do burn less and less of those. Everything has shifted to drives or BD media now.
Noting that BD media is a terrible way to archive.
(I bought these:
I prefer to use the burn to disc plus store on external hard drive archival method.
There's nothing wrong with using Blu-ray as one part of your backup strategy. I wouldn't rely on them alone, or for that matter, any one type of data storage for really important, irreplaceable material.
Those Panasonic discs should be very good, some of the best available in fact.
I've been following Blu-ray media since it first came out, and my burns from 2008 are still doing well. The only discs I've had fail were made by Ritek, and I do not recommend them for any purpose. The Ritek discs tested good, and were readable for three to four years before deteriorating to the point they could not be read or copied.
FTI/Falcon and Verbatim are what I've been using, and all still work perfectly well.
The construction of BD is inverse CD with a thin plastic coating.
The top of a CD is fragile, and the bottom of BD is fragile. That's why.
DVD is a sandwich, and it the only archival optical format.
This is not to say that recordable optical formats are permanent solutions for long term storage. If your aim is preservation of data for posterity, then optical discs are not a good choice. I wouldn't trust them for anything that needs to be kept for, say, fifty years or more, simply because the dye layer will eventually deteriorate.
I knew from past experiences and research that Ritek etc. CDRs + DVDRs were pretty much crap quality discs and I suspected that their BDRs were most likely the same. I'm *just* beginning to use BDrs for back up so
thank you for the verification on the quality of the Panasonic BDRs! It's also good to know that there are other brands of quality BDr discs available as well. (I haven't tried Falcon yet...)
When I want to destroy CDRs before disposal, all I have to do is scratch the top and the surface flakes off into little shiny pieces. So you're saying that it is the same for the bottom of BDRs?
I have many CDRs that were burned several years ago and they are still readable however for space saving and updating purposes, when DVDrs became available I started to back up the contents of my data CDRs to those. Now days, I have an HD camcorder and was looking to use the BDRs as part of my backup strategy.
*Edit: I have read some where (can't remember where now) - some people say that using dual layer discs (both DVDR and BDR) for back up is bad but I don't remember if they ever said why or if they did, I don't remember that either
Proper handling of media is only a small part of longevity.
I have CD-R much older than yours, from at least 1995, and most of mine are fine too. However, than alone is not proof of media longevity. Here's why:
CD has the entire upper layer exposed to the elements. Case closed. Lifespan mostly depends on the added protection it was given, if any. If the disc has 100% of the upper layer sealed, then it should be fine.
(And those discs of mine from 1995? Not all of them have survived. Any disc that had an exposed upper tends to have pit marks. Only discs that were completely covered by branding or quality inkjet surface survived.And those discs of mine from 1995? Not all of them have survived. Any disc that had an exposed upper tends to have pit marks. Only discs that were completely covered by branding or quality inkjet surface survived.)
Sony knew about Blu-ray defects. TDK saw it the earliest, from what I've read. Discs never spin at a pure flat horizon, and there is minor wobble. The disc will, at some point, impact surfaces. That why even the most careful handling doesn't 100% prevent scratches, including microscratches that cannot be seen by the naked eye. Because of the inverse construction, combined with thinner data grooves, even the smallest microscratch can ruin the disc. Manufacturer created scratch resistance on Blu-ray, similar to more expensive DVDs. All BD has this, for this reason. However, ever scratch resistance is not 100%. Some manufacturers have crap for protection, and some cheap Chinese knockoff junk has none.
Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durabis
DVD is a 50/50 sandwich. That's why it's archival, and the others are not. And even then, only SL is archival, not DL, due to the light remission to the second layer.