My DVD recorder supports both. Can anyone advise what is the difference and is one format better than the other?

I did try to search for the answer to this but couldn't find anything.

Thanks

There's an article on cdfreaks entitled "Why DVD+R(W) is superior to DVD-R(W)". I won't post a link, but you can google the title. I'll let you read it (and the comments) to make up your own mind.

I prefer +RW because DVD+VR is a more convenient format for recorders. After recording, it automatically "closes" the DVD, making it playable in many modern DVD players.

On the other side, DVD-VR is compatible with next to nothing (It's also less compatible with editing software). It doesn't use the familiar .vob/.ifo files normally found on DVD movies. DVD-Video format is okay, except that it doesn't offer the same editing capabilities as with the VR formats. Both -VR and -Video requires finalizing before you can watch it on another DVD player, which often takes a couple of minutes.

All three work fine, though, so if you're not sure (eg. don't believe what I say :)), just try them out and see which you prefer.

The above quoted article is so old and biased, I wouldn't even bother reading it. Basically, the author is saying that the + is inherently more reliable than the -, which is complete BS. He also shamelessly plugs his favourite brand. All that matters is for you to find discs (any kind) that record 100% reliably on your writer and play 100% reliably on all your players. You'll be surprised how many of the more expensive and recommended by the author of that article discs are really no good.

All things being equal, DVD+RW is way better than DVD-RW. It was designed later, to higher standards. Whether or not the author is biased or not, the facts are rather self-evident.

The only advantages of -R/-RW as far as I'm concerned:
- a few older DVD players won't play + discs unless you bitset them to the DVD-ROM booktype. (If you do this, DVD+R/+RW is more compatible than -R/-RW but if you don't, it's reversed.) Solution: bitset.
- DVD-R/-RW holds a slight bit more data than +R/RW does, about 20 megabytes if memory serves. This is rarely significant, but if it matters, use -R.

I almost never use -RW, strongly preferring +RW. For permanent discs, I have a strong preference to +R but occasionally use -R (one of my burners won't do bitsetting, and occasionally I can get -R media at a great price).

Incidentally, compared to DVD-RAM, both DVD-RW and DVD+RW suck, so if you really want to get maximum utility, get a DVD recorder that supports DVD-RAM.

My point exactly. What good is to you if the designed later, to theoretically "higher standards" disc doesn't play in one of your DVD players? And what's the downside that the "-" plays everywhere?
And, of course, it could be the opposite, depending on the players/recorders you use.

Bitsetting. I have never had a bitset DVD+R/RW fail to play in anything.

Besides, I'd rather have a technically superior burn that has a higher probability of lasting than an inferior burn that might play on cousin Bob's $20 DVD player.

For what it's worth, I burn all my masters on DVD+R. Too much data shows this is the way to go.

If I duplicate, I use DVD-R for compatibility on DVD players.

For what it's worth, I burn all my masters on DVD+R. Too much data shows this is the way to go.

Iflex,

By masters, do u mean archiving data? Is the +R shown to be more archival?

I've only been using -R's to date... due to an old Panny that was just replaced last night with a new Phillips from Costco....

P