I’m not sure a single Reddit comment is the best source, but I do appreciate that it contains an external link. For example, though, this article (from the same author that the commenter links) goes into it a little bit more visually for a BDXL M-disc from verbatim:
https://goughlui.com/2024/10/21/experimenting-with-bdxl-part-1-the-media/
The disc did have the same ID, but it looked different visually compared to Verbatim’s standard BD-R. The author stated that they can’t be sure either way because of this discrepancy. Keep in mind that it’s the same author that the commenter linked to, and the author says that their original article is often misinterpreted.
Even if they are Verbatim’s standard discs, which no one has been able to prove conclusively, they are still MABL HTL discs, as that’s what Verbatim uses in all of their BD-R regardless.
Further, the comment you linked is also at least somewhat BS. They claim that the BD-R M Discs have always been the standard BD-Rs. Meanwhile, there have been several durability tests of BD-R vs M-discs before the substrate change (remember, by their claim these should have been the same from the start) that have the standard BD-Rs die much more quickly than the M-discs. Such as this: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artsep16/mol-mdisc-review.html
That comment is at least half wrong, because that would not be possible if they were the same from the start.
Your original claim was that they are now organic. That is what I’m pushing back on, because they are still (and always have been) MABL. Do you have anything showing that they use organic dyes?
I’m not sure a single Reddit comment is the best source, but I do appreciate that it contains an external link. For example, though, this article (from the same author that the commenter links) goes into it a little bit more visually for a BDXL M-disc from verbatim: https://goughlui.com/2024/10/21/experimenting-with-bdxl-part-1-the-media/
The disc did have the same ID, but it looked different visually compared to Verbatim’s standard BD-R. The author stated that they can’t be sure either way because of this discrepancy. Keep in mind that it’s the same author that the commenter linked to, and the author says that their original article is often misinterpreted.
Even if they are Verbatim’s standard discs, which no one has been able to prove conclusively, they are still MABL HTL discs, as that’s what Verbatim uses in all of their BD-R regardless.
Further, the comment you linked is also at least somewhat BS. They claim that the BD-R M Discs have always been the standard BD-Rs. Meanwhile, there have been several durability tests of BD-R vs M-discs before the substrate change (remember, by their claim these should have been the same from the start) that have the standard BD-Rs die much more quickly than the M-discs. Such as this: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artsep16/mol-mdisc-review.html
That comment is at least half wrong, because that would not be possible if they were the same from the start.
Your original claim was that they are now organic. That is what I’m pushing back on, because they are still (and always have been) MABL. Do you have anything showing that they use organic dyes?