cheap cd/dvd vs expensive--better?

Is there any advantage in recording quality (particularly photographic) between using a cheap no name brand cd/dvd versus a name brand. Sony cds advertize a square cut channel on their cds inferring it is somehow better (or more accurate)…really??? or is a 000111 laser burn signal read as 000111 regardless of brand name and price?

You mentioned recording quality, and I doubt that will differ among media, since all of the information is stored digitally, but you might care about how long the media will last. So you might like the CD-Rs and DVD-Rs Kodak is selling that use a gold layer and, they claim, will last longer than the cheaper ones. See here.

Dunno about square-cut channels, but I’m inclined to wonder: if Sony considers them such an important factor, however did we manage without them?

Some of the more expensive brands of media have a thicker protective plastic layer on the label side; the cheap ones often just have a layer of laquer on top of the reflective foil layer - these are very prone to damage.

Some of the more expensive brands seem to use a harder plastic for the writable side; with really cheap CDRs, it seems like you can scratch them by looking at them.

And with blank DVD media, a lot of the workability, especially when replaying on slightly older machines, seems to depend upon the dye type; there’s a hidden track on a blank DVD that identifies some of the properties of the medium (including a code identifying the dye) - sometimes older players read a newer dye type code, are unable to handle it and just declare the disc unplayable.