Anyone know how to read NeroCDSpeed tests?

[jellysandwich]

http://whitevoid.myvnc.com/burn/

How are those burns?

js

[blutach]

Both are bad burns - there are CRC errors (unreadable blocks). And the PIs and (in some cases the PIFs) are well out of spec.

PIs - no 8 consecutive blocks should have a total of more than 280 PIE
PIFs - No individual block should have more than 4 PIFs. This is more important than PIE.

Regards

[jellysandwich]

Thanks blutach. Looks like I wasted some money with these Riteks. :(

js

[JuanC]

Read this (http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=80545) to learn how to intepret the disc quality tests.

There you'll find at least two reasons to repeat your tests:
You need to use a dvd writer (Not a dvd reader or combo)
You should not go faster than 4X with the test software

[setarip_old]

@jellysandwich

Hi!

1) If your burned discs playback properly, you haven't wasted anything

2) You should consider always burning at either 4X or 2X (not faster)

3) The testing software has been indicated by others to be inconsistent - Test the same discs again and you may get different results!

[Taelon]

The Disk Quality results will likely vary somewhat from scan to scan, but I really doubt that sectors marked as bad from the ScanDisc test will suddenly become good by running multiple tests.

The biggest problem with those results is that the scans were done with a DVD-ROM, as JuanC points out all scanning should be done with a DVD burner, NOT a reader.

As Setarip_old points out all scans should be done at 4x speed (this is considered the de-facto standard for k-probe comparisons).

The testing software is not inconsistent! Results may be inconsistent due to minor variations in the centering and clamping mechanism of the drive, power supply current and voltage fluctuations, environmental conditions including; internal & external vibration, heat buildup, dust, etc. The software itself is only recording the data that is reported by the firmware.

[spuddog]

I disagree with using a dvd-burner instead of a dvd-rom. I have 2 dvd-roms and 2 dvd-burners, true the dvd-burners always give better test result. that is exactly the reason I use the dvd-rom instead. If I can get a good tests(burn at 4x, good quality disks, cleaner lazer lens often, defrag, don't do anthing on computer while burning) on my dvd-rom, I know that it will play well. I have had disks that won't play on my player that will test good using a dvd-burner.
The whole point is to get a disk that will play well, not just to get good results on a test.

[Taelon]

@spuddog, that's fine if it works for you. I'm just repeating one of the cautions as outlined in the thread that JuanC linked to above. The main point is that scanning with a DVD-ROM will give different results than a burner, and since most people post scans as a point of comparison it needs to be understood that you can't really compare the DVD-ROM scans to most scans which are published. See this post (http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=559870&postcount=6) for the specifics.

[BitBurner]

@jellysandwich

2) You should consider always burning at either 4X or 2X (not faster)



And why is that? I have seen lots of bad results when lowering the writing speed too. It may help in some cases, but nobody should use it as guideline. ;)

[spuddog]

Taelon, you are right that test resuts are not absolute, they are best used as comparison. I also agree with your point about the scandisk results

[jellysandwich]

Ahhh... I didn't know that I had to test with my burner instead of my reader. I guess I have some more tests to do then. Thanks for pointing that out!

But I unfortunately did waste money - I paid my friend $5 to trade DVDs with me. I was hoping that his DVDs would give better quality, but they give roughly the same. There goes half of a pizza, *sniff*.

And off...

js