Typical dvd media lifespan

[yetanotherid]

Well.... I guess this thread has come to and end but I thought I'd add I think I've eliminated humidity as effecting burn quality. Yesterday a rain storm pretty much flooded Melbourne, yet last night in the humid air I was still producing better quality burns than normal (although admittedly I only burned about four DVDs).

So I guess the "good burn quality" days and the "average burn quality" days will continue to remain a mystery. The only theory I have left for the continued high quality burns is a week of burning lots of DVDs to recover all my hard drive space must have blown the dust out of the drives as I burned....

[Ghitulescu]

Anyone living on this planet and not being a complete idiot could easily notice a degradation in the build quality of the burners. As people continuously ask for cheaper things, the manufacturers use premium materials only for premium products or for start-of-life products (otherwise the new technology they want to launch on the market would be stilborn). As the prices drop, more and more B-products would be classified and sold as A, even defective products were sold (so the public would constitute the QC department).

I still have and use first generations DVD-burners (can one spell 1x?) and yes I own authoring burners and media, too, but I have also other generations, including BD burners. Medium quality media (like MCC from Verbatim or INFOMEDIAR or MBI) are burned by a 1x Matsushita at 1x at max 50 PI and extremely few PO. Similar values are obtained (higher PO though) with various LGs and even Pioneers, only the Plextors could burn them better. MBI and INFOMEDIAR were not existent at the time when the burner was in production, and I think that neither MCC. So a burner of 2000, relying on its default strategy would burn better than a 2008-2009 burner (which assumingly has been tested with new media).

Coming back to media:
Unlike most other magazines, that present the tests so that the sponsor would eventually win, there is a German magazine that also contain independent tests (along with the paid ones ;)). Once a year there are burning tests with the current burners and media. The results are assessed using professional tools, like AudioDev or CAT, while the tests are performed using the standards.

What confers quality to a DVD? Many issues, wherein the PI/PO is just only one item. Strangely enough, the quality of the DVD is given overwhelmingly by the glue - if the margins are not correctly sealed, water would eventually get in and destroy both the dye and the reflector (aluminium). Secondly in importance is the hard-coating, if any. The third most important factor is the jitter. Finally the PI/PO values. Very important was the even distribution of the dye, whis was tested very late, as at the beginning it wasn't needed. Now it is. The jitter is mainly caused by the burner.

Now, please have a look to a 6 years old DVDR and then to a brand new one. And draw your conclusions.

[yetanotherid]

Anyone living on this planet and not being a complete idiot could easily notice a degradation in the build quality of the burners.

True. Often I have to pry open the trays before using two of my Pioneer burners, but they still burn really well.
Did you by any chance post in the wrong thread? The topic under discussion is "Typical dvd media lifespan"

I still have and use first generations DVD-burners (can one spell 1x?)

I prefer to sit outside and watch the grass grow myself.

Medium quality media (like MCC from Verbatim or INFOMEDIAR or MBI) are burned by a 1x Matsushita at 1x at max 50 PI and extremely few PO. Similar values are obtained (higher PO though) with various LGs and even Pioneers, only the Plextors could burn them better. MBI and INFOMEDIAR were not existent at the time when the burner was in production, and I think that neither MCC. So a burner of 2000, relying on its default strategy would burn better than a 2008-2009 burner (which assumingly has been tested with new media).

Sounds like a lot of generalisation without any evidence to me.
So you're telling me that a 1x burner built in 2000 is going to burn 16x media to a higher quality than a more recent burner?
I'll eagerly await screen shots of your burn quality tests after burning with your 1x burners. Could you burn a couple of fresh ones and post the quality results here?
You've never looked at the fine print on some high-speed (DVD16x) media and read the qualification that it's only suitable for use in a high speed burner? Or maybe they just don't print it any more, assuming not too many people really like to watch the grass grow.

Unlike most other magazines, that present the tests so that the sponsor would eventually win, there is a German magazine that also contain independent tests (along with the paid ones ;)). Once a year there are burning tests with the current burners and media. The results are assessed using professional tools, like AudioDev or CAT, while the tests are performed using the standards.

AND????

What confers quality to a DVD? Many issues, wherein the PI/PO is just only one item. Strangely enough, the quality of the DVD is given overwhelmingly by the glue - if the margins are not correctly sealed, water would eventually get in and destroy both the dye and the reflector (aluminium). Secondly in importance is the hard-coating, if any. The third most important factor is the jitter. Finally the PI/PO values. Very important was the even distribution of the dye, whis was tested very late, as at the beginning it wasn't needed. Now it is. The jitter is mainly caused by the burner.

Wouldn't it have saved you some typing, simply explaining why my last burns are better quality than your "premium collection" burns of yesteryear, and how it shows the quality of media has dropped?? Well, maybe not.....

Now, please have a look to a 6 years old DVDR and then to a brand new one. And draw your conclusions.

I can't. All my discs of that age were burned using either an older, but surprisingly lower quality burner than the ones I use today (despite costing up to 10x more) or they were burned onto lower quality (but surprisingly still older) discs than the ones I use today. As a result, I've gradually re-burned them all using Verbatim discs and Pioneer burners.... well at least the ones which were still readable... and thrown the old ones away. So unfortunately, I've got to rely on pesky stuff like the evidence acquired through burn quality tests. I'll have to leave deducing the burn quality and predicting the longevity of the disc through the science of visual inspections up to you.

[Ghitulescu]

I can't. All my discs of that age were burned using either an older, but surprisingly lower quality burner than the ones I use today (despite costing up to 10x more) or they were burned onto lower quality (but surprisingly still older) discs than the ones I use today. As a result, I've gradually re-burned them all using Verbatim discs and Pioneer burners.... well at least the ones which were still readable... and thrown the old ones away. So unfortunately, I've got to rely on pesky stuff like the evidence acquired through burn quality tests. I'll have to leave deducing the burn quality and predicting the longevity of the disc through the science of visual inspections up to you.

So the typical lifespan of your DVDRs do not lapse more than few months?

[yetanotherid]

So the typical lifespan of your DVDRs do not lapse more than few months?

So why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today that you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from you're "premium collection"? How about some quality tests of two year old burns which didn't come from your "premium collection"?

[yetanotherid]

So the typical lifespan of your DVDRs do not lapse more than few months?

I took a poll a couple of years ago. 69 people have responded so far. 29 thought my DVDs only last a couple of months, 14 thought they last for 200 years, and 26 thought DVDs were CDs with pictures.

[yetanotherid]

Now, please have a look to a 6 years old DVDR and then to a brand new one. And draw your conclusions.

I can't. All my discs of that age were burned using either an older, but surprisingly lower quality burner than the ones I use today.....

So the typical lifespan of your DVDRs do not lapse more than few months?

Let me know when you're wanting to continue the discussion like a grown up.

[Ghitulescu]

If one discards a medium - well in all languages I know, that is lifespan. End of cycle, for a product. The owner thought it's useless. Garbage can (recycle bin for eco countries).
At least I have 6 or 7 years old DVDR media. So I can comment on their characteristics. You cannot, as you discarded the "old" media ... but you still contradict people based on short term data (are you one of the 29, or maybe one of the 14 -> http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1476135&postcount=56). Accelerated ageing tests are the base for the marketing claims and from time to time such tests are performed at independent laboratories. I never experienced myself a failing DVDR due to ageing, but also I don't buy ANY DVDR, like those from gasstations or groceries, and definitely I don't burn them at 16x or even at 22x.

When I installed Ubuntu, some 2-3 years ago, the installation routine had a bug (like the windows syndrome, the installation procedure can lock on minimal specs PCs due to lack of resources), yet the first 3 answers in the FAQ were: 1. burn at less than 8x, 2. burn at less than 8x and 3. burn at less than 8x :), and of course the 4th was Use Verify after burning. Wow, so it appears that people got coasters right from the burner. And I mean the bulk of the population, not isolated cases. And that was 2008 or 2009. Before burnproof technologies appeared, the only coasters were produced by buffer-underrun issues. Wasn't that a decrease in quality?

[yetanotherid]

If one discards a medium - well in all languages I know, that is lifespan. End of cycle, for a product. The owner thought it's useless. Garbage can (recycle bin for eco countries).

Really? I never would have guessed.

At least I have 6 or 7 years old DVDR media. So I can comment on their characteristics. You cannot, as you discarded the "old" media ...

And I explained why. Something which you've ignored as it obviously doesn't suit your confabulation.
It's just a pity you're not willing to post burn quality tests of your six year old media so others can comment on the quality too.

but you still contradict people based on short term data

While you're contradicting people based on forum heresay and nothing else, while you also continue to avoid answering direct questions or posting the burn test results as requested. We've long past the point of me taking you seriously and we're in purely entertainment territory now.

Accelerated ageing tests are the base for the marketing claims and from time to time such tests are performed at independent laboratories. I never experienced myself a failing DVDR due to ageing, but also I don't buy ANY DVDR, like those from gasstations or groceries, and definitely I don't burn them at 16x or even at 22x.

So you're telling me you've no evidence, based on your own collection of burned discs, to show they don't age as well as they used to as you're claiming? Which side of the debate are you on?
I can only assume a "boast" that you don't burn at 16x or 22x is one based on ignorance and nothing to do with burn quality, given you didn't mention it. I run a quality test on every disc I intend to keep and I've experimented with different speeds. On average my older burners burn best at 12x while the newer burners burn best at 16x. The newer Pioneer does extremely well at 20x but anything over the 4GB mark can be a bit hit and miss, so I keep it to 16x.

When I installed Ubuntu, some 2-3 years ago, the installation routine had a bug (like the windows syndrome, the installation procedure can lock on minimal specs PCs due to lack of resources), yet the first 3 answers in the FAQ were: 1. burn at less than 8x, 2. burn at less than 8x and 3. burn at less than 8x :), and of course the 4th was Use Verify after burning.
Wow, so it appears that people got coasters right from the burner. And I mean the bulk of the population, not isolated cases.

At least you made me laugh. The bulk of the population?? I think you meant the bulk of people with installation problems.
Aside from the fact the FAQ could have been written by a dinosaur with a 4x burner anyway, it's statistically meaningless. It just means the majority of people having installation problems may have been having them due to bad burns. It does nothing to indicate what percentage of people installing Ubuntu who were actually having problems. It might have only been 5% and the majority of them may have been having problems due to using poor quality media. The majority of people I know still buy cheap blanks, but the quality they achieve or the burn speeds they need to use is irrelevant to me and a discussion on Verbatim's disc quality.
Why do you keep insisting on posting theories you've developed along with such flimsy evidence to support it while continuing to ignore the quality of the burns I posted? You're not imagining them, they're real. That's the burn quality I'm getting from Verbatim discs today. How do you explain it?

And that was 2008 or 2009. Before burnproof technologies appeared, the only coasters were produced by buffer-underrun issues. Wasn't that a decrease in quality?

Really? How long did you use your old 1x burner? Burnproof technologies have been around for a while.
And of course your burn speed theories seem to assume the disc is being burned at 8x or 16x etc rather than the speed at which it's being burned. Chances are a 20x burner will only burn a small fraction of the disc at that speed, the rest of the time it's a 16x burn. And there's nothing to say how fast the majority of the disc is being burned just because you selected a particular speed. In fact much of the time the chosen speed is nothing more than the maximum speed.
One of my 12x burners takes about 10 seconds less to burn a disc than another takes to burn it at 16x (for example) as it's ramped up to 12x much earlier in the burn, so in effect, the second burner is burning the majority of the disc at a slower speed despite it burning at 16x.

Nothing you've posted above, zero, zip, has any relevance to your contention that Verbatim's quality has dropped, nor does it explain why my burns of today are better quality than the two year old burns you posted, and you've not even come close to showing anything which indicated my discs won't last as long as yours, aside from some more amusing confabulation.

[yetanotherid]

Just for the entertainment value, here's a list of questions/requests you've ignored recently as the answers no doubt won't fit your confabulations.

Where's the evidence to show the top discs of today only last 10 years max?
How do you know I'm using discs manufactured in 2004?
What's the age of my burner got to do with the manufacturing quality of the discs?
How does having a newer disc to produce prove manufacturers have allowed the quality of their older products to drop?
How does the location of manufacture prove they've allowed the quality of their older products to drop?
Why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today that you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from you're "premium collection"?
How about some quality tests of two year old burns which didn't come from your "premium collection"?
How far from it's peak is DVD burning? How many DVDs are sold today compared to a couple of years ago?
Any real proof to show discs don't last as long as they used to?
Could you burn a couple of fresh 16x media at 1x and post the quality results here to show how much better it is at that speed?
Have you ever looked at the fine print on some high-speed (DVD16x) media and read the qualification that it's only suitable for use in a high speed burner?

They're just the ones I picked out after glancing through the current page. There's no doubt many more questions you've ignored as the answers don't suit you.

[Ghitulescu]

All these questions are directly or indirectly related to you.

The OP wanted to know something that s/he wanted for her/him, not for you.

Please don't deviate every thread to your needs. You are welcome to use the info or to disregard it if you think it's false, but please don't be so egocentric.

[yetanotherid]

Because I thought it'd be amusing to see which path of confabulation it leads you down, here's a quality test of one of the oldest Verbatim discs I own. I just pulled the first one in the case which means it's from the time I started re-burning all my crappy discs two and a half years ago.
Of course I have no way of remembering what the burn test was like when I originally burned it, so I'll await your deductions as to whether it shows it's aged, it hasn't aged, whether the quality of newer discs has increased, or whether they've decreased, etc etc.

Either way, I've now posted results from the same era as yourself while you've failed to post any current results as requested (or any others to back up your claims) and it shows whether it's today or back in 2008, I'd have had no problem burning an installation disc to Verbatim media and using it to install Ubuntu. :)

I did wonder, while burning some BluRay discs the other day, whether I'd even care if my collection of DVDs lasts longer than 10 years. Not that I'm trying to give you another Red Herring to chase, but I did wonder how long it'd be before I re-burned the whole lot to BluRay anyway, and whether in ten years I'd be as concerned about theses DVDs still being readable as I'm concerned about the collection of floppy discs under my bed still working. I burned all the floppies I wanted to keep to DVD years ago.

While you're confabulating, you might want to factor the fingerprints into the burn results and any new theories you develop as I didn't bother to clean the disc before testing it. Plus I figured "handling" is part of the deterioration process anyway.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn11.gif?t=1297075715

[yetanotherid]

All these questions are directly or indirectly related to you.

Errrr... That's because I'm discussing the subject with you, but the questions all directly or indirectly relate to the subject. Obviously, you just don't have the answers or more likely, they'd contradict your opinion.
First I'm not offering any on-topic information, now I'm being too specific. Are you coming to the end of your excuses list?

The OP wanted to know something that s/he wanted for her/him, not for you.

The OP is long gone, and as an excuse, it's a pretty well worn one.
Who filled a recent thread with fascinating information on the history of the analogue pixel which had nothing to do with the OP's question? Please try to keep the hypocrisy in check.
(I'm still waiting for the screen shots you promised to back up your confabulation for that thread)

Please don't deviate every thread to your needs. You are welcome to use the info or to disregard it if you think it's false, but please don't be so egocentric.

I love it when a poster finds some imaginary moral high ground from which to post. The moral high ground which lets them deviate a thread every which-way to argue their point, but gives them an excuse to criticise other posters for daring to disagree. Where can I buy me some of that moral high ground? Is it expensive, or did it come as a package deal when you bought the bridge?
You're actually very funny. Not so long ago I was poisoning the thread for having the audacity to disagree with you, yet I'm apparently the one who's being egocentric. You really are quite a clown.

[yetanotherid]

So if Verbatim's quality has dropped, why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from you're "premium collection"?

[Ghitulescu]

My premium collection was TY. And from the mechanical point of view much superior to the JVC ones (which recently bought the media division of TY).

Verbatim premium was MKM, Verbatim normal is still MCC, but also rebadged TY (yes, Taiyo Yuden) albeit rarely, some batches are produced by MBI for Verbatim, and some even in the Emirates. Now, the newest batches I've seen in Germany are manufactured in China, God knows how.
Maxell did manufactured once themselves the media, but switched almost immediately to foreign manufacturers. Now it's crap.
Sony still used the same MID, but nothing is manufactured in its own factories, I don't even remember those times. Was it 4x the last Sony one?
Fuji also did itself manufacture some DVDRs, again, with mass production, they switched to a relabelling factory.
Panasonic, well, does anyone remember those times?

The rest of the manufacturers (I was able to see, some manufacture for Japan only and some are OEM only) are worse. Yet ok for all-day recordings*.

*When the recording was an elite sport, both the recorders and their media were of premium quality. People thought usually twice or more times whether they would store something on a DVDR or not. Price-oriented. So was the photography. And the VHS.
When however the media and the recorders became cheap enough, not only the quality dropped, but also the expectations. People put everything on DVDRs and simply do not care whether it would be readable or not next year. Who cares about next year? Friends of mine shot literally thousands of photos, they look like a film reel, saying, I'll pick only the best shots. They never did this, instead they burn all of them on CDRs/DVDRs and throw them in a drawer only to find them when they move to another house.
Quality means money. Why would someone invest money in something only 1% or less would care? Cheap, cheaper, cheapest! Bad, worse, ... And they have already supporters, right, yetanotherid?

Be happy that you are not touched by this phenomenon. Yet. But you have time to see the evolution of the BDR. Already MIC (MIT was just an intermediary stage).

[yetanotherid]

Please don't deviate every thread to your needs. You are welcome to use the info or to disregard it if you think it's false, but please don't be so egocentric.

And your previous post, which avoids the topic almost completely, doesn't apply?

[yetanotherid]

So if Verbatim's quality has dropped, why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

Are you ever going to post screen shots of the non-premium collection burns you made a few years ago. Or is expecting anything more than further rants from you just a dream I'm having?

[yetanotherid]

Why would someone invest money in something only 1% or less would care? Cheap, cheaper, cheapest! Bad, worse, ... And they have already supporters, right, yetanotherid?

Probably for the same reason manufacturers still produce medium to high quality cameras while the majority of people buy $150 point and shoots. Your point is just confabulation without any evidence to support it... and therefore.... silly.

Why do prices drop as demand increases? Do I have to explain basic economics?
Ever heard of competition? If you want people to buy your product you either have to make it cheaper than competing products or make it better, or both. It doesn't mean there won't be a market for junk, but it doesn't mean there won't be a market for a better quality product either. Why do you think people pay more for Verbatim or TY discs than other brands? For the social status they provide? Honestly....
If originally a product was of a good quality as you've stated, where's the rule which says the quality has to drop in order to mass produce it?

Your arguments offer no proof and to be honest, they're not even all that entertaining any more.

No comment on my screen shot of a burn from two and a half years ago?????
The way you subjectively ignore things which don't suit you is enough to tell me you're wrong all on it's own.

I may have forgotten to ask, but can you tell me.... if Verbatim's quality has dropped, why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

[yetanotherid]

Sorry, I forgot to add one final question.....
If Verbatim's quality has dropped, why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

[Ghitulescu]

You never experienced quality, you've been probably born after Verbatim dropped the premium line. That explains why you consider this -> http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1476212&postcount=62 as a good burn.

I'll avoid Verbatim for BD (even for HTL disks). I'll stick with Sony and Panasonic, only MIJ. More expensive, but better.

[yetanotherid]

You never experienced quality, you've been probably born after Verbatim dropped the premium line. That explains why you consider this -> http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1476212&postcount=62 as a good burn.

Where did I say I considered it a good burn?? Putting words in my mouth again?
I said it was a two and a half year old disc, the first one I pulled from the case, and the quality of the burn test is what I posted.

So, in regard to my question.....
If Verbatim's quality has dropped, why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

Obviously my previous screen shot was yet another excuse for you to try side-tracking the issue and avoid answering it, so I think you've proven my point. Your advice is confabulation and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Unless of course you want to provide an example of one of these quality burns I've never experienced? One, I assume, which must be better than the recent burns I posted. My guess is you won't, because you can't, and therefore I'll from now on be viewing your opinion with the contempt it deserves.

[Ghitulescu]

I'm not talking about Verbatim, I'm talking about all of them. Verbatim was your idea.

Feel free not to believe, it won't make a difference to the world.

[yetanotherid]

I'm not talking about Verbatim, I'm talking about all of them. Verbatim was your idea.

It's not easy debating a topic with someone who has such a varying grip on reality.

I'm afraid there are no longer good DVDRs nowadays. I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday. The DVD technology is close to its end, no manufacturers spend time and energy for producing quality items ... yes, not even Verbatim.

My idea???????????? :eek:
I'm just debating your contention as I regularly use Verbatim discs so they're the discs I can discuss from experience.

Feel free not to believe, it won't make a difference to the world.

Thanks, but I was going to consider most of what you posted a load of nonsense, even without your permission. And of course as the thread has progressed, and you've failed to answer more and more questions, you've pretty much proved me to be correct by default.

Can you provide an example of one of these quality burns I've never experienced?

And can you explain why, if Verbatim's quality has dropped, I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

[Ghitulescu]

As I said lucky you!

My entire coaster collection, which fits a spindle of 25, grew only recently, mostly from DL blanks. In my first 5 years I had only 3. 2010 was the worst year in terms of bad burns.

[yetanotherid]

I've not burned many dual layer blanks, but just out of curiosity can you explain why, if Verbatim's quality has dropped, I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

[Ghitulescu]

AutoRepeat is enabled? Got lessons from a parrot?

[yetanotherid]

AutoRepeat is enabled? Got lessons from a parrot?

No, I'm just debating with a duck. Lots of quack, very little substance.

Can you explain why, if Verbatim's quality has dropped, I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?

[yetanotherid]

My entire coaster collection, which fits a spindle of 25, grew only recently, mostly from DL blanks. In my first 5 years I had only 3. 2010 was the worst year in terms of bad burns.

Well, maybe you just need to burn more regularly to blow the dust out of the burners, although depending on how many discs you actually burned in 2010, it mightn't be a bad average. It's hard to judge when you consistently don't supply all the relevant information. How many dual layer discs have you burned in past years compared with 2010?
I still have days where I throw one in five away. Not that they're necessarily unreadable, I'm just fussy about the ones I intend to keep. They're the inexplicable "bad burn" days.

Now that I've pretty much come to the end of my burning marathon, high quality burns are still the norm, and the "blowing out the dust" theory is so far the only one I have as to why.

The two burns from today are below. Printable Verbatim discs, burned at 16x (not 1x ;)). Better than my burns to printable Verbatim media 6 months ago.

You never experienced quality, you've been probably born after Verbatim dropped the premium line. That explains why you consider this -> http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1476212&postcount=62 as a good burn.

I'm still eagerly awaiting screenshots of these burns you referred to, assuming in your advancing years you're not imagining them. They'll probably be nothing short of phenomenal to be better than my non-premium line Verbatim burns of today.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn12.gif?t=1297262275

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn13.gif?t=1297262280

[Ghitulescu]

These are good burns, but that's only one side of the story. An initial good burn provides a safety reserve in comparison to a bad one, however accelerated ageing tests show that sometimes a medium quality burn of a stable DVD is better than a good burn on a bad quality disk. Since I don't own such laboratory equipment I can't give you any info (copyright infringement, however anyone can buy the articles online).

[yetanotherid]

Well I guess we've pretty much established that Verbatim's quality hasn't dropped, at least when it comes to the quality of the initial burn, but as I don't intend to indulged the copyright excuse and start buying articles to determine how long they'll last, I think I'll just wait until I'm the one who can offer something substantial, run the quality tests again, then post back (I know which discs they were and the screenshots are saved to photobucket). I guess we'll be able to continue the discussion then. Say.... four or five years?

[Ghitulescu]

I'll give you the links and you'll buy the articles, around 2-3€ per article AFAIK.

[yetanotherid]

.....but as I don't intend to indulge the copyright excuse and start buying articles to determine how long they'll last....

I guess we'll continue this discussion in four or five years time....

[Ghitulescu]

Ok for me, see you again on 9th February 2016.

[laserfan]

Ok for me, see you again on 9th February 2016.
We're going to hold you to this! And yetanotherid too! :p

[yetanotherid]

We're going to hold you to this! And yetanotherid too! :p

I figured it'd give Ghitulescu plenty of time to update is list of excuses for not answering questions. :)

[Wantangobi]

I just got a new drive, and decided to scan all my old discs.
I've used Nero Speed Disc but I have no idea what to do with the results. I know that PIF rates are better the lower they are, and I know 0.08 is okay, according to some forum threads.
But that's as far as I know.

My discs PIF rating read between 0.3-0.7. Which is about 4-10x higher than what I know is okay. But how big a deal is this? Are these about ready to fail, or should they be good for a few years?

My new drive is burning the same spindle of dvds to 0.01 PIF. I'm using Verbatim media I bought off NewEgg two years ago.

[yetanotherid]

Can you post a screen shot of an old and a new burn?
What model is your new drive (and what was the old one) and how old is your version of Nero? Not all drives report errors correctly although Nero tends to block them from running tests in newer versions of their software. For instance I can run tests with my oldest Pioneer burners as long as I use the version of Speed Disc which comes with Nero 7. The newer Pioneers burners work but the results aren't even close to accurate. Any version of Nero Speed Disc above the one which came with Nero 7 and I can't use Pioneer burners for running quality tests at all as Nero has blocked them from doing so.
Just wanting to try to confirm you're getting accurate results, although it does sound like you are.

I'd be guessing as long as the discs were stored correctly and they're not covered in scratches and fingerprints they probably haven't deteriorated as such (especially if they're Verbatim), it's probably just that the quality of burn you were getting from your old burner wasn't all that good in the first place.

[Ghitulescu]

I just got a new drive, and decided to scan all my old discs.
I've used Nero Speed Disc but I have no idea what to do with the results. I know that PIF rates are better the lower they are, and I know 0.08 is okay, according to some forum threads.
But that's as far as I know.

My discs PIF rating read between 0.3-0.7. Which is about 4-10x higher than what I know is okay. But how big a deal is this? Are these about ready to fail, or should they be good for a few years?

My new drive is burning the same spindle of dvds to 0.01 PIF. I'm using Verbatim media I bought off NewEgg two years ago.

There's no such value of 0.08 or whatever in testing the DVDRs. All values are integers. Since I'm lazy to write this by hand I refer to an older post.
PIE: Parity Inner Error
PIF: Parity Inner Failure
POE: Parity Outer Error
POF: Parity Outer Failure

If a PIE cannot be corrected by the drive it counts as a PIF.
If a PIF cannot be corrected by the drive it counts as a POE.
If a POE cannot be corrected by the drive it counts as a POF (also known as a read error).

The reference values you should be looking for for each of the above errors are determined by

Standard ECMA-338 - 80 mm (1,46 Gbytes per side) and 120 mm (4,70 Gbytes per side) DVD Re-recordable Disk (DVD-RW)
Standard ECMA-337 - Data Interchange on 120 mm and 80 mm Optical Disk using +RW Format - Capacity: 4,7 and 1,46 Gbytes per
Side (Recording speed up to 4X)
Standard ECMA-349 - Data Interchange on 120 mm and 80 mm Optical Disk using +R Format - Capacity: 4,7 and 1,46 Gbytes per Side (Recording speed up to 16X)
Standard ECMA-359 - 80 mm (1,46 Gbytes per side) and 120 mm (4,70 Gbytes per side) DVD Recordable Disk (DVD-R)

In summary the above standards say -

PI (PIE) - Should be less than Maximum 280 (also suggested by others - but not included in standard - PI (PIE) Total <10,000)
PIF - Should be less than Maximum 4 (also suggested by others - but not included in standard - PIF Total <500)
Jitter should be less than 8%.

Note -
i/- The above standards state - "A row of an ECC Block that has at least 1 byte in error constitutes a PI error. In any 8 consecutive ECC Blocks the total number of PI errors before correction shall not exceed 280."
A row is 182 bytes long where the last 10 bytes contain PI (Parity Inner) information. An ECC block is 208 rows long where the last 16 rows contains the PO (Parity Outer) information.

ii/- The sampling interval (1ECC = 1 ECC row at a time or 8ECC = 8 ECC rows at a time) is based on the chipset and the software polling the chipset. Some drives allow the sampling interval to be set (i.e. NEC burners).

Philips Nexperia chipset (used in BenQ/Philips/NuTech burners) use PIE rows/8ECC, PIF rows/8ECC
Mediatek chipset (used in LiteOn burners) can be polled down to PIF rows/1ECC (and summed PIE rows/8ECC)
NEC chipset (used in NEC burners) can be set
etc.

Does 1ECC = SUM-1 as referred to in PlexTools (does 8ECC = SUM-8)?
It is true that at 8ECC the PIF Maximum is 32 instead of 4

iii/- As mentioned above, PIFs can be corrected by the drive's Parity Outer (PO) function before they become POFs/read errors. However, PIFs can increase over time so although a high number of PIFs initially may not result in poor reading, it is not a good sign as more than a maximum of 4 PIFs can cause pausing and skipping on some standalone DVD players.

iv/- The above errors/failures do not refer to errors/failures on the disc. They refer to your particular drive's inability to read the disc. i.e. a POF on may exist for one particular disc in one drive but not another.

You can test for the above errors using - CDSpeed, DVDInfoPro, Plextools (see drive compatibility list for each package to determine which one is compatible with your drive). At present none of above produce reliable results with Pioneer drives.

Now, any disk that has more than 280 PIs per 8 consecutive blocks is defective. The same for a disk with more than 4 PIFs. This is what most people test, sometimes forgetting that the measurements should be done with a certain Philips optics at 1x, not with a NEC at 16x. In addition, jitter is an extremely important factor, very often forgotten because it's not measurable with all drives, and this needs a lower scanning speed (max. 2x). Any modern DVD drive can read DVDRs with say 500 or more PIs, but will execrably fail on jitter above 9-10% (most burned disks have around 8.x-9% jitter - this is why almost all burned disks fail on industrial testing machines like the AudioDEV or CAT). Compare this with 280 to 1664, or with 4 to 32, which are the allowed/maximum values for PI/PO....

[yetanotherid]

There's no such value of 0.08 or whatever in testing the DVDRs. All values are integers.

I'll go out on a limb and guess he's quoting averages.
Nero CD Speed displays the average, maximum and total PI errors and failures for a disc.
Hopefully he'll post some screen shots of his quality tests so they can be explained in a way which might mean something to him.

[Ghitulescu]

If one failure exists (POF) but no other defects, the average will be 0.0000...1, however the disk is irremediably lost, at least the part containing the error. It's no relevant at all, quite the opposite, it may give one the impression that the disk is ok. It's the distribution of the errors that is more important than the average.

[yetanotherid]

Hence my request for some screen shots.

[GeorgeGear]

If Verbatim's quality has dropped, why is it I'm producing burns of the same quality today as you were getting two years ago, as long of course, you took the samples from your "premium collection"?
I don't mean to interject into a private quarrel. To make a point of fact, true Mitsubishi-made Verbatim discs (MCC MIDs) are now hard to find, and almost always carry a premium price, typically under the product line name DataLifePlus. The bulk of the Verbatim brand DVDs is now manufactured by others than Mitsubishi, even though Verbatim is a Mitsubishi brand. Non-MCC discs are definitely lower quality, and typically don't use the high-quality AZO dyes used by the true Mitsu manufacture. This digitalFAQ thread (http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/showthread.php/which-mcc-brand-2268.html) discusses the difficulty of finding MCC MID discs.

So I'd say it is true to say that Verbatim quality is lower for non-premium DVD blank discs.

[yetanotherid]

I don't mean to interject into a private quarrel. To make a point of fact, true Mitsubishi-made Verbatim discs (MCC MIDs) are now hard to find, and almost always carry a premium price, typically under the product line name DataLifePlus.

Well I can't speak for everywhere, but I'm in Australia and have never had a problem buying Mitsubishi discs. Yes, they're more expensive than discs using CMC dye, but they always have been, regardless of the brand.

So I'd say it is true to say that Verbatim quality is lower for non-premium DVD blank discs.

No doubt it is. TDK have similar products. Their Gold series uses the CMC dye if I remember correctly. However it doesn't mean you can't still buy "premium" TDK blanks.

[Wantangobi]

Can you post a screen shot of an old and a new burn?
A new burn
http://i53.tinypic.com/25iap2a.jpg
Old Burn
http://i55.tinypic.com/29ynm8w.png
Old Burn
http://i51.tinypic.com/2mhwp7b.jpg

I'd be guessing as long as the discs were stored correctly and they're not covered in scratches and fingerprints they probably haven't deteriorated as such (especially if they're Verbatim), it's probably just that the quality of burn you were getting from your old burner wasn't all that good in the first place.I understand that. So if I have a low quality initial burn, there is no need to remake these discs?
Would they survive for say 4-5 years?

[yetanotherid]

So if I have a low quality initial burn, there is no need to remake these discs?
Would they survive for say 4-5 years?

If they're not badly treated they probably will. To be honest though, if it were me I'd burn those old ones again just to be sure, but that probably only reflects my own paranoia rather than having any relationship to whether they'll last or not.
I've got a rule of thumb that I only keep burns where the quality percentage given by Nero is 95% or higher, and I mentioned earlier in the thread I re-burned all my old discs about three years ago as most were burned using cheap blanks and/or a poor quality burner so they weren't very good quality.

I can't really give a definitive answer myself.... probably not too many people will be able to for a few years yet.... but I'll report back later after I've run some burn quality tests on some cheap media which are about 5 years old. I've got a spindle of discs in the family room where I dump all the poor quality burns for others to use. They won't have been looked after and I should be able to dig out some pre-Verbatim discs for testing.... some Ritek blanks and even some counterfeit Mitsubishi ones.... If they're still readable now, given most of them would have been pretty poor quality to begin with (and nobody has complained about any of them not playing) I'd be willing to at least bet your verbatim discs will last 4 to 5 years.

[Ghitulescu]

All burns are bad. However, such bad burns like the old one, I must confess I haven't seen in my life, not even in the threads with fake media.
The new burn has POs higher than 4, but I assume the disk can be used.
A good burn here
http://media.www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Articles/Sources/P/Professional%20DVD%20Writing%20Quality%20Tests/images/LiteON%20LH-20A1P/DVD+R/RICOHJPN%20R03%20004/kprobe.png
My suggestion, get rid of the NEC burner, it's less than average in burning quality and one of the worst readers ever. I always suggest LG burners for reading purposes.
http://www.cdrhard.cz/srovnavaci_testy/dvd-rw/016.gif

[yetanotherid]

What does the pretty list of burners represent?

NEC burner? Who's got one of those? I can't see where Wantangobi says he's got an NEC burner.

[Ghitulescu]

I expected such a dumb question from someone pretending to be the expert around here.
He has an AD7260 which is manufactured by NEC and sold through the channels of the Sony-NEC-joint venture called Optiarc.
The green zone represent the ability of the burner to read damaged sectors (it includes here the "repaired" sectors), the red ones are the unreadable ones.
There is a concentration of NECs at the bottom and one of LGs at the top :)

[yetanotherid]

I expected such a dumb question from someone pretending to be the expert around here. He has an AD7260 which is manufactured by NEC and sold through the channels of the Sony-NEC-joint venture called Optiarc.

That's okay, I expect to be insulted by a complete fool such as yourself.

Sony Optiarc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Optiarc)
"Sony Optiarc Inc. (formerly Sony NEC Optiarc Inc.) is a subsidiary of Sony Corporation. The company's business is the design and manufacturing of optical disk drives, primarily for the OEM desktop and notebook PC markets.
The company was established on April 3, 2006 as a joint venture between Sony and NEC Corporation, each had share of 55% and 45% respectively. On September 11, 2008, it was announced that Sony would take over NEC's 45% share, making Optiarc wholly-owned subsidiary of Sony. This took effect on December 5, 2008."

Do you really think the average person is going to understand what on earth you're talking about when you tell them to get rid of their NEC burner after they've posted quality tests of burns made by their Sony Optiarc because it contains an NEC chipset? Or because Optiarc was once-upon-a-time a Sony-NEC joint venture, back before your dementia set in and you lost track of reality?


The green zone represent the ability of the burner to read damaged sectors (it includes here the "repaired" sectors), the red ones are the unreadable ones.
There is a concentration of NECs at the bottom and one of LGs at the top.

So where did the pretty picture come from? I hope you're not infringing someone else's copyright? ;)

[laserfan]

I always suggest LG burners for reading purposes.
But does Kprobe work with LG burners? The website says Lite-On only.