Typical dvd media lifespan [Archive]

yetanotherid

16th January 2011, 14:09

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.

Well, I've been using Verbatim for a long time, generally using Pioneer burners, and if the disc is being burned just for backup storage (and I can't imagine too many other reasons for using a disc these days) I always run a quality check on it.
Given I'm still burning at the same quality level I was two years ago, where's the quality deterioration in the Verbatim discs I bought today, because I'm not seeing any.

IceFiend,
Burning speed and burn quality aren't necessarily directly related. It depends on the type of dye used on the disc and how well your particular burner burns to that dye. Burners adjust their burning strategy according to the type of dye etc.
In my case..... Pioneer burners and Verbatim discs.... my old 16x Pioneer burners produce the best quality (on average) at 12x. Lower than that and the quality tends to drop a little. The newer 18x and 20x Pioneer burners seem to produce the best quality burns (on average) at 16x.

If you store the discs upright (not stacked), only use CD markers and avoid labels which need to be glued to the disc, and if you store them in a cool, dry place, and if the burn quality was reasonable to begin with, then a good quality disc such as Verbatim should be readable for a long, long time.

I'd take any anecdotal stories regarding lower C1/C2 errors on older discs with a grain of salt until they come fully qualified with information such as whether a different burner is being used today, whether the brand of discs is still the same and whether the discs still use the same dye.

Running a verification test after a burn doesn't give you much idea as to the quality. Unless you want to sit there and watch the whole verification process to ensure the drive doesn't slow done in order to read the disc it just burned... but if you can't verify the quality accurately it's probably slightly better than no test at all.

Ghitulescu

16th January 2011, 16:01

I used some days ago a TY (4x) from my premium collection. It was really a joy of senses to feel it in hand, unlike the new DVDRs I use for regular work.

Concerning "stories" with lower C1/C2 - it doesn't matter which burner did the recording when assessing the quality afterwards - it performed bad or well at the time of the burning. Lower C1/C2/jitter/TA assure the logevity of a CDR (DVDR), provided the dye would also play with and the conditions are appropriate. These value won't change because one just bought another recorder - it's like saying that the old car will suddenly start consuming 15 l/100km (instead of 8) the day you bought a new car. That is the power of quality standards, to make things comparable, things that otherwise are not.

CWR03

21st January 2011, 02:37

Guess it's time to buy a nice 1tb external HD and dump all my discs on it then.
I've already switched to 2TB SATA drives in "hot swap" enclosures and moved my files from four 128-disk organizers onto two drives. I paid about as much for each drive as it cost for the blank disks that filled them.

yetanotherid

21st January 2011, 17:51

Concerning "stories" with lower C1/C2 - it doesn't matter which burner did the recording when assessing the quality afterwards - it performed bad or well at the time of the burning.

My point exactly. Just because 35 years ago you burned a batch of perfect CDs and today your burns aren't as good, how can you say it's because they're not making media to the same quality today unless there's no other variables? i.e. You're still using the same burner with exactly the same brand of blanks.

Lower C1/C2/jitter/TA assure the logevity of a CDR (DVDR), provided the dye would also play with and the conditions are appropriate. These value won't change because one just bought another recorder

Well I think you'll find you're the one who said the values have changed.
"I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday."
So have the values changed, or haven't they?

- it's like saying that the old car will suddenly start consuming 15 l/100km (instead of 8) the day you bought a new car.

No it's like saying you got 15l/100km from your old car, expecting to get 15l/100km from your new car, and when you don't you claim the quality of the fuel must have changed.

I've tried TY discs a few times before and failed to see what all the fuss is about. It's not that they're poor quality by any means, but on average, I get slightly better quality burns using Verbatim discs.

Ghitulescu

21st January 2011, 18:04

My point exactly. Just because 35 years ago you burned a batch of perfect CDs and today your burns aren't as good, how can you say it's because they're not making media to the same quality today unless there's no other variables? i.e. You're still using the same burner with exactly the same brand of blanks.
3 issues here
1. comparison - for this matter there's C1/C2/etc. parameters.
2. aging - the dye will get older on virgin CD/DVDs, too
3. the art of burning is the fine tuning of burners to media
"I own some CDRs that are some 12 years old but still yield lower C1/C2 than a brand new CDR burnt yesterday."
So have the values changed, or haven't they?

The values changed due to aging, however:
1. their values (12 years ago) were better than the same values, measured with the same Plextools and the same drive.
2. they are still better than some freshly burned CDs (I do them for car, so I don't really care)
I've tried TY discs a few times before and failed to see what all the fuss is about. It's not that they're poor quality by any means, but on average, I get slightly better quality burns using Verbatim discs.

Well, most people do actually, Verbatim is quite cheap in comparison to TY and therefore the burning strategies are tuned to cheaper disks. I obtain better results with an LG and cheaper DVDs than with the Plextor and Verbatim (MIT). When Verbatim will change completely to Indian ware (MII) it won't make any difference.

However TYs (DVD-R) from my premium collection are still "almost perfectly" burned by the first full-featured Plextor burner (716).

yetanotherid

22nd January 2011, 09:45

Ghitulescu

22nd January 2011, 14:57

You're obviously still missing/ignoring my point/questions as to whether today's discs are the same brand and being burned by same burner, and I'm not sure even if you're using the same burner how you can be sure it's burning to to same quality it was when you first bought it, but later on I'll grab a few older, poor quality media, or maybe some better media which was burned using a lower quality burner than I use today, run some burn quality tests and then return to announce I've proved the quality of blank media has improved in the last few years.

Is this one phrase? Wow ....

I don't know where did you spend the last years of your life before joining doom9. I'd rather prefer not to know :p.

Each product is like the humans, at first is a child, then an adult, much later an "old timer", finally it's dead. One cannot compare a CDR of 1997 with a CDR of 2011. The only 1x or 2x speed CDRs are the Audio CDRs (the expensive ones). Nobody still manufactures CD-Recorders, so these are stocks. The red laser lasts for 2000-200 hours (according to the power), this lets you burn a theoretical maximum of 500-1000 CDRs.

What you insist to compare is the sound of a Pathéphone with that of an LP.

C1/C2 and so on, and similar parameters for other media, serve to help people make a comparizon between 2 incomparable entities.

I am not sure why do you do what you do:
1. you like to contradict people
2. you wanna learn yourself in a clever way: by forcing the people to respond to your own questions, disguised as statements, knowing that people that know the answer cannot stand that the newbie, which owns the thread you "infested", might get the wrong answer, served by someone pretending to be an authority in the matter.

yetanotherid

22nd January 2011, 16:35

Is this one phrase? Wow ....

I don't know where did you spend the last years of your life before joining doom9. I'd rather prefer not to know :p.

It's called reality. Maybe take a holiday there at some stage to see if you like it.

What you insist to compare is the sound of a Pathéphone with that of an LP.
C1/C2 and so on, and similar parameters for other media, serve to help people make a comparizon between 2 incomparable entities.

I'm not insisting on comparing anything. YOU made the comparison when you stated that new media is not as good a quality as older media, not me.
Yes products have a lifespan, but you've still not offered anything to show that sometime recently Verbatim decided the CD/DVD blank was coming to the end of it's life and therefore decided to let their quality control drop, or use a lower quality manufacturing process, or whatever it is you think has caused the quality of their media to drop.
Bluray disc burning might be becoming more common place, but I'd not be surprised if DVD burning is currently at it's peak.

I am not sure why do you do what you do:
1. you like to contradict people
2. you wanna learn yourself in a clever way: by forcing the people to respond to your own questions, disguised as statements, knowing that people that know the answer cannot stand that the newbie, which owns the thread you "infested", might get the wrong answer, served by someone pretending to be an authority in the matter.

I just ask questions when someone posts something which common sense tells me probably isn't correct, and often when it's not, after several posts of trying to pretend they're answering the question, the person who originally wrote it will then resort to the sort of dribble you just posted.

Ghitulescu

22nd January 2011, 17:43

What kind of incertitude brings my statement to the innocent poster?

Statement: The CD media of 2011 is worse than the CD media of 1997, the CD recording part of DVD/BD is worse than the CD recorders of 10 years ago (a CD recorder of 1985 is still the reference recorder; with AMQR of Yamaha ended an era); the DVD media of 2000 were better than any DVD of today (with maybe the exception of JVC, maybe, because this medium is not officially launched in Germany, it may be found in online-shops, though - I haven't checked it).

Corolar (to be on topic): better media not only age slower, but also have a higher "reserve" ahead.

Anyone involve in CD/DVD media in the past 10 years should have noticed this. It happened the same to VHS gear/media (peak quality inthe 90ies) and audio CC.

One can contest both statements (not very likely) but that one cannot by anyway led into confusion.

yetanotherid

23rd January 2011, 10:48

Now who's comparing apples and mango fruit?

Ghitulescu

23rd January 2011, 10:58

Now who's comparing apples and mango fruit?
Well, put some of your scans here to substantiate your allegations, like Groucho2004 did.
Here is the PlexTools PI/PO scan of one of my oldest DVD-Rs:

http://www.iol.ie/~schubert/dvd.png

Looks pretty much the same as 6 years ago when I burned it, the error rate being as low as it can be. I have always used good quality Verbatim disks.

yetanotherid

23rd January 2011, 11:01

Well, put some of your scans here to substantiate your allegations, like Groucho2004 did.

Age before beauty. After you....

Ghitulescu

23rd January 2011, 11:12

yetanotherid

23rd January 2011, 12:33

When someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with him. Show us that you're right and we're wrong. For me the things reached an end, I don't have anything to show to you (remember, this is another topic you poisoned). I said my opinions to the OP. If you feel that we gave him a wrong advice please show him the correct answer.

Okay then, when someone goes against the mainstream, the burden of proof lies with them. I'm waiting.
In the mean time, here's a couple of burn quality tests. Don't think of me as poisoning the thread when I contradict your opinionated advice, think of me as being more like anti-virus....

From six months ago:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn1.gif?t=1295781652

Yesterday:
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn2.gif?t=1295781654

I'll eagerly await your explanations as the quality drop I'm not seeing.
By the way, I posted yesterday's burn test as well as a six month old one because they're two different types of discs. Both Verbatim, but the 6 month old one is a standard disc while the one from yesterday is a printable disc. There's no evidence of a six month deterioration in quality there, it just happens that for some reason I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs, and I thought while I was uploading pictures I might as well pre-empt the opinionated contradiction which was bound to follow if I said so.

Would you like me to post some burn tests from three or four years ago? I'd no doubt be able to find some discs which weren't burned to the same quality, thereby proving the quality of blanks has in fact improved in the last few years. I'd even, no doubt, be able to find some burned with the same burners, so while the claim would be as unfounded as yours, it'd at least be more logical.

Ghitulescu

23rd January 2011, 13:28

Wow, it was supposed to be vice-versa! You know, bigger is better is false here ;) And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.

yetanotherid

23rd January 2011, 14:00

By the way, I posted yesterday's burn test as well as a six month old one because they're two different types of discs. Both Verbatim, but the 6 month old one is a standard disc while the one from yesterday is a printable disc. There's no evidence of a six month deterioration in quality there, it just happens that for some reason I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs, and I thought while I was uploading pictures I might as well pre-empt the opinionated contradiction which was bound to follow if I said so.

I guess there's no pre-empting total foolishness. :(
For example:

Wow, it was supposed to be vice-versa! You know, bigger is better is false here ;) And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.

Did you notice..... by any chance.... those two discs were also burned with different burners? Don't go mixing up your apples with kiwifruit again.
I guess I should have known better. I'd assumed I could have posted a couple of burns, both of which are of a high quality, explained why one was slightly better than the other, and end up with a response from an adult on the actual topic being discussed. Which if you recall was your claim that blank discs aren't of as good a quality as they used to be, including Verbatim.
So now you've had a chance to avoid the topic as you clapped your hands in glee over a quality difference even you must know is irrelevant when only comparing two burns made by different burners, how about you explain why either of them is of poor quality, irrespective of any minor difference between them, and whether they support or contradict your claim of Verbatim not making as good a quality DVD-R as they used to.

Ghitulescu

24th January 2011, 14:25

And the QSI of yesterday is of a lower quality than the Pio of 6 months ago.
Did you notice..... by any chance.... those two discs were also burned with different burners?
Read my post you just quoted. The pio 218 is made by QSI (Quantum Storage Inc), while the pio 112 was still manufactured by pioneer. So I assume you don't know what you're talking about but still continue to futilely stir the waters ....

It may be that the Verbatims were from different batches, however 6 months is not a big leap in time, it may be that you bought the second batch from the same container. Try find an original Verbatim, ie one bearing the MKM code (unfalsified, of course). Also 6 months is nothing, if one needs a backup, then probably 10 years are a must.

yetanotherid

24th January 2011, 15:18

Read my post you just quoted. The pio 218 is made by QSI (Quantum Storage Inc), while the pio 112 was still manufactured by pioneer.

Yeah, you're correct. Sorry about that. I skimmed your post and foolishly assumed you hadn't totally gone off on another tangent and you were just comparing the two burns as your red herring offering of the day. My mistake.
Yes, I was aware the manufacturer had changed, although I couldn't have told you who made which.

So I assume you don't know what you're talking about but still continue to futilely stir the waters ....

You've got to give up on so much assuming, it keeps getting you into trouble. It doesn't matter if I burn a printable disc with a 212 or a 218 (in fact I've burned a whole bunch of them using both burners today) it's not the burner which makes the difference, it's the type of disc. I'll repeat it again for you.... I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs than I do using the printable types. I always have.
I mentioned it a few posts ago..... the one where I posted the screen shots. Sorry if my posting them has stirred your muddy waters of misinformation again.

It may be that the Verbatims were from different batches, however 6 months is not a big leap in time, it may be that you bought the second batch from the same container. Try find an original Verbatim, ie one bearing the MKM code (unfalsified, of course). Also 6 months is nothing, if one needs a backup, then probably 10 years are a must.

Err.... hello?? They're different types of discs. Printable v non-printable. Did I mention that? What a mistake posting two burn quality tests was..... it's let you spot several different red herrings leading you down several different garden paths.

Can we maybe just look at one of the burn quality tests I posted (you can pick) and get back on topic? Is it a good quality burn or not, and where's the deterioration in Verbatim's disc quality you mentioned? You asked me to post a burn test to prove it hasn't, and there it is.

I'll eagerly await the screen shots of the perfect burns you made back in the good old days when you could buy all sorts of things with a penny, and I imagine they'd pretty much have to be perfect burns to be better quality than my recent ones. You can even compare like-discs, assuming printers had been invented when you were burning perfect discs and Verbatim were making printable blanks. If not, you've got a standard disc for comparison, that's why I posted two quality tests....

Ghitulescu

24th January 2011, 15:36

You've got to give up on so much assuming, it keeps getting you into trouble. It doesn't matter if I burn a printable disc with a 212 or a 218 (in fact I've burned a whole bunch of them using both burners today) it's not the burner which makes the difference, it's the type of disc. I'll repeat it again for you.... I always get slightly better quality burns using the standard discs than I do using the printable types. I always have.
I mentioned it a few posts ago..... the one where I posted the screen shots. Sorry if my posting them has stirred your muddy waters of misinformation again.
I do not misinform. And your scans simply supported my statements (ie better scans with older disks than with newer).

Who misinforms here is you: the Burner definitively plays a role in the quality. And this is known to anyone involved in burning CDs/DVDs/BDRs. This short example shows how ignorant are you.

So stop propagating nonsenses here. Start your own blog and propagate there your ideas if you feel you're doing the world a service.
Err.... hello?? They're different types of discs. Printable v non-printable. Did I mention that? What a mistake posting two burn quality tests was..... it's let you spot several different red herrings leading you down several different garden paths.
What difference do printable vs. non-printable to the disk? The burner doesn't know the differences, it checks the MID and sets the burning strategy accordingly. If the MID is fake, the burning strategy does not provide the best quality possible. FYI, there is a difference in printable vs. non-printable, and for Verbatim this goes like this: printable disks are manufactured in one factory, the non-printable in another one. Sony has the same MID (for 16x) for the last probably 5 years, yet the disks were produced in at least 5 countries, now it's India.

Nobody except you could see that one disk was printable whereas the other was not, because you saw them.

The rest of your arguments are silly and again nonsense. To reiterate your own arguments, you did show nothing that a 6 months old disk has better values (lower errors) than a fresh one.

yetanotherid

24th January 2011, 16:09

I do not misinform. And your scans simply supported my statements (ie better scans with older disks than with newer).

Twaddle. They're six months different in age, and if you're really expecting me to believe it proves the quality of discs has dropped in the last six months you're more foolish than I thought you were. They're different types of discs! How many times do I have to repeat it. They'd look the same if I'd bought and burned them both yesterday. I've been burning both types to a similar quality as the examples in my screen shots for a long time, or are you calling me a liar?
In fact a little later I'll post a burn test of a standard disc from a few weeks ago just to put your nonsense to rest.

Who misinforms here is you: the Burner definitively plays a role in the quality. And this is known to anyone involved in burning CDs/DVDs/BDRs. This short example shows how ignorant are you.

There's no point discussing a subject with an idiot who thinks putting words in my mouth and then offering a counter argument proves me wrong. I never said different burners don't play a role in quality.... although your very statement to that effect contradicts your argument that it must be the quality of the disc, only you're so busy arguing around in circles to avoid the topic you probably haven't noticed.
I said in THIS CASE the burner is irrelevant because I'm getting pretty much the same quality results using the same type of Verbatim blank whether I use a 112, a 212 a 215 a 216 or a 218, so for the purpose of the discussion the burner used is irrelevant. Is that clear enough for you or do you need pictures of burns from each burner before you'll understand?

So stop propagating nonsenses here. Start your own blog and propagate there your ideas if you feel you're doing the world a service.

How about you bite me? I'll post what I want to, regardless of any illusion you may have of a divine right to post whatever you dribble you want to post without it being contradicted.

What difference do printable vs. non-printable to the disk? The burner doesn't know the differences, it checks the MID and sets the burning strategy accordingly.

Rigidity of the disc... the amount it vibrates when spinning due to being made of different layers.... I don't know the answer but it's obviously nothing to do with the burner and the dye used, therefore once you eliminate what's not different a little common sense (look it up) might provide some theories.... but the printable discs always burn with a slightly lower quality than the non-printable ones and they always have, even if you see it as a believable excuse for not admitting your original statement was a load of bullocks.

Nobody except you could see that one disk was printable whereas the other was not, because you saw them.

Would they even weigh the same? And you can forgo the highlighting if you like, it only has me imagining you realise your argument is falling over and you're trying to compensate.

The rest of your arguments are silly and again nonsense. To reiterate your own arguments, you did show nothing that a 6 months old disk has better values (lower errors) than a fresh one.

And you've grasped onto that nonsense as an excuse to justify avoiding answering a simple question, or providing examples of the better quality burns you achieved when Verbatim were making discs of a better quality as you claimed, and you're doing so apparently believing it doesn't make you look like a fool. You asked me for examples so how about you now put up yourself or shut up? Are you honestly trying to tell me I've proved Verbatim's quality has dropped in the last 6 months, or are you simply willing to argue such a silly assumption because you think playing the fool is better than being wrong?

yetanotherid

24th January 2011, 16:28

Oh and by the way, when I burn stuff I generally wait till the "waiting to be burned" folder on my drive starts to take up too much space, then I sit down with a spindle of 50 or 100 discs. So whether you want to live in denial of reality or not, I know for a fact.... and especially when averaged over a large number of discs (50 to 100)..... there's a definite quality difference between the burns to printable v non-printable discs (regardless of the burner). Last time I burned a huge batch of non-printable discs, the time before they were possibly printable.... it simply depends what the local PC shop has for sale in bulk at the time.... but I've certainly burned enough "batches" of each to know I'm not wrong, no matter how many fairy stories you invent to the contrary.

Ghitulescu

24th January 2011, 16:37

There no need to argue with you.

The quality of a burn depends on how well the burner does understand the medium, on the medium quality as such and on the burner quality as such.

The quality of the DVDR decreased a lot in the past 5 years. The quality of the burners equally decreased. Yamaha, Teac and Plextor opted out, this left us with Sony (which relabels everything), NEC (bad quality), Samsung (probably the worst competitor), LiteOn (decreased quality from 8x DVDburners onwards, with Philips at bord, the BDwriters suffer from many issues) and LG (probably the best bet, especially when money is an issue).

The best DVDRs one can buy now are the JVC, which acquired the media division of TY. I couldn't test one of these as they are not officially sold in Germany and I don't trust online shops nor eBay, there were too many fakes, and the price is high. The second best were (because there are no longer manufactured) the Verbatim archival gold (only 8x). Equally good, as made by the same factory, were the EMTEC gold, again extinct.

Now verbatim relabels MBI products (made with Verbatims' stampers), so does Sony (own stampers). These are still ok compared to 2005, but super compared to what one may buy today (2011).

Then comes the ritek, one of the worst products being the CMC. Philips had once a really good batch (INFOMEDIA R30) but now only CMC.

These are good burns
http://img835.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1s9l091.png/
http://img638.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1lbl06.png/
TTH02 is the last MID from TDK.

Ghitulescu

24th January 2011, 16:40

For some reason the images do not appear
http://img835.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1s9l091.png/

http://img638.imageshack.us/i/liteondvdrwlh20a1lbl06.png/

yetanotherid

24th January 2011, 17:00

There no need to argue with you.

The quality of a burn depends on how well the burner does understand the medium, on the medium quality as such and on the burner quality as such.

I know.

Here's me proving how much Verbatim's quality has improved in the last two years.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn4.gif

Here's me proving it's increased somewhat in the last 24 hours.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn3.gif

Your screen shots seem to indicate you were getting the same type of quality burns using TY discs two years ago as I'm getting today with Verbatim.

The only time I ever use Ritek discs is if I get them for almost nothing and even then I only keep them as the discs I use when I'm burning something for someone else, and only if they're not a good friend.
The last time a disc "surprised me" was when I found some Benq blanks going really cheap so I bought 50. I can't remember the dye they used (I'd have to dig one out) but it wasn't a "top rated" dye. The burns they gave me though were even slightly better on average than the Verbatim discs.

Ghitulescu

24th January 2011, 17:25

You're still using a 2007 burner and 2004 media. The 2009 one does not have the same good qualities.

However, one flower is not enough to bring the spring.
http://club.myce.com/f33/verbatim-mcc-004-printed-serials-217200/#post1768689
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.gleitz.info%2Fshowthread.php%3F29696-Qualit%25E4tsprobleme-mit-MCC004

A short look into the German twin forum for your printable MCC 03RG20 would show a nice ascending error rate, from 2005 to 2009, as verbatim changed 3 factories and 2 countries -> http://forum.gleitz.info/forumdisplay.php?139-Verbatim. No need to understand German, the figures are the same.

Ghitulescu

24th January 2011, 17:28

Or this poll -> http://club.myce.com/f33/verbatim-16x-dvd-r-mcc-004-quality-getting-better-worse-255549/

yetanotherid

25th January 2011, 12:58

Okay, for completeness of info..... for some reason I've found Verbatim DVD+R discs burn to a slightly lesser quality than their DVD-R... on average. However, I'm fairly sure if I buy +R blanks it's generally because the local shop is out of -R and generally when I end up buying +R they're printable discs, so I couldn't say whether it's because they're printable discs, whether it's because my burners simply burn to -R discs better than +R or whether there's for some unknown reason, a quality difference between the -R and +R versions, but I'm not going to take forum here-say and an inaccurate pole (a whole 69 respondents in total) as proof Verbatim's quality has dropped. Especially not while you're unable to post screenshots of better quality burns than the burns I'm getting with Verbatim discs today. Did you notice the last screen shot was MCC004 and how good the burn was?

For the record, I've got a Samsung burner in amongst my collection of Pioneer burners, and during the last week I've burned a lot of discs, initially with a spindle of printable DVD+R and then with a spindle of DVD-R. The Samsung burner was spitting out so many coasters using the DVD+R discs I was ready to pull it out and throw it away, but since I started on the DVD-R spindle it's been burning to a quality pretty close to that of the Pioneer burners. I guess if I only owned a single Samsung burner I could start a thread in a forum and moan about the diminishing quality of Verbatim DVD+R discs, but unfortunately I don't.

The trouble is there's so many variables when it comes to burning discs. I've had days when I've burned a bunch of discs (and I'm talking about using discs from the same spindle) when every burn has been average, at least for Verbatim. Then the next day I return to finish the burning and suddenly I'm burning to a better quality for what seems to be no apparent reason. I sometimes wonder whether the ambient temperature makes a noticeable difference... and therefore the temperature inside the drive itself.... and I've wondered whether sometimes it's simply because I haven't used the burners for a while and initially the discs spinning around are disturbing the dust which has accumulated inside and it effects the burn quality for a while. And I've never been able to explain why a particular burner will burn several average quality discs in a row, then just as I'm getting annoyed it'll produce a couple of excellent quality burns. I doubt it's because the quality varies dramatically from one disc to another.

Also for the record.... as I'm fussy about the burn quality when I'm archiving stuff, if the burn's not pretty good I throw the disc away and burn it again. Sometimes I throw away something like 1 in 5, which I probably did when burning using the DVD+R spindle, but much of that was courtesy of the Samsung burner. So far, now I've nearly worked my way through a 100 spindle of DVD-R discs (and it's such a relief to get all that hard drive space back) I've maybe thrown away 1 in 20 and the burns are all pretty close (on average) to the burn in the second screenshot I posted (post #25).

Anyway..... after all my own experiences with Verbatim discs over the last few years.... am I willing to say I'm confident Verbatim's disc quality has changed? Well I don't burn using DVD+Rs often enough to form a confident opinion there but when it comes to DVD-Rs I'm confident it hasn't changed at all. Have you shown me anything which points to your contention of Verbatim's quality having dropped in the last few years being correct? Not anything close to substantial I can see, and you've not been able to offer examples of burns you've made in the past which are better quality than the examples I've posted from burns made in the last few days. Anecdotal stories of discs being manufactured in India instead of the U.S. or China or wherever they were originally made aren't proof of anything either. Manufacturer's move their factories to places like India because the labour is cheaper, not because they have to relinquish control over the quality of their products by doing so.

yetanotherid

25th January 2011, 13:04

You're still using a 2007 burner and 2004 media. The 2009 one does not have the same good qualities.

Well the discussion is regarding the quality of the media, not the age of the burner used, so let's not get sidetracked there, and you'll have to explain to me how you know the media I'm using.... which I literally bought a week ago (well at least the second screen shot from each post)..... was manufactured six or seven years ago, because it doesn't seem too likely.

Ghitulescu

25th January 2011, 13:47

Well, this is something I expected.

Not only that you contradict a lot of people from 2 countries, you still insist in your theories. I think anyone has by now realised the quality of the advices you give. Small sample size, short interval, yet grandiose conclusions, oh no, sorry, axioms.

Typically, around the time Groucho2004 burned the DVD whose scan was posted, the manufacturers liked to advertise a sort of 50 years for the lifespan. One should also know that the measuring conditions the companies use are completely different than those a typical user has (also the accelerated ageing is different, but this is another story). That a DVDR supports 16x (or for that time 4x) it doesn't automatically mean that if burned anyway, at 16x or 22x, with any burner, it would last 50 years. Same for the measurements Philips likes to show on the package.
After a while, all these information went with the wind. Only Verbatim dared to mention a "lifetime warranty" for its archival grade DVDRs. What's a "lifetime warranty"? Nothing else that the product is free of defects for all its life, before being burned, as they cannot control the burning process. The second one was EMTEC, for its gold media. EMTEC ran out of business while Verbatim rebadges Indian disks today. Even its Blu-ray media look like being of a lower quality than the competitors -> http://forum.imgburn.com/index.php?showforum=16
I am happy I burned a lot of good DVDs in the past and that I still have a reserve of premium TY for the gold recordings.

Should a DVDR be recognised and read out during the Verify phase of the writing procedure, there are chances that it would withstand at least 1 year (of course, if correctly handled). Top disks of 2010 may last up to 10 years. 50 or 100 years of storage are a dream.

It is also a difference between a DVD out of specs and an unreadable (or partially readable) disk. An out-of-specs disk can be read back with great chances, as it needs 1664 PI before the error correction be completely screwed up, whereas the standard prescribes here only 280. So with the other parameters. Lots of disk having PO over 4 are perfectly readable. Changing the reader (using maybe an LG DVDburner) could make an unreadable disk readable.

yetanotherid

25th January 2011, 15:47

Well, this is something I expected.
Not only that you contradict a lot of people from 2 countries, you still insist in your theories. I think anyone has by now realised the quality of the advices you give. Small sample size, short interval, yet grandiose conclusions, oh no, sorry, axioms.

Well I can't say I'd expect you to question the anecdotal evidence you found in a few forum posts via Google either. A lot of people from two countries?? At least I'm posting from experience, not quoting forum posts which probably aren't based on anything more than the same anecdotal evidence you're offering. And I use the word "evidence" quite generously. You'd be a funny fella if you weren't kind of sad.

Typically, around the time Groucho2004 burned the DVD whose scan was posted, the manufacturers liked to advertise a sort of 50 years for the lifespan..... yada, yada, yada......

Verbatim still offer a Lifetime warranty. What's any of that got do with the topic of whether the quality has dropped? Does it prove anything either way or are you still finding new ways to be irrelevant?

Should a DVDR be recognised and read out during the Verify phase of the writing procedure, there are chances that it would withstand at least 1 year (of course, if correctly handled). Top disks of 2010 may last up to 10 years. 50 or 100 years of storage are a dream.

And you've got the evidence to back that up where?? The Ghitulescu handbook of opinionated advice?

It is also a difference between a DVD out of specs and an unreadable (or partially readable) disk. An out-of-specs disk can be read back with great chances, as it needs 1664 PI before the error correction be completely screwed up, whereas the standard prescribes here only 280. So with the other parameters. Lots of disk having PO over 4 are perfectly readable. Changing the reader (using maybe an LG DVDburner) could make an unreadable disk readable.

Did you pretend to yourself any of that has anything to do with the topic as you wrote it, or have you even given up trying to fool yourself? Does the highlighting help you to pretend it's relevant, because it's not fooling me.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my last two questions. What's the age of my burner got to do with the topic of media quality and is your claim I'm using media from 2004 based in reality at all? You seem to have a habit of avoiding direct questions. Funny about that.....

And of course there's one indisputable fact which you conveniently keep ignoring. You asked me to post burn quality tests to show you the quality of burns I'm achieving today, which I did, and you've only been able to offer examples which show I'm getting the same results (or better) today that you were getting two years ago.... no doubt taken from your TY "premium collection". How have the results you posted achieved anything other than to help prove my point?

Ghitulescu

25th January 2011, 16:20

At least I'm posting from experience, not quoting forum posts which probably aren't based on anything more than the same anecdotal evidence you're offering.

You did not post any on-topic informations, you just posted a scan of a 6 months old medium and another scan of an one day old medium. Then another 2 scans of one day media (now they are older ;)).

I posted a poll. Not me, but several dozens of people voted 42% that the quality of Verbatim decreased. That's impressive, isn't it?

I also posted some findings from fora I'm member. Of course, they are individual samples in a sea of possible alternatives. Yet the results for 3 years show a visible decrease in quality.

Whether google was helpful or not doesn't change the main facts. Google just intermediates. Older DVDs had a better quality than todays' ones, and their reliability over time decreases in a slower pace than those of today. For CDs the things are even clearer, because the CD is almost dead. In max. 5 years the DVD will arrive at the same point where the CD stands today. And I'll compare the scans of (6+5 years old DVDs with those of only 5).

PS: this is not your thread, I don't have to answer your questions.

Groucho2004

25th January 2011, 16:22

Geez, you guys have a lot of time.

Ghitulescu

25th January 2011, 16:23

Yeah, you're right, I don't know why I'm spending my time with someone that doesn't deserve it.

maybe because I don't want that the OP leave this forum with false info.

Groucho2004

25th January 2011, 16:29

I don't want that the OP leave this forum with false info.

Hehe, I'm sure the OP is entirely confused and left this thread a long time ago scared shitless.

laserfan

25th January 2011, 16:34

I'm afraid there are no longer good DVDRs nowadays... The DVD technology is close to its end, no manufacturers spend time and energy for producing quality items ... yes, not even Verbatim.
Your arguments lost all credibility right up-front, when you made these ridiculous statements. :rolleyes:

Ghitulescu

25th January 2011, 16:41

Except for stockpiled Verbatims MIT, all the verbatims sold in Germany are now made in China and India. There were around 2008 also some batches from EUA (Emirates).
And the DVD technology is already on its decline, the giants embarked in the BD boat and left the manufacturing to third countries.
Maybe in the States is different ......

yetanotherid

25th January 2011, 20:06

You did not post any on-topic informations, you just posted a scan of a 6 months old medium and another scan of an one day old medium. Then another 2 scans of one day media (now they are older ;)).

I didn't post any on-topic information? What have I been discussing, how to renovate the kitchen? I've given detailed information as to how much burning I do and the results I get when using different types of Verbatim discs, which is a lot more than the couple of screenshots you've offered along with a couple of amusing stories you found via Google. I've not posted any on-topic information? Maybe you should take your medication closer to the times you post?

I posted a poll. Not me, but several dozens of people voted 42% that the quality of Verbatim decreased. That's impressive, isn't it?

Yeah, very impressive. A poll in which 69 people out of the millions with an internet connection responded. And not even all of them thought Verbatim's quality had dropped. Only 29 of them agreed it had, 14 said it hadn't changed (I guess they're wrong are they?) while the remaining 26 didn't know what day it was. That's about as statistically meaningless as a poll can get, and if you believe otherwise there's something wrong with your brain.
Oh, and unless I'm mistaken that poll's over two years old anyway, so in two years only 69 people have thought it was worth the effort to respond. Maybe it'd be more statistically accurate as a poll on the percentage of forum members dumb enough to respond to forum polls? :)

I also posted some findings from fora I'm member. Of course, they are individual samples in a sea of possible alternatives. Yet the results for 3 years show a visible decrease in quality.

Yeah.... According to a couple of anecdotal stories you found.....

Whether google was helpful or not doesn't change the main facts. Google just intermediates. Older DVDs had a better quality than todays' ones......

So why are my burns of today as good as your "premium collection" :rolleyes: burns of two years ago????

and their reliability over time decreases in a slower pace than those of today. For CDs the things are even clearer, because the CD is almost dead. In max. 5 years the DVD will arrive at the same point where the CD stands today. And I'll compare the scans of (6+5 years old DVDs with those of only 5).

So what if the CDs dead? How does that prove the various manufacturer's sent their quality control workers off on vacation? You're just making stuff up now. It'd make far more sense to argue that the manufacturing process is mature and the quality consistent by now, than it would to argue quality control has been thrown to the wind just because manufacturer's also have a newer type of disc to produce.

PS: this is not your thread, I don't have to answer your questions.

No you don't. Not that "who's thread" it might be makes any difference. Either you're willing to respond to others the way you expect them to respond to you when you ask questions, or you're a hypocrite as well as opinionated.
I'll take it then that your statement I'm using media from 2004 was just a load of rubbish, and as you're happy to call me ignorant etc. when I post something you think is wrong, I'll also conclude you don't have enough character to post like a grown up.

Yeah, you're right, I don't know why I'm spending my time with someone that doesn't deserve it.
maybe because I don't want that the OP leave this forum with false info.

Maybe it's because you're a know-it-all who can't stand being disagreed with. Hence all the name calling you continually resort to.

Except for stockpiled Verbatims MIT, all the verbatims sold in Germany are now made in China and India. There were around 2008 also some batches from EUA (Emirates).
And the DVD technology is already on its decline, the giants embarked in the BD boat and left the manufacturing to third countries.
Maybe in the States is different ......

And once again, repeating what we already know does nothing to prove the quality of media being produced has dropped as a result, especially when it comes to a company like Verbatim who only use their own dye on their own discs.

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"? :rolleyes: How about some quality tests of two year old burns which didn't come from your "premium collection"? :rolleyes:
Oh that's right, it's not my thread so you don't have to reply like a grown up.....

yetanotherid

25th January 2011, 20:11

Your arguments lost all credibility right up-front, when you made these ridiculous statements. :rolleyes:

Exactly.... If DVD burning isn't currently at it's peak.... or not far from it.... I'll happily start imagining my good quality burns aren't that good after all, despite what the quality tests might say.....

yetanotherid

3rd February 2011, 13:29

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"? :rolleyes: How about some quality tests of two year old burns which didn't come from your "premium collection"? :rolleyes:

I guess we'll never know.....

While doom9 was having a bit of a holiday however, I had an interesting burning experience which made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd discuss it here.

A couple of days ago I had an above average burning day. For the entire day pretty much every burn was above average in quality. So either Verbatim have been watching this thread and lifted their quality control in the last week, all of my burners were in an above average mood, it's just co-incidence, or something else was allowing the burners to burn well.

The only variable I can think of which may have factored in was the weather. It was hot. A really hot, dry heat. 40+ degrees Celsius. It wasn't hot in the room where my computers were located as I'd had the air conditioner on all day, so it was warm at best and I'd assume the air was very dry. Does humidity effect the quality of burns? It's the only variable I can think of.

As an example of what I mean I've posted some screen shots. These burns were typical for the day (there was the odd "throw away" as usual) and these are printable discs, which in my experience usually lowers the quality a little, and most would have come from the same "batch" as my previous screenshots, if not from the same spindle.
Or maybe all of my burners (it wasn't just one of them having a good day) were just in a better mood than usual for some reason.....

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn5.gif?t=1296735822

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn6.gif?t=1296735832

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn7.gif?t=1296735823

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn8.gif?t=1296735824

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn9.gif?t=1296735833

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/burn10.gif?t=1296735826

yetanotherid

5th February 2011, 17:15

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

5th February 2011, 20:11

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

6th February 2011, 20:08

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

6th February 2011, 20:39

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

7th February 2011, 01:10

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

7th February 2011, 01:15

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

7th February 2011, 01:24

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

7th February 2011, 09:46

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

7th February 2011, 11:11

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

7th February 2011, 11:23

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

7th February 2011, 11:30

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

7th February 2011, 12:05

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

7th February 2011, 12:17

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

7th February 2011, 14:50

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

7th February 2011, 15:26

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

7th February 2011, 16:49

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

7th February 2011, 16:51

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

7th February 2011, 17:04

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

7th February 2011, 17:19

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

7th February 2011, 17:24

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

7th February 2011, 17:37

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

7th February 2011, 18:30

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

7th February 2011, 18:51

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

7th February 2011, 19:05

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

7th February 2011, 19:23

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

7th February 2011, 19:31

AutoRepeat is enabled? Got lessons from a parrot?

yetanotherid

7th February 2011, 19:48

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

9th February 2011, 15:58

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

9th February 2011, 16:14

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

9th February 2011, 18:37

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

9th February 2011, 18:53

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

yetanotherid

9th February 2011, 21:10

.....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

11th February 2011, 14:28

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

laserfan

11th February 2011, 14:48

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

yetanotherid

12th February 2011, 03:33

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

3rd March 2011, 21:49

yetanotherid

3rd March 2011, 23:24

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

4th March 2011, 09:02

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

4th March 2011, 10:45

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

4th March 2011, 11:57

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

4th March 2011, 13:09

Hence my request for some screen shots.

GeorgeGear

4th March 2011, 18:19

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

5th March 2011, 01:39

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

7th March 2011, 03:26

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

7th March 2011, 14:13

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

7th March 2011, 16:32

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

7th March 2011, 17:06

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

7th March 2011, 17:16

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

7th March 2011, 18:05

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

7th March 2011, 18:05

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

yetanotherid

7th March 2011, 18:48

I'd wonder if it even matters. The potentially copyright infringing picture must be about four years old. I wonder if it'd look the same today.

yetanotherid

8th March 2011, 12:26

Well I've just finished the world's least scientific study of disc longevity. "Least" because it's a small random sample and I've not really got any idea as to the horrors the discs may have been subjected to since they were burned. All came from the "poor burn" spindle but I've no way of knowing what the quality of each was like when it was originally burned. I thought I'd find older discs (I may have to search the house for them) so these only go back a few years.

One trend which seems to have emerged, all the discs seem to have deteriorated in quality but it would appear the ones which have deteriorated the least are Verbatim.
Admittedly they've all been subjected to wear and tear but what surprised me is this..... I don't keep all the bad burns, only the ones I think should still be usable, so once the quality has dropped too low (say under around 40% according to Nero CD Speed) I throw them away. Anything between 40% and around 90% goes on the "poor burn" spindle, anything above 90%-95% goes into the archive folder.

Running quality tests again today on a random sample of these "poor burn" discs led me to the conclusion that had the burn quality of the discs I tested been as bad originally as they are now I never would have kept any of them in the first place. Therefore they must have deteriorated. Many were so bad I doubted they'd be readable at all. This includes TDK Premium discs, TDK Gold discs (or pretty much anything using CMC MAG dye) Sony, Imation, etc. The brand I checked the most was Verbatim, mainly because there's a lot more of them than other brands, but they do seem to have deteriorated the least. In fact I only found one Verbatim discs which was of such a bad quality I probably would have just thrown it away if it was burned that badly originally. I can't say the Verbatim discs haven't deteriorated (they probably have) but it would appear that it's not as much as all the other brands of disc.

I've posted some rather distressingly "typical" screen shots below. As I said this is the world's least scientific disc longevity test but it makes me wonder what the average person's collection of burned discs must be like, given most people don't run quality tests after burning and most would own discs which have been subjected to similar wear and tear. I'm going to run part 2 of the test later. It'll involve exactly the same random testing, but this time I'm going to pull random samples of discs from the "good burn" folder. Unfortunately 99% of those discs are Verbatim but there's other brands scattered in amongst them. It'll be interesting to see if there's any pattern in quality when testing discs which I know would have been of a good quality when originally burned, and which have led a sheltered life in storage and hardly ever been used.

For the record I checked 1 X Benq disc, 2 x Imation, 1 x No-Name (CMC MAG), 1 x No-Name (Prodisc), 1 x Sony, 4 x TDK Gold, 2 x TDK and 6 x Verbatim. As I said.... hardly scientific.

There was one other interesting result and I'm not sure if it's thrown a spanner into my test results. I only tried it with two of the discs.... mainly because it didn't occur to me to try until I'd almost finished.... after running the quality test on the TDK Premium disc and the No-Name (Prodisc) below with their 0% quality score I tried copying the files from the discs to my hard drive. What surprised me was the same drive I used for running the quality tests (Pioneer 112D) copied every file from the TDK disc in around ten minutes. In fact watching the copying process it appeared to pull all the files off the disc without missing a beat. It copied every file from the No-Name Prodisc as well, although it was obviously struggling towards the end of the disc.
I don't know what to make of that.... whether the drive is a really good reader, whether it's not reporting errors as accurately as I thought it did, or whether the quality of the burn really doesn't have to be anywhere near as perfect as I've assumed it does.....

Benq
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestBenqMay2009.gif?t=1299582585

Imation
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestImationOctober12005.gif?t=1299582586

No-Name (Prodisc)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestNo-NameApril22008.gif?t=1299583826

Sony
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestSonySeptember2008.gif?t=1299582744

TDK Gold
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestTDKGoldApril12008.gif?t=1299582589

TDK Premium
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestTDKSeptember2006.gif?t=1299583017

Verbatim (Although I had to test quite a few to find one this bad)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a142/dashpb1/QualityTestVerbatimJanurary2008.gif?t=1299582598

Ghitulescu

8th March 2011, 13:17

Excellent post.
As I said before, the maximum allowed values (280/4) are very much conservative, many drives around can read bad disks quite speedy. That's why the tests are almost irrelevant, in the sense that they are not repeatable (they are drive dependent). If one keeps a single drive and runs the test in exactly the same conditions, the results, although not official, can be considered to be a measure of quality (lower PI/PO = good, higher PI/PO = bad). How much these values can go up without adversely affecting the reading (bad sectors) depends entirely on the reader (every reader is obliged by the standard to perfectly read any DVD that has PI/PO less or equal to 280/4, less than 8% jitter and so on). What goes beyond is a courtesy of the manufacturer.
One should also consider the availability of a reader, higher speed readers generally yield higher errors than low speed ones.

yetanotherid

8th March 2011, 13:33

Maybe my overly paranoid view of the need for high burn quality comes from a DVD player I used to own years ago. It's the main reason I started on my "re-burn everything, must be good quality crusade", as it was terrible at reading anything but good quality discs (it'd stutter or the picture would become blocky etc). However despite the burn quality tests I ran today being so poor, nobody in the house has ever complained about a current DVD player not being able to play any of those discs. And my Pioneer drive could pull the files off them even though it had to slow down to read the end of the second disc.
And of course I've been given discs burned by other people on many occasions (got to love laptop DVD burners) which have presented quite a struggle to copy their files, even with a PC's drive.... oh well, I guess even if I've been overly paranoid at least I should be assured the discs I keep will last a long time..... and I'm starting to feel more confident that even the bad burns Wantangobi posted (which are excellent compared to the discs I just tested) should be readable for many years to come.

Anyway.... I'll run some more tests on my good discs a little later as I'm curious as to what the results will be.

yetanotherid

8th March 2011, 13:39

I just ran two more burn test on a couple of Laser discs. These were actually fakes which had a MCC ID but which didn't use MCC dye. As a result the burns were generally quite poor but I did find a couple which I'd kept to put on the "poor burn" spindle (I didn't keep even the good burns on those blanks for archiving).
Oddly enough, they don't appear to have deteriorated much at all. Go figure....

yetanotherid

8th March 2011, 16:22

I must have done a bit more experimenting with different brands originally than I remembered. When I pulled out the oldest folder of "good burn" discs there was more of a mixed bag inside than I expected.

Some of them actually gave me a bit of a scare. For instance a couple of discs dropped to 50% near the end of the burn, but after cleaning off the fingerprints they stayed above 90%. That then got me wondering about the previous burn tests and all the handling those discs have endured. Even though I wiped the worst of the fingerprints and smudges off before testing them, it made me wonder if they'd have tested a lot better if I'd put them through a disc cleaner first, and whether underneath the scuffed plastic the burns were actually still okay.

So after all my messing around today I'm not sure if it achieved anything. There's no point uploading screen shots of the oldest "good burns" as they still look good, and I tested Benq, Prodisc, Ricoh, Sony, Taiyo Yuden, TDK and Vebatim discs. None really showed any signs of deterioration although they're all almost the same age as the previous discs. It leaves me pretty convinced most discs, especially good quality blanks, should last a long time in storage but it's obvious discs which are being used rather than stored can in fact deteriorate quite a bit. I just don't know whether the fact that they weren't as good a quality to begin with would cause them to deteriorate quickly, or whether under the scuffed plastic they haven't deteriorated as much as the quality tests indicate they have.

Wantangobi

9th March 2011, 00:21

Thanks for the tests yetanotherid :)

My worst disc
http://i51.tinypic.com/qycvnq.png
Scandisc of it
http://i51.tinypic.com/2u9pwfd.png
It can still be read from. But I had to make a 3rd attempt for a few files to copy over.
The disc was never used after burning and it's only 3 months old.
It was my high speed burn test on my old drive. The other were all 2x, this one was 8x.

I had some CD-RWs almost go bad on me a long time ago(Cyclic Redundancy check errors). Unstopable Copier managed to pull the uncooperative files off them. But that only works for media. Something like a game backup would probably not work unless the flaws were in the movies or sound.

once the quality has dropped too low (say under around 40% according to Nero CD Speed) I throw them away.Where does it list this % quality anyway? I only see the PI and PIF ratings.

burfadel

9th March 2011, 09:59

DVD +R vs DVD -R ... :)

Ghitulescu

9th March 2011, 11:27

Where does it list this % quality anyway? I only see the PI and PIF ratings.

Forget about %, try to keep the errors at a minimum, and get rid of the Optiarc. Since Pioneers are no longer in the DVD business, so the Plextors, get yourself a LiteOn or an LG. LiteOn for its ability to use Kprobe2 or LGs for good burns and very good (best ??) readings.

PS: Was this a fake Verbatim?

kypec

9th March 2011, 15:30

Ghitulescu

10th March 2011, 09:22

Yes, the reading capabilities is sort of old, but I haven't seen so many new burners on the market, so it is still of a certain relevance. I don't think all of modern users have now BD-burners to burn DVDs.

Bottom line: when using a NEC ND-3540A to assess the quality of a disk, be prepared to have higher PI/PO than using a Plextor PX-750 or any LGs.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 04:40

Where does it list this % quality anyway? I only see the PI and PIF ratings.

Near the bottom right corner. It's called a quality score. Your last screenshot was 0%.
Don't necessarily forget about %, and of course the desire to keep errors at a minimum would be stating the obvious. The % figure isn't really an average or anything like that. If you watch it change while you're scanning you'll see what I mean and why I say 95% is my rule of thumb.

I own a non-Pioneer, Pioneer burner. It's as good a burner as the previous Pioneer, Pioneer burner, if not a little better. Like all newer Pioneer burners though, you can't run burn quality tests with it.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 04:42

@yetanotherid: Ghitulescu's chart of DVD burners reading abilities comes from http://www.diit.cz formerly known as http://cdr.cz. Unfortunately it's very old and I couldn't find it there but I'm sure the authors wouldn't mind him posting one summary over here ;)

It was just my little dig given copyright was the excuse given by Ghitulescu for not backing up claims made earlier in the thread, yet he later posted someone else's image.

Wantangobi

11th March 2011, 08:29

get rid of the Optiarc. [...], get yourself a LiteOn or an LG. LiteOn for its ability to use Kprobe2 or LGs for good burns and very good (best ??) readings.Remember that all these really bad discs are from my old Samsung drive. This Sony drive is averaging pi/pif scores that are well within what cdfeaks considers good but non-archive quality.
I'm fine with the new drive. These new discs have %2 the errors of the old ones(that still work, btw). Maybe one file won't be readable in 10+ years. I'll survive.

PS: Was this a fake Verbatim?I bought them on Newegg last year. I wouldn't know how to tell if they were fake.

Near the bottom right corner. It's called a quality score. Your last screenshot was 0%.Now I see it :eek:
Thanks.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 08:49

@yetanotherid:
I prefer not to engage a legal debate with a company, it's much easier to fight an individual, with the same money level as I have.

Besides I don't have to explain you my assertions. And I don't wanna spend money teaching you things, mostly because you seem to be such an expert. You wanna learn, use your own money, buy yourself information. I'll give the links for the articles, have fun, they are in German.

For free: non-Pioneer Pioneer burners are made by QSI. :)

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 13:51

@yetanotherid:
I prefer not to engage a legal debate with a company, it's much easier to fight an individual, with the same money level as I have.

That's a fresh excuse.

Besides I don't have to explain you my assertions. And I don't wanna spend money teaching you things, mostly because you seem to be such an expert. You wanna learn, use your own money, buy yourself information. I'll give the links for the articles, have fun, they are in German.

No, you're getting it the wrong way around again. I don't have to believe your assertions unless you offer proof, which you've failed to do, so I don't.
I'm not an expert, you're a "can't be wrong". Which is probably why you avoided yet another question and didn't explain why anybody would be expected to understand what you're referring to when you call a Sony Optiarc an NEC burner.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 13:58

This Sony drive is averaging pi/pif scores that are well within what cdfeaks considers good but non-archive quality.

The screen shot you posted can't be far off it. What do they consider to be archive quality?

I bought them on Newegg last year. I wouldn't know how to tell if they were fake.

I've not seen any fake Verbatim discs as such (although maybe they exist) but I've seen other no-name brands which have the Mitsubishi MCC ID but obviously they don't really use the Mitsibishi dye.
There's some info here regarding the different dyes used on different brands of discs.
http://www.digitalfaq.com/reviews/dvd-media.htm
You can see the disc ID near the top right side of the Speed Disc window, in the "Disc Info" section.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 14:06

It's not your thread, it's not you the one who asked for info, I have no obligations to you. Please stop this nonsense.

You have one burner, one brand of disks, yet extrapolate the "results" to an axiom.
On the other hand, I own some 50 optical units, and burn optical media probably longer than your mental age (I witnessed each and every optical disk birth, including types you never heard of, like PD, and I think I have quite a good perception of their quality decline). I always selected the best media possible, but I also tried nonames only to check whether it's worth paying the name for Verbatim, TDK & Co. Except for one type, it was worth.
And you want me to convince you!? No way. Start your own thread and I may answer, erh, sorry, you know everything, of course, you have nothing to ask.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 15:00

It's not your thread, it's not you the one who asked for info, I have no obligations to you. Please stop this nonsense.

I never said you did. If you want to make claims you won't back up and the end result is you're not taken seriously, that's up to you. If you want to call someone dumb and then not acknowledge it when you were wrong because you're a know-it-all, that's also up to you.
Please stop playing the poor little victim because the moral high ground you seem to think you're posting from is just a delusion.

You have one burner, one brand of disks, yet extrapolate the "results" to an axiom.

Has the dementia taken a firmer grip or do you recall how many different types of discs I posted in my last lot of quality tests. I've done exactly the same experimenting as you've done even though my part of the discussion mainly involves Verbatim discs, which I use the most, and your claim Verbatim's quality has dropped. Deal with it.

On the other hand, I own some 50 optical units, and burn optical media probably longer than your mental age (I witnessed each and every optical disk birth, including types you never heard of, like PD, and I think I have quite a good perception of their quality decline).

Yeah, yeah.... and you've continually ignored requests to post burn tests which prove your claims, yet you now point out you're in a better position to do so than I am. Quack.

And you want me to convince you!? No way. Start your own thread and I may answer, erh, sorry, you know everything, of course, you have nothing to ask.

I don't care whether you convince me or not, I just won't take you seriously.
And give the "start your own thread" nonsense a rest. It just makes you look more like a know-it-all. Go and start your own forum and moderate it to your hearts content if you won't be disagreed with and always need to be right. Until then accept that you're not always going to be agreed with, especially when you selectively ignore questions and won't offer the proof you claim to have.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 15:19

... and your claim Verbatim's quality has dropped. Deal with it. ..

I haven't said that Verbatim dropped quality, I said all DVDRs dropped quality, and Verbatim is no exception. My 20 years experience with burning told me this. And really feel sorry for you if you cannot grip that quality is more than PI/PO values, or your interesting 95% limit. As independent longevity tests showed several times, disks that cut perfectly during burning couldn't be read afterwards, while disks that were not so brilliant in terms of PI/PO, withstand much much better and be still within the specs. Which I think is exactly what the OP asked. There are not so many dyes around, (I assume) you know, so there are other factors besides who manufactured the dye, who manufactured the stamper and who relabelled it. And of course, (I assume) you know there is also Gold/Alu layers, not only Alu.

And most people that claim that the DVDR must be burned at 16x because that's why is 16x written on them, and that the burners are designed to burn at 16x, or the same argumentation for CDR, they simply measure, if, the PI/PO (E21/E31 for CDR) but they don't have access (or time) to measure the jitter, which is higher at higher speeds, especially where the writing speed changes (also higher PI/PO, too). Those people don't come back to say, well, you know, my 16x (or 24x) disk just died, two weeks ago, God know why, it had such beautiful PI/POs.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 15:32

I haven't said that Verbatim dropped quality, I said all DVDRs dropped quality, and Verbatim is no exception.

And I said in the case of Verbatim I don't agree, What's your point?

My 20 years experience with burning told me this.

It's a pity you can't post screen shots which back up your experience such as a better quality burn than what I'm getting with Verbatim today. 20 years experience, yet while making lots of generalisations you haven't actually given any examples of your own experiences with media longevity, or lack of it.

And really feel sorry for you if you cannot grip that quality is more than PI/PO values, or your interesting 95% limit. As independent longevity tests showed several times, disks that cut perfectly during burning couldn't be read afterwards, while disks that were not so brilliant in terms of PI/PO, withstand much much better and be still within the specs. Which I think is exactly what the OP asked. There are not so many dyes around, (I assume) you know, so there are other factors besides who manufactured the dye, who manufactured the stamper and who relabelled it. And of course, (I assume) you know there is also Gold/Alu layers, not only Alu.

So independent longevity tests show some discs last better than others. This proves the quality has been dropping how? Did those same longevity tests on older discs of the same type show the same discs manufactured a few years earlier would have lasted longer?

Those people don't come back to say, well, you know, my 16x (or 24x) disk just died, two weeks ago, God know why, it had such beautiful PI/POs.

No, they don't.... do they? :D

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 15:56

You see, probably you'll understand once that companies do the products batchwise, then move to the next product. The same is true for retailers and wholesellers. They don't buy 1 Verbatim, 2 TDKs, 3 Maxells, they buy one container of Verbatim. The PC shop nearby buys them in smaller quantities, you even less. There's a great chance that your disks bought today are from the same batch as those bought 2 years ago, because of this triple buffering. And if the containers were not empty, you'll buy the same disks also in the next 2 years. I assume all disks in one production batch are equal (they are not). But a batch of product A is different from the same product, if meanwhile the production line changed.

The visible drop in quality for Verbatim occurred when they changed from DataLifePlus to DataLife. There are no longer DataLifePlus, at least not official (but a lot of fakes). The last good product from Verbatim was the Archival Type (which was not so well received, partly because it was graded only 8x, oh, gosh, I wanted burn it at 24x for the price I paid).

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 16:43

You see, probably you'll understand once that companies do the products batchwise, then move to the next product......

Nice story. Sounds very unlikely though, that a wholesaler is going to buy a two year supply of discs in one hit, or whatever imaginings you're having there.

The visible drop in quality for Verbatim occurred when they changed from DataLifePlus to DataLife.

I'll eagerly await some screen shots of this visible quality drop. As I said, the burns you were getting from those blanks must have been phenomenal to be better than the burns I'm getting today.

Ghitulescu

11th March 2011, 17:00

When IceFiend will ask for it.

yetanotherid

11th March 2011, 17:37

When IceFiend will ask for it.

Wow! Now you're really being childish.

Wantangobi

12th March 2011, 15:27

The screen shot you posted can't be far off it. What do they consider to be archive quality?Not sure. Someone made a thread worried about having a dvd with hundreds of thousands of PI errors(PIF was 0.02 average), and one of the cdfreaks mods said it was normal. And another one said the burn was "good but not archive quality". He didn't specify what that was. He just said it was fine for normal stuff.

Ghitulescu

15th March 2011, 18:04

Archive quality is not measured in PI/PO values. It is measured in how well that particular disk withstand the time. I said it before, and I repeat it now, lower PI/PO are a prerequisite for long term storage, yet these are not enough. Supposingly one keeps the burned disks in the darkest darkness, in a vault that is humidity controlled, and keeps it from scratching, PI/PO are extremely relevant, lower values offer a higher buffer against ageing. In normal usage however, scratches, humidity and UV radiations are much more important.

However, no matter how low is the average, spikes (bulks of high PI/PO) are not allowed for archival purposes.

leeperry

16th March 2011, 18:50

Dye stability and error rates are 2 different stories...the ideal is to have a stable dye(TTH01 for instance) and burn it w/ a well adapted firmware. But a worst case scenario would be a poorly burned highly stable dye against an unstable dye w/ very low Pi/Po right after the burn. The former will not rot overtime, the latter very much will.

Dogway

22nd March 2011, 14:02

Ghitulescu

22nd March 2011, 14:12

I checked an 8 years old DVD in scandisc and "surface scan" was 100%, everything green, surprised. Is there a way to check my discs quality, (even with my shitty drive)?

If a "shitty" drive can read your disk then it's ok. Problems are when even the best readers start having problems reading it.

Dogway

22nd March 2011, 21:45

Yes, I know, when they are ok, they are ok. I just thought about checking the oldest ones to backup, with my laptop HL-DT-ST CT10N drive. If there's any software I can use for disc quality.

Ghitulescu

23rd March 2011, 15:26

You missed the point.
Nobody can measure the quality of a DVDR, unless s/he uses special tools (there have to be a special drive and a special software), even then there's no 95% or the like, just OK or FAIL for each parameter (there are around 20 IIRC). Not only that that Philips optics is nowhere to be found (I mean in the consumer realm) and even then it will lack the special firmware that allows the reading of all parameters (it includes here the raw RF laser output), but also nobody will ever spend ~20+ hours (each parameter is measured once and at 1x only) for each disk.

The LGs are quite good readers, far from being shitty. For a shitty result try a NEC (Optidrive), except for the 4550 model which stands out in this respect.

hello_hello

24th March 2011, 22:44

I can't see the tab Disc Quality in DiscSpeed, instead there is ScanDisc. I checked an 8 years old DVD in scandisc and "surface scan" was 100%, everything green, surprised. Is there a way to check my discs quality, (even with my shitty drive)?

Maybe you have an OEM version of Nero which includes cut-down versions of some programs?

You can download the latest version here but I'm not sure if it's a full free version.
http://www.nero.com/enu/tools-utilities.html

It seems odd someone would claim you can't test the quality of a disc given the availability of software for just that purpose, and given the same person has posted screen shots of tests they've run on their own discs. Nero doesn't actually give the quality as a percentage as has been mentioned earlier but it does give a disc a "quality score". Anything over 90 should be easily readable.

Maybe quality tests aren't 100% accurate, and of course not all drives are capable of reporting errors correctly, but they're certainly a pretty good guide as to the quality of the disc.

There's another program for running disc quality checks here, but I don't think it's free.
http://www.cdspeed2000.com/

Ghitulescu

3rd April 2011, 17:54

It seems odd someone would claim you can't test the quality of a disc given the availability of software for just that purpose, and given the same person has posted screen shots of tests they've run on their own discs. Nero doesn't actually give the quality as a percentage as has been mentioned earlier but it does give a disc a "quality score". Anything over 90 should be easily readable.

If the person that doesn't understand why "someone" says it's virtually impossible to assess the quality of a DVDR being so many SW around, that "someone" would add, because it was clearly not understood:

One can have a sort of quality index for a DVDR for a particular reader. The same disc may be 96% (Nero) when read by an LG, and 56% when read by a NEC. Values invented.

hello_hello

3rd April 2011, 22:40

It was understood. Maybe you missed my point when I said that even though testing for errors mightn't be 100% accurate it's still a pretty good guide as to the quality of the disc? Which obviously it must be, given you posted burn test results yourself and requested others do the same earlier in the thread. Why would you do that, only to argue later it's not possible to test the quality of a disc?

Some drives are better readers than others and different drives will no doubt report different errors. Claiming one drive will report a quality score of 96 while another will report a quality score of 56 seems to be inventing exaggerated values to me. I'd imagine a good quality burn will still test as a good quality burn in both drives while a poor quality burn will test as a poor quality burn in both drives even if the reported errors aren't exactly the same, so it'd still be possible to assess the burn quality even if it's not an exact science. Chances are the good quality burn will test as good quality in both drives (because it's good quality and easy to read) while the poor quality burn might look worse when tested in one drive than it does in the other (because one drive is better at reading poor quality burns).

Do you have any examples you can post of a disc which appears to be of a good quality in one drive while bad in another, or where the reported quality is different enough to show there's no point to testing discs for quality?

Ghitulescu

4th April 2011, 08:12

Some drives are better readers than others and different drives will no doubt report different errors. Claiming one drive will report a quality score of 96 while another will report a quality score of 56 seems to be inventing exaggerated values to me.

http://www.cdrhard.cz/srovnavaci_testy/dvd-rw/016.gif

Not at all. See NEC ND-3540 vs. Plextor PX-750. The percentages represent the good sectors (green) vs. the unreadable ones (red). In the green zone are also included the corrected sectors (ie sectors that were faulty but the drive used the CRC algorithm to recover the valid data).

As long as one uses the same drive to check the discs, no problems, s/he has at least a reference. But combining data from various drives, with various discs, and various programs (I use Plextools and pxscan, some use KProbe, other use CDSpeed and so on) is not a good practice IMHO.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 09:44

Not at all. See NEC ND-3540 vs. Plextor PX-750. The percentages represent the good sectors (green) vs. the unreadable ones (red). In the green zone are also included the corrected sectors (ie sectors that were faulty but the drive used the CRC algorithm to recover the valid data).

Have you got an example which is relevant to the discussion? Or one which means something? So, some drives could read a bad disc better than others. No news flash there. What disc? Why was the quality bad? Was it just because the disc was scratched, was it a bad burn, was it actually a burned disc or was it a pressed disc?

It seems to me you've only offered a graph which shows some drives can read a poor quality disc better than others, and there's nothing to say it was even a burned disc or what sort of quality would have been reported by each drive. No doubt the drives which could read more of the disc would have reported a better quality than those which could read less, but do you really think your graph proves any of the drives would have reported the disc quality as being anything but low?

I think you'll find I've already acknowledge some drives can read poor quality discs better than others and quality scores will vary as a result, but I still maintain it doesn't negate being able to test discs for quality even though it's not an exact science and your graph does nothing to prove otherwise.

Do you have anything which actually relates to testing a disc for quality and which shows the results vary so much between drives a disc quality test is meaningless? i.e. reporting PI errors and failures etc.

As long as one uses the same drive to check the discs, no problems, s/he has at least a reference. But combining data from various drives, with various discs, and various programs (I use Plextools and pxscan, some use KProbe, other use CDSpeed and so on) is not a good practice IMHO.

Well I'd assume most people would generally be using the same drive and the same software to test their discs.
However there seems to be no logical argument offered as to why combining data from various drives, discs and programs is not good practice. If disc testing isn't an accurate science, surely having more than one reference makes it somewhat more accurate than only having a single reference, the accuracy of which is unknown?

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 09:49

I use Plextools and pxscan, some use KProbe, other use CDSpeed and so on.....

You're still yet to explain why you use Plextools and pxscan to test for disc quality when you've claimed "Nobody can measure the quality of a DVDR".
If you can't test for quality, what are you trying to achieve when you test the quality of your discs?

Ghitulescu

4th April 2011, 09:54

There are pressed (ie original) DVDs that do not pass the standard testing procedure, they have at least one FAIL for some parameters.

That is testing. The rest is approximations.

They are good as long as one uses only one drive, and only one software, and only one measure. Some people say 95% in nero. Perfect, be happy. But as long as the drives are required only to play DVDs that comply with the specs (ie only OKs, not a single FAIL), a particular disc may have playback problems on other systems. The drive manufacturers gave us a gift actually, as most drives can read also out-of-specs discs (I had once a DL with some 1300 PI for about the whole second layer, yet perfectly readable with no speed-down), but this is no guarantee.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 10:00

Some drives can read poor quality discs better than others. Most drives can read discs which are way out of spec. Nobody's arguing about it. Time to move on.

When you've got something which relates to the subject of testing a disc for quality I'll be keen to read it.

Ghitulescu

4th April 2011, 10:01

You're still yet to explain why you use Plextools and pxscan to test for disc quality when you've claimed "Nobody can measure the quality of a DVDR".
If you can't test for quality, what are you trying to achieve when you test the quality of your discs?

I use plextools to check whether the discs according to my standards. I burn one DVDR from an unknown manufacturer then test it. From the graph I draw my own conclusions. Besides, for CDRs it happens that I have the optics used in the standard measurement device, so I'm pretty sure the C1/C2 values are closely matching the standard ones.

So I don't care whether someone else using a certain burner burned a certain DVDR with 40/2 errors, as long as my burns are ok. I may not have that particular burner, I may not have that particular DVDR.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 10:04

So you're saying you can test the quality of your discs then?
Why did you tell another poster he can't do the same?

Ghitulescu

4th April 2011, 10:10

I said he can't have comparable results.
And that the results he will eventually obtain do not represent the values that are standardised. In other words, if he gets 280 PI these are not the 280 PI of the standard, because he didn't use the standard device nor the standard procedure.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 10:19

I said he can't have comparable results.

Twaddle.
Dogway asked how he could check his older discs for quality, and this is what you said. Offering such academic nonsense as an answer to a simple question is what led to this discussion.

You missed the point.
Nobody can measure the quality of a DVDR, unless s/he uses special tools (there have to be a special drive and a special software), even then there's no 95% or the like, just OK or FAIL for each parameter (there are around 20 IIRC). Not only that that Philips optics is nowhere to be found (I mean in the consumer realm) and even then it will lack the special firmware that allows the reading of all parameters (it includes here the raw RF laser output), but also nobody will ever spend ~20+ hours (each parameter is measured once and at 1x only) for each disk.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 10:22

And that the results he will eventually obtain do not represent the values that are standardised. In other words, if he gets 280 PI these are not the 280 PI of the standard, because he didn't use the standard device nor the standard procedure.

Nobody said otherwise.
This means Dogway can't test his discs for quality how exactly?

Ghitulescu

4th April 2011, 10:24

Twaddle.
Dogway asked how he could check his older discs for quality, and this is what you said. Offering such academic nonsense as an answer to a simple question is what led to this discussion.

He can find some values, ok, but when the quality is defined and it is, one needs to use that precise method to find out this quality.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 10:36

He can find some values, ok, but when the quality is defined and it is, one needs to use that precise method to find out this quality.

Yippeee.
How many times do I have to acknowledge checking for disc quality isn't an exact science before you'll move on to offering another excuse for telling Dogway "Nobody can measure the quality of a DVDR" in the middle of a thread where disc quality is being discussed and quality test results are being offered.

Actually don't worry about it. I think I'll join everyone else who's posted here in not taking you seriously, and just move on myself.

Bye.

Ghitulescu

4th April 2011, 10:51

It's always nice to talk about quality when this is a nice and vague notion. Yet, when it's standardized, oops, yeah, sure, well, you know, that's good for me...
The only way to asses the quality is described. And it's an ON/OFF issue (compliant/not compliant). Do you have the possibility to compare at home the quality of your HiFi-chain with that of the neighbor's? Which one is louder probably yes, you could, although not immediately evident.

The OP could use any of the SW indicated and any of the HW he has, but the results are not quality as it is defined, they are just numbers. And based on his experience he may say whether this numbers mean something or not, whether the value of 1000 or that of 300 or the one of 20 do really mean something (plays everywhere in the world, plays on his own DVDplayer, can be read only by his LG drive).

That nero gives 100% quality for a disc, that doesn't automatically that it would be played everywhere, as I said, I had once that DL with some 1300 PIs, yet it was played flawlessly (perfect reading curve) on the PC, yet had problems with a standalone. No wonder.

hello_hello

4th April 2011, 22:40

And once again, nobody has argued that quality results won't vary a little according to the drive used to test the disc. Nobody has argued about the way discs are checked for quality.

It's fairly simple. A disc checked for quality using drive "A" will show the disc has a "X" amount of errors and is of "X" quality. Checking the same disc in a different drive will probably give slightly different results, but generally the quality will still be roughly the same. A disc which looks good in one drive will still look good when tested in another. A disc which looks bad when tested using one drive will still look bad in another. When you've got something which proves otherwise, let me know.

....as I said, I had once that DL with some 1300 PIs, yet it was played flawlessly (perfect reading curve) on the PC, yet had problems with a standalone. No wonder.

No wonder???
You mean you weren't suprised after you tested the disc quality, found it to be poor, and then discovered it wouldn't play in a standalone which isn't as good at reading poor quality discs as the PC's drive? Why weren't you surprised if the disc quality test didn't mean anything?

Once again, we're not talking about a drive's ability to read a poor quality disc, we're discussing being able to test a disc for quality. Your example of a drive still being able to read a disc after the same drive reporting the disc as having a high number of PIs proves they're not the same thing.

There's no need to repeat the information regarding disc quality being a "standard", or repeat the need for precise information to obtain the "real" quality etc. I get it, and repeating it again as though I don't will only have me thinking you must be stupid. Testing for quality isn't an exact science when using the average PC drive and testing software. I get it. I really do.

Dogway asked how he could test the quality of his discs. You told him in no uncertain terms nobody can measure the quality of a disc. I, on the other hand, maintain that while testing a disc for quality is not an exact science, anyone can test a disc for quality and obtain results which are still a very good indication as to the quality of the disc (as long as you're using a drive which reports errors etc). You do it, I do it and everyone else in this thread has done it. Except for Dogway of course, because you've told him he can't.
Maybe you're simply incapable of understanding this alternative viewpoint, or maybe you really don't agree with it, but either way you've offered nothing to prove it's not correct.