Bad Memorex D/Ls

[bongoman31]

I know the refrain, "Use good media, Verbatim is best, etc." but seems like they are all Riteks anymore. I've had ok results over the last few years using various brands of double layers; but a few weeks ago I bought 25 Memorex D/L s from Office Depot. 2 out of 4 failed, giving me an odd error in ImgBurn after only a few seconds of starting. They were then coasters. Today I exchanged them, hoping that I would get a new batch or whatever. But the first one failed again. Is anyone else noticing this? and how does a major company stay in business selling crap? (i've burned enough disks to be 99.9% sure it's crap media.)

[setarip_old]

I can only tell you that the last 400 or so D/L discs that I've burned have been Memorex, purchased from either the online resurrected CompUSA or NewEgg. If I had 3 disc-problem failures (as opposed to my own stupidity), that would be a lot.

On the other hand, I cannot suggest strongly enough that you burn at 2.4X or 4X ONLY, regardless of the indicated 8X capability...

[laserfan]

Is anyone else noticing this? and how does a major company stay in business selling crap? (i've burned enough disks to be 99.9% sure it's crap media.)
The first 3-pack of Memorex DL discs that I bought many years ago (5 or more maybe) were all coasters, but recently I tried them again and they've been perfect; not one coaster. So your problem is likely a burner that doesn't like these particular discs, or the speed at which you are burning them.

FWIW I use an LG burner.

[Ghitulescu]

I know the refrain, "Use good media, Verbatim is best, etc." but seems like they are all Riteks anymore.

Ask yetanotherid to give you the source for his phaenomenal Verbatims (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1471785#post1471785).

And despite all other opinions, use the setarip_old's advice, never burn a DL at its max. speed, but at 4x or 2.4x. And try to find Verbetims MIS, they still float around, they are better than those MIT.

[bongoman31]

Thanks for feedback. I am using LG burner as well, at 4x. I will try right now to burn at 2.4x and see if it makes any difference.

[Ghitulescu]

My LG 10N (IDE version) burns those Verbatim DL (MIS) at 4x better than my Plextor at 4x.

[hello_hello]

My LG 10N (IDE version) burns those Verbatim DL (MIS) at 4x better than my Plextor at 4x.

How do you know? Did you test them for quality?? :D
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1486978&highlight=quality#post1486978

[Ghitulescu]

How do you know? Did you test them for quality?? :D
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1486978&highlight=quality#post1486978

They have lower PI/Po, which I measure according to my own possibilities (Plextor), not according to the standards. I said better, I didn't qualify any of them, like people say eg 95%. My 95% are not other persons' 95%, thus the idea of quality measurements is doomed. Or everyone should spend 20000+$ to get a Datarius and only then we'll talk about quality, reproductibility, comparisons and Nostradamus.

[hello_hello]

They have lower PI/Po, which I measure according to my own possibilities (Plextor), not according to the standards.

It still sounds like a quality measurement to me, whether it's measured by the "official" standard, or by some standard you've invented for yourself. Obviously by stating one burner burns to the discs in question better than another you've found a way to measure the quality of each burn, which has in turn allowed you to assess their quality, even if it's only a quality relative to each other rather than to an "official standard". Therefore, you've checked the discs for quality.

Unless of course you're using a definition of better which has no relationship to quality? If so, what definition of better were you using?

I said better, I didn't qualify any of them, like people say eg 95%.

I never accused you of qualifying anything with a percentage score. I was just pointing out you'd obviously checked your discs for quality despite having recently told a forum member it's not possible for him to test his older discs, even though he was obviously asking how to check them in the same way you, I and everyone else checks theirs.

My 95% are not other persons' 95%, thus the idea of quality measurements is doomed. Or everyone should spend 20000+$ to get a Datarius and only then we'll talk about quality, reproductibility, comparisons and Nostradamus.

No your 95% might be another persons 90%, or 98%, depending on the hardware and software used etc, but they're all still a measurement of quality, even if it's not an exact science.

Edit: Anyway, I won't take the thread further off-topic by continuing to argue the semantics of what disc quality actually means. You obviously have some strict definition of quality which allows you to tell another forum member they can't check their own discs for quality (probably I suspect, through some need to appear clever rather than to be helpful) while you happily check your own discs for quality in order to compare them. I'll let you have the last say.

[hello_hello]

I've had ok results over the last few years using various brands of double layers; but a few weeks ago I bought 25 Memorex D/L s from Office Depot. 2 out of 4 failed, giving me an odd error in ImgBurn after only a few seconds of starting. They were then coasters.

Have you used the same Memorex discs in the past?
Even though others have said they can successfully burn to those blanks using an LG burner it may well depend on the model of the burner or even the firmware of the burner.

It's times such as those when it's handy to have more than one type of burner as then you don't automatically tend to blame the media. You can at least try the discs using another drive first. Try updating the burner's firmware if possible.

[Ghitulescu]

It still sounds like a quality measurement to me, whether it's measured by the "official" standard, or by some standard you've invented for yourself. Obviously by stating one burner burns to the discs in question better than another you've found a way to measure the quality of each burn, which has in turn allowed you to assess their quality, even if it's only a quality relative to each other rather than to an "official standard". Therefore, you've checked the discs for quality.

Unless of course you're using a definition of better which has no relationship to quality? If so, what definition of better were you using?



I never accused you of qualifying anything with a percentage score. I was just pointing out you'd obviously checked your discs for quality despite having recently told a forum member it's not possible for him to test his older discs, even though he was obviously asking how to check them in the same way you, I and everyone else checks theirs.



No your 95% might be another persons 90%, or 98%, depending on the hardware and software used etc, but they're all still a measurement of quality, even if it's not an exact science.

Edit: Anyway, I won't take the thread further off-topic by continuing to argue the semantics of what disc quality actually means. You obviously have some strict definition of quality which allows you to tell another forum member they can't check their own discs for quality (probably I suspect, through some need to appear clever rather than to be helpful) while you happily check your own discs for quality in order to compare them. I'll let you have the last say.

No, you can't say this is quality measurement, when exactly the same disc has 93% quality index for one person and 98% for another.

I assume the other members know what I'm saying, and I'll repeat again (for the xth time): as long as one uses exactly the same testing and assessing procedure, that one can compare his/her own values, internally. In this respect one can order the discs according to whatever parameters s/he may want (PI, PO), so Verbatim is better (but not on NECs), Optodisk is bad (but not on LGs), sort of things. It makes no sense to "publish" or to "import" the values, unless exactly the same procedure has been followed. Plextools/kprobe/speedisk/scandisk and so on are "poor man's quality assessment tools" and their use is restricted. On the other hand, quality is defined in ECMA as a simple FAIL/PASS issue (one single FAIL suffices for REJECT). As long as there's a standard, why not reporting to it?

[hello_hello]

I assume the other members know what I'm saying, and I'll repeat again (for the xth time):

No need. I got it the first time. Also the second time, the third time and the xth time too. Checking for quality isn't an exact science using a normal drive and the usual software. Yet for some reason we all do it. Why didn't you explain it that way in the first place instead of simply telling a poster in no uncertain terms he can't check the quality of his older discs?

No, you can't say this is quality measurement, when exactly the same disc has 93% quality index for one person and 98% for another.

Did I mention I understand it's not an exact science, just in case you feel the need to repeat it again?

You're basically arguing nobody can measure a length of time unless they have an atomic clock. I'm arguing anyone can measure a length of time with their watch as long as the nearest second is good enough. When you've got something which shows the average drive can't measure quality to the nearest second or two, and the nearest second or two isn't good enough, then you might have a case for telling a poster he can't measure the quality of his discs. Until then, it seems like it's just academic advice to make yourself feel clever.

Plextools/kprobe/speedisk/scandisk and so on are "poor man's quality assessment tools" and their use is restricted....
.....As long as there's a standard, why not reporting to it?

Were you answering your own question?

And yes I feel weak for letting myself get drawn back into this nonsense again.

[setarip_old]

@Ghitulescu, @yetanotherid, @hello_hello

I'm far too old to have to pick through posts in threads in which you both/all have chosen to participate, in order to determine which I should read because they are ON TOPIC and of interest to me - versus those that you've posted in some pseudo-macho effort in OFF TOPIC one-upsmanship.

"Bongoman's" topic was fully addressed in Posts #1 through 5.

Please be a bit more considerate.

Thank you

[hello_hello]

"Bongoman's" topic was fully addressed in Posts #1 through 5.

So what's the problem?
We were having a discussion, and three days later there's still no longer any on-topic posts for your arthritic scrolling finger to scroll though.

[setarip_old]

@hello_hello

You today: We were having a discussion



You on 4/07: Anyway, I won't take the thread further off-topic by continuing to argue the semantics...
And yes I feel weak for letting myself get drawn back into this nonsense again.

I've made a courteous request. I would have expected a similarly courteous response.

Bye...