Post your worst media scans here!

Please post Your worst CD/DVD quality scans here. This is my Esperanza DVD+R (AML 001) scan after 11 months of laying in closet, DVD barley used:

HOLY SH!!! my worst dual layer; 'tuffdisc' - RITEK D01;

Rescan that same dvd, only change your scan speed to 5X. That will give a more realistic scan from your NEC drive.

---

Last edited by Wizzu; 18-04-2006 at 15:10.

Realistic? What do you mean?

'Standard" scanning speeds are useful to compare scans, but when it's awful, it's awful! 8X, 5X or 12X or 16X, even 1X will all be awful!

***Thread moved to the blank media root section***

Wasn't there some guy on here in the Bargain basement bragging about how AML was almost on par with TY?

Its not me, and im not saying AML is on par with TY. Far from it.

But i get some great results with AML 002 media. Never tried 001 though

Sugarmommyst, IIRC (yes, I have a very long memory, and too much time on my hands ).

I'd post my worst scan now, but it will have to wait for the uploads to come back up.

Yo-

The absolute worst scan I have personally seen was with Taiyo Yuden 4x -R media on my LG 4167 here:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...46&postcount=8


Mike

Oh...my ...God

Saying that, haven't there been posts about the 4167 with TYG01? I'm sure other members have had similar experiences...

The maximum possible PIE/PIF value is 1664 PIE / 208 PIF when scanning at 8/1 ECC (unless the drive reports incorrectly).

So there's still room for a worse scan - but not much room.

You mean like this?

---

Last edited by Wizzu; 19-04-2006 at 16:43.

wow, franck, it looks like you did it in some graphic software

Yeah, I know - several causes to this:
1. It's a quick scan (50 samples) so the error figures are shaped differently than in a "normal" scan.
2. It's a NEC scan, and NEC drives report PIE in a very strange way (not complying with the theory of max. 1664 PIEs, like DrageMester mentioned)
3. It's a G05

I don't think I can re-scan this disc, it's probably unreadable now. I think I still have it somewhere in the basement, among the 10-12 spindles of G05/G04 that I had to re-burn last year (and that I kept out of curiosity - degradation rate - testing purposes). I'll check.

P.S. Long time no see, Sonoluca - nice to have you back!

It's indeed unreadable, but still "scannable"...

No way to calculate any "room for improvement ( ) here": Benq scans don't include PIF levels in PIE levels like LiteOn drives and CATS do, so they'll never report averages of 1664 (the high spikes are glitches, as it's often been demonstrated). One has to add PIE and PIF to get the "real" PIE levels in Benq scans. But honestly, when a scan looks like this, who cares..

*LOL*

This is not great



BTW anyone recognise the MID?

Well, I didn't burn this one, but this is the worst disc I've scanned. Burnt with a rebadged AOPEN (Microadvantage something)

CMC MAG E01

Yes, the 4167B (DL11 and above) have a problem with TYG01. DL10 was ok but isn't available for download anywhere. It seems LG sacrificed 4x burn compatibility for better 8x and 16x burns with those later versions of firmware.

RicohJPN R01 burned at 4x on BenQ 1620 with B7U9 firmware in May 2005:



No recent re-scan as disc was trashed. The only disc out of several hundred to burn this poorly, all the rest were acceptable.

Taiyo Yuden T01-01 burned at 4x on BenQ 1620 with B7W9 firmware in Febuary 2006:



Re-scanned a few days ago in a Lite-ON 1635S:



Again, another freak disc. Out of a total of 600 discs, only 2 have given results like this, all the rest were acceptable.

You said acceptable and not excellent, so I believe that it was the QC slipping or your burner doesn't have the right strategy. Time for firmware downgrade!

VDSP-SAB 01 sounds like Vanguard to me.

A note on that scan, the combination of bad burner and very high jitter is the likely reason for the horrible scan, once jitter levels reach around 12% Benqs will start reporting very high error levels, and the jitter is floating around 16% on the whole disc, which is the reason for the horrific scan. In a Liteon you'd likely see far lower reported errors, although jitter that high is likely to effect even the ability of the Liteon. In contrast, my E01 disc I burned yesterday has a jitter average of 7.1%. Friends don't let friends buy crappy burners.

This isn't my worst scan, those belong to a few of my old Princos that kicked the bucket but I'll hold off on posting another typical bad scan. Here's a scan of a SKC disc, it gets a little more creative with the errors. I have one batch of these that burn decently, but every single disc in another spindle has the same pleasant Quasimodo-like hump of errors around 3.5GB. They work fair if you are only burning 3000MB.

TLO, you should have been scanning at 8x on the Benq, not max (you probably know that by now, but I figured I'd mention it). And just as with the E01 scan I mentioned in my other post, high jitter really killed that R01 of yours Actually, I see a trend with both of your bad scans where the jitter and error levels start out fine at the very beginning of the disc, but then both skyrocket. Probably just a freak thing where your burner acted up.

You'd be right now about the whole 8x scanning speed issue with the current versions of Nero CD-DVD speed but on the older versions, selecting Maximum speed results in 8x scanning speed on the BenQ (from what i can see), just look at the end speed.

As for the Jitter and BenQ peculiarities to high amounts of it, that is why I posted a scan done on a Lite-ON to prove it wasn't the problem with the scan results on the BenQ. I would have done the same for the Ricoh disc but I no longer have it around.

Neither of the above , just to prove it, here are 2 scans of burns done in March 2006 on the above media which is pretty much the kind of results I usually achieve on those discs:

RicohJPN R01 at 4x:



TY T01 at 4x:



I only stated acceptable because different people have different standards for the discs they burn.

Yeah, clearly in that case even the scan in the Liteon is horrible, ultimately the R01 would probably end up with an equally bad scan no matter what you scanned it in.

P.S. - I forgot about the older versions scanning at 8x when set to max (not the first time either), when I see it set to 'max' I immediately think just that.