755 Review (by HWP)

I'm still debating wheter to chance to 1.4 firmware. I'm using TYG02's (Panasonic branded) and i'm not getting as good results as you HWP (very good but not as excellent - tho not far off). I've noticed the previous TYG02 you did were not with Panasonic branded discs.

How do you think the 1.4 burning compares on TYG02's?

Imation 700MB 52x (Moser Baer India Type 6)
PX-755a, FW 1.04
Burn speed 48x CAV, no slowdown

Compared to PX-760 FW 1.03: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=18

C1/C2, Beta/Jitter scans:

---

Last edited by hwp; 19-06-2006 at 19:31.

Media: DVD-R 4.7GB 8x Taiyo Y. silver printable (xmediatrade.com)
Mediacode: TYG02
Burner: Plextor 755 FW 1.04
Burnspeed possible: 8x
Burnspeed selected: 8x
PR: ON
AS: Auto
Burning Software: ImgBurn v1.3.0.0

That's the way a-ha a-ha I like it
First burn on this media with fw 1.04.

Media: DVD-R 4.7GB 8x Taiyo Y. silver printable (xmediatrade.com)
Mediacode: TYG02
Burner: Plextor 755 FW 1.04
Burnspeed possible: 8x
Burnspeed selected: 8x
PR: ON
AS: OFF
Burning Software: ImgBurn v1.3.0.0

Why TYG/MCC is always used? These medias are good. That is well-known.

Many more would be interest how PX-716/755/760 NoName-DVD Medias like.

Why would you buy an expensive drive and then feed it with cheap no-name DVD media? I wouldn't!

Keep those scans of high quality media coming!

I bought the Plex just for fun...wanted to know if their drives are still worth the money...
So here's the answer: they are worth it
The Plex 755 gives me constant high quality, much more constant than my Benqs do.

@FlYeRoNe:
Sorry, but I only have to types of media:
verbatim mcc004 and TYG02
I don't trust any other manufacturer...

She perhaps not, but I in any case.

Finally each burner on mark DVDs burns perfectly. There I do not need to make Scan of.

The quality of a DVD-Burners can be judged however well, with scan's by NoName DVDs. Depending on these results it is possible to see how good the burner and the firmware really is.

Unforunately that is not entirely true. Most drives will do well with with the 'big' brands but still there is a variance and some only produce mediocre results and some even fail. Therefore the handling of top quality media is a good indicator for the quality fo a drive. This is especially true a high speeds.

Yes and No. While it may be an impressive feature that a drive can produce a low error burn on low quality media, the feature remains utterly pointless, since such low quality media usually 'self destruct' after a few months, sometimes even weeks or days.

As for the rest: There are tests of lower quality media in this thread, but tests no utter low quality media (sorry, just not worth the effort). Also this thread is for collecting the results of my tests. Please keep discussions out of it and/or message me privately if you have (longer) comments.

Imation +R 16x (Philips C16 01)
PX-755a, FW 1.04
AS: Auto (did create strategy)
Selected Burn speed 16x, PoweRec decided on a 6-12x P-CAV strategy, slowed down to 8x and finished 12x (see writing graph). A 12x strategy was created by AS.

Comparison to a AS burn with FW 1.02: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...33&postcount=8

TA-Test says: Good, not good, bad (peak shift). Good but not spectacular burn IMHO. No readback problems for the 716. Slighly better Beta and Jitter and readback compared to FW 1.02, but then the writing curve was more conservative from the beginning.

Writing, Burst, Sum1, Beta/Jitter, Read (716) scans:

Seems to be a little better. Especially the read graph.

Super hwp, at last another media. And not always only MCC or TY.

And the result is even good. More of that ask.

Memorex +R 16x (CMC Mag M01 00)
PX-755a, FW 1.04
AS: Auto (did create strategy)
Burn speed 16x CAV, no slowdown

Compared to an AS burn with FW 1.02: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...17&postcount=7 . Slightly higher PIE values but readback problems with the 716 are gone and the problem with the jump in Beta @3.2GB is now better under control.

TA-Test says: good, not good, not good.

Burst, Sum1, Beta/Jitter, Read (716) scans:

Sony 700MB 48x (Sony Type 6)
PX-755a, FW 1.04
Burn speed 48x CAV, no slowdown

Comparison to PX-760 FW 1.03: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...2&postcount=31

Earlier tests of Sony where older media that where rated 40x only. Some C2 errors.

C1/C2, Beta/Jitter, Read scans:

CMC Magnetics -R 16x (CMC MAG AM3) as sold by Philips (labelled made in Taiwan)
PX-755a, FW 1.04
AS: Auto (did create 16x strategy)
Burn speed selected 16x CAV, fell back to 12x P-CAV, partial slowdown to 8x as per writing graph below.

Compared to an AS burn with PX-760a FW 1.03 (but with different writing curve): http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=28

Pretty good result. TA-Test says: good, good, good. Some readback problems for the 716. Reads fine in the 755.

Writing, Burst, Sum1, Beta/Jitter, Read (755, 716) scans:

PlexEraser / PX-755 FW 1.04

Originally the PlexEraser fuction could only handle single layer discs but Plextor had announced it would be able to handle DL discs by fimware update later on. I Just tried and a "full" erase of a DL disc is achieved in 5:39.

Sony +R 16x (Sony D21 00)
PX-755a, FW 1.04
AS: AUTO (did create 16x strategy)
Burn speed 16x CAV, no slowdown

Compared to 755a with FW 1.02: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...6&postcount=66
Compared to 760a with FW 1.03: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=49

Good burn. TA-Test says good 3/3, excellent 5/5, very good 4/5.

Writing, Burst, Sum1, Beta/Jitter, Read (755 and 716) scans:

Taiyo Yuden Type 1 700MB 48x as sold by Plextor
PX-755a, FW 1.05
Burn speed 48x CAV, no slowdown

Compared to FW 1.02: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.p...45&postcount=10
Compared to FW 1.04: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=101

No more C2 errors. A bit less C1 errors.

C1/C2, Beta/Jitter, Read (755)scans:

Sony 700MB 48x (Sony Type 6)
PX-755a, FW 1.05
Burn speed 48x CAV, no slowdown

Comparison to FW 1.04: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=139

Still some C2 errors.

C1/C2, Beta/Jitter scans:

TDK 800MB 40x (TDK Type 5)
PX-755a, FW 1.05
Burn speed 48x CAV, no slowdown

Very good burn. Compared to a burn with FW 1.02: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...4&postcount=92

Writing, C1/C2, Beta/Jitter, Read (755) scans:

EMTEC 700MB 40x CDR (MPO Type 7)
PX-755a, FW 1.05
Burn speed 48x CAV, no slowdown

Compared to a burn with FW 1.02 http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...1&postcount=81 there are no more C2 errors.

Writing, C1/C2/CU, Beta/Jitter, Read (755) scans:

TDK 700MB 48x (Ritek Type 7)
PX-755a, FW 1.05
Burn speed 4x CLV, no slowdown

Compared to a burn with FW 1.02 http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=85 there are no more C2 errors at the end.

C1/C2, Beta/Jitter:

CMC Magnetics -R 16x (CMC MAG AM3) as sold by Philips (labelled made in Taiwan)
PX-755a, FW 1.05
AS: Auto (did create 16x strategy)
Burn speed selected 16x CAV, slowdown as per writing graph.

Compared to an AS burn with PX-755a FW 1.04: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=140
Compared to an AS burn with PX-760a FW 1.04: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...8&postcount=59

Good burn. TA-Test says: very good 4/4 across the disk.

Writing, Burst, Sum1, Beta/Jitter scans:

Infomedia +R 16x (INFOME R30 00) as sold by Philips (labelled made in Taiwan)
PX-755a, FW 1.05
AS: Auto (did create strategy)
Burn speed 16x CLV, slowdown to 12x as in writing-graph.

Compared to an AS burn in the PX-760 with FW 1.04: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.ph...9&postcount=58

TA-Test says very good across the disc 5/4, 5/4, 5/4. Basically a very good burn that get's ruined by the slowdown at the end where 5 POF @4.26GB position are registered. BTW this is the first time i got POF and therefore a coaster form my PX-755.

Writing, Burst, Sum1, Beta/Jitter scans:

---

Last edited by hwp; 15-12-2008 at 11:56.

I wonder how the cdfreaks review in the reviews section managed to burn Verbatim 52x CD-Rs with such an execellent result (0.51 C1 average and a max. of 8). I re-scanned my Verbatim 52x CD-R burn with the 755 using PlexTools and the result was a catastrophy: 4.1(!) average and a max. of 25 . I burned with PowerRec off, because in EMC9 PowerRec suggested a speed of 32x, but the cdfreaks review was a 48x burn. And this is the strangest thing of all by the way. How could PowerRec suggest a write speed without "looking" at the disc before suggesting and burning???