1+ Year Old Media Results

Hi,

Some of you guys may be interested in the ~40 before and after scans from 1+ year old media I posted at CDRLabs :wink:

Very interesting - excellent job!

After looking through those scans I would say that most discs show no degradation at all, and a few show so little difference that it’s not clear whether it’s minor degradation or just scanning variations.

The only disc that clearly shows degradation IMO is a Verbatim MCC 02RG20 in this post:

[/left]

Thanks :smiley:

In general, I would agree with you, most of my media is doing very, very well. The exceptions to this would be Prodisc-made Verbatim MCC02RG20 which seems to be aging very inconsistantly, and some Taiyo Yuden (that is also aging somewhat inconsistantly - albeit nowhere near as bad as the Verbatims) that is showing increased PIE at the beginning or end of the disc.

Specifically, I am concerned about this , this , this , this , and this.

Based on my findings, I have completely ruled out using anything made by Prodisc for long term use.

Honorable mentions go to RICOHJPNR01/02 and MAXELL002 for performing consistantly well. I was also a bit surprised at how well the Sony did, considering how much data I’ve seen that would indicate possible lifespan issues.

All those links take me to the top of the same thread. Peeking at the urls and trying to count my way through the thread also gets me to some posts that I think are the wrong ones. :confused:

[Off-topic]
Perhaps it will help once my registration at CDRLabs is verified and I can login instead of visiting as a guest?!

Hrm, for me, those links show the post that I’m trying to specify as the first post. Perhaps my method of linking to posts is less than optimal :stuck_out_tongue: I wish phpBB had a more concrete way of linking to individual posts, much like vBulletin.

I can tell you this though, the posts I’m trying to link to are the 7th, 11th, 13th, 16th, and 20th posts in that thread, respectively.

Your 7th post: PIE has doubled. This could be degradation mainly coming from the hub, but I have on rare occasions seen re-scans on the same drive on the same day showing similar variations (i.e. doubling of PIE).

Your 11th post: Looks to be within normal scanning variation to me.

Your 13th post: A slight increase of PIE at the outer edge. Hard to say whether this is scanning variation or degradation.

Your 16th post: Looks like only a slight scanning variation to me?!

Your 20th post: Are you sure you mean 20th? There’s very little difference.

EDIT: We’re not referring to the same discs here, so my comments above make no sense whatsoever! :doh:

See my post #8 below instead.

Hrm… I’m not sure we’re talking about the same discs :disagree: I’ve assigned every disc a number starting at 001 and going up to 039 so we can more easily reference discs from now on :slight_smile:

[B]Disc # 006:[/B] I’m a little concerned about signifigant increase of PIE at the end of the disc (relative to original scan of course; 30 PIE isn’t going to cause any readability issues :p). My concern is that this mound will only grow much bigger in the coming years, and it looks to me like it caused be caused by oxidization or a similar problem. I reall can’t see this increased PIEs as a result of scan variation, considering it was performed on the same drive with same firmware, and considering how consistant BenQ scanners have been in my experience.

[B]Disc # 010:[/B] My concern is the same as above, because the only real difference is that this time the degradation is occuring from the hub inwards. I think this would be consistant with oxidization caused by less than optimal hub bonding which is a known Taiyo Yuden problem.

[B]Disc # 012:[/B] PIEs have nearly doubled, with alot of the increase concentrated on the beginning of the disc. I would have a really hard time accepting that such a large increase is the result of scan variation.

[B]Disc # 015:[/B] This disc is just terrible. PIEs have more than quadrupled to the point where they’re getting close to 280! I give this disc only a couple years to live maximum! :a

[B]Disc # 019:[/B] PIE have nearly doubled like disc #10, although this time they seem to be spread out more evenly. Still, this is a signifigant increase as far as I’m concerned, and once again I just can’t see scan variation explaining such a sizeable difference.

Cheers.

This discusion is of scans posted by [buck] here at CDRLabs.

Thanks! That should put an end to the confusion. :doh: :o

Disc # 006: I’m a little concerned about signifigant increase of PIE at the end of the disc (relative to original scan of course; 30 PIE isn’t going to cause any readability issues :p). My concern is that this mound will only grow much bigger in the coming years, and it looks to me like it caused be caused by oxidization or a similar problem. I reall can’t see this increased PIEs as a result of scan variation, considering it was performed on the same drive with same firmware, and considering how consistant BenQ scanners have been in my experience.
Perhaps you’re right. If I had to find an alternative explanation, it’s possible that the disc wasn’t perfectly balanced in the drive when you made your recent scan which would be most visible at the outer edge. It’s a longshot, but it’s not impossible. A second scan (starting at 3500 MB to save time) would clear that up.

Disc # 010: My concern is the same as above, because the only real difference is that this time the degradation is occuring from the hub inwards. I think this would be consistant with oxidization caused by less than optimal hub bonding which is a known Taiyo Yuden problem.
PIE has doubled. This could be degradation mainly coming from the hub, but I have on rare occasions seen re-scans on the same drive on the same day showing similar variations (i.e. doubling of PIE).

Disc # 012: PIEs have nearly doubled, with alot of the increase concentrated on the beginning of the disc. I would have a really hard time accepting that such a large increase is the result of scan variation.
A second scan performed in a cool drive would probably confirm or deny the scanning variation as the cause.

Disc # 015: This disc is just terrible. PIEs have more than quadrupled to the point where they’re getting close to 280! I give this disc only a couple years to live maximum! :a
I would worry about that disc too!
Actually, come to think of it, no I wouldn’t. I would just re-burn the d*mn thing!

Disc # 019: PIE have nearly doubled like disc #10, although this time they seem to be spread out more evenly. Still, this is a signifigant increase as far as I’m concerned, and once again I just can’t see scan variation explaining such a sizeable difference.
I have on rare occasions seen re-scans on the same drive on the same day showing similar variations. Again I suggest performing a second scan in a cool drive to rule out scanning variation as the explanation.

I am of course assuming that the disc surfaces were completely clean when you performed those scans, or all bets are off.

I can only rescan it my DW1640 & DW1650 because I only borrowed what was formerly my DW1620 from my dad for a week to do these tests :stuck_out_tongue: If the DW1640 & DW1650 show the increase too, I’d be very comfortable in saying that it does actually “exist”.

PIE has doubled. This could be degradation mainly coming from the hub, but I have on rare occasions seen re-scans on the same drive on the same day showing similar variations (i.e. doubling of PIE).

Hrm… this would be a time when having the DW1620 on hand would be of use… still though, I’ll try a DW1640 scan and see what happens.

A second scan performed in a cool drive would probably confirm or deny the scanning variation as the cause.

Well I can say this, most of the original scans would have been scanned immediately after burning without any time for the disc or drive to cool down, but most of the rescans would have been done on a cool or just warm drive :wink:

I would worry about that disc too!
Actually, come to think of it, no I wouldn’t. I would just re-burn the d*mn thing!

Already done. :iagree: Of course, I won’t throw out this disc either because it will be interesting to see how it ages from this point on :iagree:

I have on rare occasions seen re-scans on the same drive on the same day showing similar variations. Again I suggest performing a second scan in a cool drive to rule out scanning variation as the explanation.

Again, I’ll try scanning in a DW1640, although this won’t be terribly scientific :frowning:

I am of course assuming that the disc surfaces were completely clean when you performed those scans, or all bets are off.

This is something I’m very careful about. I probably used a whole can of canned air making sure every disc was impeccable :slight_smile:

This thread originally started as a discussion in another thread, and the relevant posts have now been moved here.

    • Thread Split * *

Well… it looks like I may have been wrong. :stuck_out_tongue: Attached is a DW1640 scan, and DW1650, a DW1640 transfer rate test, and a DW1650 transfer rate test.

As you can see, the DW1650 scan is more or less in line with the DW1620 scan (found at CDRLabs), but the DW1640 scan hints at something much more sinister :Z The TRTs would seem to back up the DW1640’s interpretation.

Now, of course it’s [I]possible[/I] this huge readability problem could have existed from the start, but considering the rise is PIE is precisely where the readibility problems occur, I don’t think it’s very likely.

[B]DrageMester[/B]: as for the other scans, I tried scanning them in the DW1640, and the results are inconclusive. Often, the results were better than even the original scan. I’m going to have to see if I can get the DW1620 back for a few more tests, but it may be a while before that happens :sad:

The transfer tests look pretty bad, but I disagree with your implied conclusion that the PIE causes the bad TRT. This is putting causality on its head or at least sideways.

PIE/PIF don’t cause bad transfer tests - some problem with the disc causes PIE/PIF and/or bad TRT. Sometimes only PIE/PIF is affected, sometimes only TRT is affected, and sometimes both are affected.

Now, of course it’s possible this huge readability problem could have existed from the start, but considering the rise is PIE is precisely where the readibility problems occur, I don’t think it’s very likely.
So you don’t have any Read Transfer tests from when the disc was burned?

DrageMester: as for the other scans, I tried scanning them in the DW1640, and the results are inconclusive. Often, the results were better than even the original scan. I’m going to have to see if I can get the DW1620 back for a few more tests, but it may be a while before that happens :sad:
No sweat. Don’t do it for my sake - do it only if you’re interested enough yourself to do it.
But please show us the new tests if you decide to do them! :slight_smile:

I was kind of joking… I don’t actually think 30 PIE is causing any readability issues, but more along the lines of some parameter that likely can’t be measured by consumer scanners is giving the drives a hard time…

PIE/PIF don’t cause bad transfer tests - some problem with the disc causes PIE/PIF and/or bad TRT. Sometimes only PIE/PIF is affected, sometimes only TRT is affected, and sometimes both are affected.

I completely agree - I was oversimplying a bit. Still, I am very comfortable in attributing these problems to degradation - not initial burn quality.

So you don’t have any Read Transfer tests from when the disc was burned?

That’s correct :doh: I never intended to use those scans for measuring degradation, but more along the lines of having a little initial burn quality database of sorts. That’s why :doh: