I have included two examples here but this pattern runs across many more discs, both in brand and media id. The scan starts out with a peak at the very beginning, rapidly dropping to sub 20s until just before the 2GB mark where it shoots way up…sometimes way over 200 if it’s crap media. Then it gradually drops back down to reasonable levels towards the end of the disc. I’ve looked at some other scans posted recently and they are FAR better than mine. Typical focus tests done on unwritten media show two closely entwining lines between 10 and 20 on the Y axis, with a squarish spike in TE right where the PI scans skyrocket. I wonder if the drive on its way out because it seems like the laser is losing focus once the angular velocity passes a certain point.
I’ve tried various combinations of write speeds and powerec settings, and the differences were negligible. The pattern remains constant, worse or better depending on write speed and breed of media, but they all have reading issues on both the plextor and other drives. Should I be considering a new drive or am I just unlucky with my batch of MCC004? (yes I know the prodisc fuji stuff is crapola).
The 716 IMHO is only an average reader. Have a look here http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=167499 , where good burns (PI/PO-wise) done by a 755 are read at full speed in the same 755 but where the 716 used to test in comparison has to slow down in one way or another. It also shows very nicely that low error values do not necessarily mean a good disc. Another example for reading capability is this: Since PowerRec reads back in realtime to check the burning result the average reading capabilities often lead to speed drops in writing, even if the scans afterwards show that there was no problem in writing, at least according to the errors shown.
IMHO the 716 can produce very good burns at 16x speed but it imperatively needs absolutely first rate media to do so. With any other media one is very much better off by selecting slower speeds. In any case the average reading capabilities may slow down the 716 on media that are basically ok.
I’d try other media first. The 716 seems to like +R a little better than -R. Try some other batch of Verbatims (basically a good choice) or try to get Taiyo Yudens or Sony made media. Sony -R 16x was one of the few media my 716 would write at full 16x speed without having to slow down, which testyfies good mechanical media quality. Also you might want to inquire about the reading capabilites of those ‘other drives’ that have reading problems. One might assume a problem if they’re all known as excellent readers, but there are few drives out there that really deserve that status.
Interestingly enough, I don’t think powerec kicked in during any of the burns were it was enabled. I assumed this from reading the log in plextools pro and in nero (Which iirc mentions whether powerec was triggered during the burn). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in this.
I read through that thread, and I noticed that a lot of your burns are showing POF errors? (the brown spikes in plextools) Those ARE POF errors, correct? Is this because the 755 reads the discs back much faster during checking or do I not have something configured right here? I never got those spikes during scans, with good or bad PIE.
Well, for kicks, I burned a virgin RICOHJPN W21 ridata 8x DVD+RW disc and got this result burned at 6x. 8x on other (virgin) W21s started out looking like 6x burns until ~700MB, then the PIE skyrocketed up over 1000. http://home.comcast.net/~orez-bus/RICOHJPNW21-6x.jpg
While not great, it seems above avg for an +RW. I noted that that ‘hump’ around 2GB is not present. Perhaps it’s due to write speed? I also burned an MCC004 at 8x and it was a perfect burn (mostly sub 10PIE and no POF/files copy back@full speed), which is why I asked whether my drive was failing. It’s a few years old, but I haven’t burned THAT many discs with it. The best Qcheck TA test score I’ve gotten with any of the discs I’ve burned in the last week has been good-good-good. Most were worse than that.
The read tests were done on other computers I’ve got access to. I didn’t do any analysis scans, I just copied the data to the hd while listening for drive ‘distress.’ One machine was a dell 600m laptop witha dvd/cdrw ‘combo’ drive (dvd-reader only). Another was an apple powerbook with dvd writer. They both had trouble reading back the discs. At the very least, they kicked down to slower speeds with lots of reseeking halfway through, and with some of the worst discs, the drives gave up entirely. The ultrabad burns had PIEs around 400-500 between 1.5 and 2.5GB. No POF. The discs that merely slowed the drives had scans close to the ones I linked to in my 1st post.
I guess I approached the burn quality test from the opposite point of view. If a burn can be read well by the majority of drives, then it’s a good burn. if lots of drives have issues with it, it’s perhaps not so good even if it burns/scans well on a known good writer and reader. Is this a bad assertion to make?
Anyway, I’ll grab some +R yudens and see what I get. Which MID would you suggest for the 716? 02 or 03? If I have the same issues with these I’ve had with the others, what would you assume? I’ve been eying the 760a and possibly the pioneer 111 as possible replacements should it be the drive.
No, those are PO[B]E[/B]. None of my scans there have PO[B]F[/B], unless it’s explicitly mentioned in the text. There is PIE/PIF and POE/POF. While a single POF is fatal, all others are OK as long as they stay within limits. You’ll need to do a BURST scan (instead of a SUM8) in Plextools to check for POE.
8x RW is best avoided because it doesn’t really work. There are one or two exeptions to this rule but finding the drive/media combination that miraculously works is not really worth the trouble.
IMHO it’s an assertion that is part of the ‘package’ when evaluation the quality of a disc. Good discs show low errors when scanned and read back fast, medium quality discs have either higher error rates or read back slowly and bad quality ones have high error rates and read back sowly or not at all.
Doesn’t really make a difference IMHO. But with the T02 respect the 8x certification and with the T03 limit your burns to 12x for better quality. They should be virtually the same at 8x.
It’s hard to say if there really is a defect. Drives are calibrated in factory and there is always a bit of variance from unit to unit. It could just be that yours is a bit ‘off’. If it’s just that, then there is little that one can really do (burning slower is probably the only thing). For example i have both a 760 and a 755. My 755 seems to like DL media a little better than my 760. Might be, that the Laser-Pickup in my 760 is just a bit off when it comes to DL.
I’d propose you try to get some Yuden and do a full suite of scans and post the results here. Then we’ll be able to tell you more.
I’ve heard some very positive feedback from 111 owners. Myself i’m satisfied with the 760 so far.
Well, I tried to burn some CD-Rs with it today, and it would die halfway through burns or simply create a solid mass of C2 errors about halfway through the disc. Tried some taiyo and some old prodisc fuji prodisc crap I had laying around… It can still read pressed discs, but it’s obvious it’s struggling, so I’m going to assume the drive is dead. It’s old, but it’s too bad since I haven’t burned that many discs with it (under 100). Anyway, thanks for your help with everything.