Aml: Dvd-r




I use this AML media. It was purchased at Comp USA in shrink wrapped stacks of 15.

So far I have burned 7 disc’s. All have been pristine and have played back w/o any flaws. Matter of fact they look more crisp than the orginal master that they were produced from.

Tell me (if you know) why they get such a poor rating?

I have not seen any data that shows why they are bad. In fact, the few people here that have posted scans of this media say it looks pretty good.

I do not use a burner on a computer. I use an Emerson Ewr10d4.

In looking through many forums, it appears that there is a compatibility issue with those who use burners on computers vs. set-top recorders.

Mostly people say, “my burner can’t read these so they are rubbish”. Wouldn’t that simply mean that the software (firmware) simply does not have the AML code? How then does that make this or any other media that can not be read junk media?

Like I said, there have been some that have run scans and found this media to be good.

What gives?

Just a guy who is new at this and I am trying to understand junk media statements. Anyone can say a brand name is the best, but sometimes that is not true.



better than original? your original must have lots of scratches. AML gets poor rating because the disc deteriate after a few months. You are just lucky that your player likes it, but for a media to pass a true test, it has to be able to play under many stand alone players, not just one or 2 players and the media have to withstand the test of time.


I hear that this media deteriorates over time, but I also here thats because alot of folks burn the media at a speed higher than it was meant to be burned, therefore, destroying the dye in the finalizing process. It will play a few times, but because it sits in the player which gets hot it causes it to die.

So far I’ve played them in 6 set-tops and they all work fine. (ge, sharp, kawasaki, toshiba,teac, symphonic)

My manual states that discs burned in an Emerson may not be playable in a Computer burner. Sounds like there is a compatibility issue with set tops and burners. That’d why its my observation that maybe its not the media but rather its the user pushing the media’s limits and/or a firmware/software issue.

Yes my movies are very old so the set-top somehow cleans them up a bit.



It also appears that AML is not an Infosmart product. Its made by AML Technology, which appears to be a Malaysian Company with facilities in Hong Kong.

AML Technology Sdn Bhd, CD Manufacturer."AML+Technology+Sdn+Bhd"


Matter of fact they look more crisp than the orginal master that they were produced from.

This is physically impossible with digital media.


GregRod AML discs are cheap and nasty, ive seen and tried a few out in the past all of them have had physical imperfections such as streaks and spots in the dye they just looked cheap they scan and play back poorly, if you want to use them then good luck you’ll need it :wink:


I’ve used 10 so far and I have not had any problems with streaks, pauses, or dye imperfections.

If you search this site you will find folks who have run scans and have also gotten good results. I am not trying to push these disc’s, but I continue to hear such bad things about them with others getting good results. It sounds contradictory.

Also, these AML’s have been tied to Infosmart discs and that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Just trying to get to the “actual reason” that these disc’s get knocked so badly other than random people saying…

“AML discs are cheap and nasty”
“AML suck”
“AML are one step above Infosmart AN31 and AN32 and that not saying much”.

Could someone give specifics for such poor ratings.

Seriously, the first 10 I’ve burned are crisp and have no problems.


I’ve yet to see any media sold under the CompUSA brand that is worth it’s price.

If you want evidence, just search the media test forums for AML and Princo, 2 common CompUSA makers.
Rest assured, your discs will be coasters in a year. But since you are unable to do any quality scans, you’ll never know till they stop working.

The quality of the media and/or the burn is not evident in the video that’s being saved. It’s just bits in a file and will look exactly the same on any disc that’s readable.

Stand alone DVD recorders tend to produce very good quality burns on most media, but that does not make crappy media into good media.



Define what makes them crappy.

I guess I don’t know what that means? Does it mean if a burner on a computer can not read the discs that they are crappy? In some cases it would mean that the software does not support the media. As for scans, I’ve seen them. I have no idea what the charts, graphs and waves mean and hardly any folks in that forum actually report what that stuff means.

I guess if I could read a test with 12 month data to support the claims that this is crappy media I would concur.

I’ve also read cmc magnetics is not good, but then I read that people have great scans with that stuff too. Sony is supposed to be great, but then I’ve seen people bash that too.

I mean its alot to try to figure out whats good because of brand, good low cost or actuall crappy. There are alot of contradictions on this and other sites.

I guess if you guys are right I will find out in 6months to a year.

As for the quality looking better on my burns, Its not matter of fact that it is better but for whatever the reason on certain video transfers it does look better.


DVD media has to be made with a very precise stamper (plastic disc) with very precisely applied dye layers and polycarbonate layers to seal it all up. Likewise, the dye itself has to be stable over time and also respond correctly to laser heat. Crappy media makers cut corners in all these areas, and one batch can be very different from the next. The disc may burn relatively well but degrade so quickly over time that that it’s useless in a few months or even weeks. Storage and handling can also affect this, but “garbage in, garbage out” is the rule.

Stand alone recorders burn at 1x with very low laser heat compared to PC drives burning at 16x. Crappy media will burn well under these conditions, but that does not make it more stable over time. Likewise, playing such a DVD occurs at 1x, which is more or less 16x easier to read than on a PC drive running at 16x.

Bottom line is you can have really crappy discs that appear to be just fine, right up to the point where they are no longer readable in any drive. There’s no question that the AML stuff will fail, it’s just a matter of when.



I understand, but where is the data that supports that these fail?

There has to be some kind of rating that supports your post. I see you’ve been around by the amount of posts you have made, but there has to be some kind of proof other than statements.

Like I said, folks who scan these disc’s on this site have gotten good results. I’ve only read a few posts that have said this stuff stinks.

My theory has been that people burn these discs at speeds that are to high for the dye or write specifications. This is what kills these discs in the long run. That boils down to the user and not the disc.

I will see if I am right in 4 months when my first batch gets to the 6mo mark.

In the meantime, if you could point me to the data that supports your post I’d appreciate it.

Also even though it may or may not mean much, I found Anwells site:

They seem pretty state of the art in their facilities.


DVD-R 4X AML QS scan.

I get better QS scan on the AML DVD+R media, and DVD+R media lasts longer.

IMHO I would only use the AML to make a copy of a DVD movie, and not use it for any critical backups.

I used the AML to make copies of several DVD movies for my car DVD player, along with TY media. The AML media didn’t hold up. It lasted only a few months in the car before the DVD player couldn’t read them, whereas the TY are still going strong.

Here are two scans, the first is a Data Disc I just created on AML DVD-R 4X media, the second QS scan is from a AML DVD-R 4X disc I created in January.

I live in Texas where inside temperature of a parked car can be 120+ degF, and sun always shines, not the best environment for preserving media.

But as you can see from the scans, the AML didn’t last. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the QS from the disc created in Jan, so this isn’t absolute proof, but the message is clear.


IMHO you are playing with fire using AML, and why, just to save a few pennies on blank media. Wait for a sale at Best Buy, CompUSA or Circuit City.
Check out the Bargain Basement forum. You can get good quality disk for good prices, usually $19.99 for 50. Wait for a sale and get FUJI, TDK, MAXWELL MIJ (Made in Japan) or Verbatim. Verbatim is this week on sale at Best Buy, $19.99 for 50.

No sense in buying cheap media, when for a few cents more you can get something that will last.

Even though the above test was of AML media exposed to extreme temperatures, I believe the degradation of the media was just accelerated by the environment. Whereas my media didn’t last 6 months, AML kept in a house may normally degrade in 6-12 months, so why chance it!!!


Well it looks like you recorded this at 8x. Right?

What was the speed rated on the discs?


And how do you figure he burned it at 8x? the 8x means he’s scanning it back at 8x which is the forum standard for the 1620, if you look at the top scan you can see he burned it at 4x by looking at the white line, your theory is wrong im sorry i doubt any AML disc would write at any speed higher than what its rated at, the only discs that are burned at higher speeds on this forum are from certain select brands such as Taiyo Yuden, Verbatim, Ricoh, Ritek and probably some more but AML certainly do not make discs capable of overspeeding and by capable i mean able to read back afterwards, so its time to drop it and go buy some decent media or just accept what you’ve got is crap.


Dude get out of your moms basement a little more often ok.

I accept that I have media that works for me. I also know that folks on this site as well as other sites report that they have had good scans with AML.

No one on any site has given a definative answer to why this media is bad other than it stinks or it dies in a few months.

I’d just like to know under what conditions this media fails? I’ve read many people burning at higher speeds because they hack the firmware. So it is possible to burn at higher speeds.

The process of making discs is about the same for each manufacturer with only slight variances in the process.

All I keep reading from people like yourself is buy some Maxell (which I have), MCC, TDK etc.

Thats great, but I still have not read a credible answer as to what makes this stuff so bad. Especially when scanners have shown this media to be pretty decent.


You get what you pay for, cheep = crap.


The process of making discs is about the same for each manufacturer with only slight variances in the process.

It’d be great if that were true. Since you do not want to accept that you’ve bought cheap media and want proof, I suggest you just wait a while, you’ll get your proof.

I’ll also wager that you would not be asking for proof if everyone were telling you that you have great media there.

Your proof is all over these forums if you take the time to look for it instead of stubbornly demanding that others provide it for you. The search function works quite well. Look for AML and AN30-31-32 media tests. If you don’t understand the quality scans, that’s your problem. There’s also an abundance of info here on how to interpret the scans if you spend 30 seconds looking for it.

Nobody here is obligated to prove anything to you. If you have some similar scans or evidence that your AML is somehow different than the AML everyone else has used, I suggest you post it.


I do not care if you say I have crap media. Its fine.

I’ve read this forum and like I said the posts vary. Some have good scans with this media and some have not. There must be a logical reason for it.

I accept I have media that works for me.

As to whether or not I can interpret the scans, I guess if I had a burner on my computer it would be easy to follow as I don’t this is a problem.

As for people being obligated to prove something, I could care less. I just figured since there were so many intellegent guru’s on this site that are telling people not to use this media that the gurus here could utter more than “its stinks, its crap, you’ll see”.

I guess I was wrong.

My fault.


Some have good scans with this media and some have not. There must be a logical reason for it.

That’s the deffinition of crappy media. Glad you finally accepted it.