Are we ready for 16x quality scans yet?

vbimport

#1

In the pursuit of time saving vs accuracy (as always), I have started doing 16x vs 8x scanning with the latest T9 firmware and CDSpeed v3.61 to see if 16x scans can be used as a basis for saving time and yet remain usefully accurate enough to be trusted.

Here are the 1st scan results and I invite all interested (in quicker quality scans) to post theirs too.

8x@16x burn on DaxonAZ02 (just sub-6 to those interested, heheh).

I 21:52:45 Source File Size: 4,681,422,848 bytes

I 21:58:45 Operation Successfully Completed! - Duration: 00:05:59
I 21:58:45 Average Write Rate: 14,153 KB/s (10.2x) - Maximum Write Rate: 21,388 KB/s (15.4x)

Scanned at 16x, Elapsed time: 6:16

General Information
Drive: BENQ DVD DD DW1620
Firmware: B7T9
Disc: DVD+R (DAXON AZ2)
Selected speed: 16 X
PI errors
Maximum: 155
Average: 25.17
Total: 380362
PI failures
Maximum: 8
Average: 0.22
Total: 2066
PO failures: 0
Jitter
Maximum: 11.9 %
Average: 8.99 %
Scanning statistics
Elapsed time: 6:16
Number of samples: 17836
Average scanning interval: 8.01 ECC
Glitches removed: 0

Scanned at 8x, Elapsed time: 11:35

General Information
Drive: BENQ DVD DD DW1620
Firmware: B7T9
Disc: DVD+R (DAXON AZ2)
Selected speed: 8 X
PI errors
Maximum: 156
Average: 19.80
Total: 298778
PI failures
Maximum: 9
Average: 0.16
Total: 1565
PO failures: 0
Jitter
Maximum: 10.0 %
Average: 8.23 %
Scanning statistics
Elapsed time: 11:35
Number of samples: 17848
Average scanning interval: 8.01 ECC
Glitches removed: 0

As can be seen, the scanned time is almost halved and the results are as shown. Any comments on the scan results/quality score as a result of increasing the scan speed?

Do remember this is but just a single scan and even when a scan is repeated at the same speed on the same disc on the same drive, there is bound to be variation in scan results/quality scores too. Just as we left behind the commonly agreed 4x (slow slow 15 mins) scanning standards using Kprobe on Liteon burners to use 8x scanning on BenQ burners, can we proceed to 16x scanning and yet remain sure of the scan accuracy now the new firmware and CDSpeed allow us to try to do so?

All contructive comments welcome, cheers.


#2

Pic size reduced to allow side by side comparison of error curves.


#3

Why does your 8x scan has that kind of read speed curve (red/magenta)? My 8x scan is just a straigth line (green).

pic1: MCC004 @16x scan @8x
pic2: MCC004 @16x scan @16x
original dated scan @8x here
My 8x vs 16x does not look the same at all.


#4

hi zevia, that “read curve with dips” question has been raised previously with no satisfactory answer so far (btw, your 16x scan curve also shows dips). Seems to happen unpredictably on some burners and on certain media, tell me if you ever find out why. :slight_smile:

anyway, a concurrently running thread over at HWZ also shows that 16x scans can’t be compared to 8x ones for most setups at present, click.


#5

Oh, I didn’t follow the discussions regarding why 8x read speed with dips.

From the HWZ I see that Sen’s and Raygay’s 8x vs 16x scans are like mine, the 16x scan shows much higher PIEs. All three of us have the straigth 8x read speed curve.

Maybe… just maybe… you can compare 8x vs 16x if your 8x scan has the dips curve?


#6

Well, I have also been wondering about this topic. I have found inconsistent results between 8x and 16x speed scanning. Page two of this thread reveals some more info:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=120045&page=2&pp=25

Here are some of my scans done at 8x and 16x speeds on the same disc per each set (8x and 16x speed) of scans with the specific post numbers linked from the above referenced thread:

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=799662&postcount=29
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=802015&postcount=42
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=802025&postcount=43
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=802033&postcount=44

I think that enough scans have not been done comparing 8x and 16x speed to really know with more certainty. I initially concluded that if media is high quality, then you should probably see 16x speed scan results on a particluar disc that look almost as good as an 8x scan of that same disc. But, I always thought Verbatim DVD+R discs (media code MCC 003) to be top rated media. Well, you can see from my scans that post#29 gave me a bad 16x speed scan compared to the 8x speed scan of that same MCC 003 disc. But, post#44 showed relatively the “same” results on a Verbatim MCC 003 disc between its 8x and 16x speed scans.

What does that mean? A fluke? An anomaly? A problem with Nero CD-DVD Speed when used at 16x speed scanning? Maybe Verbatim MCC 003 is in fact good media, but the particular MCC 003 disc in post#29 was a “bad” quality MCC 003 disc from that specific spindle? In other words, are MCC 003 discs high quality and I just scanned one that was of lower quality like all discs from a spindle (some are better and some are worse)? At this time, I can’t conclude anything definitive because there has not been enough scans done yet. Hopefully, we can see more of them posted that are done at 8x and 16x speeds on the same exact disc in order to draw a better conclusion. :confused:


#7

Mac, maybe you can try another disc of a different id instead.


#8

ok heres my scans.

fuji 25 pack from Best Buy, 6:00 to burn in DVD Decrypter


#9

EagleClaw,

Thanks for posting both an 8x and a 16x speed scan of the same disc. This will help out if we can get others doing the same. Your contribution is appreciated. :cool:


#10

THAT’s TYG02 DVD-R Burnt @ 16X

Original Scan Done on 29 Dec 2004 by DW1620Pro on B7P9

Below scans at 16X and 8X ( side by side ) on DW1620Pro on B7T9


#11

Verbatim 16x MCC004 DVD+R Burnt @ 16X

Original Scan Done on 27 Dec 2004 by DW1620Pro on B7P9

Below scans at 16X and 8X ( side by side ) on DW1620Pro on B7T9…interesting to see MCC004 get worst after only week…but still plays well…


#12

Verbatim 4x DVD+R @8x Scanned 16x



#13

Another Verbatim, this is a 8x dvd+r MCC003, scanned at 8x and 16x speeds. Seems like CD Speed gets the quality right for these media. PIF count similar, PIE a lot higher.



#14

Xterminator,

What speed did you burn the above Verbatim MCC 003 disc at? Very nice 8x and 16x speed scans. Thanks.


#15

TDK 8x RICOHJPN02 DVD+R Burnt @ 16X on DW1620Pro B7T9

Original Scan Done on 30 Dec 2004 by DW1620Pro on B7T9

Scans at 16x and 8x


#16

So far, to me the 16x scanning has been useful in that it magnifies errors.
Some media scans fine at 16x while other media reveals a long-kept secret. . .
This was a VERY useful upgrade! :wink:

OMG!! I just made “Senior Member” for some reason. Just now. It’s exciting! Tomorrow morning, I wake up, look into the mirror and think: “Who’s that old man in my pajamas?”


#17

It is a 8x burn, I found that to be the best speed for that media with any burner.


#18

I guess I’ll try 16x quality scan on 16x recorded disk. :slight_smile: 16x16x drive finally.


#19

TDK DVD+R 8x@12x scanned at 8x then 16x…more errors at the end…




#20

Your two graphs depict two VERY different evaluations of the same recorded media. I sure wish I knew which one was “right”! The 8x scan looks like a great recording and the 16x scan looks like a marginal to poor recording.