[Ask] Would A Disc Scanned Twice At Same Speed With Same Drive and Software Gives Two Different Results?

vbimport

#1

Hi all !!! I’m new to the scene. Forgive me for being a noob but I have questions regarding PIPO scans. Googled, read and learned EVERYTHING about PIPO scanning from this forum but I can’t find one that explains the following :

I burned a Verbatim DVD+R DL MKM-003-00 with Sony Optiarc AD-7240S and scanned it with Sony DRU-720A TWICE at the same speed but on different days/time. The software used is DVDInfoPro Xtreme v1.631. And it gave me two different results.

First scan :

Second scan :

My questions are :

  1. Is this suppose to happen ??? I thought that a same disc scanned twice at same speed with same drive & software, is suppose to give close-to-same results ???

  2. If no, then could it be a sign that the DRU-720A is dying ???

I hope I made my questions clear enough. Thank you very much for your kind answers. :slight_smile:


#2

If it were really dying, it would exhibit more read errors when the speed is high.
What about a LiteOn, BenQ or Plextor scan? Usually NECs/Optiarcs scans should be taken with a pinch of salt, although these recent ones aren’t bad at all for scanning (then should be used with Nero CD-DVD Speed).


#3

Hi kg_evilboy !!! Thank you for ur immediate answer.

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512074]If it were really dying, it would exhibit more read errors when the speed is high.[/QUOTE]

Are you implying the DRU-720A still up to the task for scanning ??? If yes, then what explains the two different results ???

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512074]What about a LiteOn, BenQ or Plextor scan? Usually NECs/Optiarcs scans should be taken with a pinch of salt, although these recent ones aren’t bad at all for scanning (then should be used with Nero CD-DVD Speed).[/QUOTE]

I thought the DRU-720A is a rebadged Lite-On so I take it would done the job. But lately it gives me ugly results on Optiarc’s burns like it shouldn’t be. And the last burn I scanned twice gives different results which makes me wondering.

I learned from this wonderful forum that Lite-Ons and BenQs are better scanners than NEC/Optiarc due to jitter scanning ability ??? So I’m a little reluctant to scan with the Optiarc and trust it.

However, with my DRU being inconsistent, I’m thinking to purchase a genuine a Lite-On since the DRU is already 5 years old. But before that I needed some education/explanation first. :slight_smile:

My AD-7240S is brand new BTW. :slight_smile:


#4

Oh, I’m sorry, I mixed that up. Sony DRU-720A is indeed a LiteOn SOHW-16n3S model. For those 3S models, the standard scanning speed is not maximum, but [B]4x[/B], to get results that can be compared with others’.

All [I]recent [/I]LiteOns (starting from SHW-1635S, anything with -AnP at the end, or iHAS/P/eHAUnnn) do jitter scanning, but the 3S drives don’t. Be careful though when buying an iHASn24, there are two models out there (iHASn24 A which is genuine Mediatek LiteOn with all the fun included, or iHASn24 Y which is a rebadged Optiarc!)

Jitter is interesting, but most important is consistency of the scan results. Therefore, most of the users don’t use Pioneers for scanning, for example. LiteOn just has been here first while NEC was very late to introduce quality scanning and LG still has done nothing about it.

Try doing an Optiarc scan with Nero CD-DVD Speed or Nero DiscSpeed, preferably at [B]5x[/B] speed, and most important a [B]Transfer Rate Test /B to find out whether that end really causes reading difficulties. Just don’t forget consumer drives aren’t really “accurate” anyway, no way can they be better than expensive factory testing devices like DaTARIUS or Almedio :slight_smile:


#5

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512091]Oh, I’m sorry, I mixed that up. Sony DRU-720A is indeed a LiteOn SOHW-16n3S model. For those 3S models, the standard scanning speed is not maximum, but [B]4x[/B], to get results that can be compared with others’.[/QUOTE]

If you please take a look again at the screenshots, they BOTH done at 4x. So I guess I’m not too far off there. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512091]All [I]recent [/I]LiteOns (starting from SHW-1635S, anything with -AnP at the end, or iHAS/P/eHAUnnn) do jitter scanning, but the 3S drives don’t. Be careful though when buying an iHASn24, there are two models out there (iHASn24 A which is genuine Mediatek LiteOn with all the fun included, or iHASn24 Y which is a rebadged Optiarc!)[/QUOTE]

I am aware of the Lite-On variants, thank you for reminding me. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512091]Jitter is interesting, but most important is consistency of the scan results. Therefore, most of the users don’t use Pioneers for scanning, for example. LiteOn just has been here first while NEC was very late to introduce quality scanning and LG still has done nothing about it.[/QUOTE]

You couldn’t say it more ACCURATELY : “Most important is consistency of the scan results” which leads me to this question : Shouldn’t the difference between those two scans not too far off ??? If 1st scan’s quality ratings is 93% then 2nd scan’s Q would be like 91%-92% or so ??? While my results are, as you can see from the screenshots, 96.93% for the 1st scan and 65.41% for the scan ??? How can it be WAY too far off ??? Is the DRU dying or it’s not up to the task ???

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512091]Try doing an Optiarc scan with Nero CD-DVD Speed or Nero DiscSpeed, preferably at [B]5x[/B] speed, [/QUOTE]

You said to scan the disc in Optiarc with CD-DVD Speed at 5x. I will do that but could you be a liitle more specific on what I should look into after I did what you said ???

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2512091]and most important a [B]Transfer Rate Test /B to find out whether that end really causes reading difficulties. Just don’t forget consumer drives aren’t really “accurate” anyway, no way can they be better than expensive factory testing devices like DaTARIUS or Almedio :)[/QUOTE]

I understand enough already the pros and cons about doing scans with consumer drives and also tha scans vs TRT thingy. So I can live with any ‘inaccurate’ results. But what I don’t understand is very basic, as in why said scans differ SIGNIFICANTLY ??? Is the DRU dying or it’s not up to the task ???

Thank you for the info, I really appreciate it and I’m really sorry for saying this but I think you haven’t really answered my question ???

As in why did I have TWO different results when in fact they’re both scanned at the same speed (4x), with the same drive and software at a different time ??? Like maybe if I did a 3rd scan it would differ also ???

Could you please shed a little light on this ??? Or maybe provide me on some kind of SOP to check what went wrong ???

Thank you very much for your kind answers !!! :slight_smile:


#6

Two possible explanations to the scan variance:

  1. When the drive is overheated, it will not read (or burn) as well as when cool, and the reported PIE/PIF will increase significantly.

  2. The disc is not optimally clamped, resulting in more vibration during reading/scanning, thus increasing PIE/PIF sginificantly.

I have often encountered scan variance due to overheating (1) with my LiteOn drives.

The clamping explanation (2) is not something I have experienced on my LiteOns, but it’s a huge factor on one of my standalone DVD players, resulting in discs not being recognized or stuttering severely during playback.


#7

Hi DrageMester !!! Thank you for your reply. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2512132]

  1. When the drive is overheated, it will not read (or burn) as well as when cool, and the reported PIE/PIF will increase significantly.[/QUOTE]

Guess what ? I suspected heat to cause this also since my CPU is still P4 and my case obviously doesn’t have the best airflow. So being an obssesive-compulsive with test results, I’m still not satisfied with the 1st scan even though it’s 96.93% because it’s not all green (as you can see from the screenshot it has yellows).

Which prompted me to do the 2nd scan but this time I let the drive hangs out of the case (with proper support of course so it wouldn’t fall off) and let the air conditioner do its magic. I can feel with my finger that the DRU is cool but to my surprise, the test result is WORSE. :frowning:

And this doesn’t explain also why I had good results (98%-99% quality ratings) previously with the drive properly seated in the case. :confused:

Now that you mention this, what would cause a drive to overheat other than bad airflow ???

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2512132]2. The disc is not optimally clamped, resulting in more vibration during reading/scanning, thus increasing PIE/PIF sginificantly.[/QUOTE]

I do have problem with this DRU where sometimes it wouldn’t recognize discs. I’m a little bit of DIY person so I disassembled the drive to observe what went wrong. I troubleshooted this and I think I found what caused it. I think it’s because of the tray mechanism motor losing its rotating power so when the tray closes, the motor’s power isn’t enough to have the mechanism make the laser rail part goes fully up (maybe this is what you called clamping mechanism). So what I did is whenever the tray closes, I would give it a push so the laser rail part fully goes up. When it does go fully up, the drive would recognize the disc.

Now that you mentioned this, what would cause the disc to not optimally clamped ??? Is it because of the motor like I said or something else ???

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2512132]I have often encountered scan variance due to overheating (1) with my LiteOn drives.[/QUOTE]

What’s your solution to make sure you won’t have variance anymore with your Lite-On scans due to overheating ???

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2512132]The clamping explanation (2) is not something I have experienced on my LiteOns, but it’s a huge factor on one of my standalone DVD players, resulting in discs not being recognized or stuttering severely during playback.[/QUOTE]

Thank you very much for you insights !!! I really appreciate it. :slight_smile:


#8

[QUOTE=Burnfreak888;2512227]Which prompted me to do the 2nd scan but this time I let the drive hangs out of the case (with proper support of course so it wouldn’t fall off) and let the air conditioner do its magic. I can feel with my finger that the DRU is cool but to my surprise, the test result is WORSE. :frowning: [/QUOTE] Perhaps the drive is more prone to vibrate when not properly seated in the computer case?

Now that you mention this, what would cause a drive to overheat other than bad airflow ???
Using the drive for a long time (especially burning) without pause can make it overheat.

Now that you mentioned this, what would cause the disc to not optimally clamped ???
“Clamping” is when the drive grabs the center of the disc to hold it firm while rotating it. Sometimes a drive can grab the disc slightly off-center, resulting in an off-center rotation with more vibration.

What’s your solution to make sure you won’t have variance anymore with your Lite-On scans due to overheating ???
My solution is to give the drive time to cool off once in a while.


#9

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2512229]Perhaps the drive is more prone to vibrate when not properly seated in the computer case?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, thought of that also. The only obvious way to know for sure is by doing a 3rd scan with the DRU back in the case. I will try this and get back with the result. Thanks. :slight_smile:


#10

Hi !!! I’ve done a 3rd scan with the DRU back in the case today and things are starting to get a little bit hilarious.

Guess what ? It’s even WORSE than the 2nd scan. Please check it out :

Dumbfounded and getting short in patience, I decided to execute kg_evilboy advice to scan the disc with the Optiarc and CDSpeed 4.7.7.16 at 5x (the lowest speed available). Here’s the result :

After the drive cool off for a while (I’m not in the rush), I decided to scan with the Optiarc and DVDInfoPro Xtreme v6.131 at 4x. The result is consistent with CDSpeed result :

  1. Seeing these results, what do you have to say ???

  2. Seeing these results, can we rule out HEAT as a cause for the inconsistency ???

  3. With all three scans done by the DRU being inconsistent, are the DRU scans valid ???

  4. With all three scans done by the DRU being inconsistent, can I safely say that all previous scans done with the DRU recently are invalid even though they’re good like 98%-99% quality ratings ???

  5. Are the Optiarc scans above to be trusted OVER the three DRU scans above, on how good the burn was ???

Thank you very much for your kind answers !!! :slight_smile:


#11
  1. Either the disc has marginal quality or the Samsung drive is not a very good reader/scanner

  2. It would seem so

  3. That’s impossible to say without knowing how the drive scans other discs. See 1.

  4. Quality ratings are not very useful in my opinion, and I think it’s better to ignore them and look at the graphs.

  5. That’s impossible to say without a lot more scans with different discs. Don’t be fooled into thinking that a drive showing fewer errors must be a better scanner than a drive showing more errors.


#12

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2513386]1. Either the disc has marginal quality or the Samsung drive is not a very good reader/scanner

  1. It would seem so

  2. That’s impossible to say without knowing how the drive scans other discs. See 1.

  3. Quality ratings are not very useful in my opinion, and I think it’s better to ignore them and look at the graphs.

  4. That’s impossible to say without a lot more scans with different discs. Don’t be fooled into thinking that a drive showing fewer errors must be a better scanner than a drive showing more errors.[/QUOTE]

Hi !!! Thank you for your reply DrageMester. :slight_smile:

The scanner is a 2005 Sony DRU-720A btw and the disc is MKM-003-00 burned with a brand new Sony Optiarc AD-7240S. Which is why I can’t comprehend the crappy scan results like they shouldn’t be. :frowning:

With the DRU gives different results scan after scan on the same disc, the idea to give a scan to a different disc with the DRU is pretty much absurd to me. I think it would give inconsistent results also on ANY disc. :frowning:

We can see from the Optiarc scans that even though the Optiarc might not give a proper idea on how good the burn is, at least it is consistent.

I agree with you on reply number 5 which is why I make this thread at the 1st place. But it looks like now that I can’t rely on the DRU anymore.

I’ve been planning to purchase a genuine Lite-On with Mediatek chipsets. I’m gonna scan the disc on this thread 3 times with it and I’m pretty sure they would be consistent with only minor difference.

I can’t seem to find here iHASx24-08 A or iHASx24-32 A like this great forum recommends. I can only find a iHAS124-04 A here. I googled and find little reference on the 04. What’s the difference anyway between 08, 32 and 04 ??? Or should I just purchase it since it’s A therefore guaranteed Mediatek chipsets ???


#13

If I remember correctly, the Sony DRU-720A is a LiteOn SOHW-16n3S drive, and not a rebadged Samsung.
08, 32, 04 etc. tell about the region it is intended for, and whether the device is retail packaged or bulk. iHAS124…A should be fine for disc quality scanning. :slight_smile:


#14

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2513476]If I remember correctly, the Sony DRU-720A is a LiteOn SOHW-16n3S drive, and not a rebadged Samsung.
08, 32, 04 etc. tell about the region it is intended for, and whether the device is retail packaged or bulk. iHAS124…A should be fine for disc quality scanning. :)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’m gonna get me one of those, scan the same disc 3 times with it and put an end to this. Thank you for ur reply, you’ve been very kind and helpful. :slight_smile: