Bad disk?

I scanned this at 4x, it doesn’t look very good to me at only 84% quality on TY media. Lots of PIE’s and PIF’s. What do you think? At what quality do you throw the disk out and try again?

Can you post also the Transfer Rate Test (TRT) (in “benchmark” tab)? A scan only is not sufficient to have an idea of the disc quality.

If in the first part of the disc, where PIF errors are higher, the disc can be read with difficulty, then it is a bad burn.

However, because of the high number of PIF in the first part of the disc, it is probable that portion will become difficult to read faster than the remaining of the disc.

Not sure what it’s telling us, still learning as I go. What quality should archival disks be? Thanks for the help though.

From the picture the disc seems a good burn :slight_smile:

TY discs are the best media currently available, so your data should be safe in this disc.

Just to be sure, maybe it is better to check this disc again after 6 months, to see if it is still readable without problems in the first part, where errors are higher :slight_smile:

The TRT is perfect, which is not a suprise since the errors are at the beginning of the disc (if they were at the outer edge then reading slowdowns would have been more likely). I have some seen Samsung drives are flakier for scanning than others - test a few more discs just to make sure that it doesn’t have this tendency to report the clump of errors at the start of all discs. If it doesn’t then I’d guess it’s a reasonably trustworthy drive for scanning. The PIE levels are not bad, higher than typical TYG02 but not that unusual. The group of early PIFs is a little bit concerning, you might want to closely inspect the disc near the center at the first part of where the dye is and see if you can find any scratches/scuffs/dust/etc. I’d likely reburn it myself if it was irreplaceable data, but if it’s just something like a movie backup then I’d use it. TYG02 at least has a solid reputation for stability so that’s a positive.

When I scanned the disc at 8x, I noticed all errors are lower. Most people seem to scan at 8x. Which would you reccomend? I would think 4x would be more accurate?

Hi :slight_smile:
Scanning at 8x should be OK.
You mustn’t read to much into scans made by your Sammie.
Whilst it does work now as a scanner it’s not going to scan quite like a Lite-On or BenQ for example.
I suggest you do a disc quality scan @ 8x + a TRT benchmark.
Using a combination of both to assess the disc.
Your above shows that particular disc to be OK.
As geno888 has mentioned, the start of the scan implies there may be some anomalies at the beginning, however the TRT shows that this is having little if any affect at present.
As the disc deteriorates this may change.
Just do as geno888 suggests & scan again in 6 months or so.

I would like to get another writer that scans great, BenQ seems to be gone now so I’ll get a lite-on. Thanks again for your help.

Actually they usually scan very similar to Liteons (Mediatek chipset), though as I said I’ve seen a few people have gotten Samsungs that didn’t scan well. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that your drive is a poor drive for scanning. I don’t see anything in your scan that sticks out as unusual, as I said though scan some other discs just to confirm that it’s not reporting higher PIFs at the start.

Here is the same disc scanned at 8x, completely different! Actually looks pretty good.

Hi :slight_smile:
@ scoobiedoobie while the chip is the same (so some similarities) f/w & other h/w differences mean that as a scanner the Sammie is not identical to Lite-On regarding this feature. Having said that the latest generation Lite-On’s are wildly varied in terms of quality scanning. I have a Lite-On LH-20A1P which produces horrendous scans. Yet burns quite well.

Hi :slight_smile:
@ muscles4life, excellent stuff. You’ll struggle to better that scan. :clap: :iagree: :bigsmile:

So are you saying the Sammie might be producing bad scans? Should I trust the scans and if so, at what speed? What in your personal opinion would be a great scanner? In your personal opinion, do you think the Sammie 182M is a good burner? I don’t mind if I have to buy another burner for scanning and/or burning.

No it’s not going to scan identical to a Liteon, just that it is similar (and the Mediatek chipset is part of the reason naturally). Even recent Liteons behave different from one model to the next, and some models do better at one speed than another. There is no perfect scanning drive but in the grand scheme of things the Samsung 182x drives seem to be decent scanners. Having multiple drives that are capable of scanning is nice to compare results, but even having one that is reasonably reliable is helpful in getting a basic gauge on burn quality, stability over time, etc.

Thanks for all of your reply’s, I’ve learned alot. I’ll just stick with the Sammie for awhile then and see how it does.

In my experience, the 182M is a solid all-around drive-- Very similar to most Liteons due to both being Mediatek based. I’ve noticed that scans are very comparable, near identical between my 182M and 20A1H.

That being said, the ripping speed is somewhat slower than most drives, and scans won’t produce jitter results in the newest version of CDSpeed to my knowledge. Otherwise a very decent drive.

OK, one last question. Sorry for so many. The first picture a few postings up is TYG02 burned @8x and scanned @8x, the picture here is TYG02 burned @4x and scanned @ the same 8x. Notice the picture here(@4x burned) has alot less PIE’s but has more PIF’s, both same quality rating. I will be using my Sammie 182M for a long time and have a few hundred TYG02 DVD-R to use, so what speed would you think looks better? To me I would think it’s better to have Less PIF’s and ok to have more PIE’s, so I would probably keep burning @8x.

There’s no practical difference between the two scans. You could have a similar difference between scans of the same disc.

If there really was a significant difference, I would choose lower PIF (within reason), but in this case the difference is insignificant. I’d burn them at 8x to save time while retaining burn quality.

I don’t think my Samsung SH-S182M burns well or it doesn’t scan well, my older Philips from Dell I think did better. My first scan of a DVD in this thread showed high PIE’s and PIF’s at the beginning and so do most of my DVD’s like another one shown below. What do you think I should do?

Here is the same DVD scanned at 8x, why such a huge difference?