Blu Ray media review guide - feedback?



A few weeks ago, we, at, started a fairly long series of articles on the best Blu Ray blank media brands and products, followed by the best Blu Ray media stores. It is still ongoing for a month or so.

We went through over 1,200 user reviews, one by one, in about 20 different sites. We did some fairly extensive statistical analysis to rate the most common Blu Ray media, in all formats.

We tried to be as thorough as we could. We’d love to get some feedback from veteran Blu Ray users, to make sure we did not slip here or there, and to confirm that the MIDs/ provenance we list are still good. The series starts here: Blu Ray blank media guide. Thanks!


thanks, first link not working


Sorry- can’t edit original post due to insufficient privileges - original link should have been


Interesting effort, but I’m not sure how trustworthy the results are since they’re based off user reviews which are often highly flawed (user error / user inexperience). It seems like a better approach would be to run a pile of media through a variety of drives and then do quality scans of the resulting discs. Of course this wouldn’t be a cheap or fast endeavor.

I’m thinking of something along the lines taking several (like 3) identical drives from say 4 different makers like a Pioneer, LG, Lite-on, Optiarc and running say 25 of each brand disc through each drive being sure to shuffle the discs since you’d have multiple spindles worth. Then do quality scans of all the burned discs and use the results to determine if a given brand of discs are good, bad, or if they simply don’t work well in some burners (or if any of the identical drives are inconsistent unit to unit) . Then a random sampling of those test discs (or even all of them) can be tested every 3 months and you can see how they degrade (or not).


Another idea I just had to reduce the effort would be to “crowdsource” the task. I’m sure you could get some volunteers to burn a stack of say 20 discs each (like 2 of each of 10 different types) with IMGburn with their Blu-Ray burner and return them. That would give a wide sampling of burners on the given media. Then a few people could share the work quality scanning the discs. Then all the data could be gathered and analyzed for statistically significant trends.


StereoDude - These are great ideas and we really appreciate the feedback. I agree with you that individual user reviews are heavily flawed, because of the issues that you pointed out. As a statistical entity, on the other hand, they constitute powerful data, when they exist in sufficient numbers, and when they are analyzed using the right statistical tools. Many times we have analyzed ConsumerReports findings and seen them contradicted by massive numbers of reviews from their own users.

As a site, our premise at is based on analyzing user reviews - that’s what we do:-) We expect that the conclusions we drew based on the statistical analysis we did in our Blu Ray media guide will have excellent validity. But we love your ideas on repeated testing, and we would be glad to (a) report on it, and (b) do the heavy lifting on the statistical analysis if some trustworthy old-time users here on the forums were willing to take on the testing, i.e. ImgBurn a set of discs, and test them every 3 months.

We would love to see someone spearhead the effort. We would be ready to swing for the cost of the media: we would order the media, then dispatch a set to each committed user, whom we would ask to burn the sets, then read them every 3 months. Every 3 months, we would collate the results and do the analysis. Since this is a long term project, we would want (a) people who have been around the forums for a while and (b) people who are willing to be doing this for the next several years. Let’s see if some are interested:-)


Thank you for trying to get the ball rolling. Unfortunately, your attempt to generate useful information from insufficient data/reviews by weighting them by brand approval is probably ill-advised.

Again, thank you very much for trying to create a much-needed resource for media buyers, but please get in contact with our member “pepst” for a primer on the realities of media manufacturing :).

You have Philips listed as the Merax manufacturer. Philips is NOT a BD-R manufacturer. Listing them as such is misleading to the average consumer. They have licensed their MID to other manufacturers. Recent Merax discs have been Optodisc MID.

Stereodude is of course right in trying to generate media quality ratings based on the experiences of the experienced :clap::bigsmile:.

One glaring omission from your data is manufacturer FTI/Falcon. They are not a retail brand, but their media is available via online resellers.

Lets get busy, folks :).


many thanks for your feedback DeanWitty.

Merax was using a Philips MID until approx summer 2010, after which they switched to Optodisc. The Philips MID could have come from Philips old stock or from Moser Baer. The information is correctly displayed on our Philips article and our Merax review. If you can let me know where you found the incorrect mention of Philips as the current manufacturer of Merax media we will update it - thanks!

I appreciate your feedback about brand approval reviews. If I understand your points properly, your concerns are due to (a) the fact that many brands factor their media, thereby making brand reviews inappropriate since you should be looking at manufacturer reviews, and (b) there may not be statistically significant sample sizes. I believe that our review process addresses both of these concerns:
(a) as explained in our predictive rating description, we use both brand feedback and MID originator feedback to calculate brand ratings.
(b) In fact, for most brands we get statistically significant ratings. For those where we don’t (such as, for instance, JVC/ Taiyo Yuden) we adjust their present rating so that the negative margin of error at 95% certainty remains -5% - which means that the rating ends up lower, until more reviews are generated, as it should be.

Hopes this makes sense! Take care -


This would be the page where an update to “merax” is needed.

You seem to be confusing manufacturer with MID. Your tables make it appear that you are weighting your conclusions based on MID, which you are calling “manufacturer”. If only it were so simple :). What some manufacturers do with perfectly good MID’s is downright criminal. Using the “MID originator” rating to derive expected quality of the media being produced with that MID has not proven to be effective in the past for me.


Hi Dean-

thanks a lot for your comments. We corrected the page you referenced above, and updated the MID table page as well.

We are totally right about regrettable MID licensing practices. We added mentions of them in the MID table page, and also clarified our process description (we only use MID stats compounding when, to the best of our knowledge, the brand is factoring a third party captured by the MID) . We owe you for helping us clean up our series!

Our Blu Ray blank media series still has another month or so to go - we really appreciate your help, and that of other forum members, in discovering our errors and omissions, and will make sure to correct all of them as you all help us identify them. So please keep on sending them our way! We will monitor this thread.

Thanks again! Take care -



We are totally right about regrettable MID licensing practices. [/QUOTE]
Of course I meant “You are totally right…” :slight_smile: