Do the figures really matter?

K probe PI, PO figures umm.
Having the software avaliable for these figures is great but are some of us just taking it all a bit too far. I have used this software myself with my 811s and with the discs I use (Bulkpaq as a rule) the results were quite bad. The thing is though although they look bad they are making perfectly good backups that work fine in standalone players. Yes I do get coasters but so does everyone else, if I went down the road of searching for better results in Kprobe using different discs I would still only get what I am getting now but it would cost a little more.
Maybe I am missing a point but for me Lite on make very good drives and if I put a disc in and it writes OK then what should it matter if a different drive or disc produces the same thing with a slightly better set of figures.

I completly agree with you!

I think Kprobe scans should be taken with a big grain of salt. I have discs that scans somewhat fine (pi < 300 , po < 100) but when I try to copy the data back to my harddrive the drive speed will go up and down while the drive tries to read it. It finally does read the disc but it takes a looong time.

On the other hand I have 25+ Ricoh discs that Kprobe tells me are “unacceptable” (pi max at 1000-1200, po max 250). I can read all of these discs back to my harddrive very fast (up to 6x speed). When using Nero DVD speed I can see the reading is very consistent (no sudden ups and downs in read speed)

Another thing. I can write Ricoh dvd+rw and they scan absolutely amazing (Pi <30 , Po < 10). :confused:

verbatim 4x plus written at 8x on my liteon 811s
give dire kprobe results, but read at full speed in every
PC I try, and work perfectly in every standalone I have put them in.

Kprobe…in the bin…it tells me nothing (usefull)!

For quite some time now I’ve been scouring cyberspace to try & find out if these tests could show that some brands degrade faster than others. i.e. for the cheaper brands, can one observe an increase in error count of an old disc versus one that was just burned? And then could the data be somehow extrapolated to estimate how long the disc would last before it becomes unreadable?

Our department is using Prodisc to archive valuable data which is making me a bit nervous… :confused:

They share your view that as long as the verification comes out OK, then there’s nothing at all to worry about. I’m trying to look for evidence that might help either prove or contradict this belief.

So far I haven’t been able to find much.

Gathering evidence may well be a difficult thing to do.
There are so many variables eg, I have two very different results from the same disc put in the same drive ten mins apart. Also batch qualities vary greatly much more than I think people realise. I have had a lot of people ask me what to recommend I say to them what im saying in this thread if it works then use it.
Out of curiosity what is your department that is looking in to this subject.

Yes, I do agree that to conduct a solid evaluation would be a rather massive undertaking. You’d need a large sample size, a variety of burners/readers, a long time frame, and a controlled storage environment (temp/humidity/etc). You may also need to vary the data patterns. I doubt that something like this is available, but what was a little surprising was that there isn’t much out there that tries to even come close to it.

My department is an engineering group, but we aren’t looking into this subject. In fact, just the opposite: my concerns about the use of cheapo media for long-term archival gets brushed off.

I’m trying to study this totally on my own to determine whether my concerns have any validity or not.

Oh gosh, you are archiving important data on Prodisc?!?
Using DVD media as a form of archiving important data is an ‘iffy’ proposition to start with never mind using cheap media!

I would only use Is Taiyo Yuden for important company data.
In fact I would recommend my company get a burner that can do DVD-RAM for important corporate data if there was no other choice (tape media, hard drive etc) as it is more a bit more stable for longe term sotrage, plus has higher level of error correction built in. The dissc are rather expensive though…

Whatever you end up using, make sure you have two copies and they are kept in a low humid environment in Jewel cases and not too warm or hot.

ok. i read a scratched disc with kprobe, it gets to the scratched part and the PO goes up to like 150. when i try to read the disc to my hard drive it stops coz of errors. kprobe must be inaccurate:p

then i burn a princo at 4x. the PI shows something like 1200. it has trouble on both my dvdrom and ps2, again kprobe just doesn’t know WHAT its on about :stuck_out_tongue:

I scan a TY disc that was burnt at 4x. It shows PI of < 30 and PO < 5. It works FINE. again, kprobe must be crazy…:stuck_out_tongue:

Sometimes u might have a dvd player that can read past alot of shit. but nothing gets past kprobe. try ur crappy shite in a year or two. they wont work coz the errors will multiply 3 fold.

try ur crappy burns with a fussy dvd player. yeh i bet they wont even regognise the disc let alone play flawlessly.

Hey I am not knocking the benefits of Kprobe all I am saying is that one or two people seem to be that just too set on what it says and believe if one disc gives good results then it will fine to use this brand al the time when I think even you will admit this is not the case.
I am all for making life easy, I just believe that we should not totally take for granted all that it says.

Originally posted by cd pirate
try ur crappy shite in a year or two. they wont work coz the errors will multiply 3 fold.

This is exactly the kind of data I’m looking for. Do you by any chance still have the before-and-after data illustrating the increase in errors when compared side-by-side? Could you post it?

Most people are assuming that DVD will behave the same as CDR’s have. In which case those discs with higher read error rates will tend to degrade over time. My suspision is that they will be even less reliable than CDR due to the tighter density of data. But the fact is that nobody knows what they will do in time. It’s just common sense to assume that higher error rates are not good in this regard. But it’s all relative, and dependant on the reading drive.

Originally posted by rdgrimes
My suspision is that they will be even less reliable than CDR due to the tighter density of data.

I was thinking along the same lines.

The DVD FAQ claims that the error correction on DVDs is “10 times better” than CDs, but I’m a little skeptical as to how one can quantify the quality of error correction (FWIW: http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.15)

In any case, I was more focused on the comparison of “good” versus “bad” brands instead of DVD versus CD, or higher speeds versus lower speeds. I’d be interested in old-versus-new comparison data to illustrate decay under any of these cases. In other words, I’ll take whatever is available :bigsmile:

In any case, I was more focused on the comparison of “good” versus “bad” brands i

Based on a few years of media scanning of all types, I can only tell you that when I need to burn something important, I always reach for the TY. With the differences in error rates and read-ability on other drives, they are in a class by themselves. The DVD’s are even more impressive than the CDRs when compared to the competition.
The only close competitor is Maxell DVD-R, but it does not have the cross-burner compatability that TY does. (some burners may not like it). But thanks to the Japanese obsession with perfection, these 2 DVD brands are unique in the market.

Originally posted by Okane786
This is exactly the kind of data I’m looking for. Do you by any chance still have the before-and-after data illustrating the increase in errors when compared side-by-side? Could you post it?

oh i was just saying that. i can’t say for certain if its true or not. all i can say is i will wait and see in a year or two how my TY, Princo and maxell r doing.

I have the before results. but the after results can only happen after a period of time. I can tell u though that all my dvds are fine after about 2 months now. I am gonna see how they last over time.

BTW, like rdgrimes said, TY work with any dvd burner. AT full speed. crap discs behave unpredicably from disc to disc and from different speeds. TY remains consistent. I’ve burnt over 10 of them so far. Of the 10, absolutely all so far have given VERY similar results. whereas my princo which i have burnt over 50 of, show extremely different results from disc to disc. not to mention that they cant even be burnt at 4x acceptably despite their claims.

With Princo i can get a PI value of 50 on one disc then 24 on the next then 7 on the next, then one with 70. all being burnt at 2x. well within spec but still, they can harldy be called consistent.

TY is always about 30-35 PI and low PO. Always the same. the graphs look very similar also.

As the “next best thing” to waiting a year for the results, would something like this work:

(1) Take a disc that was burned a year or two ago
(2) Analyze it for errors
(3) Duplicate it to another disc of the same type
(4) Analyze the newly-burned disc
(5) Compare the two

Obviously the results wouldn’t be as valid as testing the same disc a year or two later but I thought it might be an interesting interim experiment for those of us who are not patient enough to wait that long :wink:

The only close competitor is Maxell DVD-R, but it does not have the cross-burner compatability that TY does. (some burners may not like it).

You are saying that despite TY and Maxell DVD-Rs being in a class of their own in terms of quality and consistency, that TY is readable (or writeable?) in almost all burners whereas Maxell only to most?

Originally posted by vallybally
You are saying that despite TY and Maxell DVD-Rs being in a class of their own in terms of quality and consistency, that TY is readable (or writeable?) in almost all burners whereas Maxell only to most?

Yup. Some drives seems to like the Maxell better than others, Same is true for MCC. But on nearly all drives, TY is best with Maxell being #2.