DVD Decrypter and Nero

Can anyone explain the following:

I took an old B&W Movie and used DVD Decrypter to save it to my hard drive ( as an ISO) Then I used DVD Decrypter to write it at 8x to an Fuji ( scan 1).
Next used Nero to write it a second time at 8X to the next fuji on the spindle ( scan 2).

Both DVD’s play fine. Both show good transfer rates and have no scandisk problems.

59505 PI failures, 500 mg over 16 PI Failures and yet the disk works normally.

2 questions

(1) Is there really any benefit in running CD speed if transfer rates and scandisk show no problem. After all if a disk with a quality score of 11 still plays how bad does the score have to be …

(2) does anyone have any views as to the relative merits of buring with Decryter or Nero ?

The first one looks like a marginal disc to me; in my opinion you are very lucky that it works correctly. Was it perhaps the top disc on the spindle? Many of us have had problems with that first disc burning badly.

Fortunately, the PIF’s were near the beginning of the disc, where the transfer rate is the slowest, so it’s easier for most players to read it. It’s interesting to see the Yuden disc hold together well under adversity.

I would be interested in seeing the disc quality test overspeeded to 16X for the marginal disc. This will force the questionable data near the beginning to be read back beginning at about 7X instead of the 2.5X or so that it is in the above scan, and it might be challenging enough to count PO Failures.

To answer your questions:

  1. Is it of benefit to run a CDSpeed quality scan? I say yes, since you now at least know that the first burn is marginal and have the option of reburning it or not, depending on your situation. CDSpeed gave you just over a 10% chance of your DVD playing correctly - and it did. Once in a while you win, even in adversity.

  2. What’s better - Decryptor or Nero? I can’t answer this question directly. Many people feel that DVD Decryptor can do a better job than Nero, but I suspect that this might be specific to the computer system / DVD burner, rather than the merits of one program over the other. In any case, I do not believe that this had anything to do with the above results. I think the first disc was a marginal one, and I suspect that if you were to repeat this, your results would be different.

Yeah, I would like to see the above repeated again just to throw out the differences being due to burning software used. I agree that the software probably had nothing to do with the different scan results.

Spartane: was it the top disk ? No - about half way down. This spindle has produce both excellent and poor – very variable.
Have scanned the marginal disk again - scan attached - worse but not much - still no PO Failures

Socrates007: have now burned another using DVD Decrypter ISO - scan attached - and agree with you both that the software is not a factor. Both the Nero burn and the second Decrypter seem quite acceptable to me

Thanks for taking the time to scan the marginal disc at 16X. Even then, it holds together OK and still doesn’t count PO Failures. Interesting.

And it’s good to have it confirmed that it wasn’t the software.