Fuji TY02 VS. Verbatim MCC 004 @16x

These were burned on a NEC 3520a with the L&D 1.U8 firmware using DVDShrink and Nero. I picked up this media at BestBuy last week. I ripped the Main Movie only of “After the Sunset” so it didn’t fill the disk as I would have liked.
The Fuji is 8x media but will over speed to 16x with this firmware, so I wanted to compair it with the Verbatim 16x rated disc.
Right off the bat I see a rise in PIF in the 1.5 gig region on both disk. Is that a source imperfection or a result of the speed change ? The Transfer test are just about identical, smooth with no dips on both. I can post those if needed.
My setup loves the Verbatim 8x MCC 003 media at 12x, and produces better quality scans than both of these, but please post your views on this comparison.

In my opinion the two scans are about the same quality: Not great but probably acceptable (I’m not familiar with the “normal” PIE/PIF levels on your scanning drive).

If I got the same PIE/PIF numbers when burning these discs on my drives, I would personally try to burn them slower to see if the quality improves.

I agree with your thoughts on the scans. I was expecting better from the 16x Verbatim seeing it was not being pushed and is more expensive. I know others have gotten better scans that this. Here the Verbatim MCC 003 @8x with 1U7 firmware.

It must be because you are using a Rom drive instead of a burner to scan your disks - I can’t get over how you can have a max PIF spike of only 6 on all 3 scans and have toal PIF so high! Anyway, with a much older version of CD Speed I was able to use a Samsung DVD Rom drive to do scans with - absolutely useless for comparing with other people’s scans - but I thought it was useful for comparing my own burns. That is, until I got my Benq 800. Disks that got better scans in the Samsung (relative to other burns) did worse in the Benq. And the good old reliable “does it play?” test proved that the Benq’s scan was more accurate (the burn really did suck!). I found that the -Rom drive really was useless for scanning purposes. The moral of my rambling is simply this: take your results with a large grain of salt! And if you are interested, I think the Benq 800/822 does a fairly accurate/reasonable job of scanning other drive’s burns. I don’t think it does a good job quality scanning it’s own burns; it will give a -R burn a very good scan result, but this burner couldn’t burn a -R disk - even a Taiyo Yuden disk - that was playable to save it’s life! It sounds like Benq has gotten much better with their 16xx drives, but that’s a discussion for a different forum.

scanning wif a dvd-rom will give different impressions and results.

I agree that a rom drive can’t be used to compare scans against results from a burner and I’m waiting for the firmware to be released that will allow scanning on my NEC :eek: .
I do however believe that the rom scans ,when compared to each other, can give a general ideal as to the differences in the burn quality of different disk , firmwares, and burn speeds, using the same hardware and software for each test.
Using that train of thought , the MCC 004 @16x and the TY02 ,8X rated but burned at the max of 16x, might be viewed in a different light ? Both play without a hitch in three different players and a Playstation ! I might be wrong, but it seem the Fuji MIJ on sale for $19.99 for a spindle of 50, is a good value ! The scans @12x burns on these disc compare with my other "On Sale " favorite Verbatim MCC 003.
Opinions of this train of thought are welcome :bigsmile:

I agree that the specification 8x or 16x often seems arbitrary. Both MCC004 and TY02 are excellent media. I have also tested a couple of so called 16x media with Philips C16 mediacode, and those were a lot worse.

I find Disc Quality scanning to be almost totally useless. I prefer ScanDisc checking, and/or if required, the TRT part of the benchmark test to be more informative. In my experience, C1/C2/PIE/PIF testing has only every told me anything useful in extreme cases - i.e. extremely good burns like second generation Tayio Yuden and MCC on a new DVDRW drive, or where extremely good results are expected, or extremely bad, showing a block of large volume C2 Errors/PI Failures.

For example, with ScanDisc, I will check the disc, and if it shows damage/bad areas affecting files, I’ll check it out with my other drive and if it agrees that there’s a problem (other than a few bad sectors at the end, something old burn software/hardware used to do, these don’t affect files) I throw the disc out. Likewise if a TRT shows transfer rates dropping off dramatically, Adios to that disc.

Regarding these two specifically, TYG02 and MCC 004, in all 3 metrics, TRT, PIE/F, ScanDisc, I find that the results between them to be broadly similar, but ATM I have more confidence in MCC 004.