Good scans for a 2500?

vbimport

#1

i have 2500a with herrie 107 v2 b4

4x -r @8x cmc af1

4x +r @8x cmc f01

2.4x +r @8x cmc r01

1x -R (ritek g03) @8x

4x +R @4x Ritek r02

1x -R @ 2x princo


#2

Thank you for sharing, cnlson !

No convincing scans for the 8X burns, except, surprisingly the G03 (are you sure you burned it at 8X ?)

The better CMC have a problem at the very end. I didn’t expect that after reading all the posts about exceptional results burning them with the Nec 2500A.

You might want to give them a second chance at 4X ?

Forget about Princo.


#3

It looks like your particular batch of CMC MAG F01 should not be written above 4X or 6X. I also have a batch of F01 that is not very good quality.

Your CMC MAG R01 scan is suprising. All of my CMC MAG R01 scans exhibit EXTREMELY low parity errors when burnt at 8X. I suppose YMMV with this media also…


#4

For me, nothing surprising. I have some R01s (verbatim datalife). They don’t even accept 8x burn in my 2500A. The software(nero and copytodvd) drops burning speed to 4x at the end of the disc.


#5

Ask him if he lives in the UK or US. Usually makes a difference on CMC :wink:


#6

yep:

i will try some more of each. the cmc i have is hp for the R01 and the af1/f01 are teon and valuedisc so not top notch in either case. i will try some more burns and see how they go… waiting 9 minutes is not so much of a pain as waiting 15.

here is an af1 from a different spindle looks a little better


#7

When I have PI and PO errors which increase towards the end of the scan I usually decrease the burn speed for that particular lot of discs and hope for a better scan. Maybe 15 minutes, as opposed to 9, is tolerable after all if it lowers the errors towards the end of the write in a significant way.


#8

one better and one worse


#9

2.4x media at 6x… much nicer


#10

ricohjpnr01 4x @8x

ricohjpnr01 4x @ 6x


#11

Those comparisons 6X and 8X say enough ;).
I prefer RICOH R00 those babies burn at 8X :).


#12

Excuse me for being slightly OT, but I’ve been looking for this answer and haven’t found it yet.

What causes the drastic, step changes in the some of the PI graphs shown in the previous posts? I have a Liteon 811S that shows similar step changes for mosts disks I scan, but my Liteon 812S (scanning the same disks) scans are nice and smooth (and shows less errors, too). Which is “correct”, the 811S or the 812S?


#13

rdgrimes will tell you that each is “correct” in that they are reporting exactly what they are seeing. certain drives like the 812 in dvd burners and 48161 in cd burners are seemingly less accurate in what they report for errors.

the steps are caused because the drive is stepping up in speed. unlike cds most dvd burners burn z-clv which is a stepped burn… something like this: