High PIE Total or High PIF Total?

I mostly use Verb MCC004’s but I’m trying to decide on a cheaper alternative for not so important discs.

Of the discs I’ve tried so far, Panasonic +R (Ricoh JPNR03) or Infiniti -R (MCC03RG20) seem the most likely to consistently produce acceptable burns.

With the Infiniti, I typically get a high PIE total (around 200,000) but a fairly low PIF total (below 1000). With the Panasonic, I get a lower PIE total (70,000 - 80,000) but a higher PIF total (4,000 - 7,000). The jitter with both is OK but about 1% higher with the Panasonic.

So, with that choice, which would you go for and why?

With no information on Transfer Rate Tests, playback in picky players, distribuion of errors, or long term stability, I’d go for the Infinity with higher PIE but lower PIF and Jitter.

PIF are more serious than PIE.

I’d take a disc with 400,000 PIE and less than 1000 PIF over a disc with 20,000 PIE but 3,000-5,000 PIF - especially if there are PIF clumps.

It seems your instincts were right. I did TRTs on 2 Panasonics, both of which failed towards the end. Does this mean that I won’t be able to read the data in the latter part of the discs?

The first had PIE and PIF Totals of 80765 and 3327 respectively.
The second had Totals of 89785 and 7431.

The TRT for the Infiniti, which had Totals of 132290 and 753 was pretty much perfect. It was also burnt at 16x whereas the Panasonics were burnt at 8x.




[quote=doveman;2046279]It seems your instincts were right. I did TRTs on 2 Panasonics, both of which failed towards the end. Does this mean that I won’t be able to read the data in the latter part of the discs?[/quote] It might mean that, but the Transfer Rate Tests don’t normally allow the drive to slow down or re-read problematic sectors, so it’s possible that you could read the disc normally. A ScanDisc (Read test) will show you whether all sectors can be read in that drive.

Any disc that fails a Transfer Rate Test is a coaster in my book and should be reburned if possible.

Why dont you show us the disc quality scans :wink:

Here you go. I did think of including them in my original post but then decided to just quote the stats as that was what my question was about. I guess it might have been easier just to post them :slight_smile:




Ouch…I use RICOHJPN R03 on a regular basis for everyday use - playback’s not a problem, scans are OK and no problems with TRT.

It’s Maxell branded though - also burned at 8x…never got to try the Pannys.

Completely agree with Drage about any disc failing a TRT. :iagree:

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2046284]It might mean that, but the Transfer Rate Tests don’t normally allow the drive to slow down or re-read problematic sectors, so it’s possible that you could read the disc normally. A ScanDisc (Read test) will show you whether all sectors can be read in that drive.

Any disc that fails a Transfer Rate Test is a coaster in my book and should be reburned if possible.[/QUOTE]

It’s somewhat of a pain to have to check each disc, particularly if more than one test is required. Would you suggest that, with discs that give fairly consistent DQ results, it’s only necessary to do the TRT to check each burn. It confuses me a bit that a disc can get a good DQ score but be a coaster by TRT standards (I’m showing my ignorance of what the tests mean I know).

Doesn’t the Verify process done after burning a disc do much the same thing as the ScanDisc test?

One of the nice things about quality Verbs is that I don’t really need to check them as they always seem to give good results, which definitely makes the price premium worth it in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Arachne;2046312]Ouch…I use RICOHJPN R03 on a regular basis for everyday use - playback’s not a problem, scans are OK and no problems with TRT.

It’s Maxell branded though - also burned at 8x…never got to try the Pannys.

Completely agree with Drage about any disc failing a TRT. :iagree:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I just bought a few to test because people had said good things about RICOHJPN R03. Just got unlucky with the brand I guess :doh:

I also bought some Datawrite +R CMC MAG E01 which produced DQ scans on par with Verb MCC004 but were too inconsistent and also produced a lot of coasters. Likewise, Samsung Pleomax +R OPTODISCR008 produced DQ scans similar to the Infinitis but again were too inconsistent and also produced a lot of junk discs.

I think I’d better go and TRT the Datawrite and Pleomax discs I thought were good based on the DQ scans :eek:

:clap: Use this legit knowledge, aquired on your own, with your own testing, because it’s an extremely sound basis to choose which test to perform on ALL of your important discs. :wink:

In case you didn’t guess from the former, I for one strongly recommend to use TRTs rather than scans if you’re going to perform only one test, and you are using discs that are not strongly reliable.

As for the scans posted, I have the feeling from the PIF figures that you’re burning the Ricoh JPN R03 discs too slowly. Which burning speed(s) did you use?

If it fails a TRT with a decent LiteOn I wouldn’t keep it that’s for sure. Also a fan of MCC03RG, works great at 8x with OHT on in my Liteys(even MAP6 discs).

[QUOTE=Francksoy;2046380]:clap: Use this legit knowledge, aquired on your own, with your own testing, because it’s an extremely sound basis to choose which test to perform on ALL of your important discs. :wink:

In case you didn’t guess from the former, I for one strongly recommend to use TRTs rather than scans if you’re going to perform only one test, and you are using discs that are not strongly reliable.

As for the scans posted, I have the feeling from the PIF figures that you’re burning the Ricoh JPN R03 discs too slowly. Which burning speed(s) did you use?[/QUOTE]

Hey, I learnt something. Just got to remember it now - memory like a sieve me :slight_smile:

I’ve been burning the Ricoh JPN R03 mostly at 8x but I’ve done a few at 12x and 16x and there seems to be little correlation between the speed and PIF Totals. The commonest scores seems to be around the 3,500 area and whilst some burnt at 16x were lower, so were some burnt at 8x. I think it’s worth checking if burning at higher speeds makes the discs more likely to pass the TRT though.

[QUOTE=chaosoffar2k;2046439]If it fails a TRT with a decent LiteOn I wouldn’t keep it that’s for sure. Also a fan of MCC03RG, works great at 8x with OHT on in my Liteys(even MAP6 discs).[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the advice. These Infiniti are MAP6 actually and I’ve also found that 8x works well. What’s the better type of MCC03RG then and are there certain brands that always use those?

Doveman, if you scan your burns that failed TRT @ 16x, your results will almost certainly correlate.

4x is so slow that it won’t show all the errors that you might encounter if you were ripping the disc at full speed. If you were able to TRT @ 4x, it would not fail the test.

Scan one of the failed discs @ 16x and you will see a very large increase in PIE and PIF especially where it fails the TRT.

Personally, I think using a 16x quality scan and TRT are better than one 4x scan. They’re quicker too.

[QUOTE=doveman;2046481]I’ve been burning the Ricoh JPN R03 mostly at 8x but I’ve done a few at 12x and 16x and there seems to be little correlation between the speed and PIF Totals. [/quote]Fair enough, then either the combination of JPNR03 with your burner/firmware is mediocre, either your batch of JPNR03 is mediocre. And there is a fair amount of mediocre JPNR03 batches around, from what I gathered.

I think it’s worth checking if burning at higher speeds makes the discs more likely to pass the TRT though.
Hey, you’re a seeker, nice. Keep up the good work. :slight_smile:

I personally share [B]cd pirate[/B]'s approach expressed in the post above, but you’ll have different opinions (sometimes [I]very[/I] different) from other members here. The subject of high-speed scanning is controversial. But as you found yourself, @4X scans can be quite deceiving in predicting a disc’s actual behaviour… :wink:

[QUOTE=cd pirate;2046511]Doveman, if you scan your burns that failed TRT @ 16x, your results will almost certainly correlate.

4x is so slow that it won’t show all the errors that you might encounter if you were ripping the disc at full speed. If you were able to TRT @ 4x, it would not fail the test.

Scan one of the failed discs @ 16x and you will see a very large increase in PIE and PIF especially where it fails the TRT.

Personally, I think using a 16x quality scan and TRT are better than one 4x scan. They’re quicker too.[/QUOTE]

That makes sense now. I hadn’t considered that the TRT is done faster than 4x.

I’m think I’m only going to do TRT from now on, if I’m confident that the discs in question consistently produce decent DQ scans. Considering that most people are doing the DQ scans at 4x, I’m not sure I’d have much to compare my 16x scans with and perhaps it would be somewhat unnecessary even if I did.

Well, I looked at the few Panny Ricoh JPNR03 that I’ve burnt at 16x and unfortunately most of them contain less than 3.5GB so wouldn’t be that useful.

I ran the TRT on the only one which is over 4GB and that looks very healthy. Certainly the PIF Totals seem to be lower than with discs burnt at slower speeds but I haven’t really burnt enough full discs at 16x to be able to conclude anything yet, so I’ll burn the remaining discs at 16x and see what the results are.



I enjoy low PIF but low PIE is fine too :wink:



Doveman, scanning @ 16x will make more sense for you. If you scan @ 16x there will be a massive difference between the burns that pass TRT and the ones that fail TRT.

Here’s a couple of my examples - one burn is scanned @ 8x and the next is at 16x. The disc has TRT problems in every drive I test it on. The 8x scan shows only high PIE but nice PIF.

http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachments/f96/148758d1208947316-mi-s1-4x-111l-d11-coaster-8x-scan-gloj.png
http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachments/f96/148759d1208947316-mi-s1-4x-111l-d11-coaster-16x-scan-gloj.png