As for the disc recorded, not bad for my taste. Maybe not your best disc but if it’s readable I’d use it.
Are you sure the iHAS124 W is a good scanner?
Isn’t the PIF graph a bit strange? In “bad” zones/discs I use to get “solid zones” of PIF=1 or more (I’ll call this the “background”), but in many of them spikes don’t go higher than 4 (with PIE solidly in the hundreds I mean). If the disc is good then the background is 0 like in your disc, but most spikes are of 1 or 2 then, not of 4, 6 and more. These “grow” from backgrounds of 1 or 2 in my discs.
The “final bad zone” is typical of my discs too, but I mean full discs! I used to think this was for the lower quality near the physical edge. In general I cannot see correlation between levels of quality (specially in the PIE) and physical facts (like recording speed changes or proximity of the outer edge), except that layer 1 is much better in PIF and layer 2 much much better in PIE.
So I’d suspect about the burner, both in recording and in scanning. But the disc isn’t “bad”, it can be better sure and the burner can be pricier too (I don’t know either if more expensive burners guarantee better quality results, or rather more speed or features only).
As for the burning process, I think you have more reasons to complain or to want to improve, but check the HD speed just in case. Also some HD’s, even modern, sink with certain usage patterns, like reading sequentially from several zones at the same time (if not sequentially all rotational disks sink, lol). Were you using your other recorder at the same time?
I’ve noticed (with SATA HD’s that don’t have problems with feeding several burners) that IDE is bad at isolating one drive from what’s happening in the other: you have a recording going on in say the master, eject the disc in the slave and the master recording slows down or stops while this happens (during 1 or 2 seconds). I think the best distribution with what you have now is:
- 1st_IDE master: main HD
- 1st_IDE slave: native IDE recorder
- 2nd_IDE master: the iHAS124 W with the SATA-IDE adapter
- 2nd_IDE slave: secondary HD.
Provided that the host can sustain 4/8x without problems, is it better to burn at 4x? I use to trust the media speed rating and I’d consider burning other disc at 8x and compare.