Increase of pie errors at end of disc

vbimport

#1

<img src=‘http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1183676/TDK.jpg’ width=641 height=532 >

I was just wondering what could be causing the ramp up of pie errors near the end of the disc?


#2

<img src=‘http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-5/1183676/TDK.jpg’ width=641 height=532>

Anyone have any idea why I would have increasing pi errors at the end of the disc?


#3

Burning at 16X?

No information provided, so I’m just guessing here.

Those scans are pretty consistent with what I see when I burn at 16x with my external 1620. Although this is ‘acceptable’, it isn’t very pretty. It is for those reasons I burn at 12x or even 8x on my rig.

I’m looking to upgrade soon, and will buy a newer model that burns at 16x better than my first generation 16x burners.


#4

Because the end of the disc is being written faster than the start of the disc.

If you’re worried about the rising PIE, reduce your burning speed to 12x or perhaps 8x, or get other media that will burn at 16x without such a rise in PIE.

If you want to know more, you need to provide us with more information.


#5

mkim797, you don’t seem to remember your warning here:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=102257

Cross posting is against our rules. Please learn and remember our rules if you wish to continue to use this forum. :cop:

Threads merged.


#6

The burn illustrated in the post is from an 8x burn.


#7

Media issue.

[B]Francksoy[/B] has reported (about a month ago) in the Blank Media Forum that recent [B]TTH02[/B] burns like this, and that the burning speed has no impact. I can’t find the thread right now, but he showed scans that were similar to yours. He stopped recommending TTH02 after having been a strong advocate for these.

EDIT Couldn’t find the original post, but found this :http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1430835&postcount=5


#8

I encountered a similar problem with certain batches of Datawrite x4 +R (RICOHJPN R01 002), but the increase in PIEs happens roughly after the 30% point during the quality scan. I’ve burned loads of these and although they’re brilliant for overspeeding, (they burn on my BenQs at x12 with quality scores between 95 and 98), certain batches produce a big PIE ‘hump’ when scanned. I scanned most discs from these ‘bad’ batches with 5 different burners, the PIE hump appears at about the 30% point, no matter which writer is used for the burn or the scan. As I said this happens only with some batches, other batches burned really well with all my writers without any such ‘humps’.

Look at http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=176516&highlight=7551
for an example. The first ones I burned were from an affected batch (and the PIE hump is evident), whereas later down that page you can find some burns on a different batch of those Datawrites that don’t display this flaw.


#9

First of all, these PIE “humps” at the end can be fairly typical of DVD-R media I’ve seen burned, and this tends to happen at least on at least some burns with my tyg02 (DVD-R 8x). The suggestions to reduce burn speed and others are excellent possibilities that can affect that. My reading also indicates (but was already suggested by the ‘media quality variation’) that DVD-R in general will have that “pie hump” towards the end or somewhere in it, and is typical–something one should expect when using -R media. I had read where some suggested a good quality +R media won’t do the same, and that +R is (in general) better made than -R. In my experience with +R MCC and TY (compared to -R tyg02), I’ve found this true: I won’t get the “pie humps” on +R–even when burned above the 8x rated speed (at 12x, but only when the media passes the FE/TE test for 12x under QSuite 2.1 on my BenQ 1640). Finally, the only time I get concerned about “pie humps” is when they are matched by equally ugly PIF 'humps" at the same spot, indicating that once the “inner correction” was applied, that the “failures,” or errors that remained after the inner correction was attempted, remain. In other words, if someone has a scan with a huge PIE AND PIF hump at the same points, that may be cause for concern, and signal the burn speed should be slowed and/or the media can’t handle being burned that fast.

My suggestion is that if one has a burner that can run some kind of "media quality’ test (or especially run the FE/TE test, such as a Plextor 716a under Plextools or BenQ 1640 with QSuite 2.1), that one run that test before the write, to see which speed produces acceptable results (below the maximums in the simulation)–THEN burn at that speed. The advantage to running a FE/TE test is that the TE line will sometimes coincide with PIE/PIF spikes, giving some indication of potential “higher error areas” on the media before the actual write (see link for my posts in that thread for examples of PIE humps at end of burn, partially indicated by increase of TE at end of scan). Running the FE/TE test will prevent a good amount of “surprise” when testing the resulting burn under Nero CD-DVD Speed.


#10

When using BenQ drives to perform PIE/PIF scans that will usually not happen, because contrary to the ECMA specifications, BenQ drives don’t include PIF when reporting PIE (see this post by Erik Deppe).

For really bad discs this might have the strange effect that PIE actually decrease when PIF goes through the roof. Here’s one example.


#11

I see what you mean, Dragemester, although I primarily referred to PIE/PIF humps at the end of the scan, which is typically the only real problem point I have had in my burning experience. However, I see the interesting ‘results’ sometimes possible when comparing scanning on a Liteon, and that further cements (in my mind) that if anyone has a BenQ burner, that it would be a good idea to use a Liteon to compare and see how the scans look from both drives. I certainly would have gotten a Liteon 1693 had I not gotten my Plextor 716a first. :o Oh well…


#12

lol - that’s beside the point I think. Have you taken a look at the [B]actual numbers[/B] in the original scan posted? None of my -R discs have a ‘hump’ with 250+ PIE / 8ECC (and even less so, I bet, in a 4X CLV Benq scan! ) :disagree: and considering how people in this forum scrutinize scans, if it was usual for -R media to scan like this, we would all know it. :wink:

Also Francksoy’s report (still can’t find the link, sorry) clearly showed that with these recent TTH02, the burning speed had no positive or negative impact on the very high PIE levels.


#13

My point was only to make a general statement on PIE humps (that increase at the end of the disc, either noticable or maybe even the ‘eye-popping’ variety), as related to my burning experience, mainly with tyg02. I am one of those that closely look at my scan results, but the original poster’s question dealt with what were possible causes. While the fact TTH02 typically burns like this and lowering burn speed doesn’t help, the other possibilities were still possibilities. I congratulate you on unearthing the information to directly tie the poster’s PIE hump to typical results with TTH02, but as I also stated, a FE/TE test performed at the desired burn speed may have revealed this potential by a high TE result, perhaps close to or over the maximum. As the FE/TE test reveals clues about the physical properties of the disk (how well it reflects the laser, which the Focus Error measures, and how well the spiral tracks can be followed by the laser, measured by Tracking Error), this test could have showed problems in either or both the FE or TE graphs. I remember I told someone to run this test on his RICOHJPN mid, as he had burned it at 12x, but got the (shall we say it) PIE hump from 3.5 gb to the end of the disc. When he ran the FE/TE test, the TE graph went way up at about the same points, strongly supporting why the PIE (and PIF) humps were present on the scan results. He retested at 8x, lowered his burn speed to 8x, and got much better results. :iagree:

Of course, I suppose we could try to define what both of us consider ‘humps,’ but that would be beside the point. The point is no one was taking anything away from your input, and you did some good digging. :clap: