Interpret Results RitekG05 @ 16x

I’m still getting the hang of interpreting resluts from quality scans so oppinions would be great on this media please.

It’s a RiDisc Full-Face Printable DVD-R (un-printed) and to date has been my 2nd most compatible and succesful disc … 1st place goes to TY Watershield discs.

I have now burnt a run of 270 of these RiDiscs and have yet to have 1 failure!!

CDSpeed Results:

I carried out a scan at 8x first and had almost identical results. Any advice on interpreting would be greatly appreciated, I know there is a whole miriad of posts on this subject but there is such conflicting advice on many its hard to take in whats right and wrong!!

Many Thanks

Eddie

I have now burnt a run of 270 of these RiDiscs and have yet to have 1 failure!!

You know that all of those dvds will become unreadable right?

Oh god I’ve just read the posts on RitekG05 and realise I may have committed treason now!!! lol

I can however report that I have never tested a disc after anything more than a few days … I have images of all my promo dvd’s not working in a few months now!! ha ha ha

They were cheap :wink:

(Well, thats my excuse anyway!!)

[QUOTE=rakter;1924919]You know that all of those dvds will become unreadable right?[/QUOTE]

I do now :frowning:

Lol, poor man.

Well those results look like they aren’t that great but you are scanning @ 16x and the general standard is 4x. I suggest running a scan @ 4x first and posting here because the jitter will be lower, and you might not have all those PIF at the end.

Ok, this is the very same disc in the same drive but scanned at 4x …

What annoys me is that there is so little PIF until the very end then it goes to pot :frowning:

Without suggestions of different disc, is there anything I could do to improve the last 10% of the burn???

[QUOTE=jumney1;1925333]Without suggestions of different disc, is there anything I could do to improve the last 10% of the burn???[/QUOTE]yes just burn 3.5/3.7 gigs.

[QUOTE=rolling56;1925341]yes just burn 3.5/3.7 gigs.[/QUOTE]

:bow: lol

I’m gonna try an 8x burn and a 4x and see how that goes, will post tomorrow … I have about 200 discs to play with!! :bigsmile:

4x scan looks much better with jitter, but there’s still that problem at the end.

If you are going to try 8x and 4x, I wonder what speed the above posted pic was actually written at?? G05 is only meant for 8x, some writers can pump out 12x with them but I would suggest 4, 6 or 8 for best results.

[QUOTE=jumney1;1924914]I’m still getting the hang of interpreting resluts from quality scans so oppinions would be great on this media please.
[/QUOTE]

What are resluts?:confused::stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, I hope you don’t have the same problem that nearly everyone else has with those discs. I’ve never used any, but scanning now won’t mean a thing later if they will be unreadable as is the case with at least 90% if those. You need to reburn them with some media with better history of longevity if they are important.

I’d burn these discs at 4X or 6X, and avoid writers that use Mediatek chipsets. These should burn quite well on any Pioneer burner.

Regards,
TerminalVeloCD

That disc was burnt at 6X in a LH-20A1P (KL0N) alongside an identical disc in identical drive.

Burnt using Nero with no fancy strategies or anything, just drive in, disc in click burn and eject!! lol

This is the 4x burn … I just used CD-Speed to create the disc this time:


^That’s a much better result. :iagree:

Looks like 4x is the best with that liteon. I agree with Terminalvelocd about the pioneers though, they would most likely burn very well with G05. I remember My 106 and 109 quite liked G05 :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=cd pirate;1925635]Looks like 4x is the best with that liteon. I agree with Terminalvelocd about the pioneers though, they would most likely burn very well with G05.[B] I remember My 106 and 109 quite liked G05 [/B]:p[/QUOTE]

Yes , liked it so much that they implanted the deadly self-destruction “virus” :bigsmile: