Is this a bad disk?

I just got a 100 pk of Verbatim +R (MCC004). On the quality scans there are areas of concentrated PIFs at about the 2.7 and 3.5 gb marks. Other than these funky looking areas, the scan looks good, IMO. I get similar scans on all disks from this 100 pk (about 10 used so far). I’ve attached a quality scan and a transfer test scan of the same disk.

Do those areas of concentrated PIFs indicate a bad or questionable disk? I’m using these to archive data so I want to be sure these disks are OK.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Benq 1640 BSLB
MCC004 burned at 12x

It looks like dust or something like that? If there’s dust on it you should carefully remove it and scan it again and you’ll have a nice result :slight_smile:

Well, whatever caused the PIF clump, it didn’t affect the readability of the disc any; the transfer rate test is perfect.

Thanks for the replies. No, it’s not dust. I check the disks before burning, plus all 10 disks I’ve burned so far from this pack have a similar scan. Would you trust this for a data archive disk?

Could it be a spot or something?

There is no spot or blemish that I can see. I haven’t tried using a magnifying glass though. If I can find one I’ll take a closer look.

They look similar to some of the TY T03 I have from Plextor and Verbatim MIJ. Pif clusters of 1000 or more, but not out of spec. If they were MIJ instead of MCC004 I wouldn’t be surprised, now I have to wonder about the similarity.


The result isn’t too bad for an 8x scan. I would expect better results from Verbatim MCC004. Where were they made?

The scan below is a Verbatim +R burned at 8x in the BenQ DW1640 and scanned in the same drive. This disc was made in India, presumably by MBI.

Made in Taiwan. All my prior packs of verbatim MCC004 (also MIT) had scans like skelton’s - low numbers of PIFs evenly distributed. This 100 pack is the first time I’ve had this cluster of PIFs.

I’ll be the old Francksoy nuisance again :bigsmile: and tell that there is no way to answer this question by looking at an original scan. A scan is not a crystal ball. There is absolutely zero evidence that there would be any kind of correlation between an original PIE/PIF scan and a disc’s lifespan, actually in my experience and with my own data, I think there is enough evidence that this correlation doesn’t exist at all and is a pure figment of the imagination.

Only thing you can do if you doubt, is to re-scan after some time to see if errors significantly increase.

MCC004 is supposed to be a very stable MID so no reasons to be too worried.

But… for archiving, the way to go is to burn at least two discs of different makes. You never know what can go wrong. It’s a far sounder approach than burning 1 disc only, and decide if it’s good enough for archiving by looking at the scan. Play safe. :wink:

There is enough evidence… If the disc is unreadable to begin with, degradation isn’t going to make it readable later on! :stuck_out_tongue:

LOL :bigsmile: - that’s a “no lifespan at all” case then. :stuck_out_tongue: