Is this Burn Good Quality?

vbimport

#1

i am a newbie when it comes to determing a good or really crap burn, so i was after your opinion on this burn … i updated to the latest Liggy and Dees firmware and got the following results:

are they any good?

why when i have such low Maximum PI Errors and PI Failures is it only 90% quality? shall i just ignore the Quality Figure ?


#2

The quality score is based only on the maximum PIF value, so your 4 PIF maximum gives a 90% Quality score.
(Except for drives capable of reporting POF, where any POF > 0 will give a 0% QS).

Your quality scan is good, but no quality scan is complete without a Read Transfer Test. If a Read Transfer Test is smooth, I’d clasify this as a good result.


#3

is that done with the “benchmark” tab ?


#4

That scan is a good one, as Drage said :iagree:…and yes, you can choose Transfer Rate Test from the “Run Test” drop down menu, while you have the Benchmark tab open :slight_smile:


#5

Yes.

You want a Read Transfer test that looks smooth like this:


#6

Just curiosity, but when you run a quality test with an NEC are you supposed to use it at 8x? I seem to remember 5x was the standard around here for NEC’s, but I could be wrong—this is just off the top of my head.


#7

I seem to remember that too, but then I never used my NEC for DVD scanning. I just saw loads of 5x scans in the NEC forum :slight_smile:


#8

IMO deciding on a “standard” scanning speed for NEC drives is a futile excercise, because every NEC drive has a mind of it’s own about which scanning speeds produce sane results; for many drives there are no such scanning speeds.

The suggested scanning speeds in the NEC forum are 5x and 8x, but with my NEC 4551 the only sane scanning speeds are 12x and 1x with 5x and 8x being the absolute looniest scanning speeds.

I have read opinions that the NEC 3540 is actually the least insane NEC drive for scanning, but I don’t have a personal opinion on this as I don’t have a 3540 myself.

If 8x scanning works for you on your drive, then I suggest you keep using that.


#9

Interesting info, Drage :)…strange how NEC DVD scanning speeds can vary so much.


#10

here is the graph scanned on my cheapo laptop DVD drive (it seems to give accurate results though).

my laptop drive said the burn started at 3x, but when i did the graph scan on my NEC, it said the burn started at around 6x for some reason … is this the crazy NEC scan results you were talking about ?

other than that, the Quality Scan along with this Graph, would you recommend me keep using this media? i suppose there isnt really any better full face printable media out there ?



#11

What you have posted is a Read Transfer Test on your laptop drive, and it shows the reading speed of that disc in that drive (not the original burning speed). Laptop DVD drives today read at 8x CAV which starts at approx. 3x and ends at 8x.

Your NEC desktop drive will read DVDs at 16x CAV which starts at approx. 6½x and ends at 16x.

Your laptop TRT (Transfer Rate Test) looks fine.


#12

^ Your TRT is just about perfect and you should definitely continue to use that media. Assuming that your TY+Rs are genuine, you’re already using one the best, if not the very best, media available in any event. :slight_smile:


#13

if the Quality % based on the Maximum values, then why has this (taken from another post) with higher PI Errors and Failures got a higher overall % score ?

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1233189&postcount=5

.


#14

The Quality score depends only on the maximum PIF value, given that the scanning interval in ECC blocks is the same. There are different formulas/tables for calculating the QS from the max-PIF for different scanning intervals, however.

NEC drives have a scanning interval that can be set in the registry for older CDSpeed versions or in the Advanced dialog on CDSpeed 4.7.0.0 and later.

Your scan has been made with a 1 ECC scanning interval but the scan you just linked to was made with an 8 ECC scanning interval.

You can see the max-PIF/QS table here near the bottom of the post.


#15

i did another scan at 5x and got even worse results …

what are your thoughts? … am i to worry about these new results or was it expected ?

im thinking that i should be getting much higher than 77 Quality on such high quality (expensive) media … :sad:

but according to the table at the bottom of the page you posted … the 77 results will equal to 97 8ECC … that sounds a whle lot better … :iagree:




#16

The poor quality score was caused by the one big spike near the end. Did you have a fingerprint near the edge maybe?


#17

possibly,… i have had it in and out of several drives,… i read somewere that a single random big spike can be ignored anyway … thus meaning that my results would be the same as my first post (90%) …


#18

Wahoo!

looks like i have pretty much solved my problems … i tried burning at 8x instead of 4x … and i got my best results yet (see image below) … i always presumed that the slower i burn, … the better quality the disc will be … why have i got much better results at 8x over 4x ?

… also, the scan was done at 1ECC, but when i did the same scan but at 8ECC i got more PI Failures … is this any reason to be concerned? … i presumed not, as people say that the 1ECC scan is a lot more accurate.

:clap:




#19

Always burn your media, at or near it’s rated speed. As a rule of thumb, I usually burn 16x dvd’s at 12x, and 8x dvd’s at 6x. With Verbatim and Taiyo Yuden, in my Plextor, max speed has always produced very high quality burns.


#20

That is too simplistic. There are plenty of media/drive/firmware combinations where you will get excellent quality by burning 16x media at medium to low speeds.

Just don’t fall into the “slower is always better” trap.