Is this scan any good?



it’s the CMC media at circuit city for $4 this week… want to know if I should return it or keep it.


You can be satisfied, great scan. Low PIE and PIF also low jitter. Keep them.


4$ per… 25 pack?

If so, it looks very good at that price. But as a final quality check, make sure it burns fine for the last 300~400 MB. The error very often increases after 4GB.


yeah it’s $14 - 10 rebate for 25. its’ in this week’s circuit city flyer- under a dvd player I think - it’s a very small ad.

errors, even on free dvds are not worth the price you pay. I want to burn some media files off my HDs but if I do, I want the DVDs to be reliable! :smiley:

I’ll try burning some more to the end.


Since I’m new to this myself, here is my scan. Looks good, right?


You have an old version of NERO CD/DVD-Speed. Download the latest version and you scan time can go up to 16X.


In my opinion, your burn is about as close to perfect as you can get. If all of your burns are as clean as this one, then you have nothing at all to worry about.


Sorry about that…here’s the new scan of the SONY D11.


thanks guys, i wish I knew how to read these scans. do you just look at the # of errors or do the graphics tell you something too?


This is a little bit of a long read, but it’s a good starting point:


Here’s how I read them:


  1. The top “PI Errors” graph (PIE for short) represents all of the DVD data errors as they are read from the DVD. These errors are shown before the first line of defense DVD “error correction” data has been applied to fix them. All DVD rom drives internally apply error correction information automatically, so Windows doesn’t know or care that it is happening.

  2. The bottom graph, the “PI Failures” graph, represents any errors that remain after the first set of error correction data has been applied. Since the “first line of defense” error correction logic failed to correct all of the errors, the remaining errors are called “PI Failures” or just PIFs for short.

  3. Fortunately, there is another layer of DVD error correction data burned on the DVD (it can be thought of as a second line of defense) that will be applied against the remaining PIFs. As before, this correction logic is internal to the DVD player itself - Windows doesn’t know or care that it is happening. This second layer of error correction is all that remains between a good burn and a coaster, so it must be 100% successful. Any failures in here will count up the “PO Failures” box located near the bottom-right. Note that “PO Failures” are only counted and not graphed like the others, since “PO Failures” are not allowed for an acceptable burn.

How I interpret the graphs:

This interpretation would apply for a graph scanned on the BenQ 1620 at 8X (or maximum, which is the same as 8X). You can also scan at 12X and 16X, but the errors would rise significantly, particularly for cheaper discs, so you would need to keep this in mind when interpreting the results.

I like to look at the graph to see how even it is - particularly the top “PI Errors” graph. Problems usually occur near the end of the burn, so I carefully look at the end of the graph to make sure there’s no error peaks. It’s very important to read the graph scale along the left. I consider a burn to be very good to excellent if the PIE maximum peaks below 20 (your burn peaked to 9, which I consider to be excellent). Even then, I don’t get too excited as long as the maximum PIE peak is below 60. I’ve seen many cheap discs burn with PIE peaks of 200 - 300, and many of them read back fine.

But by far the most important graph is the bottom PIF graph. For a 1620, it’s important that the PIF maximum peaks do not exceed 16 or there is danger of a coaster. It’s important that they do not exceed a maximum peak of 32 or a coaster becomes more likely. The current version of CDSpeed looks only at the PIF maximum when it calculates the “Quality Score”. For example, your PIFs peaked to a maximum value of 6 which equates directly to an excellent CDSpeed “Quality Score” of 97%.

Other rule-of-thumb items which are not as critical:
a) I like the PIE totals to be below 100,000 (yours are excellent at 8817)
b) I like the PIF totals to be below 2000 (yours are excellent at 569). I’ve seen them as low as 21 for some of the best discs - but not often.
c) I don’t like to look at the PIF graph and see what I call “clustering”. A cluster would be a series of repetitive PIFs that cause the graph to be coloured solidly with PIFs for about 1/4 inch or so. Clustering often occurs near the end of a burn, and can cause reading issues on some players, particularly if the PIF cluster maximum peak is above 10.
d) I like to see even jitter levels across the whole graph averaging around 8.5% and peaking below 14%. Often, jitter will tend to rise near the end of the burn.

This represents what I consider to be a good burn. Others may well have different opinions.


This is the worst “quality” test yet for me and the disc plays back flawlessly on every dvd player I tried it in. These PIE’s are off the chart. I don’t know if these tests mean a whole lot in the end.


You were lucky in that the PIEs were quite correctable, despite their maximum peak of 1308. This is shown by the most important indicator, the PIFs, which only peaked to a max of 13, which is still well into the acceptable range below 16.

Besides the “PO Failures” count of 0, the PIFs are about the only reasonably good thing that can be said about this burn, and even they are clustered badly near the end. The PIE total of 1,457,651 is well over my prefered value of 100,000 and the PIF total of 3343 is also over my prefered value of 2000 (although not by that much). The jitter also looks pretty abysmal, averaging 11.08% and peaking to a maximum of 17.4%.

This is definitely what I would call a “marginal burn”. I 'd bet that there are at least some DVD players that would have trouble playing the last minute or so of the credits (or the extras - or whatever it is that’s recorded near the end of this disc).

I don’t know if these tests mean a whole lot in the end.
You are correct in that a scan will not tell you whether a disc is absolutely good or absolutely bad, and it will not tell you whether or not it will work properly in all players, regardless of the quality of the scan. It will only show you whether or not the disc looks marginal when read back by the player that it is scanned in.

But I think this is important in that it will help you to pick disc types that work well with your recorder, and it will also help you choose the burn speed that works best with these discs (and fairly often this is not the slowest burn speed - despite what some people choose to think).


Also I used CloneDVD to burn. I don’t use Nero. Does this have any effect on the Nero quality test? I’m guessing it would.


It shouldn’t have any effect at all, since it’s just reading the disc.

You can even do a CDSpeed quality scan on a pressed disc and get valid results.