Just Check This For Me

vbimport

#1

OK, im not asking wether the scan is good or not, i know its fine, its in spec and the TRT was perfect. All i want to know is from someone who has some experiance with this mid is see how the PIF’s start to get more towards the end of the disc is this a normal thing with MCC02RG20. (i know it will very from batch to batch, burner to burner). Im only really use to seeing TYG02 scans after burning.

Was burnt with a 111D.


#2

Actually yes, my Prodisc-made MCC02RG20 shows very similar characteristics, the density of errors increases on the outer 2GB or so of the discs. My scans look very similar to yours in both PIE and PIF trends, on both my 111D and other drives.


#3

There’s a little plenty of PIF but the PIE is looking great. Is it Verbatim… burned at 8x? I use a lot of the Infiniti 8x -R and PIF total is about 2-600. They are pretty ok - also PIE is pretty low. Jitter fine too. I burn them at 4 or 6x… Never 8x, even if i’m sure thats fine too :slight_smile:

Edit --Just found a recent scan. Mine (Infiniti) seems better on PIE but worse on PIF :slight_smile:



#4

Verbatim burnt at X8 yes, about 3.8GB. Im sure there CMC made, inner code starts MAH. I might do a test at X6 and X4 see what i get. Cant test jitter, dont have a drive capable :frowning:


#5

This is an old scan of MCC 02RG20
http://club.cdfreaks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=78356&stc=1


#6

Mate, no offense but you are over analyzing a lot here and your burns seem absolutely fine. I know you didn’t ask that, but it has to be said.

Scanning is not extremely accurate with home drives. And even if it was, your disc is so far within spec that worrying or thinking about such a small rise in errors is not worth the effort.

Some discs may show more PIF at the start, some more towards the end, some in the middle, you never know and it doesn’t really matter when they are this low.

Congrats with the superb burn. :slight_smile:


#7

Actually, I don’t think it had to be said. :wink:


#8

Actually I think it did, scoobie, since it’s a topic which has been born from the belief and obsession with home scanning.

No offense to you jedi master, many other people ask the same questions and worry about irregular scans etc. If scanning wasn’t pumped up and made out to be so accurate by the cd freaks reviewers, people wouldn’t worry about wasting time analyzing scans.

They say there is a direct link between badly burnt discs and errors in the scans, in the reviews. However, saying a burn with many less errors is going to be easier to read in your play than one with much more can be completely and utterly wrong in many instances.

So I think it does need to be said as we are here wasting time over something which doesn’t need to be discussed. :wink:


#9

Huh, that’s interesting, but I don’t see where Jedi is getting obsessed and overly concerned with his scan. I only see you obsessing over him even bringing up his results. Maybe you should read less into Jedi’s intentions of his post and not tell him that he’s wasting his time, it seems a bit rude since he hasn’t mentioned concern over his scan (in fact just the opposite, he’s pointed out that he knows it’s fine). All I really see him asking is what kind of results others are getting with this same media.


#10

I’m not being rude, seems more like you’re always jumping at my posts and being rude. Can’t I have and voice an opinion without you shooting at it?

Asking if other people’s scans rise towards the end would be ok if it was a big amount and he had readback problems. But we are talking of a rise so small that’s it’s almost nothing. And he stated there are no readback problems.


#11

Btw, he already answered his own question in the first place: (i know it will very from batch to batch, burner to burner)

It will, with burner, speed, firmware, batch, media, scanning speed, scanning drive, tiny specs of dust plus MANY more variables. Any of those could have caused the small increase of PIF. Maybe his liteon was having a bad day and felt like scanning with a few more PIF at the end.

Is it so wrong for me to suggest he is reading into the scans too seriously? Honestly, is it?


#12

You are right, it’s not ok that he inquires about how other users of a media code he’s new to performs for them. This thread should be deleted. I should read between the lines and assume that he’s overly concerned about his results despite him already saying that he knows that the result is fine.

Ok, sarcasm aside, I don’t think there should be an issue with someone starting a thread about new media and wanting to know how it performs for others. I agree the result is fine, and so does Jedi.


#13

Right. You are correct, I am wrong. Let us share more meaningful pictures of scans that will [B]definitely[/B] answer his question.

These scans are professional and should be used by all people for every disc they write. Please make more threads when you get a very slight increase in PIF. Ask others if they experience the same slight increase when testing with their ever so accurate testing drives.

Remember, less errors the better!!


#14

OK i have to say it…

Come now lads calm down, big smiles


#15

Att cd pirate. I won’t comment on your views but take your time and read original question and please share your experience with those discs. Feel free to start a topic every time you feel like ranting about scans. It’s unfair to take any topic into a discussion about relevance of scans.

Here’s the original question. Let’s see what you got…


#16

Check out mine, does the opposite even with 12x overspeed burn: http://forum.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1632714&postcount=262
and also with the attached image. I do have a batch that does seem to have higher pif around the second half, but with the randomness of my MCC02RG20 batches (some have high PIE at start lowering to end, some have low PIE at start rising at the end) I haven’t found any distinctly common characteristics.

The PIF difference while noticeable due to the low resolution of the kprobe graph really is negligible when you consider the relatively low total PIF. You seem to know this already though. I’m sure it would hardly be noticed on a zoomed in graph.


#17

I second that. Let’s be friendly in here and let’s get back on topic. :wink:


#18

I get most of my PIF at the start of the burn and the PIE rises at the end of the disc when using the MCCO2RG20
here is a typical scan that I get with it but as others have said [U][B]scans mean nothing in real life use[/B][/U]. I’ve had really
bad looking scans that worked perfectly and really good looking scans that didn’t want to work or wouldn’t work at all. :confused:



#19

Thanks for your scans - shape looks a bit like my scan above :slight_smile:

Let me ask because i’m curious since you underline and all. Who said scans mean anything in real life use? And how do you know they don’t? Do you trust your home scanner?


#20

It’s just that a lot of people think that scans mean everything about the quality of their burned disc’s
I know because I used to be one of them. :o I Then learned that scans isn’t everything after getting
some pretty decent scans that afterwords didn’t play that nicely. I half/way trust the home scanning
but I put more trust in a TRT test a lot more now days. The reason I say that is I used to do just the
scan until I got the disc’s that didn’t read all that good afterwords with the decent scans. I then ran
the TRT test on them and it showed problems with transfer rates even though by the scan report they
should have been almost perfect on playback. :confused: