[moved]buy the best forget the rest

I think my bet on TY media will pay off
fuji disk oct 2004 burned on pioneer 105 at 4x

Nice to have some positive inputs about media stability sometimes… :wink:

and consistency, here’s the second one I found and scanned
kinda easy since the disks say made in japan on them

My little contribute :eek:

This media was burned with my old liteon 811, and burn was bad from the beginning.

Do you think that my benq is a good reader or that TDK are good media (because are still readable with this bad scans)? :confused:



Nice, rbrtpl! :slight_smile:

I’ll bite. I have a TYG01 from sometime in '04 (Panasonic-branded), burned on my old LiteOn LDW-851S.

http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1211293&postcount=30

Edit: scanned about a month or so back for the thread above.

The conclusion that I have reached is that the BenQ is an unreliable reader of poorer older disks. I would be interested to see what a Liteon makes of this disk.

with new burns I’m finding that BenQ and Liteon both agree that the burn is good. With older burns 2003-2004 ofetn the BenQ reports impossible levels of error whilst the Liteon does not.
This could mean that the Liteon is being too generous but as the disks still play and can be copied my feeling is that the Liteon is more reliable and the BenQ is just unable to keep up.

I’ll post a scan :slight_smile:

Here’s a recent scan of a disc more than 2 years old - CMC R01 2.4x. The only reason for the larger spikes towards the edge is because all of my older discs were stored in a disc wallet that scuffed the edges of my discs :Z. CMC R01 are among the best discs I’ve ever used. Nothing but sleeves or hard cases from now on. :a


Here there is the scan with liteon, as promised :slight_smile:

Do you see that this disc was written @8x with liteon 811 because there are three zones and this burner use z-cav to write @8x


so the benq scan shows 920 pie max and the liteon 335 ?
the benq shows 136 pif max and the liteon 14 ?

and the disk still plays ? Unless I’m missing something then it looks like the Liteon is a more useful scanner

Liteon and benq scans with different methods. Usually is not useful compare scans with different burners.

Anyway I’ll reburn this disc tomorrow for sure

OT

so were mine wallet!

Yes I would reburn as well. My point is not to compare 2 scans but rather to suggest that the BenQ has little value as a scanner of older poorer disks. I would not burn with anything other than my BenQ1640 but when I scan 2 or 3 year old disks the BenQ shows that some are rubbish - a Liteon 1693S says they are bad but not that bad and given that they can still be played and data still extracted which scanner makes more sense ?

I just used my LG to recover 50 disks that scanned 0 with my benq,
I like it “pickiness”, that’s what makes it a better scanner!
A transfer test with the LG was perfect. Piss poor scanner!

Now I understand :flower:

Anyway was already knew that liteon burned discs give bad results when scanned on benq drives,mostly because of high jitter.

I can’t scan an old burn to avoid this issue because all my oldest burns were made with my liteon 811