My Ritek R03 passes Benq @ 12x but fails @ 8x

vbimport

#1

Does it mean I really have to burn @12x? I’m not very comfortable overspeeding this media. What causes this?


#2

I overspeed this media regularly and get great scans. No problems at all so far.

At the same time, I’ve found that QScan is very conservative in its estimates, so I’ve learned to ignore its advise (unless the scan looks VERY bad).

From my perspective, I don’t think you would notice any difference in the burn quality whether you burned it at 8X or 12X.


#3

I get consistantly good Disc Quality Scores on R03’s at 12X.
Scan of Ritek R03 at 12X and one at 4X:




#4

I just burned an R03 tonight at 8x and it was a very nice scan - all PI Errors below 12-ish. PI Failures were nice and low as well (under 1000). Can’t complain about that. :slight_smile: Wish I would’ve saved the scan! Sorry about that - figured there would be enough scans of Ritek R03’s around on these forums from our drives that I didn’t need to post another.


#5

Here are the Qscans.

I made two burns @ 8x although I wasn’t able to Qscan them before the burn. One was fairly good (see scan)but the other is so bad that cdspeed stops midway with the “no additional sense info” error.





#6

The Ritek R03 media is one of the most reliable with the BenQ 1620, and there is no need to burn it slower than 12x. Your media failure is probably not due to burning at 12x vs. 8x, but just a bad disc. To use the QScan Disc Speed test properly, [i]it should be done with the same blank disc[/i]. Testing different discs can give inconsistent results if a bad disc is in the batch. That’s the beauty of QScan, if used on a blank it can help detect a bad disc before it’s burned.

For example, this is the same blank Ritek R03 disc tested by QScan at all available speeds, starting at 12x and working downward to 2.4x:






#7

I tested 3 pcs and got similar results. Maybe a bad batch? Or fakes?


#8

I burned two RiData +R 8x (Ritek R03) at max speed. One got a score of 94 and another 92. What is considered to be good score, and what is unacceptable score for read back?


#9

A score of 90% and up is generally considered to be acceptable. Note that this directly equates to a PIF peak of 16 when scanned on the 1620. Lower quality scores may well work, but you’re moving into the “danger” zone.


#10

Apparently Ritek had some quality control issues about four months or so ago. Your discs may be affected by this.

For the QScan graph you posted, notice that you have both tracking and focus issues, since both lines are exceeding the height of the dashed reference lines (about 440 for focus and 500 for tracking). Also notice that these errors exist near the BEGINNING of the disc. I too have seen similar QScan reports from my Ritek media, also near the beginning of the disc, and I have learned to just ignore them, because I always get good burns.

Since your problems occurred when you were scanning near the MIDDLE of the disc, it follows that they might be related to another issue - or possibly just a single bad disc.


#11

I just happened to burn a R03 at 12x and got a 90% score too, with a nasty PIF-spike like in redisol’s scan but nearer the end. Wasn’t too happy, as my MCC003, TYT02 and even +rw Philips 041 score a lot better.