NEC 3500A burns not high quality?

vbimport

#1

Hi,

Here are my first 3 discs I burned so far. Are these quality burns? The first one pauses during playback at random points. Graphs made with CD Speed 5.33

Firmware on my NEC 3500A is 2.16 original

First MCC 02RG20 (Verbatim 8x -R) at 2X speed burned with DVD Shrink 3.2

Second is MCC 02RG20 at 12X speed with DVD Shrink 3.2

Third is RITEKG05 at 8X with DVD Shrink 3.2

Are any of these good quality. Can someone please give me some guidelines as to what I should be looking for in the PIE/PIF average/maximum/total values. Thanks in advance for your help. I am quite new to the DVD-R scene as you can tell.

gb


#2

<=280 for PI and <=4 for PIF are good.


#3

The scans look good… except of the 2x burn… don’t burn MCC02RG20 at 2x! minimum 4x.


#4

Thanks, appreaciate the feedback. There is so much info on these forums it can be hard to sort through at first. The 2X burn was an accident, these are the first 3 discs I made. Is there any reason to change to a new firmware if the scans look good?


#5

No I don’t think so… Just keep this firmware for now. If you would burn DVD+R then it would be better to switch to a firmware that supports bitsetting.


#6

scanning on DVD drive isn’t recommended


#7

Thanks for the help. Why would I not scan on my DVD-ROM drive (LiteOn LTD163)? I can’t scan with the NEC 3500A and the LiteOn is on the list of supported drived in CD Speed. Am I missing something?


#8

It’s just that a DVD-ROM will not give an accurate scan and will usually show many more errors than a DVD burner. But as you said, you can’t scan on the ND-3500. so a scan on a DVD-ROM drive is better than no scan at all. :slight_smile:


#9

I see. Thanks. So, if I’m getting good scans on my DVD-ROM, which should report more errors, then the discs should be good to go since a DVD-R drive would show less errors. I just wanted to make sure things were looking good before I go wild backing up my whole collection. I read that one post by somebody that made 125 bad discs before realising it. I don’t want that to happen to me. Thanks again.

gb


#10

on a -rom drive or on the 3500 the more important thing is a transfer rate test as slowdowns will show if the disc is actually bad or not. pi/pif scanning scanning questions should really be asked in the media forum and specifically the media scanning subforum specifically


#11

Why can’t you burn at 2x? That seems counter-intuitive. I can see if you say don’t burn at 8x only at 4x. But why not a slower speed? It it has no problems with 4x, why does it have problems at 2x?


#12

… and why is that? They both just look to see whether how much the ECC will be used right? So why would a DVD-ROM be different from a DVD burner? They both use the same ECC because it’s encoded in the disk. This is also counter-intuitive to me. :slight_smile: I don’t see why a ROM vs. write would affect reading.

I can see the argument for using a DVD rom on the basis of speed because compromises can be made with burners. But why is a burner better at looking for ECC?

Is there a real reason for this? Or is it just based on past experience?


#13

My ND-3500A is the only dvd drive I have, does this mean I can’t do any type of error scanning? Is there any other recommended way to test burn quality with this drive?


#14

Aside from checksumming your data before you burn, and then checksumming the data from the DVD, I’m not aware of any way to do it with the NEC 3500a.

That said, I’m still not convinced all this PI/PIF is worth worrying about.

Would I like to be able to use PI/PIF tools? Yes, of course.

But here’s the question that no one has answered:

Do PI/PIF tools do anything more than checksumming? Okay, I’ve seen people complain about burns and the PI/PIF said it was off the charts and introduced errors. However, a simple checksum is going to tell you the same thing.

No one has produced any kind of reputable test where it shows that PI/PIF actually does something substantial for you in the long run. It’s all speculation and touchy feely thinking. :slight_smile:

I haven’t seen any hard evidence either way. Sure, PI/PIF testing makes an easy argument: If the ECC has to kick in now, it could have to kick in more in the future. Do the disks in terms of ECC degrade that badly where it would make a difference? This is completely unverified. There have been no tests to confirm it. And I seriously doubt there ever will be. :slight_smile:

And no, I’m not going to do the testing. I think this is the manufacturer’s responsibilty. Show me that your “tests” are actually worth while. Show me evidence that it actually matters in the long run. If they (say Lite-On) wants to pay me to do the testing, then I’ll do it. I would love to get real data on this topic. But short of them paying me, I’m not going to bother.

If I do all this testing, what exactly does it get me? The PI/PIF utilities are still going to be Windows only. So knowing whether it helps Windows users has little affect on me. If I was a Windows user, I probably would do a series of tests.


#15

I don’t think it’s safe to assume that PI/PIF scans are simply a convoluted form of checksum analysis, I would be interested in hearing a qualified opinion about that.

I also find it a bit hard to believe that so many reputable sites would be using these scans in their reviews to the extent they do if they were so pointless. Maybe you haven’t seen any hard evidence, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any. Again, I’d like to hear a qualified opinion or explanation on these scans, and what is a good way to verify burn quality with the 3500A.


#16

It’s not a “convoluted form of checksum” and I never stated that.

PI/PIF and checksums are checking two different things. PI/PIF is trying to determine when and how much the ECC (error correcting codes). A checksum is merely verifying that you can at the present time read back the data that you burned.

PI/PIF is looking into how much the ECC has to be used and a checksum is determining if the data can be read back with the ECC in place.

My question is, are these the same thing for all intents and purposes? I.e. if I can checksum the disk now, what is the probability that a PI/PI scan would say differently.

In other words (since you fail to follow the argument :slight_smile: ), is knowing the amount of work the ECC has to do now any more important, in real applications, than knowing that it works.

I also find it a bit hard to believe that so many reputable sites would be using these scans in their reviews to the extent they do if they were so pointless.

Are you kidding? Just read this forum sometime. It’s full of unsubstantiated claims and people touting things as if they were facts.

The people who post scans can tell me what PI/PIF is. I think they put too much trust into an intuition. How much is this PI/PIF data really worth?

PI/PIF tests are not pointless. I never said that! I’m asking how useful are they really? Will my disk deteriorate to the extent that knowing that ECC is doing its job now (checksum) and in the near future it fails because said ECC fails.

Maybe you haven’t seen any hard evidence, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any. Again, I’d like to hear a qualified opinion or explanation on these scans, and what is a good way to verify burn quality with the 3500A.

True, but none of these people who are posting PI/PIF scans have any hard evidence. I’ve asked this question and I was met with a similar response to yours above… people aren’t understanding the issue at hand.

You could always put it into a DVD drive that supports PI/PIF and do the testing that way.

I love your assertion that I’m not “qualified” and yet you listen to these other people. No one else is bringing up this important point on what exactly PI/PIF is giving you. I would trust their statements less because of that. But again, I live in the world of sanity and reason so your results may vary.


#17

Let’s make something clear… PI/PIF scaning reports number of error that have occured while reading the disc back… and it’s a way to determine how good the disc was burned. Less errors… more data was burned correctly… more errors… less data was burned correctly.
And what does this tell us about disc life time? Every disc deteriorates in time… some disc faster other slower… it depends on materials used. Now if we have 2 disc… both with same deterioration rate… one with low PI/PIF and one with high PI/PIF. Which one will last longer ? The one with low PI/PIF because it has more room for errors… and the other doesn’t. Simple as that…
So that’s the reason why we do PI/PIF scaning… because we want room for errors… and not a disc that a single scrach would cause a read error because the error rate in that sector of the disc was too high.
Just my point of view.


#18

Yes and no. It reports the number of “errors” but these are correctable up to a point.

My argument is that the point where the errors are uncorrectable is when the ECC fails and also when a checksum would fail.

and it’s a way to determine how good the disc was burned. Less errors… more data was burned correctly… more errors… less data was burned correctly.

I agree.

And what does this tell us about disc life time? Every disc deteriorates in time… some disc faster other slower… it depends on materials used.

This is where I think the issues arises. What are the conditions that the disks deterioriate? How quickly is it? How much of a difference does the media make?

For instance, let’s say I buy really cheap media like the Ritek G03. I burn the DVDs and then check for an acceptable PI/PIF level.

Second example, I buy Taiyo Yuden/Verbatim/Ricoh expensive media and check for an acceptable PI/PIF level.

With these two examples, how will the expected life of the disk differ? Will the expensive media really translate into longer life?

Okay, next scenario. Take the above media and remove the PI/PIF testing. Now all you have to rely on is the checksumming. How long until either disk gets more errors than the ECC can handle? How much of a difference does the media make?

Now if we have 2 disc… both with same deterioration rate… one with low PI/PIF and one with high PI/PIF. Which one will last longer ? The one with low PI/PIF because it has more room for errors… and the other doesn’t. Simple as that…

I’ll agree with the statement that it has more room for errors. However, you have to now ask, how often do these errors get introduced? If I burn a DVD and throw it into a jewel case, how long does it take for errors to build up to the point where ECC fails?

So that’s the reason why we do PI/PIF scaning… because we want room for errors… and not a disc that a single scrach would cause a read error because the error rate in that sector of the disc was too high.
Just my point of view.

Right, I agree with that reasoning for PI/PIF scanning. But I still haven’t found any evidence about disk deterioration.

True, the ones with a higher PI/PIF rate are going to be affected more by scratches. But will they be affected, under normal use, enough to have the ECC fail?


#19

Why yes and no… errors are errors… and if they are correctible or not…

This I can’t answer… the differences are not only in disc between manufacures… but also between discs rated the same speed by the same manufacture. And PI/PIF is not a measure of a life time for a disc… but it gives you some idea if you measure PI/PIF after a burn and then again in a month for example.

Hmm… good question. As I said PI/PIF is not a measure for disc life time.

Again… I can’t anwser you this… it depends on the discs itself… or better the dye of the discs… maybe RITEK G03 would beat the others… probably others would beat RITEKG03.

If you throw them into a jewel case… and leave the disc in a dark room… then it’ll depend on the humidity in that room how fast the disc will deteriorate… probably a lot slower as if you’d use the disc on daily basis…

Now… what is normal use? I know people that have the disc all over their room… they treat the disc as they were indestructable… and when the disc fails they wonder how this is possible. :slight_smile:
The normal use is relative as the disc deterioration is… and they’re both connected :slight_smile:


#20

If you want an absolute answer to this question, you’ll probably have to test it yourself using hundreds of blank media, and waiting years for the answer. Since this is not likely to happen, you can ask yourself this question: “Manufacturer A sells expensive media and have done some tests to simulate aging of discs. Manufacturer B produces cheap media at the lowest possible cost. Which media is likely to last longer?”. You won’t know the answer to this question for sure until media A or media B fails at some time in the future. Do you want to save money now, or do you want to pay more without knowing with 100% certainty that the more expensive media will last longer? The choice is yours, and others may choose differently than you.

This type of question is not specific to buying media, and I don’t think you would normally be able to know with certainty that an expensive brand you buy will last longer or be “better” in some other way than a cheap brand.

Very little can be known with 100% certainty in this world, so why do you expect to have this certainty when it comes to blank DVD media?? :wink:

Nobody knows how long it will take, but it will never improve compared to the day it was written - it will only stay the same or deteriorate.

What is normal use? I for one certainly don’t scratch my CDs and DVDs on purpose, but they do get scratched anyway on occasion. Are you seriously suggesting that you have never had a CD or DVD become unreadable or damaged? Well, for (some) other people this does happen, and it’s not even necessary to use the discs as frisbees or have a kindergarten full of children play with the discs for this to happen at some time.

Discs can also become unreadable over time just sitting on the shelf somewhere, although this is a rare occurence. It has happened to at least a handful of CDs for me, and at least one of the discs were thought to be of excellent quality (Kodak “gold” CD). I have only been burning DVDs for a few months, so I haven’t personally experienced this problem with DVDs yet.

The quality of the disc will NEVER be better than the day it was written, so if you start out with a barely readable disc, do you seriously think it will be able to withstand wear and tear as good as a disc that was “perfectly” written? …I don’t think so! …but I’m not going to try and prove it either.

Also consider this: If you burn a CD/DVD in your burner and verify that it can be read back without any errors, but you don’t know what the PIE/PIF error rate is. Will the disc be readable in another (inferior) drive? Will it still be readable in your own drive when the optical pickup deteriorates over time? Without having some kind of quality test in addition to the Verification Passed/Failed test, you have no clue as to whether the disc is perfect or only barely readable.

One could argue that it shouldn’t be necessary to worry about these issues - all burned media should of course be readable in any drive at any time in the future. This is unfortunately not the case as numerous posts in this and other forums will testify to.