Nero vs ImgBurn

Hi all, yesterday I bought a new dvd burner: the samsung S203B :bow:

I’ve done a few tests with Nero and Imgburn to see the differences.
The media used is branded Infinity 8x (MCC 003 inside) and the image was burned first with Imgburn at 8x, then with Nero at the same speed 8x.
Here the scans:

Imgburn

Nero

It seems Nero performs a bit better than Imgburn in terms of quality: what do you think? The curves are very similar in the shape, dvds are taken from the same box and they were adiacent.

PS: the drive is new, do you think this scans are “standard” or there’s something I should worry about? in other words, does my drive performs like the others 203b?

Hi and Welcome,

this normal media variance together with scanning variance. I wouldn’t expect anything else if the only variable is the software used for burning.

Michael

[QUOTE=mciahel;1920593]Hi and Welcome,

this normal media variance together with scanning variance. I wouldn’t expect anything else if the only variable is the software used for burning.

Michael[/QUOTE]

uhm, it could be possible but I have another couple of dvd burned 2 times each at the same speed in both Nero and Imgburn…and the conclusion is the same, slightly better quality in the copy burned with nero.
I will make another couple of tests with my tayo yudens later :cool:

Hi [B]skryabin[/B], welcome to CDFreaks! :slight_smile:

The two scans are well within normal scan/burn variations, so there’s no reason to conclude anything about the two programs used for burning.

Unless one program handles buffers so poorly that it causes multiple buffer under-runs during burning, there’s no way the burning program can impact the burn quality at a specific burning speed.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;1920600]Hi [B]skryabin[/B], welcome to CDFreaks! :slight_smile:

The two scans are well within normal scan/burn variations, so there’s no reason to conclude anything about the two programs used for burning.

Unless one program handles buffers so poorly that it causes multiple buffer under-runs during burning, there’s no way the burning program can impact the burn quality at a specific burning speed.[/QUOTE]

So I can use either Nero or Imgburn to obtain the same level of quality burns?
Good, but now last (“noob”) question: is there a way to test my new burner to see if it performs as it should? I mean, it happens sometimes you get an unlucky device that underpeforms…

Judging by those scans, your burner is doing just fine, unless it took 3 hours to burn them.

[QUOTE=beef barley;1920622]Judging by those scans, your burner is doing just fine, unless it took 3 hours to burn them.[/QUOTE]

lol, no ^^ it took less than 8 minutes at 8x :iagree:

[QUOTE=DrageMester;1920600]Hi [B]skryabin[/B]…Unless one program handles buffers so poorly that it causes multiple buffer under-runs during burning, there’s no way the burning program can impact the burn quality at a specific burning speed.[/QUOTE]Second that. :iagree:
“vs” (versus) is wrong placed in this aspect no matter what. Both apps use exactly the same write commands (that are none arbitrary).
But then, we can always imagine…

BTW, sorry to say [I]skryabin[/I], I for once can’t see any difference in those scans. :disagree:

Also, the difference could be in the drive learning the media. After a few more burns with the same media it should be more consistent. But they are so close, that small of a variance is likely to happen regardless of the software used. Sometimes you might get a better burn in Imgburn. I’ve used both and I prefer Imburn.

[I]Off topic[/I][QUOTE=semp;1920672]Also, the difference could be in the drive learning the media…[/QUOTE]Ahh…, MediaTEK chipset, right.:iagree:
But until you can prove it, that’s only speculations[B]*[/B].

*BTW, I’m also living under the impression that Sammys are “learning”. Not sure how or what though.

[QUOTE=pinto2;1920676][I]Off topic[/I]Ahh…, MediaTEK chipset, right.:iagree:
But until you can prove it, that’s only speculations[B]*[/B].

*BTW, I’m also living under the impression that Sammys are “learning”. Not sure how or what though.[/QUOTE]

:eek:

I’ve used Imgburn first and then Nero to burn the 2 discs…and the same I did for the other 2 couple of dvds!
Lol tomorrow I’ll burn some TY but with inverted order: first Nero and then Imgburn :bigsmile:

skryabin, that post was not aimed at you. :flower:

Reverse burn order won’t change anything essential. But why not, give it a try. :iagree:

Lol , I’ve experienced just the opposite , Nero burn had “way” lesser quality than Imgburn , the difference was about 300+ PIF total with perfectly consistent spindle of Panasonic TYG03 :slight_smile:

One teeny tiny scratch or dust particle (invisible to the eye except in strong artificial light) will easily give you 300 more PIF on a DVD, so I consider such a difference quite insignificant.

[QUOTE=DrageMester;1920894]One teeny tiny scratch or dust particle (invisible to the eye except in strong artificial light) will easily give you 300 more PIF on a DVD, so I consider such a difference quite insignificant.[/QUOTE]

:disagree:

PIFs were perfectly distributed , no blocks or spikes , but I can be wrong and I was so lazy to examine the theory with more tests :smiley:

[QUOTE=skryabin;1920584]
It seems Nero performs a bit better than Imgburn in terms of quality: what do you think?[/QUOTE]

Software itself has no influence on writing quality AFAIK. If you see a difference (this small) it can be explained by this:

a) Scanning consistency of the drive used. If you scan the same disc twice you’ll get slightly varying results. This is because the drives are not calibrated. Different results form different discs have a further factor to consider:

b) No burn is the same as an other one. That is due to OPC (optimum power control). At the beginning of the burn, the drive will chose a base writing strategy according to the MID of the disc and do a test in the lead-in to fine tune laser power. Results for the fine tuning will differ for each disc. Also during the burn drives constantly monitor writing quality and adjust the laser power (running OPC) accordingly. Since each disc has slightly different characteristics (for example thickness of the dye layer, flatness, etc.).

PIFs were perfectly distributed , no blocks or spikes , but I can be wrong and I was so lazy to examine the theory with more tests :D[/quote] You can only be sure that there is no PIF clumping if you watch the scan like a hawk while it’s being performed - you cannot necessarily see it afterwards unless there are thousands of PIF clumping together.

The reason is that each horizontal pixel represents approx. 350 ECC blocks (using standard size of the CDSpeed window), so you could have 350 PIF in a single “spike” that’s only 1 pixel wide and 1 PIF tall, or 700 PIF in a single “spike” that’s only 1 pixel wide and 2 PIF tall.

[QUOTE=semp;1920672]Also, the difference could be in the drive learning the media. After a few more burns with the same media it should be more consistent. But they are so close, that small of a variance is likely to happen regardless of the software used. Sometimes you might get a better burn in Imgburn. I’ve used both and I prefer Imburn.[/QUOTE]

Never Knew Sammy Drives Learn Media too :eek:

Thought only Benq’s Did this :kiss:

Lite-On too.