Is it just me or has anyone else had issues with the ‘new’ JVC/Taiyo Yuden media? I just tried my first batch and compared to classic Taiyo Yuden, they are TERRIBLE!! Classic Taiyo Yuden 8X DVD-Rs would burn great at 16X and get a quality score of 99+ with DVD Info Pro. These new 8X disks will not record at all faster than 12X. I tried a test burn at 12X, 8X and 4X of the same image. None of the quality scores were any better than 95-96 (marginal/poor) and there were BIG spikes in the error count. Just for giggles, I burned the same test image on a classic Taiyo Yuden disk at 16X and it scores 99.2. This is really a concern as I just bought a bunch of these blanks… Any suggestions (other than target practice)?
Taiyo Yuden 16x discs have never scanned consistently as well as the 8x discs in the past. I have used a few new JVC discs (The Ultra Glossy Printable) and have had no issues with them, but they do not scan as well as older batches of 16x premium TY.
I think you may be taking the quality scanning issue too seriously, If the discs past a transfer rate test flawlessly, and are readable as you intend them to be, is there really an issue?
From my experience, all modern and recent media have never scanned as well as the stuff in the old days. You have to remember, media is now cheaper than it was, and the costs of producing them have to drop, and that will inevitably lead to quality standards dropping.
jubjubbird, I appreciate the advice, but some of these discs are for archival storage and the last thing I need is for one to turn up a year from now as unreadable. DVD Info Pro is pretty accurate on its scans and from what I have read/heard, good archival quality media should score better than a 95/96. That means that the media is starting off with a large number of soft errors and a greater chance of developing a hard error as the media ages… Do you agree or am I full of it? I try not to be paranoid, but I take my backups very seriously…
I wouldn’t even pay too much attention to quality scores. PIF max should not exceed 4 and Transfer rate test should return a clean graph. Even initially good burns may go bad if the media is bad (Ritek’s G05 8x DVD-R for example), but I wouldn’t be too afraid of TY or Verbies going bad.
It should not be a surprise to find that most if not all the current media will not scan as well as the old suff! I have some current 8x +R Prem TY and they don’t come close to what the older shuff scans like. I bought some 8X DL Verbs and half of them were terrible… the other half just “ok”. With the price of Hard Disks comming way down… this may be the way to go in the future for back-ups.
I appreciate the responses. Based on what I am seeing, I guess it is not just me… Unfortunately, I must archive data long-term off-line on read-only media (legal reasons). A hard-drive does not meet this criteria, though I agree that for general backup, a hard-disk is the way to go. From what I have seen and personal experience, if media generates initial quality scans less than 98%, especially when there are large spikes in the error rates, there is a good chance that these disks will have hard read errors in the future. Until I see an improvement, I am planning on dumping these JVC-TY blanks and trying MCC.
You can only get a rough impression of a hard disk’s status with the S.M.A.R.T. data but it’s not even nearly as good as DVD quality scans.
I’ll take a hard disk back-up over a pressed or burned DVD any day. Magnetic recording has been around for a long long time and has been very well established as a proven technology over the years. It should be a lot more stable than any DVD. With the prices comming down on 1-2 terabyte drives, this may be a better way, considering the declining quality of current blank media.
[QUOTE=mdisante;2528847]jubjubbird, I appreciate the advice, but some of these discs are for archival storage and the last thing I need is for one to turn up a year from now as unreadable. DVD Info Pro is pretty accurate on its scans and from what I have read/heard, good archival quality media should score better than a 95/96. That means that the media is starting off with a large number of soft errors and a greater chance of developing a hard error as the media ages… Do you agree or am I full of it? I try not to be paranoid, but I take my backups very seriously…[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that media will degrade more, if the initial burn does not scan as well as media x or media y.
You could have a perfect scan ( as already said on this thread) that degrades in days (ala G05’s), and you could have a poorer scan that will last for many years. Longevity is unknown for ANY media. You don’t know if you have a good or a bad batch, and you can’t be sure the bonding will last. They only way to prevent (and you cannot prevent this entirely) is to buy high quality media, have a backup on more than one type of media, and check for degradation regularly.
How about an optical backup, and an image file backup of the disc on a hard drive?
Another factor is the type of burner you are using, and the type of drive you are using to scan. There are known scanning issues with BenQ drives scanning LG burns (IIRC) and Lite-On scans burnt on Pioneer drives (due to the burning relinks)
[QUOTE=jubjubbird;2529304]There are known scanning issues with BenQ drives scanning LG burns (IIRC) and Lite-On scans burnt on Pioneer drives (due to the burning relinks)[/QUOTE]
Liteys also hate NEC pre-7170 and Plextor 755/760 burns. But in fact some Liteys error out at the relink spikes while doing TRT so there is something on the discs.