Pap6 Mcc004?

Well guys/gals I received a 50 pack of Verbatim +R 94917 inkjet printable discs made in Taiwan from
newegg. In all of the 94917 disc’s I have ever received this is the first ones with the PAP6 code I’ve
ever seen or heard of. I’ve always received the PAPA disc’s before. The one thing I can say for sure
about them is they burn like crap @ any speed or with any FW on the drive (Liteon 160P6S) has any
body else seen or used the media code PAP6 discs before?

Here is what they have stamped on them and they do show up as MCC004:
PAP6 91KG22105962 5

I think these are legitimate CMC discs :slight_smile:

It was often PAPA with MCC 004 but often MAPx where x is a number with MCC 03RG20.
See the Dolphin’s list of serial numbers:

PAPA22II28032680 4
MAP633JG25065865 3
MAPA08IK10143765 6


Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “burn like crap”?

Are the discs unreadable?

Could we some some scans?

The disc’s so far have been readable and all but what I meant by burning like crap is the higher total on the PIF
from what I’m used to seeing from my other PAPA MCC004 disc’s. I’m used to seeing <150 on PIF totals usually
in the 49-140 range on the PAPA disc’s all of these have been way up on total PIF numbers. They are still in the
good zone but guess I was just hopping that these would burn with less PIF totals and not have high PIE spikes
I guess I’m just more surprised at the PAP6 instead of PAPA media ID than anything else.
Here is a link to one of my PAPA MCC004 scans from a while back it is not the best one I’ve had from them but
still it is a lot better than the PAP6 code discs from this time around.

Anyway here is the scans from the PAP6 disc

It is not a beauty but should read perfectly.
As MCC 004 (and CMC-made discs in general) are extremely stable you should not expect problems. :slight_smile:

I’ve had lots of Ritek discs with worse scans and they were all fine.

You should probably contact Verbatim about these discs.

KG, wtf do you mean “contact verbatim” ?

Original Poster: “Hello Verbatim, I have slightly more PIF on my disc than usual. It works perfectly and never skips once and is TOTALLY within spec. I’m not happy.”

Verbatim: Hey mate, your disc works fine and is completely within spec. Stop being ridiculous. We tested our discs on CATS systems etc and they are fine + way more accurate than your $50 liteon. Goodbye.

And I would agree with verbatim. Stop taking liteon results so seriously. The disc is fine. If it didn’t work in your dvd player or something or had WAY more PIF I would agree but that’s not the case.

I swear people on this forum have some severe cases of obsessive compulsive disorder with their “quality scans”.

I agree with this - especially since the systems that they use cost hundreds to thousands of times more than any computer-based DVD burner. Accurate quality testing doesn’t come cheap. However, the computer-burner-based do-it-yourself testing does have its uses - to determine the relative quality of a burn as read by the drive used to test the disc quality. Thus, a disc with a lot of errors won’t be read as well by that particular drive as a disc with few errors.

Lol :bigsmile:

Very true though , when I joined cdfreaks I knew nothing about QS , all I knew that ALL my discs work fine because I always stick with good brand media (Sony , Samsung , Panasonic , HP , LG and even Benq) , but this great forum made me obsessed so I got a Benq drive specially for scanning and now I reburn the same data to two or even three different media discs if the first one didn’t give me [B]“decent”[/B] scan

I keep telling myself : Ignorance is a bless :wink:

To be fair to kg, I believe his point has nothing to do with whether or not the media functions properly, it’s just an observation that the burn quality is lower than what getit29 and most users of MCC004 typically see from this media code. Error levels are not the end all-be all of testing media by any means, but it is a situation of ‘lower is better’ and because of the reputation that Verbatim has for quality, naturally consumers will take notice if there’s a shift in quality. I don’t know that it warrants alerting Verbatim, although I think kg’s point was probably to let Verbatim be aware that consumers DO notice shifts in quality, and even more notice is being taken since Verbatim is one of the last sources of ‘premium’ quality media widely available.

@scoobiedoobie that is exactly what I meant the quality seems to be slipping a little bit but the main thing I found
interesting enough to creat this thread was mainly the media code stamped on the disc the [B]PAP6 [/B] instead of [B]PAPA[/B] :confused:
No I don’t think something like the scan would warrant a call to Verbatim to complain that it has higher totals than
some of the other Verbatim disc’s I’ve used before all I was saying was the difference in the media code stamped
on the disc and a little lower quality. I agree totaly that scans do not mean a thing as to whether the disc is good
or not it is if it [B][U]will play without problems [/U] [/B]that tells the story of whether it is a good disc or a bad disc. I guess all
that I really wanted to know was if anyone else had seen or used the [B]PAP6 [/B] coded Verbatim discs before and if so did
they notice any difference in the quality of their burns. :wink:

EXACT same story with me! When my old NEC 2510A died on me, i came across these forums reading reviews for different drives trying to find the best one to buy. I had no idea and QS, and after about a month of reading i finally bought a BenQ 1655 and now all i’m worried about is the QS. I have been burning some much stuff with this drive and different media and different firmwares trying to find the best combo. I keep trying to tell myself “if it plays its fine!” but i keep finding myself doing a QS after everyburn to see how it turned out.

I agree: Ignorance IS bliss, i was much happier not knowing about QS. :stuck_out_tongue:

[OT]The answer to this is basically that PIE/PIF quality scan testing is often misused and/or misinterpreted. While a ‘good’ scan generally indicates a ‘good’ burn that will function properly, a TRT is ultimately the best judge of readability (and nothing else). Quality scans are good for judging stability, judging burn quality from one drive/firmware/burn speed to the next, jitter levels, etc. There’s obviously a great correlation between these error levels and disc readability, but the two tests compliment each other and the ideal thing to do would be to perform both tests. Having said that, in honesty I perform far more quality scans than TRTs, but I do this knowing that good quality scans rarely will lead to unreadable discs in that same drive. Yes it can happen, however it is rare. If I have a disc that has very important data, I will do a TRT alongside a quality test. Besides, most of my burns are Video DVDs and a TRT in a DVD Burner doesn’t help a whole lot when it comes to readability in a standalone player. Ultimately the only sure way to confirm how it will perform is in the intended player, but at least with a quality scan I’m able to check error and jitter levels and my players have yet to choke on a disc with a good quality scan so I find them very useful, I just know their limitations and that they’re not a 100% guarantee.[OT]

Heh, this is an interesting discussion :iagree:

I think that for the majority of users who just want a simple graphical method to check the probability of wether their discs will work ok with no issues or not on most modern drives would be to use 16x TRT on 2 different average reading drives and forget about using QS for such purposes (one drive preferably DVD-ROM drive).

I’ve had much worse results than this with Verbatim media burned at 16x, and the PIE numbers in that scan is well within specs. So why would you contact Verbatim?

Be nice! Don’t try to pick a fight here in this forum. :wink:

Atm i only have external LiteOns but no matter what drive i only burn @ 12x. That’s my recommendation. I’ve had plenty of good QS from 16x burns but far more suspect QS. I think drives and discs are generally better (QS wise) with 12x and esp “older” LiteOns :wink:

Most true. :iagree: This scan above is nothing special in my book, just kinda unexpected considering the media and [B]getit29[/B]'s previous PIE/PIF figures with MCC004.

While totally agreeing that [B]cd pirate[/B] could voice his opinion in a more friendly way (but who am I to criticize him :bigsmile: ), I do agree with him that there is an obsessive side to over-analysing scans and counting PIF totals, which has never been proven to be relevant in any way. I also concur with most of [B]Scoobiedoobie[/B]'s comments, as usual. :wink:

Revisiting this thread, I bought a 50 pack of Verbatim’s MCC004 2-3 weeks ago, just opened them though and tried the first burn. These are the discs sold here in the U.S. that have the ‘intelliflix’ free trial insert on the top of the spindle. These discs also have the [B]PAP6[/B] code, and they burn with a lot higher total PIF and jitter levels than my PAPA coded MCC004. The jitter levels on my first 8x burn are about 1.75% higher than a typical 8x burn of my PAPA discs, and the PIF levels are about 20x the level (around 100 total in the PAPA discs vs. over 2000 total in the PAP6 disc). PIE levels were still very good. Readability is not in question and I suspect that stability characteristics between the two are probably similar, but I don’t see this as a positive step regardless of what value you put into PIE/PIF scanning. I’m probably just as disappointed in the sizable increase in jitter average as the increase in PIF levels.

I’ve burned a couple more and the results were not any better, and one of the discs has a dye streak across half of the disc so the result of that disc was much worse. I’ve never had a problem with dye streaks before with MCC media, so I’m certainly not liking these PAP6 discs.

It is very clear to me now that DVD media quality is going down the hell :a

I am not so sure it is wise to make that assumption about stability as in the NIST study summary, there is this statement about Jitter:

Of course, we have to first ensure that what consumer drives report about Jitter is relatively correct & reliable. :slight_smile: