Pap6 Mcc004?

:wink: numbers/occurences, not [I]levels[/I] :wink: (thankfully! :eek: )

True, quantity, not peak levels thankfully. :stuck_out_tongue:

Good point, I was probably being a bit forgiving despite the clearly higher jitter levels. Initial burn quality is a step backwards, although theoretically if the media still shares good characteristics for stability to my better burning Verbatim, I suspect they’ll also hold up well. But then seeing the change in burn quality does make me question what might have changed in the discs and if that will also effect stability. Only time will tell.

Actually I’m extremely surprised, [B]scoobiedoobie[/B], that you get higher jitter with these discs than with previous MCC004.

You talk about jitter levels as reported by a Benq, right?

When scanned in my 1650, variations in jitter with my own burns seem to be entirely dependant on the burner/firmware and the burning speed, not on the media variation (with the -important- exception of the jitter variations for the last 200-300 MB in @16X scans, which definitly seems media dependant).

I hope you didn’t draw this conclusion after a single burn (probably not, but it can’t hurt to ask… :flower: ), because jitter reported can vary between two passes with the same disc by at least 1% in average… (as [B]Drage[/B] reminded me some time ago :wink: ).

Also, in high-speed scans (which I assumed you used?), the Benqs can have huge glitches/jumps in their jitter reporting, impacting the averages as reported by CDSpeed. I guess you’re welle aware of all this, but still I’m wondering…

Care to post a scan or two? :slight_smile:

I’ve done 3 burns so far, and I’ve performed about 20 tests on them in my Benq 1640, Liteon 165P6S, and Pioneer 111L, to compare to how my ‘PAPA’ MCC004 performs and they produce noticeably higher jitter and density of PIFs vs. my other MCC004 when comparing identical burn speed and drive (I tested at multiple scanning speeds + TRTs). Jitter is higher when measured in both the Benq and Liteon. Regarding jitter variation from one scan to the next, my drive does not produce near a 1% variation at my most common scanning speed, 6x CLV (closer to .2% and less variation in average). Of course at high scanning speeds the variation in error and jitter levels does increase though. It’s good to confirm if I’m familiar with the behavior of my drive, fortunately I know its behavior very well (in the neighborhood of 1500 tests in this drive alone :p). I also am familiar with how my other Benq drives perform and report in comparison, my other drives report jitter levels slightly higher (around .2% to 1% depending on my 822, other 1640, 1620, 1655). Jitter is elevated when burned in both my 1640 and 165P6S.

Anyway, here’s a scan of the disc with the dye streak, obviously there is a large concentration of PIFs where the streak is at but the jitter levels of the other PAP6 are similarly elevated in comparison to my PAPA MCC004, which typically burns with around 7.7%-8.2% average jitter in the same burning drive/ burn speed/scanning drive/scan speed.


Thanks for all the precisions :slight_smile: (hey, I know a lot more about you and your testing methods now… :bigsmile: - I could guess part of it, though ;))

And sorry about your discs… :frowning:

I have never experienced such variation with MCC004, so these discs must be way out of their own specs and that’s worrying. :doh:

As [B]DrageMester[/B] also experienced extremely poor (even worse than yours, failed burns etc…) MBI-made MCC004 recently, maybe we are attending the death of Verbatim’s quality control. OK this sounds a bit exaggerated, but reports of bad Verbs are far more numerous these days… :frowning:

Yeah I’m not alone in not always getting premium results from MCC004, and other than the dye streak the results are still decent, just a visible decline from my other MCC004. And since the discussion here specifically related to these PAP6-coded discs and their burning with inferior results, I thought it would be useful to point out that I’d also experienced a similar decline in my PAP6 discs. I can only hope that these PAP6 discs are more of a ‘phase’ that they’re going through and that it’s not a sign of what we’re going to typically see from newer batches.

but unacceptable from Verbs IMO. :a

It’s not the PIF figures/numbers in themselves that annoy me, it’s the fact that it’s clearly a manufacturing glitch that shouldn’t have passed genuine QC as we’ve come to expect from MCC.

Besides, such dye defects are worrying for stability. I’ve had a couple of discs with similar dye streaks in 2005 that were TDK TTG02, a MID that is normally extremely stable, and the affected discs have been degrading rather fast at the location of the dye issues. :frowning:

What am I gonna recommend now? :doh:

True, don’t get me wrong, we come to expect more from Verbatim and it’s generally the easiest recommendation to make in media. I would hope that the dye streak that I saw is a rare problem, but if it becomes common then it will really hurt the reputation of the media. These types of streaks are that which I only see frequently on my Ritek-made discs (Ritek and RICOHJPN media codes), not something that anyone would like to be associated with. I don’t want to make a big deal out of it unless other users start reporting dye streaks though, until then I’ll give Verbatim the benefit of assuming that I just ran into a particularly bad batch. I’m trying to be laid back about it, as no one is immune to some occasional batch problems, though Verbatim will be sure to hear about it if these types of results become frequent.

I can relate to this, I’ve also been rather laid back about reports of so-called “bad” Verbs because of the usual exaggeration/overanalysing with PIE/PIF figures etc… (you know what I’m talking about ;), actually this very thread started this way :bigsmile: ) but now it seems to me that reports of real issues are more frequent these days…

It’s obviously sad to get bad discs but i think there is a reason why many people here report bad TY, bad MCC, bad TDK etc. It’s the “only” thing we buy besides the random cheap disc that splips in our basket now and then. We don’t expect much from them so we don’t make a big fuss when they aren’t fantastic. However when we feel let down by our main suppliers hell is loose… …

I still never had a problem with TY or Verbatim. I felt let down by bad visible defects and quality scans by the Datasafe/TY i got (They were TY priced but clearly not same quality). I wasn’t pleased with MBI Verbs maninly bc of quality scans but i never had a problem with reading any of those discs. Even most of my Princo/Bulqcrap is still readable after 3-4 years … :slight_smile:

Not in my case. After having used mainly MCC 02RG20 Verbs and unbranded TYG02 and T02s for two years, in 2006 I switched mainly to Imation-branded MBIPG101 R04 and HP-branded CMCMAG E01 for my personal use (video mainly), and I burn hundreds of cheap Datasafe CMC MAG E01 for professional purposes (with a surprisingly very low coaster rate BTW). I use MCC004 Verbs and YUDEN000T03 for backups only.

But well, I get your point.

Funny, this time I’m the Verb alarmist and other are more cautious/balanced, most of the time it’s the other way around… :bigsmile:

[B]scoobiedoobie:[/B]

Do you have any 16x AQ scans from a BenQ drive (preferably 1620)?

Here’s a 16x Advanced quality scan in my 1620, followed by a 12x scan. I also tested at 12x so that you could see the error levels without the effect of ~12%+ jitter in the outer 600MB or so of the 16x scan.



I think you’re referring to my statement that average jitter as reported by two different BenQ drives can vary at least 1.5%. I don’t think I’ve posted about 1% jitter variations between scans in the same drive.

EDIT:

As DrageMester also experienced extremely poor (even worse than yours, failed burns etc…) MBI-made MCC004 recently, maybe we are attending the death of Verbatim’s quality control. OK this sounds a bit exaggerated, but reports of bad Verbs are far more numerous these days… :frowning:
Those 300 iffy Verbatim 16x DVD+R MCC004 Made in India (6x50) were bought in May 2006 from two German on-line shop, so they were manufactured about a year ago.

[B]scoobiedoobie:[/B]

Did you save the statistics windows from those scans? AQS really needs both main & statistics window for easy interpretation of the results.

Maybe I will write to Erik Deppe to see if he can somehow automate saving of both together.

Based on the graphs alone, I would not be too comfortable using those [B]PAP6[/B] discs for archival. :frowning:

The only discs I have even seen with the PAP6 are the one with the Intelliflix Offer, and yes they do not burn with the same PIF totals that the other PAPA discs show, but I have to say that none of them were even close to coasters and that was burned at 18X in my LG H42, all the discs played fine so there is no way to denounce Verbatim on this issue. I got 300 of them and I am not as happy as I would have been were they CMC made PAPA Verbatim but I am not that unhappy either, my LG burns them at 18X and all the scan although like I said are not " Hall of Fame " burns, they work just fine.:clap:

I think I have been misinterpreting this post of yours that was a comment about my finding of lower jitter from BCIC burns vs. BCDC burns. Now that I’ve read more carefully the posts you linked to, I understand there has been some confusion on my part (not unusual, sadly :bigsmile: )

Those 300 iffy Verbatim 16x DVD+R MCC004 Made in India (6x50) were bought in May 2006 from two German on-line shop, so they were manufactured about a year ago.
Thanks for the precision! :slight_smile:

Yeah, this is one thing I’ve mentioned in one of the CD-DVD Speed threads (keeping stats on the same screen), in the meantime when I do Advanced scans I use a separate screen capture program and capture the stats in my full screen capture next to the POF chart on the bottom. So yes, I do save the stats windows. I’d rather just have the stats worked in somewhere on the main window if possible so that just one capture will work. The same goes for the ‘normal’ quality scan, there are a couple of stats such as number of samples that would nice to sqeeze onto the main screen.

Here’s the summary of the 16x, followed by 12x.



Well sad news on my PAP6 Verbs they fail to burn @12x or 16x on two different
20A1P drives on two separate systems. They get to anywhere from 10% to 28%
and then come up with a write error. I then started thinking maybe it had something
to do with the 20A1P drives so I tried them on my 160P6S on another system and yep
you guessed it same thing happened got to 10% @16x and 22% @12x and then a nice
write failure error so on 3 different burners and on 3 different systems and with 3 different
burning apps I got the same results and funny thing is I never had any kind of write error
at any speed on any drive with the PAPA discs :a so this doesn’t speak well for Verbatim
quality anymore :doh: