My thoughts exactly Lightining UK! I have your masterpiece backed up forever on some yudens
I will be updating this thread with some more burn/scans with some more older and newer +RW media by MCCA01(i think it is) and some newer from cmc… most of it is still 2.4 media but still a good test…plus I have the better batch of MCC003 to try yet. for now I have to go see a neurologist, I seem to have fall asleep in a chair a week ago with pressure on my arm above my elbow and woke to find my wrist just flops (symptoms of Saturday Night Palsy) at least thats what i thought it was till a week later I woke up with the same thing happening to my left…so its pretty hard to type or grab anything. I hope it is not somthing serious! I want to be able to use my hands again normaly.
see you guys later on…
wow dude, I hope your seeing a doctor, sounds kinda serious.
LUK!, I don’t know why but my results are consistently better using DVD.d., to the point where I won’t waste another disc with it. Using SL and DL discs.
Hope everything’s okay, Tweakmaster. Please let us know how you’re doing.
‘waste’… you make it sound like it’s making coasters compared to DVD Decrypter!
Out of interest, what format discs do you generally use (and have you tested with) ?
Are we talking mainly DVD+R, mainly DVD-R or a total mixture of both?
Okay ‘waste’ is too harsh, but the error rate is higher. I use mostly +R and +RDL. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and I was very excited about IMGburn. I do not want people to think that dvd.d is better, I just suggested to try both programs and compare the results. Since your interested I’ll follow up with some scans (none at the moment) that directly compare my results. Although I don’t want to waste +RDL on the same data, I’ll see what I can do.
Please don’t go burning +R DL on my account!!
However if you have a few normal -R / +R going spare, please by my guest and show scans comparing the two programs on your system.
from my experience, the results I get are the same besides your common variation in media and burns etc. now I use decrypter to …well decrypt and now IMGBURN to burn…I like the sample graph feature although I been playing with the ave. vs. sample slider in dvdinfopro trying to figure it out, I just leave it at ave. for now…
on a side note, went to the hospital last night and they didnt do anything but blood tests that came back normal…and said I had to see a neurologist (which cost $$$$ I dont have) plus I have no med insurance and in the middle of a dissability claim for the last year. This really sucks… I really hope this isn’t permanent… but almost 2 weeks now with no improvement. now my only hope is seeing my pain managment doctor on tuesday and hopfully he refers me through my auto insurance(from accident last year) to a neurologist.
man im only 29, whats next??
what a way to end christamas and start a new year huh
thanks guys for the support
Ill update this thread and try to keep it going with more scans asap
(note):sorry for the poor formating of my text, it is challeging to type like this.
So I started a new thread in a more appropriate forum. I tested 4 SL discs for comparison. Normally I use nero for SL, but just to get it started I posted some SL burns from DVD.D. and IMGburn.
Back again to add a new burn&scan result. This time with The lightscribe Verbatim MCC003(good batch) Burned @8x with IMGBURN.
I scaned it with the Pioneer and the benQ after unlocking the drive in cdspeed
I don’t remember my 110 working that well with cdspeed! I have to give it a shot again
you using Pioneer A10XL FW or the buffalo 8.37? that might be it…
My drive seems to like cd speed better then DVDinfoPro for some reason…scans more consistant… I dont really have a use for bitsetting since i got my LG-LDA-511, that thing plays whatever I throw at it…
Also notice im getting good burns with IMGBURN…haven’t seen a variation like in you comparison…
I started scanning a disc with 8.37, I set cdspeed to read it at 8x, but it looked more like 4-6x, so I aborted too long for me.
Burned at 6x with 8.37 with dvd.d. Its not a full disc, but the burn was fast!
The new benq 1655 can burn with this quality!
The record on 110 depends on temperature of drive. The low temperature is better.
That would count for ANY and EVERY drive, regardless if it’s optical or a hdd.
Normally there should be FANS installed.
My post above should read: “the benq 1655 can’t burn with this quality”
Why I cant use the “Disc Quality” fonction with my 110 and my 107D ? (Nero 188.8.131.52). The start button is not available.
Its not available for pioneer drives as well as a bunch of others manuf.
There is a simple registry hack that allows it to work, you simply have to remove “pioneer” from the restricted drives list.
It works, tx !