MCC004 (Verbatim) MIT
Burn speed 18x
MCC004 (Verbatim) MIT
Burn speed 18x
How bout some DL media? I am really disappointed with the 112 so far. I have been unsuccessful flashing to anything other than the official FW.
Here’s a couple scans of MKM001. :Z
One a 4X and one @ 8X. Both were excellent burns until the very end when they took a crap.
Do you think it’s the media? I used MKM001. Which version of 1.09 did you use?
Is that ok to post 112D/L scans here too? Or, only 112 scans are allowed…
I’ll burn a MKM001 later and post the results.
The firmware is original 112 (1.09) firmware supplied by Pioneer.
Sen has a thread for 112D running already.
I would prefer this thread was for 112 scans only
Thanks for the reply. I guess you are talking about the “Pioneer 112D first look” thread. I have been posting my scans in that thread even though the title of the thread doesn’t say “Pioneer DVR-112D/L: Post your scans and questions here”.
I just wanted to make sure. Thanks again.
Dee-27, I don’t know if you have seen my thread in the media section yet. But I believe cd freaks need to start using jitter in their reviews when testing media.
I see you have posted 4x scans in K-probe, I don’t think this is a good representation of how good a media is. 4x will always have an easier time reading a disc with higher jitter than 16x scanning will. With higher speed scanning, discs with high jitter tend to show massive increases in error levels. The jitter levels are important as I’ve had discs scan as good as yours yet skip like crazy in my dvd player. When scanning the jitter I saw jitter levels rise above 9.5% and even above 10%. I’d say a disc with 9% or higher jitter is not going to be as compatible as one that has less than 9% throughout the disc.
Here’s my thread, let me know what you think: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=210304
Well my burns are from a 112D bought from Newegg. I wasn’t aware there was a 112.
Yes, i have read the thread.
Our testing methods are continually reviewed by the review team. But we do not make changes to our tests lightly, or without considering the impact of introducing new tests. We also have to consider consistency with older reviews.
I don’t agree.
MKM001 DVD+R DL (Verbatim) MIS
Burn speed 8x
PIF clusters at the layer break. 8x probably just to fast for this media.
Still a good burn.
Righteo. Have fun calling potentially crap media, “good” or even “excellent”. I’ll be sticking to CDRInfo for drive and media reviews and their far more professional methods.
[B]Dee[/B]: What about some jitter scans, or scans at high speeds?
If you say so, it must be true.
is there any official review of pio 112 ?
is it really better in term of burning quality to 16X than pio 111 ?
The transfer rate test is flawless. More important than the scan… you should at least recognize [B]Dee[/B]'s long-time merit in this field, as she’s among those who never consider just the scan, but put emphasis on the TRT as the most important of the two tests. She taught me a lot during my participation in the NEC forum, and believe me, you’d be surprised at what she could still teach us. In other words, she certainly deserves some respect from us…
I’ll be sticking to CDRInfo for drive and media reviews and their far more professional methods.
Professional [I]methods[/I]? Maybe (I’d rather say “professional [I]equipement[/I]”,) but very unprofessional interpretations. They are still able to declare as “good” a disc showing a problematic transfer rate test.
Aren’t you being confrontational for the pleasure of it here?
Well, Franck. I sort of come across as being a bit confrontational now and then but I seriously don’t mean to be. It’s hard to criticize something online and still come across as being friendly whereas I find it much easier to do in real life.
I do know she uses TRT and it is flawless. However I’ve found that many of my discs that have showed playback issues have good error levels @4x without jitter and TRT fine on all my drives. Only the jitter is out of spec on these burns and it when I re-burn the file with a speed/writer that has lower jitter, the skipping problems go away.
I wonder, if the makers of Kprobe included jitter testing, would the reviewers use it?
TRT can be just as subjective as any other consumer drive test and some drives I would value their TRT results less. Good TRT can sometimes only be useful to determine that the drive which performed it can read the media, so it can be rather misleading itself (and even on that drive, it can be speed dependant).
You are right, but in the case above, I think some requirements are met to put at least some trust in the TRT as an indication that the disc is fully usable: The 7173 is not among the best readers, the TRT is @12X with a DL disc… You’re aware that many existing drives don’t even read DL that fast, aren’t you?