Pioneer DVR-215D + MKM003-Burn speed?

Since i dont want to experiment with expensive media, what burn speed gives you people better results with this drive (1.18) - media combination(MIS)?:rolleyes:

Also, i burned 4 of these discs 4 months ago using nero 7 and the results were as you can see pretty good.:slight_smile: Having seen some imgburn burns, which showed a significant difference in PI-PIF quality between the two layers, should i stick with nero for dl’s?:doh:
Imgburn is working great with the above recorder and sl media, just haven’t used it for dl.

Last,why does cd-dvd speed show book type > DVD-ROM for the above 4 discs in DISC INFO tab, but in QS tab shows DVD+R DL when i set it to show book type?:rolleyes:

No responses.

Give a hand here people!I ve only found 2-3 scans of MKM 003 with the pioneer.

What speed gives you better results?

The media should give you very good results at rated speed (8x), and even at 10x.

I burn them at 8x, burn quality doesn’t get much better for DL media.

Thanks for the help.
So 8x gives better results than 6x and 4x?
Time isn’t an issue.

vroom posted a couple of slower DL burns in the Pioneer DVR-215 thread, and as far as I can see, the difference is totally negligible, if existing.

From my personal experience with MKM001s (2,4x Verbatim DVD+R DL media), burning slower than 6x does not necessarily improve burn quality, sometimes even the opposite.

Yes, i saw them, the 4x and 8x “win” with same lowest jitter and show much less totals of PIE (23 and 26 thousand for the 8x and 4x burns is i think a big difference from the 45 and 95 thousand for the 10x and 6x burns repectively) which to my belief is the best criterium when evaluating different speeds since the other values are usually all small and thus there are little differences among them that could be explained by a scanning - burning - batch variance.
But as i mentioned above, one or two posted scans for each speed can’t be statistically important.

I think there are a lot of people who have burned with the MKM 003 and PIONEER 215 combo.

Also about my imgburn vs nero7 question i burned two MKM003 same batch, same files, same speed and burner only different software.

Apart from the fact that for some reason (may be normal-i dont know)the imgburn’s final size is almost A HOLE 1GB bigger than the original:doh: nero did a much better job scanwise at the layer break area something that imgburn i think takes pride in.:iagree::eek:



PIE totals / averages / peaks, as long as they are so low, really shouldn’t bother you. I wouldn’t say that’s the wisest approach to determine burn quality anyway, since those numbers usually have more to do with the quality of that certain disc than the speed chosen.

The 95k PIE burn you are talking about was a 6x burn, for example, while this 10x DL burn by the same user / drive has roughly half the total PIE value.

Readability (TRTs), jitter, PIFs (totals, peaks, clumpings etc.) should be of more concern to you than the total number of PIEs, as long as they are so low as in these cases (well within specs).

About the first:Without doubting that PIE are at part disc dependant,i burned recently 5 or 6 movies each at 4x, 6x and 8x(same discs,recorder,software) and the PIE totals were systematically and significally lower as the speed raised.

About the second:I didn’t write something different.

Third:Among Vroom’s different speed recordings’s scans PIF total show differences of 200 to 300 hundred, differences that i myself have seen occuring from disc to disc burned with the same speed even from scan to scan.Small values>small differences>more factors.TRT’s will in most cases be regardless of burn speed good.

[QUOTE=Grecus;2134887]About the first:Without doubting that PIE are at part disc dependant,i burned recently 5 or 6 movies each at 4x, 6x and 8x(same discs,recorder,software) and the PIE totals were systematically and significally lower as the speed raised.

About the second:I didn’t write something different.

Third:Among Vroom’s different speed recordings’s scans PIF total show differences of 200 to 300 hundred, differences that i myself have seen occuring from disc to disc burned with the same speed even from scan to scan.Small values>small differences>more factors.TRT’s will in most cases be regardless of burn speed good.[/QUOTE]

Hi

first, from what i have found out is that MIS should burn well at all speeds, so i dont think that there is a point going slower than 6x or faster than 8x.

Third, it has to do with the discs, there were a few discs that have showed
higher levels of errors (none of them was out of limits), but all my drives have perfect tranfer rate curves (LG h44L/Optiarc 7200A/Liteon 20A3P).

Thank you for your help.

About imgburn?The spike at the layer change compared to nero burned disc and what’s the thing with imgburn pumping the filesize to 7610MB from 6567MB.I burned two MKM003 with it both are significally larger than ripped files.

Why dont you try here for more help on imgburn, so fan i didn’t have any problems with imgburn, i also dont have nero installed so i don’t know how nero behaves with dual layer dvd’s.

OK for that.
The thng that i dont understand is the fie size vs image size.Is it normal?
It only happens with larger than 1dvd fitting movies.At the information tab it shows same difference as after burning.

I expect it’s bigger due to the layer break position YOU have selected.

If you’re burning DVD Video files then ImgBurn will align the selected cell properly so it complies with the DVD Video specs. I believe Nero just takes what you give it and splits the data straight down the middle.

Layer break alignment is what ImgBurn ‘takes pride in’, the actual burning quality has nothing to do with the program being used. We’re all just sending the same ‘Write (10)’ CDB to the drive over and over and over again. The drive / firmware / media are in complete control.

I played around a bit and saw that selected layer break position made all the difference regarding image size though i dont get why a “wrong”(high padding numbers) selection can have such an effect and probably dont want to.I wonder am i the first to notice.Haven’t seen it in a guide or post, nothing.Even in a thread i found through google here in cdfreaks someone wrote that padding is the least of factors to matter when selecting lb position but a file gaining half and more giga is no minor issue to me.I understand that this is not imgburns issue.It does the best on given files.

I cant understand though the big spike in imgburns recording especially since it appears in a critical area and thus to me seems unlikely to be due to media or burn variance.Same media batch and good, same recorder and burn speed.

Thanks for the help LUK

You’re looking at the LB stuff all wrong.

Padding is minor in DVD Video spec terms. When looking for a cell to line up with the physical layer break position on the disc, the cell number, vob id changes and SPLIP values etc are important. When you’re talking about burn quality none of that makes the blindest bit of difference. The ‘padding’ field is simply empty space - i.e. a whole bunch of ‘zeroes’ in the sector. It’s inserted so that the cell you select can line up with the physical layer break - which of course must always be where layer 0’s size is >= layer 1’s.
So the larger the ‘padding’ value, the more empty space before the file data - thus making the image / disc bigger.

The only way to make a fair comparison is to burn an identical amount of data on each layer on each disc with each program. That’s not easy to do with ImgBurn (on DVD Video data anyway) because it wants to burn things the correct/compliant way. Really you’d have to make an image in ImgBurn where the LB is positioned so that it’s a 50/50 split between the layers and then burn that image with both programs.

As a side note, perhaps you’d like to try changing the ‘Write Type’ to Incremental within ImgBurn’s settings. Your drive might do a better job of burning using that over SAO/DAO.
As I say, drive commands are drive commands. Whatever quality increase you think you’re getting from a certain bit of software can be mirrored in other software by just changing a couple of settings. That’s why ImgBurn has so many :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=LIGHTNING UK!;2135279]… drive commands are drive commands…[/QUOTE]And all the rest is up to media structure/quality and burners write strategy [in firmware (like speed and laser power)]. Nothing else.

[I]Sidenote[/I]. My special thanks to [I]LIGHTNING UK![/I] taking his time and making all this more understandable to us. :bow:

[I]Sidenote[/I]. My special thanks to [I]LIGHTNING UK![/I] taking his time and making all this more understandable to us. :bow:

Advice from the best, it just doesn’t get any better.

LUK :bow: