Post your PX716 DVD+/-RW scans here!

Hi,

I am really interested in how your PX716 performs on rewritable DVDs. I have tried four different brands, and the results are something between horrible and almost useable. I’m quite disappointed, and I’d like to know if your results are as bad as mine. :confused:

The most interesting results (in my opinion) are those you get when you overwrite a full DVD+/-RW without erasing it first! (Because a full erase takes lots of time, so it should not be necessary)

Verbatim DVD+RW 4x (MKM A02 00)

  1. First burn on a virgin disc:
  2. Overwritten without erasing on the same disc:
  3. Full erase before burn on the same disc:

TDK DVD+RW 4x (Philips 041 00)

  1. First burn on a virgin disc: see 1st attachment
  2. First time overwritten without erasing: see 2nd attachment
  3. Third time overwritten without erasing:

SK DVD+RW 4x (Optodisc OP4 01)

  1. First burn on a virgin disc: see 3rd attachment
  2. First time overwritten without erasing: see 4th attachment

Platinum DVD+RW 4x (Ritek 004 48)

  1. First burn on a virgin disc: see 1st attachment
  2. Full erase before burn on the same disc: see 2nd attachment

I don’t have a scan of a overwritten Platinum DVD+RW anymore, but as far as I remember, it was horrible.



Come on, does nobody use DVD+/-RWs?? :confused:

I do, but I have a PX712 :wink:

I don’t think all that many people here really do use DVDRW. I only have four of them, and posted the MKM 02 in another thread. I can Pxscan and post the 2x Verbatim -RWs if you’d like…?

Yes, but my measly PX-712 doesn’t qualify for your elitist PX-716 club. :stuck_out_tongue:

On my PX-712 however I have PlexTools scans of Verbatim 4x DVD+RW (MKM A02), Verbatim 4x DVD-RW (MCC 01RW4X), Fujifilm 4x DVD+RW (RICOHJPN W11) and Fujifilm 2x DVD-RW (MCC 01RW11n9).

But if you’re not interested you’re not interested…

Pardon me for temporarily hijacking the thread, but… it takes 56 minutes to get one of those scans? :eek:
What if I wanted a jitter graph, would that be yet another 28 minutes?

full battery of tests (PIE, PIF, Beta, Jitter and TA) takes about 1:25 on a full SL disc with PxScan…

i’ve never purchased or used a + or - RW disc…they just seem ridiculously more expensive than non-RW media …i could burn 3 or 4 +/-R discs with better quality for the same price as a high-quality RW disc…

what are some of the specific uses of RW media that make them more attractive than $0.20-0.40 TY or MCC write-once media? honest question here peeps…

Exactly the same time it takes with that other, inferior software (no, I’m not going to “give it a rest” :stuck_out_tongue: )

i’ve never purchased or used a + or - RW disc…they just seem ridiculously more expensive than non-RW media …i could burn 3 or 4 +/-R discs with better quality for the same price as a high-quality RW disc…

Yes, but how many times can you burn these non-RW discs?

what are some of the specific uses of RW media that make them more attractive than $0.20-0.40 TY or MCC write-once media? honest question here peeps…

It is the re-writable aspect. For those who, er, backup movies and especially when a little DVD-authoring is needed, an RW can give you a dry run to see if you got the right menus or the DVD-Shrink compression affected the quality too much. When you’ve got it just right, you then go ahead and burn the ±R media.

When you store data that changes over time (like a HD backup image), you can keep writing to the RW disc until it fills, then move it all over to a DVD±R disc, then erase the RW and start adding to it again.

Another use is for transporting data. If you need to move more than a gig from PC #1 to PC #2 (eg. home to office), you don’t have to waste a ±R to do it. I used to transport a sh*tpile of ZIP discs back and forth, and CDRWs were a godsend.

I realize that DVD±R’s are pretty cheap, but I think it’s wasteful to read off them once and then throw them away. Bad enviro-karma etc…

Another aspect is whether you use packet-writing or not with RWs.

Seemed like a great idea at the outset, but the filesystem incompatibilities and flaky packet-writing software (InCD and Drag2disc) made me give up on packet-writing altogether. Oh, and the fact that the discs would suddenly declare themselves to be unreadable :eek: also had a lot to do with it.

See here: http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=116863

i didn’t ask you to give it a rest :stuck_out_tongue:

Yes, but how many times can you burn these non-RW discs?
like i said, i can burn 3-4 high-quality non-RW discs and at speeds twice as fast…why would i wait twice as long for 2x worse burn quality simply because i want to replace one/a few files or want to reburn a slightly modified video…

It is the re-writable aspect. For those who, er, backup movies and especially when a little DVD-authoring is needed, an RW can give you a dry run to see if you got the right menus or the DVD-Shrink compression affected the quality too much. When you’ve got it just right, you then go ahead and burn the ±R media.
why do you need to burn anything to see functional menus/compression quality? why wouldn’t you just check it by playing the DVD via “folder” or mounted ISO?

When you store data that changes over time (like a HD backup image), you can keep writing to the RW disc until it fills, then move it all over to a DVD±R disc, then erase the RW and start adding to it again.
you can write a multi-session non-RW disc…and why bother backing up HDDs to optical media when HDDs are so cheap (even an external HDD is more functional/easier/quicker than RW media)…

Another use is for transporting data. If you need to move more than a gig from PC #1 to PC #2 (eg. home to office), you don’t have to waste a ±R to do it. I used to transport a sh*tpile of ZIP discs back and forth, and CDRWs were a godsend.
USB2 flash drives anyone?

I realize that DVD±R’s are pretty cheap, but I think it’s wasteful to read off them once and then throw them away. Bad enviro-karma etc…
i wouldn’t use them simply to read-once and throw away (i’m not wasteful like that…i don’t even throw away coasters :wink: )

i’m still not convinced that the ~$1-2/disc high-quality RW media is worth it…i’m even more willing to pay $3-5 for a double-layer disc (for single-disc backups of FX-laden, DTS-soundtracked epics :wink: )

Oops, ok… :o You may of course post your results here as well. :iagree:
The reason why I included the PX716 in the thread subject was that I wanted to compare your results to mine, and if you have a different burner, it’s not that comparable anymore. I wondered if my PX716 is ok, because the results on RWs are so bad.

  • Damn, I can’t change the thread subject anymore. :confused:

RW media uses different phase-change compositions which are more prone to errors. Your scans of Philips and Ritek-coded media look healthy. 1000-5000 PI failures on the first recording is the normal range with a well tuned drive and proper laser power. Subsequent recordings result in more PIF failures.

Forget Optodisc RW media, don’t waste your time with it.

I’ve posted some scans of Ricoh +RW media here:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showpost.php?p=1016627&postcount=37

PM Gamefreak and explain.

PS I only have a couple of RICOHJPNW11, :o scans in my sig.

PX 716A. 1.07 FW. TLA#0304.
Sony, RICOHJPN-W11. DVD+RW. 4x.
6 Burns and full erases, Burned @4x.


@drpino-

You make some good points, although buying additional computer equipment like thumbdrives and external HDs costs much more than 1 or 2 RW discs. It’s a matter of personal preferences, I guess.

PX 716A. 1.07 FW. TLA#0304.
Maxell. TDK502sakuM3. DVD-RW 2x.
10 Burns and full erases, Burned @2x.
This is probably crap media. Not up on DVD RW media.


PX 716A. 1.07 FW. TLA#0304.
Memorex. Phillips-041. DVD+RW. 4x.
2 Burns and full erases, Burned @4x.
Not great for 2x and 4x burns!


@ftp1020…indeed it is, like most everything in this world :wink:

crossg’s obviously working on his number of and total size of attachments to rival zevia’s :stuck_out_tongue:

hehe, crossg is catching up very fast.

Not even close to zevia.:bigsmile: Actually this thead peaked my interest to see how RW would write and at the speed they were written I would have expected better results.