Premium 2 + Verbatim(Mitsubishi Chemic., type 3): too many C1/C2 errors?

Hello,

the results I get from Plextools diagnostic tests may still be acceptable, but clearly worse than expected and reported from similar combinations.

Example 1: Audio CD, burnt with PoweRec (I think actual speed was 24X-32X),test done at 10-24x cav:

C1 avg/sec 16,3
C1 max/sec 63,0
C1 total 76866,0
no C2, no CU

Example 2: Audio CD, burnt without PoweRec at 52X :

I also realize test results are varying for the same CD at different times and number of C1 errors reported is 10-15% lower if test runs at reduced speed.

Plextor support had recommended Verbatim/Mitsubishi Chemical media to me.
Any ideas what might cause theses results? Help appreciated.
I should add I use an Nvidia board, but have already switched to Microsoft drivers.

Thanks,
Stefan

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2284694]Any ideas what might cause theses results?[/QUOTE] Verbatim CD-R media isn’t quite as good as it used to be (except perhaps Verbatim Pastel CD-R which is very difficult to find these days).

Welcome to CDFreaks! :slight_smile:

Thanks!
But are the results [I]too[/I] bad? Should I go on using them?
Have 90 of them left… :-(.
In the second example, the c2 errors seem concentrated at ca. 11:00 minutes, apart from this the error rate is ok. Is this just coincidence or does it indicate physical damage of the CD-R at this point?

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2284729]But are the results [I]too[/I] bad? [/QUOTE]

No. As in your case, people can get very impressed with burns that show ultra low error scan results. This then often leads to getting the wrong idea about what really bad results are. Example: They see a scan that shows an excellent result of 2000 C1 and themselves get a result of 4000 C1. Now they think “Gee, that’s TWICE as much errors! I got a coaster!” Obviously that is not the case. Rest assured any result that stays within the margin of 50 C1 errors can be considered a very good to excellent result. IMHO the possible difference of results in the 0-50 span is too small for becoming significant.

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2284729]In the second example, the c2 errors seem concentrated at ca. 11:00 minutes, apart from this the error rate is ok. Is this just coincidence or does it indicate physical damage of the CD-R at this point?[/QUOTE]

A rather massive C2 spike there. Hard to say. Dust on the disc (or a some other dirt) can cause this too. For a physical check, use the FE/TE-Test. Check about 5 discs and compare the results to get an idea if there is a variance from media to media. Look if there is any spike in FE or TE @ 11Min posisiton.

I found a difference between plain Datalife discs and Datalife Plus discs - the Pluses gave lower error rates.

Cheers

James.

These are labelled “Verbatim Azo CD-R”, Verbatim support told me this is equal to the former “Datalife Plus” media series.

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2285121]These are labelled “Verbatim Azo CD-R”, Verbatim support told me this is equal to the former “Datalife Plus” media series.[/QUOTE]
Hello Stefan, I do a lot of burns on a Premium II. Reduce your burn speed to 8x it might help. Myself I would try AMQR: On, VeriRec: On, Offset: +.5 AZO Strategy [B]4x burn speed[/B]. When you have the time look at some of my scans in the Plextor CD quality thread from about 6 months ago. The Premium II is designed to perform better at slower burning speeds. Or just look at the CD burn in my sig. Please do not get the wrong idea your C1 errors are good. P.S. are you using the latest firmware 1.03? Even 16x might be a good place to start also you can only burn about 68 minutes with with a 80 min. CD with AMQR: On

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2285121]These are labelled “Verbatim Azo CD-R”, Verbatim support told me this is equal to the former “Datalife Plus” media series.[/QUOTE]

Under the new packaging “theme” Verbatim uses, DLP equivalent media are now marked [B]“AZO” [U]and[/U] “Crystal”[/B] (Crystal = the shiny silver label side). “AZO” alone most certainly is something different. Most likely some Phthalocyanine disc done by Ritek. Notice how these use another Dye despite being labelled “AZO”! (Verbatim even used to sell Cyanine Taiyo Yuden discs as “AZO” :slight_smile: ) Check the ATIP the discs have. True Verbatims (DLPs) are [B]97:34.23[/B]. If the ATIP is something in the 97:31.xx range, it’s Ritek discs. (Not that Verbatim still produces DLP-style discs themselves anymore. Nowadays all AZO-Crystal discs seem to come from Moser Baer India. Check for “Made in India” on the packaging.)

I’ve just found there alo two small symbols for “Azo” and “Crystal” on the cakebox’s inlay sheet.The big label under “Verbatim” says only “Azo CD-R”

The burning speed really seems to matter here, I had another one burnt with PoweRec having only 5,6 C1 errors avg/sec, and the one burnt with 52x was the only one having C2 errors.
Should I set directly a lower burning speed or always use PoweRec?
(What I found weird is that even this option is turned on under “drive settings”->advanced, it is shown as turned off in “AudioCD maker” afterwards. How so? Is there a way to have it activated alsways automatically?)
Would a simulated burn before the real burn have affects on PoweRec?

thanks,
Stefan

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2285257]Should I set directly a lower burning speed or always use PoweRec?[/QUOTE]

PoweRec works pretty well. However it uses it’s own ‘limit’ of acceptable parameters to determine when to slow down. So PR may burn at a higher speed that still gives OK quality but selecting a slower speed manually may still give better quality burns.

BTW: PoweRec is also active when you select a slower speed manually. Manual selection just limits the max. speed, not PRs capability of slowing down further if it thinks it’s necessary.

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2285257](What I found weird is that even this option is turned on under “drive settings”->advanced, it is shown as turned off in “AudioCD maker” afterwards. How so? Is there a way to have it activated alsways automatically?)[/QUOTE]

I think this is simply a bug in Plextools. PR should be on (default, unless explicitly deactivated). I’ve seen similar things going on with the AMQR setting. PTP does give you a small log of what happened. I don’t remember but maybe the PR-setting is logged there? For a check: If the drive did slow down at some point (max. speed setting, but did not reach 52x), then PR was active and working despite the wrong second setting.

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2285257]Would a simulated burn before the real burn have affects on PoweRec?[/QUOTE]

Some people reported doing a FE/TE-Test before burning gave them different (better) results. I doubt FE/TE or simulation changes anything. I could imagine spinning the disc at max. speed first could help ‘centering’ it on the motor-spindle, but if a disc has that much play to begin with, one is possibly in deeper trouble than one thought :wink:

Thanks for all answers so far!
I’ve just burnt another audio CD, this time at speed set to 16X.
I had already mentioned C1/C2 error test results seem to depend a bit on testing speed, but now…look at this:
CD tested at 10-24X CAV:

C1 avg/sec 18.3 max/sec 110.0 total 68175.0
no C2, no CU

same CD tested at 4X CLV:

C1 avg/sec 0.7 max/sec 22.0 total 2678.0
no C2, no CU

what could cause this difference and which test is more reliable?

thanks,
Stefan

[QUOTE=Stefan1971HH;2285476]I had already mentioned C1/C2 error test results seem to depend a bit on testing speed, but now…look at this:
[…]
what could cause this difference and which test is more reliable?[/QUOTE] Some drives scan badly at some speeds; my Plextor PX-712A shows more C1/C2/CU at the beginning of scans for 10-24x scanning speed than at any other scanning speed for most CDs. Perhaps the drive/disc hits a resonance frequency or perhaps something else is suboptimal at that speed.

The same might be true for your Premium2.

Try scanning at the next higher speed (if you can) and see how that turns out.

It’s difficult to say, which test is more reliable, without cross-checking with multiple discs at multiple speeds in multiple drives.

The higher the reading speed is set the more serious the problems become a drive has to overcome to correctly read a disc. This is easily illustrated with the FE/TE-Test. Look here how raising speed also raises the error rates for focus and tracking: http://club.cdfreaks.com/1614999-post65.html
So to some degree getting higher error rates when scanning at higher speeds is quite normal. This pheonenon is also the reason why it’s usually recommended to stick with certain speeds for scanning. The results would not be comparable otherwise. CD-scanning with Plextor drives is usually done with the 10-24x setting.

Additionally, as Dragemester has pointed out, each drive can have additional quirks that affect scanning. In my experience Plextor drives are pretty consistent with their results, especially the Premium (2) series. However exceptions are always possible. These are consumer drives that are not really calibrated for scanning and thus each drive just shows how itself ‘sees’ the disc. So drive variance is definitely an issue.

So both scans are valid, but have to be seen in context with the speed they’ve been made at.

Looking at my own results with Verbatims
http://club.cdfreaks.com/1679435-post75.html
http://club.cdfreaks.com/1679436-post76.html
I think the result is OK.

I always scan at the highest speed as it usually gives the worst result. One way of looking at testing is that a test is only successful if it shows up problems. Thinking about it - what is the point of doing a test that is unlikely to show up problems?

Cheers

James.

I get your point but question is if the problems lie in the test’s subject or in the test itself.

It’s a combination of both. As explained, higher speed makes for higher errors. The cause for this may lay with the drive and/or the disc.

Indeed a ‘bad’ disc will usually give a higher raise of errors when scanned at faster speeds, whereas a ‘good’ disc will show a small(er) raise of errors only or no increase of errors at all, when scanned faster.

It’s a real problem to determine who’s at fault and to what degree. Since each drive and each batch of media are individual to some degree, comparisons are only possible on a relative basis. It’s thus important to get a ‘feel’ (sorry, no other description for it) by doing multiple burns/scans of different media and burning parameters. You’d have to save scanning results and compare them. Maybe buy some small quantities of different brands of media to experiment and compare.

In my experience as of above, the disc you scanned looks OK. When I wrote “I think the result is OK.” I was talking about the disc and not about either of the two scanning results. The disc is OK by either result. The raise of errors in the first scan is perhaps a bit more of what I’d have expected from this drive/media combination, but IMHO still perfectly OK.

Thanks for your answer.

Some time ago I had posted some Nero-CD-Speed scans of burnt DVDs to another(German) forum which made one of the users there guess something could be wrong with my IDE interface.
He now added the same thing could influence the plextor scans and make them not reliable.
These were the scans, made with my LiteOn DH20a4P from a DVD that had been burnt with my Pioneer DVR-115:

He pointed at the strange TRT and guessed it may be a driver issue.
I have an old mainboard with Nvidia Nforce 3 chipset, and the Nvidia IDE drivers are well-known to cause trouble.
I replaced them with MS drivers, the Plextor burns I posted here were made using these.
Still, can it be a problem related to my IDE interface?

thanks,
Stefan

Your scans seem to indicate a data transfer rate problem. Data is read correctly but not at maximum speed. In theory this should not influence your scan results, unless the necessary scanning speed cannot be reached (so we could run into the phenomenon of scanning at slower speed would give us lower results). However this should not be the problem in your situation. Reaching 10x DVD speed is fast enough for either DVD or CD scanning (at least with Plextor drives).

The interface Burst rate and max. DVD data-transfer rate graph correspond. The burst rate would indicate the interface is running in UDMA 0 (16MB/s max.), whereas nforce3 supports up to 133MB/s data rates (the interface of the Plextor Premium offers up to UDMA 2 Mode (33 MB/s), all modern DVD writers do UDMA 4 (66 MB/s)), however the huge load on the processor makes me doubt if DMA (direct memory access = no/little need for CPU power) is really the mode that is used. Something is definitely amiss. Unfortunately I’m not familiar with nForce hardware. Using MS-drivers is indeed the standard-remedy that is recommended but does not solve every problem. If you’ve already updated to the latest firmware, you could contact Nvidia support and inquire if there are any unreleased firmwares. Sometimes not all FW is released to the public.

I have now reinstalled my system, using the MS IDE drivers, because I wasn’t sure how “clean” it was just to uninstall the Nvidia drivers.

After this, a test done with the LiteOn of a DVD burnt in the Pioneer, lead to this result:

So the IDE situation seemed to have improved, and I was curious to see what the Plextor scans would look like…
So here is an audio CD (again one of the Verbatims), tested at 18-40X CAV:
](http://www.pictureload.org/hqviewer.php?file=files/ll2ah1ra68rr72q9cr1r.jpg)[/IMG]

and the same CD, tested at 4X CLV:
](http://www.pictureload.org/hqviewer.php?file=files/apn0f143v5ctielxkwn5.jpg)[/IMG]

What becomes obvious is that the difference lies is the much larger number of errors the “faster” scan reports in the first 15-20 minutes; after this point the results are very similar.

Any ideas what to conclude from this?

thanks,
Stefan

For another disk, burnt with GigaRec 1,2 the results vary even more depending on speed - but also with same speed at different times. Sometimes I get even C2 errors, sometimes not.

Does the test make sense for a GigaRec disk at all?

thanks again,
Stefan