Problem(?) with 40125w

vbimport

#1

Hello everybody!

Here 's my problem: when I am burning with my LiteOn 40125w (WS05) at 4x, I always get (with wses) a large (100 - 180) C2 error at the same position, around 57:00, in every CD-R. I 've also noticed that at the same position appears a large C1 error too.
So far I 've tried TKD 's 74 min colour disks 8x (which I know are not good for my device) and TDK 's 74 min ultra reflex 24x (those made by TY). The colour ones end up with many C2 errors as well, while ultras have no other C2 errors, except from the one at, roughly, position 57:00.
To be sicncere, I 've not tried to burn at a speed other than 4x. Could this be the reason? And why so?


#2

I forgot to mention that I have the same problem with TDK 80 min Reflex Metallic 24x…


#3

Never read 48x in WSES… :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

Can you be a little more specific?
How can I control what speed wses reads at when doing C1/C2 error checking?


#5

Look into the window where you press the “start”-button…have a look at the last line in that window.


#6

The line that writes “99” I guess…
Ok, what value should I set this to?


#7

That spike at 56-57 min is common and occurs on many if not most read tests I have done. It does not matter what speed you write at, it’s a read error. It also occurs in CDSpeed Quality Check.
I don’t think it’s a problem, just a glitch.


#8

You should 40x, 16x or 4x (40x to test if a disc can be read at high speeds, 4x to get the “real” error rate, 16x if you don’t want to wait for your result 20mins…).

@both of you: Unfortunately, 48x usually gives crap results. Do not read faster than 40x if doing a quality check.


#9

Thanks a lot.
However, I still don’t get how to set the read speed at 40x, 16x and so on…
Should I replace “99” with 40, 16 or what?
Sorry…:o


#10

I have no problem reading at full speed, if the disc is “good”, it shows good. If a disc cannot be read at full speed, what’s the point of have the high-speed disc, or the drive, in the first place?


#11

@kpapa: correct

@rd: Your result is unreliable at 48x.
When using readcd, I sometimes get i single sector with 300 errors, while all other sectors are OK.
The bad thing: A sector with 300 c2 errors is completely unreadable
But since the drive doesn’t spin down, the value of “300” must be crap.


#12

alexnoe

I understand what you are saying, but this does not make high-speed reading unreliable. Reading any CD in windows occurs at full speed, unless the drive has to slow to correct errors. This is why i ususlly use CDSpeed Quality check, because it more or less simulates a real-world reading of the disc, and if it goes full speed with no slow-downs and no errors I am happy. If WSES does the same i am also happy. Slowing the read speed means seeing FEWER errors, not more.
But my point is that if the drive has to slow to read it, I don’t want the disc in the first place. The newer high-speed TY media is proving to be up to the task.


#13

I understand what you are saying, but this does not make high-speed reading unreliable.

I never said this. I always refered to doing C2 or C1 scans.

This is why i ususlly use CDSpeed Quality check, because it more or less simulates a real-world reading of the disc,

It doesn’t. CDSpeed does a complete read and reports C2 error counters. But these counters seem to be crap at 48x in LiteOn drives, so you can’t really say it is a “real life test”.


#14

It doesn’t. CDSpeed does a complete read and reports C2 error counters. But these counters seem to be crap at 48x in LiteOn drives, so you can’t really say it is a “real life test”.

comparing CDSpeed Quality Check, (not scandisc), and WSES, I see very little difference in the C2 errors reported, and very consistant trends when comparing media and burn speeds.


#15

This disc

reports this in nero cd speed:

ReadCD reports 6,5 million C2 errors in 90000 sectors or something like this.

==> not quite the same in C2.

I still guess that WSES reports E22 errors as C2, while Nero seems to report E12 errors (which occur if E31 errors occur, but not too many of them)


#16

I repeat: I do not use Scandisc, i use “quality check”. And i can post screen shots all day long that indicate very similay readings between the 2 programs, except the CDSpeed slows the drive and therefor shows fewer errors sometimes.
If you are running WSES at slow speeds, it’s not a fair comparison. You can force WSES to report pretty much anything you want, by fiddling with read speed and other settings. CDSpeed is at least consistant in that respect, you get what you get, in a windows environment with SMART functioning and all the rest.
Apart from all of this, the point is not what the programs are or are not reporting, but that they give a reasonably reliable indicator of error rates, and a way to compare the effects of one media vs another, one burn speed vs another, etc, etc.
Comparing apples to oranges doesn’t help.


#17

WSES reports about the same graph at 40x reading as at 16x reading with this crap disc.

Quality check reports at 40x:
22.259.076 errors.

More than wses does.


#18

I agree that high (48x) read speed does increase the error reports vs. reading at slower speeds, but I think it is useful info. Since the drive isn’t able to read as accurately at such a high speed, it amplifies any writing quality issues. For example, I was writing on some crap media, comparing 40x, 24x, & 16x writing. While they all had accpetable error rates when reading at 16x, when reading at 48x, the 24x & 32x written discs had a TON of errors. The 16x did not. So I’d say the written quality is higher on the 16x burned discs, but at a slower speed, the reader is able to deal with it better. If I’m trying to make a disc that has a better chance of being read on a wide range of players, or doesn’t have problems reading in my car CD player while being vibrated around, then I’d bet that that the 16x disc has a better shot.


#19

Darin

Yeah, what YOU said!!