hmm decreasing quality further down a spindle could indicate a stamper that is wearing out, but i could be wrong.
I have Sony 8x+ Yuden T02 Batch 1159 Nec 3520 and 3540 both burns are as good as batch 1133 Fuji. I will test them again in a week or so but as for now I do not believe there is a difference. Can ypu watch the movie without pixelation or skipping 6 months after you burn, we will have to see but I have tested batch 1159 after 1 month and there is no change. By the way do you flash your firmware two times before your initial burn with the firmware, I do and I see a marked difference. I think after the second flash the write statagies are more complete.
Wow! The first almost fine Yuden000T02 burn with my new NEC 3540! Hope the following will be at least as good.
FujiFilm DVD+R 8x (Yuden000T02 TG001159) burned at 8x using 1.W3.
And I will bet that if you scan it again in a year from now you will get the same results. I have not had one bad scan on batch 1159 or 1158 or 1133, some here on the forum either do not watch the movies they burn or have so much peanut butter and jelly on the disc that it won’t scan properly anyway.
LOL. I wish it were that simple.
Well, I think it’s really just a problem of the wrong strategy being used at the wrong speed. The media CANNOT handle 4x on a NEC. It MUST be 6x or faster. Thus all burns must be performed at either 12x or 16x on this media on a NEC.
I’m still testing (just got home from work)… but here is one that I found useful…
Ricoh Japan R02-004 strategy burned at 12x.
Technarch, nice find! hopefully a proper strategy for this media will be find very soon.
FujiFilm DVD+R 8x (Yuden000T02 TG001159) burned at 8x using 1.W3.
After further testing tonight, I have learned that even if you burn at 12x, if you are using a strategy rated up to 16x, it will burn 12x in P-CAV mode instead of Z-CLV which I kinda like, and which was helpful in showing me how the PI errors were up at the 4x mark and then a sudden drop right where the speed jumps to 6x.
My media has a PIF spike of 6 on every single disc at the 1.1 mark. It is what is preventing me from getting 99 quality score.
I’m very tired, my testing hasn’t really found anything better other than what I posted about the R02-004. I did try the -003, the only difference was that it had slightly lower PI totals, and slightly higher PIF totals. Advantage to -004 which is limited to a 12x max so you won’t have to worry about slower, possibly messier, P-CAV mode.
I really have NO clue why the ‘proper’ strategy wasn’t proper for what it is supposed to be. Maybe NEC screwed up.
I will try one more strategy tomorrow, and then call it a day. Enough wasted discs (I went through a lot).
Hey check this out… our discs might be MAM-A!
DeadMan judging from some of your scans it looks like it might be your drive not giving accurate results, from looking at other users scans I came to a conclusion that some drives report different values. I had a lot of scans look like your 4x write QScan, but when scanned on two different version LiteOn drives and a BenQ I was convinced that my drive was not giving a clear picture of the discs real quality. If your Transfer Rate Test looks good then try not to worry much… cause I was tripping in the begining but after I got my LiteOn I got some releaf.
I once did 6 consecutive scans on my 3540 with the same disc to check how accurate the results were. Found out that apart from some single PIF-spikes the scans were quite consistent. I would therefore say that, unless Deadmans drive is failing, his scans should be accurate.
I also did the same, scanned a disc a number of times just to see if my drive was reporting differently values every time I did a scan. All of my scans gave me the same results… but what I noticed was that the PIF the drive was reporting was at 2 max well under standards for 1.00ECC, but the PIE was abnormally high… I came to my conclusion when I did the scans on different drives and compared results, I can say that I’m as worried about my NEC scans as DeadMan is. When I think about it I don’t know what to believe anymore :p.
I thought I’d give my NEC a try at scanning this disc… Bad idea :p.
Well not really it’s just a different scan but anyways my LiteOn scan can be found here.
Anyone got a clue to why our NEC drives give high PI Errors in the scans .
YUDEN000-T02 (FujiFilm) TG001158 Burn Speed 16x
Ignore date stamp(dvd copy)
Maybe it’s because the drive cannot read the disc well
You can’t compare a LiteOn scans with a Nec scan. IMO LiteOn drives newer than 811 are too good readers and don’t really show low PIE and PIF even if a transfer rate test in other drives shows reading problems and the PIE/PIF are much higher. Also LiteOn drives drop samples so they aren’t really good for showing “quality” IMO. I think Nec and BenQ drives are much better for PIE/PIF… however no drive is perfect.
Nice scans you have there. They show very consistent results.
I think the same here, it’s time and money consuming for us, while I certainly suspect the Drive manufacturers and DISC/dye manufacturers all know this for sure, and they know how far they can go, as long as the market request for more discs is open the faster they run in the factory with less quality and, if the market is full, they rest back and make time to get all things better, don’t forget we make this siuation ourselves as consumers, I have good eyes and on the same JVC DVD-player I don’t see any image difference from any batch, any FW, any speed (normal use please!) and no disturbances, out of point of general quality discs and speeds…
And thereby as proof I was for a long time QUALITY-END Controller at a Movie-lab, wich I was good at, with good eyes and ears, even after 5 years at an other function (lab-coordinator) I could not amuse me in the Movie -theather or at home before the Television set!
(Because of poor quality, I saw every spot, dot, spiccle, cable…and hear each plop, siss…and bad colours)
I’m still a little more sensitive than “normal” people. (let’s say more critical)
I’m glad with the DVD quality compared to S-VHS and I like to amuse me with Music DVD’s, even now I hear soundmix differences.
While QS tests shows indeed differences like Deadman proved!
I burn with relativily good quality and a friend of mine who use the cheapest Platinum to copy movies with high speed,
no person ever complained to him!
I am waiting for the Benq 1640 to come out in the UK so I can at least do some comparative scans (and burns). I could got get a Lite-On but I’d like to see the jitter and PIO too. I know the drive is only 8ECC but it’s a good all rounder from what I read.
I did a double flash last night of W3 with strats altered on T02 and MCC 003’s to MCC004 and burned a T02 off from a different spindle. I left it on a spindle overnight and scanned it just now (Did not save result though). PIE is below average for TY media but within spec. PIF was also within spec with a max PIF of 3. A total of a little over 400 and average what you would expect from a TY burn.
It may be the double flash or it may even be the spindle change. But it looks good. I also rescanned the disc I burned at 8x in the 2500 and it gaves near enough the same results so the drive reading does seem consistent. Scanning a previously known bad burn now to verify that and also will burn another from the same spindle and post a before and after scan.
EDIT: Same errors on previously scanned bad burns. I’m going to try the Ricoh R04(?) someone suggested earlier. I will do a double flash again.