Prodisc-made Mitsubishi 16x DVD-R

vbimport

#1

I figured it was simply a matter of time before these showed up, considering the +R versions are starting to get more widespread. I picked up a 100 disc spindle of Verbatim 16x DVD-R from Sam’s Club today. I knew they were Prodisc-made before I bought them though; the blocky font used for “LOCK” and “OPEN” gave it away. So far, my Pioneer A09 simply LOVES them, much more than the CMC-made discs. My 716A drives will actually get close to 16x with, but for some reason my 755SA always burns them at 12x (I’ve played around with AutoStrategy to no avail). The LG 4163B isn’t too fond of them though; it seems to do better with the CMC discs.


#2

Thanks for the heads-up [B]Two Degrees[/B] :slight_smile:


#3

Cheers for the heads-up :)…and yeah, my LG4163 doesn’t seem too fond of Prodisc (any Prodisc) - my Litey 1693S is my preferred burner for those!


#4

Here’s a Sum8 scan of a 16x burn with my Pioneer A09XLC (v 1.58). It doesn’t get much better than this, folks.


#5

Whoa…:eek::eek::eek::eek: :clap:


#6

I have a 25 spindle of Prodisc made Verbatim 16x DVD-R discs (MCC03RG20; photo printable), and so far my BenQ DW1650 doesn’t seem to like them much, compared to CMC made ones. The new BCFC firmware hasn’t improved writing quality either. They are ok, but nothing exceptional, at least for me.


#7

How about PIF/PO? PIE values on their own are not enough to get an overall picture… :slight_smile:


#8

Here is a comparison of a Prodisc and CMC made Verbatim MCC03RG20 disc. Both photo printable, both burned with the BenQ DW1650, BCDC firmware. The Prodisc disc was burned at 12x, while the CMC disc was burned at 16x.

Prodisc MCC03RG20 (12x)

CMC MCC03RG20 (16x)


#9

Here


#10

Thanks :slight_smile: - very low PIF levels, but jitter is not all that great in my book… oh it’s probably just me.


#11

hm, why you guys are so happy with that much pif’s in total. i like my pif’s as low as it can get (preferably between 0-200 in total). i know spikes are important, but i have an eye on those aswell (preferably 2 max). maybe a noobish question, but i don’t get it, or is it because of the scanning drive variations from manufacturer to manufacturer that those are whithin the limits?

pie’s are nice though :slight_smile:


#12

I have come to the conclusion that I don’t trust BenQ drives to accurately report jitter levels of discs that haven’t been burned in a BenQ drive. The BenQ drive reports jitter on discs burned on NEC and LiteOn drives which differ greatly from jitter reported in a Plextor drive, and yet the BenQ drive has no problem reading such discs at 16x.

So I wouldn’t rely too much on the reported jitter of the Pioneer-burned disc, unless other drives (Plextor) agree with the reported jitter levels! :disagree:


#13

It’s not just you! :disagree:


#14

Controversial topic. :bigsmile: - I tend to agree with DrageMester about Benq scans and jitter actually. Not 100% sure yet, but I definitly have second thoughts.

@[B]limbo[/B]: there is no standard for PIF counts/totals, only for levels. Another controversial topic. There are unofficial, user standards here and there, but there is not the slightest bit of evidence that they are relevant at all.

You can use PIF counts to compare two burns and choose the combination giving the lowest count if you like, but any other interpretation has no sound basis. As long as the levels are low, there are far more important considerations for media quality than PIF counts, like stability, mechanical properties, reflectivity, scratch resistance and so on. A perfect reading curve is, for example, far more important in my book than a < 200 PIF count!

Oh, and 897, a “high” PIF count? :eek: Gee, are you picky! :bigsmile: