Reliability vs burn speed

vbimport

#1

I had asked this question in a general forum, but it was suggested that
it will be hardware/media-dependent:

I’d like to find out how burn speed affects error rates and longevity.
Burner is Plextor PX-716a. DVD and CD media is TaiyoYuden.

Has anyone done tests at min/max burn rates to determine error
rates? If not, is there a recommended way to test this?


#2

I don’t know if your TY DVDs are -R or +R, but if you want reliably good results burn them at their rated speed. If you look at the DVD quality thread you’ll see that in general that produces the best results. As far as longevity is concerned, I don’t think any media has been around long enough to determine that…


#3

Thanks for your reply. That makes sense. Do you happen to have a
pointer to the ‘Dvd quality thread’ that you mentioned? I couldn’t
locate it.


#4

Right at the top of the Plextor forum :slight_smile:
http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=115081


#5

Hi StringTheory,

For my “history-burning” of 5 years the high and secure longevity of data is given with this settings:

AUDIO CD : Burning Speed (Max) 4x OR 8x (Software Nero OR FEURIO)
DATA CD : Burning Speed (Max) 16x (Software Nero)

DATA DVD : Burning Speed (Max) 8x on ±R (Software Nero)
MOVIE DVD : Burning Speed (Max) 4x on ±R (Software Nero OR CLONEDvd 2)

Low Speed = Low Errors = Long data life and High compatibility. I don’t use NEVER max speed of support: high Speed = High errors = short data life and low compatibility.

This for my own experiences on Plextor Products and Media Verbatim. However, every two years Re-burning source on a new support to preserve longevity. Nothing is forever… remember this… Be carefully with burned media.


#6

You must have a long history of Princo usage :slight_smile:


#7

For TY that might be true. On other media, I usually don’t burn at the rated speed, but somewhat below. That strongly depends on the media though.

My rules of thumb for important data:

  1. Never ever (!) burn a disc faster than it is rated for!
  2. Never burn at 12x or 16x. Even with 16x media (Verbatim MCC004), the results are varying (at least with my 716A). The time you save from burning at 8x is negligible in my opinion.
  3. Never buy very cheap media. It usually has a reason that it is cheap.
  4. CDs are burnt best at 16x.
  5. If you make C1/C2 scans, scan at 10-24x. It gives the most realistic results (at least with my 716A, this might be different with your drive since the quality of the 716s varies!).
  6. If you make PIE/PIF scans, scan at 2x (again, other 716s might deliver realistic results at higher speeds, but mine doesn’t.)

To 5: I recently burnt a (cheap) CD-R (NAN-YA Plastics type 7) rated for 48x at 48x and scanned it with PxScan at 8x. No C2s, no C1 spikes, looked perfect. By pure chance, I compared the files with the originals on my hard disc, and at the end of the CD, the 716A slowed down! I did several tests with Nero CD-Speed, and indeed, 2 of 3 drives slowed down at the end of the CD. I did a new scan with PxScan at 10-24x, and now I got C2 errors at the end of the disc (max: 21, total: 70), and a little “hill” of C1 errors (not many though: they hardly went above 30, the highest was 84). This scan looks much closer to reality than the scan made at 8x.


#8

It’s totally normal that badly record discs show higher error rates at higher scanning speeds. What do you think why PlexTools doesn’t allow scanning at 48x…

Here you can see that a properly recorded disc won’t show much difference at 4x and 48x scanning speed. Just take this NAN-YA disc, scan it all possible speeds (4x,8x,16x,24x,32x,40x, maybe 48x if it can read such crappy stuff that fast) and you’ll see how bad they really are :slight_smile:

Your points 1 and 2 apply to bad dvd writers, but are not generally true

  1. If you make PIE/PIF scans, scan at 2x (again, other 716s might deliver realistic results at higher speeds, but mine doesn’t.)
    Not realistic? You mean the results are too bad for such an expensive writer?
  1. CDs are burnt best at 16x.
    Seems like you didn’t really follow your own advice not to buy media that is too cheap…

#9

Yes. And that is why I say that you should not scan too slowly, because in that case you might think the disc is ok, what it actually is not.

Here you can see that a properly recorded disc won’t show much difference at 4x and 48x scanning speed.
From previous scans I’ve seen from you, I think that your burner is simply of better quality than mine. :sad:
Even with really well burnt Yuden-T02 I get really shitty results at higher scan speeds.

Your points 1 and 2 apply to bad dvd writers, but are not generally true

That is actually a result that I wouldn’t call “very good” anymore. If it’s important data, I would prefer to burn at 8x and get results like in this scan, compared with the scan you posted: PIE max: 11 < 20, PIF max: 2 < 4, PIE total: 34674 < 67919, PIF total: 501 < 1448.

Not realistic? You mean the results are too bad for such an expensive writer?

No. Or perhaps yes, but that wasn’t my point. :bigsmile:
By “realistic” I meant things like a disc without C2 errors and with C1max=22, which can’t be read at full speed: that is not realistic. The next scan I did at 10-24x shows some C2 spikes at the end of the disc, accompanied by rising C1 levels, and that is more realistic considering the drives slowing down at the end of the disc when reading at full speed.

Seems like you didn’t really follow your own advice not to buy media that is too cheap…

You see, I obviously had some cheap media, otherwise I wouldn’t have made the experiences which led to my advice. And since you usually don’t buy only one single disc, I happen to still have some left. :wink:
My next ones won’t be that cheap.


#10

I have been burning Verbatim MCC003 and TY T02 Fujis on my 716A TLA 0304 and have found 8x to be the sweet spot for the lowest error rates (PIE max 10, PIF max 2). I guess you need to do your own testing to find out where your sweet spot is.


#11

If you don’t call this scan “very good”, then you have yet to understand how to read those scans

By “realistic” I meant things like a disc without C2 errors and with C1max=22, which can’t be read at full speed: that is not realistic.
On the contrary, it is very realistic: It shows that the disc can be read properly at low speed. How is the idea that this disc can be properly read at low speeds unrealistic?


#12

Well, if you call that “very good”, then I call the results I compared with that “even better”. :stuck_out_tongue:
And this thread is about “reliability vs burn speed”, right? I prefer reliability.

  • Apart from that, I perfectly understand how to read the scans. E.g. I understand that a PIFmax of 4 (!) is as high as it may get if the disc is supposed to be within specs! Therefore, a PIFmax of 4 is too high for me to call the disc “very good”. A disc with a PIFmax of 3 or 2 would be “very good” or “excellent”, and a PIFmax of 1 (which is quite unrealistic, I think) would be “perfect”. :wink: Of course, the distributions and total numbers of PIEs and PIFs is very important as well…

On the contrary, it is very realistic: It shows that the disc can be read properly at low speed. How is the idea that this disc can be properly read at low speeds unrealistic?

How realistic is it to read a disc at 8x in daily use? My drives usually read at 20-48x! That is what I mean when I say “realistic”! :rolleyes:
“Realistic” may not be the proper term to express what I mean, granted. :flower:


#13

Just my two cents: Burning MCC 03 at 4x produces PIF’s at 5 (!), while burning them at 12x results in a max PIF of 2.


#14

Besides that I don’t see how a PIFmax = 1 should be unrealistic, “reliable” for me means that the disc doesn’t behave like a vampire when being exposed to daylight… a few more or less PIEs and PIFs really don’t matter if a disc dislikes sunlight as much as a vampire, and they don’t matter either if the disc doesn’t get damaged by UV irradiation…

Note: this scan is really old, that’s why the picture headers are a bit awkward :stuck_out_tongue:



#15

Given how well YUDEN000T02 overspeeds on various drives (especially the DW1620 and PX-712A), why not?

  1. Never burn at 12x or 16x. Even with 16x media (Verbatim MCC004), the results are varying (at least with my 716A). The time you save from burning at 8x is negligible in my opinion.

MCC004 burns quite nicely at its rated speed on many burners; the PX-716A seems to be the exception rather than the rule (and at 12x it is quite nice on the Plextor in my experience). My GSA-4163B burns them quite well, with the PIE/PIF levels not much different than burning at slower speeds. If I can get the same quality with a burn that takes 5:30 as opposed to one that takes 8:00 (or more) why wouldn’t I burn at the faster speed?


#16

For me it is, never got a disc with PIFmax=1. :stuck_out_tongue:
But I see that it’s possible. :eek:

a few more or less PIEs and PIFs really don’t matter if a disc dislikes sunlight as much as a vampire, and they don’t matter either if the disc doesn’t get damaged by UV irradiation…

That’s not completely true. A disc definitely ages, even if it’s not very vulnerable to UV radiation (and/or kept in a dark place). Therefore a disc that has very few PIEs/PIFs in the beginning will most likely stay readable longer than a disc (same brand, burnt at higher speed) with some more PIEs/PIFs.

If I can get the same quality with a burn that takes 5:30 as opposed to one that takes 8:00 (or more) why wouldn’t I burn at the faster speed?
If you do, no problem. I’m talking about my own experiences here ;), and I haven’t found a media yet that would burn as well at 12x as it does at 8x in my 716.


#17

That’s not completely true. A disc definitely ages, even if it’s not very vulnerable to UV radiation (and/or kept in a dark place). Therefore a disc that has very few PIEs/PIFs in the beginning will most likely stay readable longer than a disc (same brand, burnt at higher speed) with some more PIEs/PIFs.
If errors are evenly distributed over the disc, which is usually the case when the recorded surface ages, the PIE numbers can go beyond 1000 before you get read errors, so it doesn’t matter if the initial number for PIE was 15 or 20 or 30.

Ah and what about getting a better drive :smiley:



#18

Yeah, burns don’t get much better than that. The PX-716A can definitely use some improvement when it comes to higher speed DVD burning. My LG can burn MCC004 at 16x with similar results as your T02@12x; why can’t the Plextor do the same with the same media?


#19

True. :iagree:
But I still see a difference between a PIFmax of 4 (I know that discs with a lot more of PIFs are still readable, but 4 is the maximum value allowed by the specs) and 2 (especially since those maximums of 2 are only very very few compared to PIF 1s on my discs).

Ah and what about getting a better drive :smiley:
Give me the money… :sad: …all spent on the 716A. :bigsmile:

  • Besides, I don’t consider my 716A a bad drive. The only thing that really annoys me is that other people with a 716 sometimes get so much better results than me on the same media. :Z :a

#20

Good point. :a