Has anyone seen quality scans of RITEK BD-R DL media, particularly of those with the mediacode Ritek_DR2?
I could find no such thing, neither in the nifty forum nor here.
I´m always a bit anxious about RITEK mediacodes 
, but my curiosity has won an I ordered some Xlayer BD-R50 4x, which should have this mediacode.
I will get them next week and post some scans here.
If no one beats me to it, it will be an international premiere at club. myce. 
No discs today, my scans are far away. 
But I actually found a scan of the mediacode in this forum, thanks to member kawaponga!
Pioneer BDR-207EBK, FW 1.20
Ritek BD-R DL 4x
RITEKDR2 at 4x
The first layer looks promising, the second not.:Z
Hopefully firmware 1.35 or another writer can fix it.
Is that the same drive after a firmware update, or a different drive? I see the model numbers listed are slightly different, but wasn’t sure it one was a typo or not since D and E are next to each other on the keyboard.
The first scan wasn´t mine, burned with a different drive from another member of this forum.
I saw the first layer looking good, so I thought: Give it a try with my Pioneer BDR207DBK with the latest firmware 1.35.
Here is another one, burned at 4x speed, not bad:
Ritek BD-R50 4x printable
Ritek_DR2
Pioneer BDR207DBK
FW 1.35
Speed 4x
This time scanned with an iHBS312 at 2x.
It´s kind of funny how the product of a questionable manufacturer beats the products of the established “alpha dogs” in most specs from the start.
The workmanship of the Ritek BD-R DL discs, especially the sealing, looks excellent.
Oops. Spreading peanut butter with those disks before burning them? I’ve learned not to do that. “Oh well, nothing a sandblaster and soaking in petrol won’t fix!”
I’ve been interested in seeing your commentary on lower-reputed disks scoring well, but it still seems to be a cooperative issue - burner & disk - and this leaves open the arguments about “each batch can be different” as well as “each device can be, too”.
I don’t think any issue is more harmful to the optical disk storage folks than this ‘flakey’ inconsistency. And their refusal to present accurate MID info further compounds the issue. It’s no wonder this product line is under a doom & gloom trestise.
The last scan was the first disc of sealed 10 pcs Spindle, burned [B]before[/B] breakfast.
I´m quite sure it was neither the disc nor the writer responsible for the bad result.
Something might have interfered with the burning process, but I still don´t know, what exactly it could have been.
The ‘flakey’ inconsistency is still an issue of [B]all[/B] BD-R50 mediacodes.
Panasonic are the best, TDK I don´t like any more, RITEK has still to prove.
I have ordered some more from the same seller to get them (probably 
) from the same batch, we will see.
Xlayer BD-R50 4x printable
RITEKDR2
Pioneer BDR208DBK
FW: latest
Speed 4x
The layer change looks a bit more critical than before with the BDR207, which has the newer firmware, compared to the BDR208 and many other writers.
That might explain the difficulties at the layer change with this RITEK mediacode some customers report in their evaluations.
So I will put aside these RITEKDR2 for the BDR207 until further notice.
Xlayer BD-R50 4x labeled
MID: RITEKDR2
Writer: Pioneer BDR207DBK
FW: 1.35
Writing speed: 4x
Bad to the bone! 
:Z
Lite-On iHBS212 HL05, 44, 54 GB burned at 4x
sold as unbranded 4x Ritek BD-R DL
MID: RITEKDR2
perfect TRT
Plextor BD-R PX-LB950SA 1.06, 45,50 GB burned at 4x
sold as unbranded 4x Ritek BD-R DL
MID: RITEKDR2
perfect TRT
Optiarc BD-5300S 1.06, 47 731MB burned at 4x
sold as unbranded 4x Ritek BD-R DL
MID: RITEK-DR2-000
hub code: LCC01407DLBD034X12122801D
stamper code: RBD04DRL0_03A / RBD04DRL1_05
Thanks Pepst 
