Ritek CDR Lonegvity Question

vbimport

#1

As I posted in another thread, I recently bought what were supposed to be NOS TDK cdr’s on ebay. They ended up being OEM Riteks.

While the burns are not nearly as good as true NOS TDK’s, the first one I tried was still much better than the most recent batch of TY’s I bought.

My question is: does anyone have experience with longevity on Ritek cdr’s?

Would I likely get 5-10 years disc life out of them?

Would greatly appreciate any 1st hand knowledgeable input


#2

[QUOTE=MooMooMooMoo;2619267]As I posted in another thread, I recently bought what were supposed to be NOS TDK cdr’s on ebay. They ended up being OEM Riteks.

While the burns are not nearly as good as true NOS TDK’s, the first one I tried was still much better than the most recent batch of TY’s I bought.

My question is: does anyone have experience with longevity on Ritek cdr’s?

Would I likely get 5-10 years disc life out of them?

Would greatly appreciate any 1st hand knowledgeable input[/QUOTE]

Personally, I would trust them. :bow:
I have several tens of 8-11 years old Ritek made TDK, Philips and Maxell CD-Rs and they are still in perfect shape.


#3

Ritek CD-R should last. :iagree:

I have quite a lot of their phthalocyanine discs written up to 9-10 years ago (mostly Traxdata & Maxell branded, but also a 100pk of not very good Memorex) and I haven’t had any problems at all so far. This includes 6 discs written in 2003 which have been repeatedly baked in a car glovebox ever since.

Maxell branded printable Ritek are currently my preferred choice for anything which doesn’t justify using a Taiyo Yuden. (The printable ones seem to be consistently better than the non-printable Maxell)

I find that Riteks often have a low number of E21 & E31 errors, even when the overall BLER average is quite high.

If you have a Benq drive I would love to see a couple of advanced disc scans. :flower:


#4

Ritek CD-R are usually very good, scanning close to TY quality, and they should last 10 years or more if stored properly.

Some of their DVD media (DVD dash R, as well as DVD+/-R DL) is dodgy, though.


#5

Thank you all very much for the input. I will probably go ahead & use these for “everyday” sort of use than.

Ibec, I can post Optiarc 7200-a scans if you trust them. Long story (it’s in another thread here somewhere), but I found that my Optiarc A (though NOT my S), scans cd’s more accurately than the only Benq I own, which is currently not installed as a result.


#6

Optiarcs are good for CD scanning :iagree:


#7

Agree with the others re: Ritek. I too have shedloads, Maxell branded, that I started using when I joined CDF/MyCE and since.

I’ve abused them a fair bit, as they’re my “everyday” discs - not keeping them in cases etc and they still read fine. :slight_smile:


#8

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2619472]Optiarcs are good for CD scanning :iagree:[/QUOTE]
But not the Mediatek based AD-7190A & AD-7220 series. Like all Mediatek based DVD writers they appear to only report E31 errors.


#9

Yo-

Most of the CD-R’s I have gotten over the past 5-10 years have been Ritek based 97m15s17f’s.

They have all burned very well and lasted to date - so no complaints from me-eh.


#10

[QUOTE=Ibex;2619531]But not the Mediatek based AD-7190A & AD-7220 series. Like all Mediatek based DVD writers they appear to only report E31 errors.[/QUOTE]Sorry then for causing confusion, just shows how long I have been out of that business :o
All that relabeling (also, LiteOn iHASx24 A and B and Y) is just annoying as hell…


#11

[QUOTE=kg_evilboy;2619557]All that relabeling (also, LiteOn iHASx24 A and B and Y) is just annoying as hell…[/QUOTE]

Damn right it is. :iagree:

And when the actual drive manufacturers started doing it as well… :rolleyes:


#12

I have a 7220-a & a 7200-s. They scan pretty much identically on dvd, but quite differently on cdr. The 7220 a seems to be accurate on cdr, while the 7200s seems to be worthless for scanning cdr’s.


#13

no that’s wrong, with the 7220 you can’t scan cd-r.

you got the information here.


#14

[QUOTE=MooMooMooMoo;2619685]I have a 7220-a & a 7200-s. They scan pretty much identically on dvd, but quite differently on cdr. The 7220 a seems to be accurate on cdr, while the 7200s seems to be worthless for scanning cdr’s.[/QUOTE]
[B]Use the AD-7200. [/B]

The AD-7220 is a Mediatek based drive and does not report all level 1 errors (only E31 as C1).

The AD-7200 is based on an NEC chip and reports all level 1 errors (E11, E21 & E31) together as C1.

Why do you consider the drive which can report all level 1 errors as being less accurate than the one which reports only one type of level 1 error?


#15

[QUOTE=Ibex;2620137][B]Use the AD-7200. [/B]

The AD-7220 is a Mediatek based drive and does not report all level 1 errors (only E31 as C1).

The AD-7200 is based on an NEC chip and reports all level 1 errors (E11, E21 & E31) together as C1.

Why do you consider the drive which can report all level 1 errors as being less accurate than the one which reports only one type of level 1 error?[/QUOTE]

I went through this issue in detail about a year ago when i bought a Benq on ebay that scanned inaccurately. It’s all up in old posts on this board if you want to search my posts from the last year or 2.


#16

[QUOTE=Ibex;2620137]Why do you consider the drive which can report all level 1 errors as being less accurate than the one which reports only one type of level 1 error?[/QUOTE]
Can you elaborate on what you mean by ‘accurate’?