Scan of Staple brand DVD+R CMC MAG 01

exceptionaly good result, not up to TY but not bad for staple surprised me. Burnt at 8x and scanned at 8x.

nyker, welcome to the forum! :slight_smile:

Your scan looks decent to me, but nothing to brag about.
There is a PIF spike of 32 that probably isn’t worth worrying about.

I usually say that a quality scan is incomplete without a Read Transfer test, which can be performed on the Benchmark tab in Nero CD-DVD Speed.

If your Read Transfer test looks smooth and your quality scan also looks good, then you have a good burn.

actually, that’s scanned on an NEC, isn’t it? If the image is correct, there’s a POF up to way past the 16 max PIF level for NEC, so that’s not good. Also, if the quality score is any indication, that’s not a good result. A good result would be with a Quality Score of 90 or better. Generally CMC MAG E01 is an ok mid, and that is obviously for the Staples 8x DVD+R.

If you have another drive that’s a better scanner in your system, like a BenQ 1640 or LiteOn of some kind, I would be interested to see how that scans there, as the NEC could be exaggerating the results…

An ok result (ignoring the PIF spike). Staples brand CMC burns much worse than any other CMC I’ve used from several other brands. It’s not terrible, perfectly useable for everyday stuff, but I get far better burns from other brands. It may just be specific to the later batches from Staples, as I got good results from them about a year ago, while all of the more recent spindles from a couple months ago burn worse, consistently from one spindle to the next (and the spindles are physically different as well).

Example, one is a Staples brand, the other is Teon brand. Teon is actually the one other brand of CMC that I get lower results with on occasion, consistency from disc to disc isn’t as good as I get from other brands such as HP, Philips, Memorex, etc. Guess which one is Staples brand. :rolleyes: :frowning:

That’s not a POF - NEC drives cannot report POF.

The quality score is calculated directly from the maximum PIF value (and the ECC scanning interval) so the 49% Quality score is simply repeating the 32 PIF maximum.

The 32 PIF maximum may be out of spec, but that isn’t necessarily the end of the world.

As I said above, a single PIF spike of 32 (when scanning per 8 ECC blocks) is probably nothing to worry about, but a quality scan is incomplete without a Read Transfer test. If the Read Transfer test shows a slowdown at the same location as the PIF spike, then there may be something to worry about.