TE values


Maybe this have been taken up before, but i have searched. (maybe not good enough).

My question is:

I got a Benq 1650 burner which i scan the media for TE/FE errors. With my verbatim MCC04 media i get TE values way over specified to burn even in as slow speed as 8X when it should do 16X.

Is this a sign for bad media ? should i be able to see any physically “proof” if the media really is bad ?

  • Zachzi

Yes, high TE or FE values are a sign of media that is less than perfect.

Depending on your burner, burn speed, other drive setting, as well as other characteristics of the media, you may or may not be able to get good burns anyway.

Usually you won’t be able to see anything wrong with the naked eye when inspecting your disc, if that’s what you’re asking.

You could post your TE/FE scan here if you want.

I haven’t been playing around with FE/TE tests for very long, only 3 weeks actually. :o :bigsmile:

I think I found a real correlation with the final quality but I’m not 100% sure yet. So don’t quote me on that. :wink:

Many folks on this site consider that FE/TE tests are rather worthless because they can get good-looking scans from burns at a faster speed than FE/TE testing indicates.

I think that one of the reasons why, is the widespread “standard scanning speed” (4X for LiteOn, 8X for Benq, 5X for NEC etc…) motto, that I personally never followed (except when needed - for the CDFreaks forum :slight_smile: ). I scan everything @12X, sometimes even @16X, because I’m not very interested in comparing my scans with scans produced by other users. Call me a heretic. :bigsmile: -

I consider that scanning at higher speeds helps in sorting media, quality-wise: I noticed that while some discs will show almost identical BLER figures in scans at “standard” speeds and in scans at higher speeds, some discs will show much higher PIE (and sometimes PIF) levels near the end of the disc. I like to think that these discs showing no increase in BLER near the end at higher scanning speeds are either better discs to start with (mechanical characteristics etc…), or have a better overall burning quality. This explaining why I prefer to choose discs and burning methods that give good results in high speed scans, rather than going for the best values at “standard” scanning speeds. It’s my choice, and I’m not evangelising. :slight_smile: (though a good friend of mine adopted this method and is very happy with it).

Well to the point (at last - but the above introduction was necessary :bigsmile: ): I think I found a significant correlation between those discs showing lesser scans at high speeds (but good scans at “standard” speeds) and the FE/TE test results. I’ll have to experiment some more to see if following the FE/TE test advice in terms of burning speed will constantly give burns that pass my high-speed scanning testing. It will need much time (I don’t believe in theories based on a limited number of cases) so don’t expect any definitive comment from me anytime soon. :frowning:

You’'ve probably guessed by now that I agree with [B]DrageMester[/B]'s opinion that poor FE/TE tests can indicate a problem with the media.

Now, there is no proof that for real-world use, any of this has any relevance. I’m a DVD Freak. :bigsmile: The vast majority of discs showing excellent PIE/PIF values at “standard” scanning speeds should have no problem in real-world use (assuming one doesn’t rely on a single scanning drive, though - if so, bad surprises can always pop up - [B]DrageMester[/B] will certainly not contradict me on this one :wink: ).

I have made some comparative FE/TE scans of the same discs on three different drives, and I intend to post the results, but first I also want to create or dig up some examples of how it may or may not impact the final burn quality.

I’ll post when I have made or found the scans that I need. :slight_smile:

Thanks for thorough answers! Always nice to be answered from the real freaks :wink:

I think the theory about scanning @ 12 or 16X was very interesting. Maybe ill try it myself if i get crazy enough! :bigsmile:

When im home from the university i will see if i can post some scans so you guys can help me interpret them or tell your feelings :stuck_out_tongue: .

  • Zachzi

Here is some TE/FE scans. First is 16X, second 12X. Is the TE really bad ?

It’s not really bad, but it’s not good. Your BenQ might decide to burn these slower, and it’s also possible that you will get elevated PIE corresponding to the TE mountain(s).

If you refer to SB, I don’t think so, as SB analyses the start and end of the media, not the middle.

Maybe WOPC would decide to slow the burn at some point, though. Pure conjectures…

I haven’t yet seen such FE/TE scans, with out-of-specs values “in the middle” of the disc. :eek: The comments in my previous post certainly don’t apply to this very case. I’m used to see (if any) out-of-specs FE/TE values near the end of the disc.

Looks like somewhat defective media. Please post some scans when you’ve burnt a couple, [B]Zachzi[/B]… :slight_smile:

Looking forward to it! :smiley:

Here is scans of the first disc. Its not the first disc in the spindle…maybe number 30 of a 100-spindle. The first 20 discs of this spindle was in fact defective. I could see with the naked eye that the plate was full of “dots” the last 2-3cm in the end of the disc. Could see it when i held the disc in the light…many very small dots. The ones im burning now doesnt have this dots and the rise in TE in the middle also appears on discs through all the spindle. I checked since i thought the media could be better as longer away from the defective ones i came, but that didnt seem to be right.

First disc scanned @ 8X, second @16X. WOPC=ON, SB=ON for both. Burn time: 7.02. 12X-burn.

Second disc burned.

First disc scanned @ 8X, second @16X. WOPC=ON, SB=ON for both. Burn time: 9.40. 12X-burn. NOTE: This time it kicked down to 4X the last 20% or so.


May I ask which discs the difference in PIE/PIF is most noticeable for when comparing 8x/16x speed scans?

When I’ve tested with my BenQ 1620, most media will show noticeable rises in PIE near the outer part of the disc when scanned at 16x, hardly any difference in PIF usually though. Only CMC E01 & a single batch of MBI manufactured MCC004 (which happened to suffer from the PIF spike problem) have managed to give results similar to when scanned at 8x.

I’ll be back :slight_smile: - too busy right now (this thread needs quite some bit of concentration :bigsmile: ) - cheers

Third disc burned.

First disc scanned @ 8X, second @16X. WOPC=ON, SB=ON for both. Burn time: Not full disc. 12X-burn. NOTE: This time it did NOT kick down to 4X, but on 98% it stopped burning for 15seconds before it started again :doh:

Are you sure that the burn wasn’t finished, and the 15 seconds was the time needed for the the drive to recognize the burned disc?

Nero CD-DVD Speed doesn’t update the “position” information in real-time, so there will usually be some lag that can be seen at the end of the disc.

Yes, im 100% sure. I burned with ImgBurn v.2.0. It stopped @ 98%, dropped down to 0X and stayed like that for 15 seconds…then it got up to 2x the last 2% before the lead out.

Off topic:

I sent a mail to verbatim about the faulty media in the beginning. I got mail back with the message to send one disc to their office in Denmark. They confirm it and i get money back :wink: I expected them to ignore my mail so i got surprised with the support.

Fourth disc burned. This will be last unless you guys want to see more :eek:

First disc scanned @ 8X, second @16X. WOPC=ON, SB=ON for both. Burn time: 9.25. 12X-burn. NOTE: Kicked down to 4X AGAIN on 80% and throughout the disc. Wonder why it does it goes it doesnt seem like the quality gets better. :doh:

You got a buffer underrun, ImgBurn 2.0 has a new feature that pauses the burn while the buffer fills back up. You can disable it in Tools->Settings->I/O, remove check from “Enable Buffer Recovery” if you want to. :slight_smile:


Thats not either. Buffer was full all the time. ImgBurn also gives a message in the status window if that happen. harddisk newly defragmented and i wasnt doing anything else… i also watched the the burn process.