To all the paranoid about quality scans

mrQQ 2005-09-14 21:42:22 UTC #1

Hello,

since i'm sick and tired of hearing all the "damn, my burner is faulty/doesnt like/NEC sucks/LiteOn sucks/BenQ sucks/Ritek sucks/Verbatim sucks/crappy 6 PIF spike/yadda yadda", i thought i'd post a burn i just made trying strat swaps.

According to the people who cry over single 6 PIF spikes, this burn would be a disaster, totally unreadable, probably even not recognisable.

But, yeah, you have guessed - NEC manages to read it with only minor slowdowns, and would have reached 16x were it full burn.

Hopefully this will show to all the new people (cant explain to change the oldies), that qscan is only of so much value - they are only good for comparing two burns side by side. They have almost no absolute quality indication.

p.s. no offence to anyone intended

p.p.s. perhaps this belongs to media forum, but this is especially aimed at NEC'ers, so i'd like it to lie here a bit

ninbang 2005-09-15 00:05:06 UTC #2

I'd say there've been plenty of people who've posted about being able to 'read' back horrid quality scanning burns. I have a few discs burned on a LiteOn drive that resulted in PO Failures in the 20's to over 1,000 ... yet, my Benq 1620 can still copy the discs back to the harddrive.

Quality Scans are of some significance in that you can 'gauge' the quality state as time goes by. I think it's a good practice to keep an initial post-burn scan to compare to at later dates.

As for people freaking out about questionable quality scans ... for me, at least, it comes down to the fact that it's inevitable the disc will one day eventually be unreadable. Maybe that's years down the line .. maybe it's just a few months for some media. But, I put a lot of value just in having the ability to somehow assess the state of the burn at the particular moment using quality scans.

Whoever said Quality Scans were 'absolute' indication of quality? That's a pretty ridiculous statement. The discussions regarding quality lately have included plenty of discussion of not only quality scans but of the fact all the other tests (transfer tests, burst rate, scandisk, etc etc) only give you an indication of your burn in that specific place in time.

After that point ... you're at the mercy of a lot of factors you have no control over. You can do your best with regards to the storage conditions, but there's a ton of variables from the quality of the dyes to 'someone else' mishandling them to heat to humidity to whatever ... that will eventually negatively impact the disc.

DVD Media is nowhere near a fail safe archiving method. It's just that good quality media is now cheap enough to not have to worry about re-archiving important stuff down the road. Keep multiple copies (on possibly several different types of storage media) if it's that important.

I will agree with you that there is a lot of attention given to quality scans and results according ... but c'mon ... what else is there to compare to if we want to get a snapshot of a burn? What I'm saying is that you could consider it rather as a tool or avenue to get the discussion rolling about someone's burn. It's a quantitative way to at least assess one aspect of burn quality.

No one ever said it's the defacto be-all-end-all in burn quality assessment. Just the variability in rescanning in the same drives alone will discredit such a thought.

I understand your need to downplay its significance, but at the same time, I wouldn't discount it altogether either. It was an extremely helpful and meaningful tool in putting the pieces together to assess a burn. And, makes for a great conversation starter in this forum, don't you think? Cheers.

... btw ... as for some people nervous about certain spikes here or there or having extremely (relative to your criteria) quality standards ... well, everyone has a different need / use for their media. Maybe their playback reader / dvd player is that much more sensitive than the ones you've used. Maybe they have already experimented with different burn results and know what their 'target' acceptable levels are.

No one will EVER be able to give an absolute tolerance level that will be completely 100% universal ... because we're not all using hte same equipemnt, the same media, the same software, the same systmes, the same what have you ...

Instead of attacking those people on the extreme side of hte criteria standard ... maybe give some recognition to the fact that there are extremely sensitive players out there that can only read back within certain levels of PIE/PIF/POF, etc.

I won't disagree with you that there are many who may freak out about burn results whcih may be satisfactory to you and to most others ... but, at the same time, I won't pretend to think that I know WHY they have such high standards. There's a story behind all of these extreme cases. This place is quite an extreme when it comes to being "FREAKish" about cd/dvd media ... so, I don't think it at all unusual to expect that level of exectations when it comes to their burn quality.

I actually consider it refreshing to see that level of scrutiny. Though some may think it ridiculous or over and beyond ... that's the WHOLE POINT of being here, isn't it? Otherwise, we could spend our time at the 'other' sites that discusss similiar subjects only on a much more generic level ... ie. "Memorex sucks" ... or "this burner doesn't burn good" .... lol.

Instead of discouraging the high standards, I'm all for encouraging it.

As for scans that would 'stray' from the usual expectations ... as in your example above ... why wouldn't you be concerned about it? If you're a CD FReak enough to qulaity scan it, I would only think you'd be concerned why you're getting such results ... say, if you normally don't get those levels of errors. If it plays back fine and you yourself don't really give much credence to scans, then simply don't scan anymore. Burn 'em all ... and enjoy life. Good luck.

mrQQ 2005-09-15 00:56:19 UTC #3

By no means I'm suggesting it's a good or even a satisfactory burn. It's not - it's terribly. But even if it is terriblt, it still can be read back easily. Which brings me back to my point. It's about people calling burns like

"crap". It just mistakens new people who then start believing things like "if it has more than 1000 pif total its crap", "if it has a spike of 12 pif its crap", which is nonsense, as there is hardly any difference between 10000 and 500 total PIFs. Such people then become worried "is my drive dead", "is my media crappy", "do i need to rma it" and etc. Which is, well, paranoia, if i may, caused by false judging by some so called "experts" (freaks;p)

chef 2005-09-15 04:12:26 UTC #4

Before you say the drive is damaged and RMA it, just test it in another computer with some brands.

ninbang 2005-09-15 09:18:58 UTC #5

@ mrQQ:

I'm starting to understand your point. One of the inherent byproducts of hanging out here is getting accustomed to seeing certain level of results with certain media burned / scanned on certain burner models. And, especially, if they have first hand experience and scan references of their own burns, then they eventually establish a baseline expectation of what their scan results should look like, etc.

Unfortunately, the way the threads are structured and the way discussion progresses, some of the basics of understanding burn quality don't always get addressed - ie. it's typically not that relevant when, say for instance, you're posting in a Post Your Benq 1620 Media Results type thread.

The good is that you can see first hand the likely media variation there is even going from one disc to the next in the same spindle - ie. I've had TYG02 burns go from sub 100 PIF total to 3,000 in the next. So, along those lines, I guess it would be prudent to reiterate the likelihood of media variability not only in different batches but even within the same spindle. Again, many factors come to play here, but I don't necessarily see any danger in developing expectations for media. If anything, the scan results will give you an 'indication' of how that particular burn measures up to your expectations.

I would also think it a benefit to see how one's burner/media/firmware/setup measures up to anothers ... but the given is that no two setups will ever be created equal. Just too many variables to consider.

Hereagain, it's not the absolute answer in assessing burn quality, but at least you have a visual reference to quantitatively assess the burn. If you see spikes, you can isolate which data corresponds to those spike positions and make decisions accordingly to reburn or let be, etc. I still think quality scanning is a valuable tool ... though, I will agree we can get carried away with it at times (but, at least for me, that's a big reason why I'm here - ie. the CD Freaks here take this stuff extremely seriously ... and I luv that!!).

Re. your scan link, the PIE's are well within 'spec' and PIF max is fine, but I can see where some may get 'nervous' about the PIF totals. My main take on that is that they go into it understanding it only gets worse from that point on since it will eventually degrade over time, so I suppose they're just looking for the best possible results they can 'start' with to manage over the long haul.

But ... I do understand your point that if it turns out to play back, then it's not necessarily 'crap'. However, when thinking about longevity, it's probably a disc they'd want to keep an eye on as time goes by.

Wizzu 2005-09-19 09:23:36 UTC #6

Excellent inputs, mrQQ and Ninbang

You both make very interesting points, that have already been discussed here and there but it's nice to see (almost) all of them in a single thread.

Most people who have actually "actively" read the FAQs in the media forum are aware of all this, but it's indeed striking to see so many newcomers posting almost perfect scans and call them "crappy", or considering that any disc slightly out of specs only belongs to the trash LOL

sugarmommyst 2005-09-19 16:46:58 UTC #7

mrqq, your burner is defective it does terrible quality scanning. i have two nec drive that one can scan more accurately then the others so not all of them are made equally. just like some can read a disc full of errors better then others can.. it is a quality control problems that we just have to learn to live with it...
it is better to do a speedtest then a quality test because it is more reliable as not all hardware are capable of accurately reading the quality of the media, it is guess work at best. generic media tend to have more errors then standard media or brand name such as TY[Taiyo Yuden] but that doesn't mean it is trash or completely useless... not everyone is fortunate some have to resort to low price media because of low budget problems. I tend to do a speedtest on all my burned media this way I avoid the headaches of losing anything if at all... it maybe time consuming, but what's more important? loss of data or spend a little more time to verify for bad burns??? I have at times made 3 coaster in a row that it burn completely but was not error free or crap out in the middle of speedtest! This was caused by defects in media or quality control problems in media...

chas0039 2005-09-19 18:32:06 UTC #8

Interesting points all. Two other types of users also need to be considered. Those who have gone beyond just backing up who are searching for the "perfect drive/ perfect disc" combination and those who recognize that many crap burns are readable but want to get the best quality burn they can get.

I don't think there are many who would disagree that a better burn has a better chance of a longer lifespan.

Quema34 2005-09-19 18:56:46 UTC #9

I must agree with Chas. While I'm not paranoid, I want something to measure my scans by, so I know if the mid overall is worth having and won't force me to reburn something later. I'd rather get the best results possible, so my data (data, movie or music) is good for as long as possible. Given the fact that manufacturers are more lax with q/c/q/a these days, even a good burn today might be unreadable in a year--therefore the need to scan to get an idea of the media's longevity. If all media and burners came with a 100% quality guarantee and were manufactured to the highest standard every time, we could forget having to be concerned with media and burner quality.

nmpaulcp 2005-09-19 21:57:50 UTC #10

Call me paranoid but if I ever had any burns like your sample I'd toss it. Just bacause someone wants a nice burn doesn't mean they are paranoid. The newer dvd players are much more forgiving than the older ones but over time those crappy burns will not play on the best dvd player. It might be years before I watch a movie I have burned and don't want to get halfway though a movie and have it lock up on me. I cant imagine those burns will have much longitivity.

Wizzu 2005-09-20 03:24:18 UTC #11

I'm personally not sold anymore to the "lower errors => longer lifespan" theory. Actually, I now think it's valid only for discs of the same manufacturing, which will degrade at the same rate.

The recent G05 issues have shown that a disc can give an excellent PI/PIF test result right after the burn, and nonetheless be unreadable after several months.

And you have these MCC 02RG20, that never are the best at PI/PIF scans but have shown in climatic testing to be among the most stable discs existing. The old TDKG02 is another example. Just "in specs" burn quality, but excellent stability.

I do believe, though, that PI/PO*/PIF scanning's most useful purpose is to check the disc's degrading rate. What interests me is less the actual numbers of the initial scan, than the differences after several weeks/months.

In my opinion, scanning discs to look for the "best burn", then not saving the scan and just assume that the disc will last longer because it gave a great scan, is a fundamental mistake, and it's the main lesson that I have, for my part, learned from the whole Ritek G04 and G05 issue.

OF course, I wouldn't call "paranoid" people who don't keep discs that aren't "in specs", but I don't think that it's what mrQQ was referring to. I think he was referring to people calling "crap" perfectly good burns, just because they don't get a "99" QS in Cd Speed :bigsmile:

sugarmommyst 2005-09-21 11:23:39 UTC #12

I'd say if during speed test the speed drops below 8x then it is a crap burn and a reburn would be necessary using lower speed if neccessary.

MrScary 2005-09-21 17:54:08 UTC #13

I have to agree with MrQQ on this un--Why!
Because when I first bought my first NEC DVDWriter I knew NOWT...This place n you lot taught me a lot....I'm still a bit slow on things, but good on others....Now for those Quality Burn checks Pi Pif etc etc...That drove me POTTY...In Fact it made me Paranoid!! I threw Burned DVDs in the Bin...You all made me Lose Lots of money for No reason at all...(A Good Learning Curve for Me) I soon got wise n found these Not so Good failed Pi piff etc Played Excellently in 8 different DVD Players..(Must be Loads out there that did the same as me!!)...But Now i know Differently n am HAPPY with a Burn that Plays Faultlessly...If it Claps out in 1 months time or 5 years time, Who Cares...These DVDs will probably not Play in any Player by then because we all be on something called "Pie-in-the-Sky" that plays a triple side or something...(just a joke--but not impossible!)...I Don't Quality check any more.
Now I gota Install my Brand New NEC 3540A tomorrow because you all said it's the BEES KNEES...LOL....So more Reading for me, more Quality testing !
n More Questions......KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.....Take Care.

chas0039 2005-09-21 17:55:26 UTC #14

Francksoy:

I'm personally not sold anymore to the "lower errors => longer lifespan" theory. Actually, I now think it's valid only for discs of the same manufacturing, which will degrade at the same rate.

The recent G05 issues have shown that a disc can give an excellent PI/PIF test result right after the burn, and nonetheless be unreadable after several months.

And you have these MCC 02RG20, that never are the best at PI/PIF scans but have shown in climatic testing to be among the most stable discs existing. The old TDKG02 is another example. Just "in specs" burn quality, but excellent stability.

I do believe, though, that PI/PO*/PIF scanning's most useful purpose is to check the disc's degrading rate. What interests me is less the actual numbers of the initial scan, than the differences after several weeks/months.

In my opinion, scanning discs to look for the "best burn", then not saving the scan and just assume that the disc will last longer because it gave a great scan, is a fundamental mistake, and it's the main lesson that I have, for my part, learned from the whole Ritek G04 and G05 issue.

OF course, I wouldn't call "paranoid" people who don't keep discs that aren't "in specs", but I don't think that it's what mrQQ was referring to. I think he was referring to people calling "crap" perfectly good burns, just because they don't get a "99" QS in Cd Speed :bigsmile:

Interesting perspective. We'll have to see if you are right or I am. With the current long term study going on over here due out on a year or two, we should all know eventually which media has the longest lifespan. As everything I burn has very close values for PIE and PIF, it is really academic anyway.

BTW, thanks for the info on MCC and TDK. I have 100 of those TDKs that burn AAA++ on my BenQ (B7V9, not B7W9, go figure) and on my Pioneer 109 and I have not heard any opinions as yet on their overall quality. I'll move them up a notch.

Wizzu 2005-09-21 18:50:19 UTC #15

Are we talking about the same TDKs? I doubt it... The TDKG02 I referred to are very old, 2X discs...

Would you happen to refer to TTG02? I just finished burning a 25-discs spindle of these and I am quite pleased with the results (also on Pioneer 109, were less good on NEC 3540A). But I haven't done any research on their stability yet. I've only seen climatic test results for TTH01, that were quite outstanding BTW.

Anyway to come back to the topic, yes indeed only time will tell...

chas0039 2005-09-21 18:59:03 UTC #16

Thanks for the clarification.

Wizzu 2005-09-21 18:59:37 UTC #17

I do!! :bigsmile: LOL - I get your point and it makes sense for most users. But understand that some people just don't want to reburn everything on a regular basis. My movie collection, including many rarities transfered from VHS, is now about 700 discs. Imagine yourself in my position... get my point? :bigsmile:

chas0039 2005-09-21 19:05:07 UTC #18

It is a strange level of technology indeed, where I, at least, consider my VHS originals a safer backup than optical media. But that is the case.

kdshapiro 2005-09-21 19:11:08 UTC #19

True. But videotape degrades over time and may break or become unreadable in spots. The difference is tape(digital or analog) can be spliced and all you lose is the data around the splice. Tape can be subject to a much higher level of abuse/neglect than optical media and still be readable.

ninbang 2005-09-21 19:12:40 UTC #20

You know, it's kind of a sad thought, but think about all the people out there. The Average Joe who goes to a local store, buys a "16x" dvd burner, some media that was on sale, installs said drive and proceeds to burn said media at 16x. Then, he reuses his mini-DV's to take more home movies thinking all is well and good with his new "16x" burner. ( I stress 16x b/c most people will assume the drive is 'designed' to burn at 16x if that's the way it's labeled ... and in the same vein, that if NERO tells you your burn was "successful", that it was indeed a good burn )

There would be many more people freaking out about burn quality and longevity if they knew what we do about scans, longevity, degradation, media reputation, etc.

1 month ... 5 years ... who cares? I guess it really depends on what you're burning. If it isn't worth caring about, then sure ... no big deal. But, if it's irreplaceable stuff and esp. in the quantity that Francksoy addressed (700 discs!!), wouldn't it be prudent to 'care'?