TTH02 degradation: even under the Falcon brand

Hello all, long time no see. :slight_smile:

Bad news: even under the Falcon brand (which is supposed to produce premium discs, but franckly I haven’t been impressed until nowwith the ones I actually used, and this includes their DL media…), TTH02 is not stable.

Well, at least, mine aren’t.

As a reminder, I had found the same issue with TDK-branded TTH02 (as had some other members of this board).

I post two scans which show just one example of what happens to my Falcon-branded TTH02 burnt last year (in Pio 112D 1.28 @8X).

They all show this significant increase in PIE density.

None of my usually trusted discs (MCC004, TYG03, YUDEN000T02, SONY D21, MCC003 RG20…) burnt in the same burner, show this increase in PIEs when scanned with the same unit.

To those who are not familiar with my scanning habits, this NEC 3540 is an extremely consistent scanner, even @16X. Even though it doesn’t report according to ECMA standards (PIEs are over-reported), it’s excellent to compare scans, because of near perfect consistency between passes. So it’s a perfect “disc stability” scanner.

So take it or leave it… I will NOT hook up a Lite-On to loose my time scanning @4X (which I always found totally useless anyway). :bigsmile:

First scan 2010/05/22, second scan 2011/04/02. That’s about a year…

Franck

Hmm, that looks worrying. I am going to dig up and test some of my TTH02 Falcons right now.

Has this disc been played in a DVD player and how has it been stored? :confused:

[QUOTE=getit29;2582851]how has it been stored? :confused:[/QUOTE]How have they been stored, all 25 of them, rather. :bigsmile:

I mean, as mentioned above, this disc is not an isolated case.

As for the storing thing, well, I’ll put it another way: before I report disc degradation, you can safely assume that I’ve ruled out all other possible causes (confounding variables): storing, handling, aging scanning drive etc… I’ve done my homework, you can take my word for it. :iagree:

But to reply to your question, all of my discs are stored in the same box model (slim and half height Amaray branded boxes), vertically, same room with normal temps and humidity etc…

[QUOTE=getit29;2582851]Has this disc been played in a DVD player [/QUOTE]?? Since when would degradation occur by playing a disc in a DVD player? :confused: - (which wouldn’t be from bad handling, I mean?)

If it was the case, some of my favorite discs would show HUGE /PIF increase by now… (which they don’t :slight_smile: ).

Why I was asking if the had been played is because I was thinking that
maybe the disc(s) were possibly getting some micro scratches on them
from the DVD player and causing the higher totals.

I at one time had and the optimal word is [B]had[/B] a player (may it rust in peace)
at the dump that would cause micro scratches on the discs that were played
on it.

I don’t know how or why it did that but I could scan a freshly burned disc then
play it in that $@#*& DVD player and then rescan it and the totals would be a
lot higher.

I thought once that maybe it was just the discs I was using at the time but I tried
some of my older discs that had been burned quite a long while ago and had never
been played on the player and they scanned just beautifully until they were played
on that $@#*& player and the same crap happened micro scratches and ugly scans.

I could just look at the disc and couldn’t really see anything until I used a magnifying
glass then I could see those micro scratches plain as day. :eek:

Anyone else notice Falcon discs degrading?

I’m thinking of switching to Falcon discs but not sure they are good for long term archiving after seeing this thread, the previous batch of Taiyo Yuden discs i went through was really bad compared to previous ones.

Don’t focus on the brand here. I don’t think it has anything to do with Falcon.

I’m now sure that I can safely state that any TTH02 disc, whatever the brand, is inherently not reliable for long-term archiving. TDK (TTH02 is a TDK process) messed something up with this technology.

Overall compatibility and initial results are very good, though, so for general use these are still excellent discs.

Currently, in my experience, the best bets for long-term discs are still MCC03RG20 and TYG03. MCC004 comes second. All other stable MIDs have virtually disappeared (YUDEN000T02, TTH01, MCC02RG20…) and YUDEN000T03 has really let me down.

1 Like

Stable discs

MCC 03RG20
MCC 004
MCC 02RG20
SONY D21
TTH01
TYG03
YUDEN000 T02

Unstable discs

TTH02
YUDEN000 T03

What’s your experience regarding TYG02 & MCC 003 discs regarding long term stability?

Are these TTH01 discs -> DVD-R 8X FALCON PRO?

1 Like

I see you added Sony D21. Interesting.

I personally didn’t, because the batch I has wasn’t stable. But from such a limited sample (2 cakeboxes…), I can’t draw any conclusions of course.

To reply to your questions:

. I don’t like TYG02 very much. They burn very well, but the compatilibity was not up to the task (video replication): they were more difficult to read in picky standalone players than most other discs, despite beautiful scans. That’s one of the things which taught me to be skeptical of the use of homemade PIE/PIF scans to judge of media quality. Theses scans should be used, basically, only to compare burning methods for a given media, and possibly to check stability (if the scanning drive is very consistent, that is).
TYG02 in my experience pretty stable, but I had a couple going bad and this could be traced down to bad bonding. Also, they are too soft and prone to scratching. Unlike YUDEN000T02. You’d think they’d use the same polycarbonate… Go figure.

. I have no real experience with MCC003, sorry: a single cakebox (of excellent discs BTW).

"Are these TTH01 discs -> DVD-R 8X FALCON PRO? "

I guess what you’re asking is: were my TTH01 Falcon-branded 8X discs? They were not, they were TDK-branded scratchproof discs. Horrendous PIE/PIF scans (I mean really scary), but great compatibility and stability.

I just listed those discs you mentioned in previous posts in this thread, i took it from your first post you trust those Sony D21 discs.

I remember reading about your TYG02 compatibility issues regarding standalone player compatibility issues, good to know those TYG02 are stable when properly bonded, most of my discs consist of those.

I take it those TYG02 discs can degrade quite some before becoming unreadable judging by my worst scan

As for MCC 003, i had the same experience as you, discs resulting in excellent scans, i take it they are also stable.

Good to know those DVD-R 8X FALCON PRO should be stable. I’m going to try my luck with those hoping to get better scans of course.

Thanks for sharing your experience with all those different discs :slight_smile:



You’re welcome. :cool:

Clarification about Sony D21:

I mentioned them as “trusted” which (wrongly) implied that I found them perfectly stable, for which I apologise.

They show a steady, slight increase in PIE average values, so they’re not perfectly stable. But probably nothing to be concerned with, since at the observed degradation speed, it would take more than 20 years for my D21 discs to reach the theoritical limit of 280 PIE (as scanned in a Benq 1650). Considering that this limit is a mere guideline, and I’ve seen countless discs with 400+ PI still perfectly readable… you get the message I guess. :wink:

Pronouncements like this based on consumer drive scanning results are seriously NOT :cool:.

Some people will not know better and might take you seriously.

Professional level longevity tests done with CATS analyzers have invariably shown that the drive used for burning the disc is as significant a factor in it’s longevity as the material/manufacturing quality. You clearly can’t “safely state” anything about the longevity of any of those discs that would be meaningful to someone who happens to use a different burner than you do.

Here’s a fresh scan of a Falcon TTH02 burned more than 1 1/2 years ago. Its not even a “Pro”, but one of their “Corporate” value grade discs. Discs often show a very noticeable PIE increase after the first year, then it rises more slowly over time. I like the odds of this disc lasting a long time.

Don’t sweat it folks. We can come away from today’s Mr. Wizard class with the knowledge that we may be better off feeding our TTH02’s to something other than a Pio 112D ;).

[QUOTE=kadgar;2616049]
Are these TTH01 discs -> DVD-R 8X FALCON PRO?[/QUOTE]
Here’s a preview of the scans you can expect to see. Good call. Falcon 8x have been very good for burn quality and playback for me. They burn very well at 12x too.

Falcon Pro 8x DVD-R white inkjet printable burned at 8x



Sarcasm doesn’t make you more knowledgable or insightful.

You don’t produce any serious data, since you don’t produce comparative scans (original vs recent). So you’re just going by personal experience and opinion, despite the fact that you seem to think that it’s what I do and that I’m not entitled to. Why would [I]you[/I] be, then?

> “Professional level longevity tests done with CATS analyzers have invariably shown that the drive used for burning the disc is as significant a factor in it’s longevity as the material/manufacturing quality”

Tell me something I don’t know. :rolleyes:

> "to something other than a Pio 112D "

? Mind you, I use 8 different burners here. Where did you get this crazy idea I only use a 112D? :confused:

Besides, if you imply that you consider the 112D as a ‘suspect’ burner, that is baffling, since it’s probably one of the 3-4 best DVD burners ever built. And this is backed up by professional testing equipement.

From this post of yours, I’d say you’re a victim of group thinking, or maybe are paid by Falcon?

> “based on consumer drive scanning results”

When you use scanning for [I]comparative[/I] reasons with a given disc, any consistent scanner is entirely pertinent and legitimate. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand what scanning is all about.

> “Discs often show a very noticeable PIE increase after the first year, then it rises more slowly over time.”

Total hogwash. Blanket statement. Show me a bunch of -R Verbatim or TY disc doing that, then we’ll talk. I can produce dozens of scans of discs showing absolutely zero increase in PIEs after four years.

> “I like the odds of this disc lasting a long time.”

LOL. :rolleyes: Wishful thinking. Oh my. And you have the nerve to come up with introductions such as “Pronouncements like this based on…”? My poor boy! You don’t seem to be willing to take some of your own criticism, are you?

I’ve seen my share of foolishness and pretension on this forum when I was a mod… looks like it hasn’t changed much since. I miss the days when I could learn from the best minds.

>Sarcasm doesn’t make you more knowledgable or insightful.

You’re right. When I read your posts last night, they struck me as a bit over-the-top and a bit too much like demagoguery. I apologize. I’ve put my sumo thong away and will try to keep this an intelligent discussion :o;)

>You don’t produce any serious data, since you don’t produce comparative scans (original vs recent). So you’re just going by personal experience and opinion, despite the fact that you seem to think that it’s what I do and that I’m not entitled to. Why would [I]you[/I] be, then?

Have you ever seen a comparison between the PIE scans of a consumer drive vs the results of professional level equipment like a DVD CATS on the same disc? I have. They can vary more than you might like. You might be less inclined to draw sweeping conclusions about media if you had. I appreciate that you’ve invested some time and effort into this, and surely we should see if your thesis is supported by anyone’s early failure experience with Falcon TTH02’s.

>From this post of yours, I’d say you’re a victim of group thinking, or maybe are paid by Falcon?

No. And no. It seems you feel qualified to do the group’s thinking for them. I simply suspect that its too early in the game for conclusions.

>When you use scanning for [I]comparative[/I] reasons with a given disc, any consistent scanner is entirely pertinent and legitimate. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand what scanning is all about.

I scan a ton. See above for why I might need real world or professional level confirmation to my scanning results before drawing reasonably reliable conclusions.

>I’ve seen my share of foolishness and pretension on this forum when I was a mod… looks like it hasn’t changed much since. I miss the days when I could learn from the best minds.

I’ll resist being pretentious if you will :). Perhaps you could learn again if you were a little less confident that yours is already the best mind ;).
Too easy to get so invested in your own opinion that any possibility for learning is dead. Perhaps someone else has some aging Falcon TTH02 burns that could be scanned to look for problems?

Franck, I learned a lot from you. No disrespect intended but why are you the only member with a issue with Falcon TTH02? 9 months after you started this thread no other members are reporting degradation. Here are 2 different burns with Optiarc 7200S @ 8x they are 18 months old and no prevoius scans to compare but the results speak for themselves also I thought a TRT was one of the most important home scanning methods you can perform? I noticed you did not include one. I have never had any issues with TYG02 either. Are you buying your TTH02 from the same place you got the TYG02? 18x TRTs are perfect.








I’m coming late to this discussion, but here’s my experience in the last 2 years.

Again, in my experience TY has gone significantly downhill. I find Falcons (dvdr only, not cdr)) to be higher quality these days than TY, but i also find Falcons to be somewhat inconsistent in quality even from disc to disc in the same batch.

For the last several years, I have unfortunately felt the need to scan EVERY burn of content that’s at all important to me, both cdr & dvdr. As far as FTI dvdr’s, as much as I hate Super media, they are cheap & in the last few batches of FTI pro I got from them a few months ago at least 80% of the discs have been acceptable.

Re cdr’s, it’s rare for me to find anything acceptable these days, although the last batch of FTI cdr’s I got (from Discmakers) a year or so ago were so bad, I’ve been gun shy to try another batch. FTI cdr’s may once again be perfectly fine for all I know; when they first came out I found the fti cdr’s to be superb.

My cdr issue is not my burners (or scnners), as NOS TDK & TY I’ve been buying from another forum member burn stunningly well.